The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850 that temporarily defused tensions between slave and free states in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Designed by Whig senator Henry Clay and Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas, with the support of President Millard Fillmore, the compromise centered on how to handle slavery in recently acquired territories from the Mexican–American War (1846–48).

The component acts:
 approved California's request to enter the Union as a free state
 strengthened fugitive slave laws with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
 banned the slave trade in Washington, D.C. (while still allowing slavery itself there)
 defined northern and western borders for Texas while establishing a territorial government for the Territory of New Mexico, with no restrictions on whether any future state from this territory would be free or slave
 established a territorial government for the Territory of Utah, with no restrictions on whether any future state from this territory would be free or slave

A debate over slavery in the territories had erupted during the Mexican–American War, as many Southerners sought to expand slavery to the newly acquired lands and many Northerners opposed any such expansion. The debate was further complicated by Texas's claim to all former Mexican territory north and east of the Rio Grande, including areas it had never effectively controlled. These issues prevented the passage of organic acts to create organized territorial governments for the land acquired in the Mexican–American War. In early 1850, Clay proposed a package of eight bills that would settle most of the pressing issues before Congress. Clay's proposal was opposed by President Zachary Taylor, anti-slavery Whigs like William Seward, and pro-slavery Democrats like John C. Calhoun, and congressional debate over the territories continued. The debates over the bill were the most famous in Congressional history, and the divisions devolved into fistfights and drawn guns on the floor of Congress.

After Taylor died and was succeeded by Fillmore, Douglas took the lead in passing Clay's compromise through Congress as five separate bills. Under the compromise, Texas surrendered its claims to present-day New Mexico and other states in return for federal assumption of Texas's public debt. California was admitted as a free state, while the remaining portions of the Mexican Cession were organized into New Mexico Territory and Utah Territory. Under the concept of popular sovereignty, the people of each territory would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted. The compromise also included a more stringent Fugitive Slave Law and banned the slave trade in Washington, D.C. The issue of slavery in the territories would be re-opened by the Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854), but the Compromise of 1850 played a major role in postponing the American Civil War.

Background
The Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico following the Texas Revolution of 1836, and, partly because Texas had been settled by a large number of Americans, there was a strong sentiment in both Texas and the United States for the annexation of Texas by the United States. In December 1845, President James K. Polk signed a resolution annexing Texas, and Texas became the 28th state in the union. Polk sought further expansion through the acquisition of the Mexican province of Alta California, which represented new lands to settle as well as a potential gateway to trade in Asia. His administration attempted to purchase California from Mexico, but the annexation of Texas stoked tensions between Mexico and the United States. Relations between the two countries were further complicated by Texas's claim to all land north of the Rio Grande; Mexico argued that the more northern Nueces River was the proper Texan border.

In March 1846, a skirmish broke out on the northern side of the Rio Grande, ending in the death or capture of dozens of American soldiers. Shortly thereafter, the United States declared war on Mexico, beginning the Mexican–American War. In August 1846, Polk asked Congress for an appropriation that he hoped to use as a down payment for the purchase of California in a treaty with Mexico, igniting a debate over the status of future territories. A freshman Democratic Representative, David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment known as the Wilmot Proviso that would ban slavery in any newly acquired lands. The Wilmot Proviso was defeated in the Senate, but it injected the slavery debate into national politics.

In September 1847, an American army under General Winfield Scott captured the Mexican capital in the Battle for Mexico City. Several months later, Mexican and American negotiators agreed to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, under which Mexico agreed to recognize the Rio Grande as Texas's southern border and to cede Alta California and New Mexico. The Missouri Compromise had settled the issue of the geographic reach of slavery within the Louisiana Purchase territories by prohibiting slavery in states north of 36°30′ latitude, and Polk sought to extend this line into the newly acquired territory. However, the divisive issue of slavery blocked any such legislation. As his term came to a close, Polk signed the lone territorial bill passed by Congress, which established the Territory of Oregon and banned slavery in it. Polk declined to seek re-election in the 1848 presidential election, and the 1848 election was won by the Whig ticket of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore.

