treaty of paris 1783 was signed here, the site where britain officially acknowledged that united states was no longer a british colony.

On May 14, 1862, a group of formerly enslaved men, women, and children gather outside a building on the Foller Plantation, located at Cumberland Landing on the Pamunkey River in New Kent County. During the Peninsula Campaign of the Civil War, photographer James F. Gibson made a series of images of the Federal troop encampment at the landing. Among those glass-plate negatives is this portrait of so-called contrabands, or enslaved people who had emancipated themselves by fleeing behind Union lines.

--- 1783: Treaty of Paris was signed officially ending the American Revolution — even though fighting in the 13 colonies had essentially ceased in October 1781 with the fall of Yorktown.

--- Please listen to my podcast, History Analyzed, on all podcast apps.

--- link to Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yoHz9s9JPV51WxsQMWz0d

--- link to Apple podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/history-analyzed/id1632161929

I wrote an in-depth review on the first complete biography of Jimmy Carter by Jonathan Alter. Thanks for reading or listening!

Our history has been silenced

Richard Nixon was an incredibly popular president. He would go on to win the 1972 election by a landslide, and enjoyed approval ratings above 60% for nearly his entire first term. He certainly would have won the election without any espionage. What was his/the CRP’s reasoning for such a risky and illegal tactic?

Carrie Chapman Catt spent thirty years learning how political power actually works before she got her shot at the final push. Patient, methodical, obsessive about vote counts and coalition building. She believed the movement needed to look inevitable rather than radical, and she built NAWSA into one of the most disciplined political organizations in the country to prove it.

Alice Paul had been arrested in England fighting for British suffrage, imprisoned, gone on hunger strikes, been force-fed. She came back convinced that patience was exactly what was keeping the amendment from passing. In 1917 she put women outside the White House with banners while Wilson was traveling the world giving speeches about democracy. The government arrested them. Paul went on hunger strike in prison. She was force-fed again.

Catt thought Paul was handing opponents the excuse they needed to kill the amendment. Paul thought Catt's patience had already cost them twenty years. They ran separate organizations, disagreed publicly, and between them created a pressure that neither could have generated alone.

The amendment passed in 1920 after 72 years and one vote in Tennessee that nobody saw coming.

What I find genuinely interesting about both of them is how differently they understood the same fight. Catt believed the system would move if you built enough pressure from inside it. Paul believed the system needed to be made uncomfortable from outside before it would move at all. That argument didn't end in 1920.

You can talk to both of them directly on Virtual Wayback. The full story is on the blog and there's a video on the YouTube channel. Links:

https://virtualwayback.com/blog/nineteenth-amendment

https://youtube.com/shorts/elIDUzLOmK8

Which one do you think was actually right?

The photograph is part of the documentary archive that portrayed the economic and social difficulties in rural areas of the United States caused by the Great Depression.

Source(s):

.- Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Photographs and Prints Division, The New York Public Library. "Negro mother teaching children numbers and alphabet in home of sharecropper, Transylvania, Louisiana, January 1939." The New York Public Library Digital Collections.

I am currently writing a paper about the initial 1919-1920 Anglo-American perception of the Weimar constitution. During my research, diving into American jurists papers about the Weimar constitution, Ive noticed a strong tendency to negatively mention how, for example, the entire constitution "is of course deeply tinged with socialism."

I am trying to see whether there is a connection between that and the first Red Scare, which, to my understanding also happened during the time period.

However, I am struggling to wrap my head around, how clearly contemporary Americans distinguish between communism, anarchism, socialism and social democracy.
Wikipedia (I know, I know) claims that "the Red Scare did not distinguish", but in the cited source, I cannot find anything relating to that claim (I might be blind?).
I've worked myself through some NYT articles, and they seem to have mostly distinguished between socialists and communists. Other books I've read so far don't even mention it.

Could someone be so kind to answer my question? Preferably with a document/book recommendation I might be able to cite on this.

Thank you very much for your time!

The US government encouraged, incentivized, and subsidized homeownership for Whites in the early 20th century, while the Federal Housing Administration’s policy of redlining prevented Blacks from participating in this act of citizenship. To alleviate the ever-present housing shortage for Blacks, the 1968 Fair Housing Act created the first low-income homeownership programs using subsidies, long amortization periods, and mortgage insurance guarantees to entice participation of the real estate industry.

Unregulated mortgage banks saw an opportunity to make money on FHA loans by charging high origination fees, servicing fees, and “discount points”–money paid by the borrower before making the first loan payment. When a loan went into foreclosure, since the front-end fees and discount points were paid first, mortgage banks had already made their profit on the loan. With the FHA guaranteeing the full amount of the loan, mortgage banks made more money on foreclosed loans than on loans paid off at maturity. They also packaged multiple mortgages and sold them to GNMA, allowing them to free up capital to originate more mortgages. GNMA was required to purchase these mortgage-backed securities at 100% of face value without any assessment of soundness. With the backing of GNMA, long-term investors didn’t have to worry about foreclosures adversely affecting their investment; FHA mortgage insurance didn’t protect the homeowner, it protected the investors.

With rising demand for mortgage-backed securities, poor, Black women were increasingly targeted for low-income homeownership programs because of their high likelihood of foreclosure. To get loans approved on substandard properties, appraisers were paid to provide inflated valuations with later investigations showing as many as 88% of appraised Section 235 properties having “significant deficiencies affecting safety, health or livability.” The US housing market that for decades had been one of racial exclusion, was transformed by HUD-FHA into one of predatory inclusion by removing financial risk for the private sector while extracting savings from the ghetto and reinvesting the money in White suburbs. The failure of the 1970s homeownership programs increased the wealth of Whites and reinforced their perception that Blacks destroy value, while a generation of Americans born in the 1960s and 1970s grew up believing that suburban housing appreciation and urban neighborhood deterioration were natural phenomena.

Recommended reading: Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor

Predatory Loans Were Developed for Black Borrowers

I've been building a daily puzzle based around U.S. presidential history.

You get a 3x3 grid of categories and have to identify a president who satisfies the clues for each square.

It gets surprisingly difficult once you get beyond the obvious presidents.

If anyone here wants to try today's:

https://gridofminds.com

Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency was a mixture of triumph and controversy. He expanded the executive branch’s power, challenged entrenched interests, and redefined America’s global role. His actions, however, raised questions over the limits of Presidential power and the moral justification for military intervention, such as in the Philippines, as well as the Panama Canal. Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War was a testament to his diplomatic prowess. Yet, his foreign policy sometimes veered into aggression. His conservation efforts were visionary, while his imperial ventures sparked debates.

I always wanted to know this since it was the parliament who passed navigation, sugar, and stamp acts and why they never mention parliament?