Prophetically, Ralph Waldo Emerson quipped that "Mexico will poison us", referring to the ensuing divisions around whether the newly conquered lands would be slave or free. As of the 1848 election of Taylor, the issue was not yet apparent. Taylor was both a Whig and a slaveholder; though Whigs were increasingly anti-slavery, Taylor's slaveholding had reassured the South, and he won handily. Taylor made a key electoral promise that he would not veto any congressional resolution on slavery. Much to the horror of Southerners, however, Taylor indicated that true to his promise, he would not even veto the Wilmot Proviso if it were passed. Tensions accelerated quickly into the fall of 1849. Midterm elections worsened matters, as the Free Soil Party had gained 12 seats, which gave them a king-maker position in the closely divided House: 105 Whigs to 112 Democrats. After three weeks and 62 ballots, the House could not elect a speaker; the main issue was slavery in the new territories. The tumult of that period was severe, with a loaded revolver drawn on the floor of Congress, several fistfights between Northerners and Southerners, and then Senator Jefferson Davis challenging an Illinois representative to a duel. Southern representatives increasingly bandied around the idea of secession. Finally, the House adopted a resolution that allowed a speaker to be elected with a plurality, and elected Howell Cobb on the 63rd ballot. As James McPherson puts it: "It was an inauspicious start to the 1850's."

Issues
Three major types of issues were addressed by the Compromise of 1850: a variety of boundary issues, the status of territory issues, and the issue of slavery. While capable of analytical distinction, the boundary and territory issues were included in the overarching issue of slavery. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests were each concerned with both the amount of land on which slavery was permitted and with the number of States in the slave or free camps. Since Texas was a slave state, not only the residents of that state but also both camps on a national scale had an interest in the size of Texas.

Texas

The independent Republic of Texas won the decisive Battle of San Jacinto (April 21, 1836) against Mexico and captured Mexican president Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He signed the Treaties of Velasco, which recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary of the Republic of Texas. The treaties were then repudiated by the government of Mexico, which insisted that Mexico remained sovereign over Texas since Santa Anna had signed the treaty under coercion, and promised to reclaim the lost territories. To the extent that there was a de facto recognition, Mexico treated the Nueces River as its northern boundary control. A vast, largely-unsettled area lay between the two rivers. Neither Mexico nor the Republic of Texas had the military strength to assert its territorial claim. On December 29, 1845, the Republic of Texas was annexed to the United States and became the 28th state. Texas was staunchly committed to slavery, with its constitution making it illegal for the legislature to free slaves.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made no mention of the claims of the Republic of Texas; Mexico simply agreed to a Mexico–United States border south of both the "Mexican Cession" and the Republic of Texas claims. After the end of the Mexican–American War, Texas continued to claim a large stretch of disputed land that it had never effectively controlled in present-day eastern New Mexico. New Mexico had long prohibited slavery, a fact that affected the debate over its territorial status, but many New Mexican leaders opposed joining Texas primarily because Texas's capital lay hundreds of miles away and because Texas and New Mexico had a history of conflict dating back to the 1841 Santa Fe Expedition. Outside of Texas, many Southern leaders supported Texas's claims to New Mexico to secure as much territory as possible for the expansion of slavery.

Another issue that would affect the compromise was Texas's debt; it had approximately $10 million in debt left over from its time as an independent nation, and that debt would become a factor in the debates over the territories.

California

California was part of the Mexican Cession. After the Mexican War, California was essentially run by military governors. President James K. Polk tried to get Congress to establish a territorial government in California officially, but the increasingly sectional debates prevented that. The South wanted to extend slave territory to Southern California and to the Pacific Coast, but the North did not. The issue of whether it would be free or slave might well have gone undecided for years, as it had already after the end of the Mexican American war, if not for the finding of natural riches.

Near the end of Polk's term in 1848, incredible news reached Washington: gold had been discovered in California. So began the California Gold Rush, which transformed California from a sleepy and almost forgotten land into a burgeoning hub with a population bigger than Delaware or Florida. The mostly lawless land found itself in desperate need of governance. Californians wanted to be made into a territory or state promptly. In response to growing demand for a better more representative government, a Constitutional Convention was held in 1849. The delegates unanimously outlawed slavery. They had no interest in extending the Missouri Compromise Line through California and splitting the state; the lightly populated southern half never had slavery and was heavily Hispanic. The issue of California would play a central role in the exhausting 1849 speaker dispute.

Other issues
Aside from the disposition of the territories, other issues had risen to prominence during the Taylor years. The Washington, D.C. slave trade angered many in the North, who viewed the presence of slavery in the capital as a blemish on the nation. Disputes around fugitive slaves had grown since 1830 in part due to improving means of transportation, as the enslaved used roads, railroads, and ships to escape. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 had granted jurisdiction to all state and federal judges over cases regarding fugitive slaves, but several Northern states, dissatisfied by the lack of due process in these cases, had passed personal liberty laws that made it more difficult to return alleged fugitive slaves to the South. Congress also faced the issue of Utah, which like California and New Mexico, had been ceded by Mexico. Utah was inhabited largely by Latter-day Saints whose then-practice of polygamy was unpopular elsewhere in the United States.

Passage

Taylor takes office

When Taylor took office, the issue of slavery in the Mexican Cession remained unresolved. While a Southern slaveowner himself, Taylor believed that slavery was economically infeasible in the Mexican Cession, and as such he opposed slavery in those territories as a needless source of controversy. In Taylor's view, the best way forward was to admit California as a state rather than a federal territory, as it would leave the slavery question out of Congress's hands. The timing for statehood was in Taylor's favor, as the Gold Rush was well underway at the time of his inauguration, and California's population was exploding. In October 1849, a California constitutional convention unanimously agreed to join the Union—and to ban slavery within their borders. In his December 1849 State of the Union report, Taylor endorsed California's and New Mexico's applications for statehood, and recommended that Congress approve them as written and "should abstain from the introduction of those exciting topics of a sectional character".

Main figures
The problem of what to do with the territories became the leading issue in Congress. So began the most famous debates in the history of Congress. At the head were the three titans of Congress: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. All had been born during the American Revolution, and had carried the torch of the Founding Fathers. This represented their last and greatest act in politics. The nationalist Clay and Webster sought compromise, while Southern sectionalist Calhoun warned of imminent disaster. The triumvirate would be broken before long as Calhoun would die of tuberculosis. In March, shortly before his death, his final speech was delivered by his friend the Virginia Senator James M. Mason, as the blanket-wrapped Calhoun sat nearby, too weak to do it himself. He provided a prescient warning that the South perceived the balance between North and South as broken, and that any further imbalance might lead to war. The situation was severe.

Other players included a variety of rising politicians who would play key roles in the Civil War, such as the staunch anti-slavery William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase, who would be in Lincoln's cabinet; the future president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis; and rival to Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas.

Clay proposes compromise

On January 29, 1850, Senator Henry Clay introduced a plan which combined the major subjects under discussion. His legislative package of eight bills included the admission of California as a free state, the cession by Texas of some of its northern and western territorial claims in return for debt relief, the establishment of New Mexico and Utah territories, a ban on the importation of slaves into the District of Columbia for sale, and a more stringent fugitive slave law. Clay had originally favored voting on each of his proposals separately, but Senator Henry S. Foote of Mississippi convinced him to combine the proposals regarding California's admission and the disposition of Texas's borders into one bill. Clay hoped that this combination of measures would convince House members from both North and South to support the overall package of laws even if they objected to specific provisions. Clay's proposal attracted the support of some Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs, but it lacked the backing necessary to win passage, and debate over the bill continued. Seven months of agonizing politicking lay ahead.

Opposition
President Taylor opposed the compromise and continued to call for immediate statehood for both California and New Mexico. Senator Calhoun and some other Southern leaders argued that the compromise was biased against the South because it would lead to the creation of new free states. Most Northern Whigs, led by William Henry Seward, who delivered his famous "Higher Law" speech during the controversy, opposed the Compromise as well because it would apply the Wilmot Proviso to the western territories and because of the pressing of ordinary citizens into duty on slave-hunting patrols. That provision was inserted by Democratic Virginia Senator James M. Mason to entice border-state Whigs, who faced the greatest danger of losing slaves as fugitives but were lukewarm on general sectional issues related to the South on Texas's land claims.

Debate and results

On April 17, a "Committee of Thirteen" agreed on the border of Texas as part of Clay's plan. The dimensions were later changed. That same day, during debates on the measures in the Senate, Vice President Fillmore and Senator Benton verbally sparred, with Fillmore charging that the Missourian was "out of order." During the heated debates, Compromise floor leader Henry S. Foote of Mississippi drew a pistol on Benton.

In early June, nine slave-holding Southern states sent delegates to the Nashville Convention to determine their course of action if the compromise passed. While some delegates preached secession, the moderates ruled and proposed a series of compromises, including extending the dividing line designated by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Pacific Coast.

Taylor died in July 1850, and was succeeded by Vice President Fillmore, who had privately come to support Clay's proposal. The various bills were initially combined into one "omnibus" bill. Despite Clay's efforts, it failed in a crucial vote on July 31, opposed by southern Democrats and by northern Whigs. He announced on the Senate floor the next day that he intended to pass each part of the bill. The 73-year-old Clay, however, was physically exhausted as the effects of tuberculosis, which would eventually kill him, began to take their toll. Clay left the Senate to recuperate in Newport, Rhode Island, and Senator Stephen A. Douglas took the lead in attempting to pass Clay's proposals through the Senate.

Fillmore, anxious to find a quick solution to the conflict in Texas over the border with New Mexico, which threatened to become an armed conflict between Texas militia and the federal soldiers, reversed the administration's position late in July and threw its support to the compromise measures. At the same time, Fillmore denied Texas's claims to New Mexico, asserting that the United States had promised to protect the territorial integrity of New Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Fillmore's forceful response helped convince Texas's U.S. Senators, Sam Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk, to support Stephen Douglas's compromise. With their support, a Senate bill providing for a final settlement of Texas's borders won passage days after Fillmore delivered his message. Under the terms of the bill, the U.S. would assume Texas's debts, while Texas's northern border was set at the 36° 30' parallel north (the Missouri Compromise line) and much of its western border followed the 103rd meridian. The bill attracted the support of a bipartisan coalition of Whigs and Democrats from both sections, though most opposition to the bill came from the South. The Senate quickly moved on to the other major issues, passing bills that provided for the admission of California, the organization of New Mexico Territory, and the establishment of a new fugitive slave law.

The debate then moved to the House of Representatives, where Fillmore, Senator Daniel Webster, Douglas, Representative Linn Boyd, and Speaker of the House Howell Cobb took the lead in convincing members to support the compromise bills that had been passed in the Senate. The Senate's proposed settlement of the Texas-New Mexico boundary faced intense opposition from many Southerners, as well as from some Northerners who believed that Texas did not deserve monetary compensation. After a series of close votes that nearly delayed consideration of the issue, the House voted to approve a Texas bill similar to that which had been passed by the Senate. Following that vote, the House and the Senate quickly agreed on each of the major issues, including the banning of the slave trade in Washington. The president quickly signed each bill into law save for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; he ultimately signed that law as well after Attorney General Crittenden assured him that the law was constitutional. Though some in Texas still favored sending a military expedition into New Mexico, in November 1850 the state legislature voted to accept the compromise.

Provisions
The general solution that was adopted by the Compromise of 1850 was to transfer a considerable part of the territory claimed by Texas state to the federal government; to organize two new territories formally, the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, which expressly would be allowed to locally determine whether they would become slave or free territories, to add another free state to the Union (California), to adopt a severe measure to recover slaves who had escaped to a free state or free territory (the Fugitive Slave Law); and to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia. A key provision of each of the laws respectively organizing the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah was that slavery would be decided by local option, called popular sovereignty. That was an important repudiation of the idea behind the failure to prohibit slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. However, the admission of California as a free state meant that Southerners were giving up their goal of a coast-to-coast belt of slave states.

Settlement of borders

Texas was allowed to keep the following portions of the disputed land: south of the 32nd parallel and south of the 36°30' parallel north and east of the 103rd meridian west. The rest of the disputed land was transferred to the Federal Government. The final border was designed to keep the frontier settlement of El Paso in Texas, since despite that settlement's geographic, historic, and economic ties to New Mexico, Texas had recently established a county government in El Paso and thus successfully claimed it as an integral part of Texas. A similar attempt to keep Santa Fe in Texas failed, and Santa Fe became part of the New Mexico territory. The United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) does not permit Congress unilaterally to reduce the territory of any state, so the first part of the Compromise of 1850 had to take the form of an offer to the Texas State Legislature, rather than a unilateral enactment. This ratified the bargain and, in due course, the transfer of a broad swath of land from the state of Texas to the federal government was accomplished. In return for giving up this land, the United States assumed the debts of Texas.

From the Mexican Cession, the New Mexico Territory received most of the present-day state of Arizona, most of the western part of the present-day state of New Mexico, and the southern tip of present-day Nevada (south of the 37th parallel). The territory also received most of present-day eastern New Mexico, a portion of present-day Colorado (east of the crest of the Rocky Mountains, west of the 103rd meridian, and south of the 38th parallel); all of this land had been claimed by Texas.

From the Mexican Cession, the Utah Territory received present-day Utah, most of present-day Nevada (everything north of the 37th parallel), a major part of present-day Colorado (everything west of the crest of the Rocky Mountains), and a small part of present-day Wyoming. That included the newly founded colony at Salt Lake, of Brigham Young. The Utah Territory also received some land that had been claimed by Texas; this land is now part of present-day Colorado that is east of the crest of the Rocky Mountains.

Fugitive Slave Act

Perhaps the most important part of the Compromise received the least attention during debates. Enacted September 18, 1850, it is informally known as the Fugitive Slave Law, or the Fugitive Slave Act. It bolstered the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The new version of the Fugitive Slave Law now required federal judicial officials in all states and federal territories, including free states, to assist with the return of escaped slaves to their masters in slave states. Any federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave was liable to a fine of $1,000 (). Law enforcement everywhere in the US now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a fugitive slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. Suspected slaves could neither ask for a jury trial nor testify on their own behalf. Also, aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was now a crime nationwide, punished by six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers capturing a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee for their work, and this expense was to be paid by the Federal Government.

The law was so completely pro-slavery as to prohibit the admission of the testimony of a person accused of being an escaped slave into evidence at the judicial hearing to determine the status of the accused escaped slave. Thus, if free Blacks were claimed to be escaped slaves, they could not resist their return to slavery (or enslavement for the first time) by truthfully telling their actual history. Furthermore, the federal commissioners overseeing the hearings were paid $5 for ruling a person was free, but were paid $10 for determining they were a slave, thus providing a financial incentive to always rule in favor of slavery regardless of the evidence. The law further exacerbated the problem of free Blacks being kidnapped and sold as slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Act was essential to meet Southern demands. In terms of public opinion in the North, the critical provision was that ordinary citizens were required to aid slave catchers, and made it a crime to assist a fugitive. Many Northerners deeply resented these requirements. The violent process of returning slaves to the South made the act controversial to Northerners. Resentment towards the Act further heightened tensions between the North and South, which were then inflamed further by abolitionists such as Harriet Beecher Stowe. Her novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, stressed the horrors of recapturing escaped slaves and outraged Southerners.

End of slave trade in District of Columbia
A statute enacted as part of the compromise prohibited the slave trade in Washington, D.C., but not slave ownership. Southerners in Congress, alarmed and outraged, were unanimous in opposing the provision, seen as a concession to the abolitionists and a bad precedent, but they were outvoted.  However, Washington's residents could still easily buy and sell slaves in the nearby states of Virginia and Maryland.

Implications

Passage of the Compromise of 1850, as it came to be known, caused celebration in Washington and elsewhere, with crowds shouting, "The Union is saved!" Fillmore himself described the Compromise of 1850 as a "final settlement" of sectional issues, though the future of slavery in New Mexico and Utah remained unclear. The admission of new states, or the organization of territories in the remaining unorganized portion of the Louisiana Purchase, could also potentially reopen the polarizing debate over slavery.

Not all accepted the Compromise of 1850. Longing for the former national influence of the South, a South Carolina newspaper wrote, "the Rubicon is passed ... and the Southern States are now vassals in this Confederacy." (This was not referring to the then-future Confederate States of America; many still considered the United States a confederacy at the time.) Many Northerners, meanwhile, were displeased by the Fugitive Slave Act. The debate over slavery in the territories would be re-opened in 1854 through the Kansas–Nebraska Act.

In hindsight, the Compromise merely postponed the American Civil War for a decade, contrary to the expectations of many at the time, who felt the issue of slavery had finally been settled. During that decade, the Whig Party completely broke down, to be replaced with the new Republican Party dominant in the North, while Democrats reigned in the South.

Others argue that the Compromise only made more obvious the pre-existing sectional divisions, and laid the groundwork for future conflict. They view the Fugitive Slave Law as helping to polarize the US, as shown in the enormous reaction to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The passage of the Fugitive Slave Law aroused feelings of bitterness in the North. Furthermore, the Compromise of 1850 led to a breakdown in the spirit of compromise in the Antebellum period. The Compromise exemplifies that spirit, but the deaths of influential senators who worked on the compromise, primarily Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, contributed to the feeling of increasing disparity between the North and South.

The delay of hostilities for ten years allowed the Northern states to continue to industrialize. The Southern states, largely based on slave labor and cash crop production, lacked the ability to industrialize heavily.

According to historian Mark Stegmaier, "The Fugitive Slave Act, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, the admission of California as a free state, and even the application of the formula of popular sovereignty to the territories were all less important than the least remembered component of the Compromise of 1850—the statute by which Texas relinquished its claims to much of New Mexico in return for federal assumption of the debts."

Other proposals

Proposals in 1846 to 1850 on the division of the Southwest included the following (some of which are not mutually exclusive):
 The Wilmot Proviso banning slavery in any new territory to be acquired from Mexico, not including Texas, which had been annexed the previous year. It passed the House in August 1846 and February 1847 but not the Senate. Later, an effort failed to attach the proviso to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
 The Extension of the Missouri Compromise line was proposed by failed amendments to the Wilmot Proviso by William W. Wick and then Stephen Douglas to extend the Missouri Compromise line (36°30' parallel north) west to the Pacific (south of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) to allow the possibility of slavery in most of present-day New Mexico and Arizona, and southern California. That line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850.
 Popular sovereignty, developed by Lewis Cass and Stephen Douglas as the position of the Democratic Party, was to let the (white male) residents of each territory decide by vote whether to allow slavery. It was implemented in the  Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, giving rise to the violence of the "Bleeding Kansas" period.
 William L. Yancey's "Alabama Platform", endorsed by the Alabama and the Georgia legislatures and by Democratic state conventions in Florida and Virginia, called for no restrictions on slavery in the territories by the federal government or territorial governments before statehood, opposition to any candidates supporting either the Wilmot Proviso or popular sovereignty, and federal legislation to overrule Mexican anti-slavery laws.
 Two free states were proposed by Zachary Taylor, who served as president from March 1849 to July 1850. As President, he proposed that the entire area become two free states, called California and New Mexico but much larger than the ones today. None of the area would be left as an unorganized or organized territory, which would avoid the question of slavery in the territories.
 Changing Texas's borders was proposed by Senator Thomas Hart Benton in December 1849 or January 1850. Texas's western and northern boundaries would be the 102nd meridian west and the 34th parallel north.
 Two southern states were proposed by Senator John Bell, with the assent of Texas, in February 1850. New Mexico would get all Texas land north of the 34th parallel north, including today's Texas Panhandle, while the area to the south, including the southeastern part of today's New Mexico, would be divided at the Colorado River of Texas into two Southern states, balancing the admission of California and New Mexico as free states.
 The first draft of the compromise of 1850 had Texas's northwestern boundary be a straight, diagonal line from the Rio Grande 20 miles north of El Paso to the Red River (Mississippi watershed) at the 100th meridian west, the southwestern corner of today's Oklahoma.

See also
 Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
 Missouri Compromise
 Kansas-Nebraska Act

References

Bibliography

 Bell, John Frederick. "Poetry's Place in the Crisis and Compromise of 1850." Journal of the Civil War Era 5#3 (2015): 399–421.

 Hamilton, Holman.  Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850 (1964), the standard historical study

 Holman Hamilton. Zachary Taylor, Soldier in the White House (1951).
 Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler. Henry Clay: The Essential American (2010), major scholarly biography; 624 pp.

 Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978).
 Holt, Michael F. The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War (2005).
 Johannsen, Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas (1973)

 Knupfer, Peter B. "Compromise and Statesmanship: Henry Clay's Union." in Knupfer, The Union As It Is: Constitutional Unionism and Sectional Compromise, 1787–1861 (1991), pp. 119–157.

 Morrison, Michael A. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War (1997)
 Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union (1947) v 2, highly detailed narrative
 Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1977), pp. 90–120; Pulitzer Prize
 Remini, Robert. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union (1991)
 Remini, Robert. At the Edge of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the Compromise That Saved the Union (2010) 184 pages; the Compromise of 1850
 Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, vol. i. (1896). complegte text online
 Rozwenc, Edwin C. ed. The Compromise of 1850. (1957) convenient collection of primary and secondary documents; 102 pp.

 Sewell, Richard H.  Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States 1837–1860 New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

 Waugh, John C. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History (2003)
 Wiltse, Charles M. John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840–1850 (1951)

External links

 Compromise of 1850
 Compromise of 1850 and related resources from the Library of Congress
 Texas Library and Archive Commission Page on 1850 Boundary Act

 Map of North America at the time of the Compromise of 1850 at omniatlas.com

31st United States Congress
1850 in American politics
1850 in California
1850 in New Mexico Territory
1850 in Texas
1850 in Utah Territory
1850 in American law
History of United States expansionism
Presidency of Millard Fillmore
Pre-statehood history of California
New Mexico Territory
United States slavery law
United States federal territory and statehood legislation
Utah Territory
September 1850 events
Origins of the American Civil War
Political compromises in the United States
Expansion of slavery in the United States

Compromise of 1850


The German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research (German: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozialwissenschaftliche Sexualforschung, DGSS) is a sexuality research and counselling organization (cf. sexology) based in Düsseldorf, Germany. It is primarily devoted to sociological, behavioral, and cultural sexuality research.

History
The DGSS was founded in 1971 by German sexologist Rolf Gindorf and colleagues. It is the oldest non-medical sexological society existing in German-language Europe (i. e., Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and parts of Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, France, and Italy). Its governing and international advisory boards have included many noted scholars, among them Rüdiger Lautmann, John Money, Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, John Gagnon, Igor S. Kon НейроНет - медицинский информационый портал, Liu Dalin, and Martin S. Weinberg . Presidents were Rolf Gindorf (1971-1979, Vice Pres. -2004, now Hon. Pres.), Helmut Kentler (1979-1982), Ernest Borneman (1982-1986, now Hon. Pres.), Erwin J. Haeberle (1986-2002), Gunter Runkel (2002-2006) , and Jakob Pastoetter (2006-).

From the very beginning, the DGSS has emphasized the importance of the social, behavioral, and cultural sciences for an adequate understanding of the human sexualities in their many forms, facets, and variations. In addition to traditional sexological fields like biology, physiology, and medicine, the DGSS focus has centered on the social sciences, psychology, and ethnology, embracing also educational, legal, and historical aspects. In 1978, the DGSS added a pioneering counselling institute ("DGSS-Institut") to its scientific and research activities. Since then, more than 33,000 clients received sexual counselling or psychotherapy. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people form a considerable group. AIDS counseling and HIV antibody testing has been provided since 1983.

Under difficult circumstances, with habitually low financial resources and extremely modest outside support, the DGSS has nevertheless managed to hold increasingly successful national and international sexological congresses, establishing a close cooperation with most German and many foreign sexological societies. An impressive number of scientific publications, including many books and a book series ("Schriftenreihe Sozialwissenschaftliche Sexualforschung", Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, since 1986; Münster/Hamburg/London: LIT Verlag, since 2003) give a fairly adequate impression of sexological research by the DGSS and its members.

Once the Berlin wall had fallen, the DGSS was able to move its congresses to the original birthplace of sexology, and to resume the tradition of the Berlin sexological conferences started in 1921 by Magnus Hirschfeld. From July 25–27, 1997, the XIII. DGSS Congress of Social Scientific Sex Research, being at the same time the VI. International Berlin Conference for Sexology), took place at Berlin's old Humboldt University. Its theme: "100 Years of Gay Liberation". Scientists (most of them gay) came from many countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australia.

From June 29 through July 2, 2000, the XIV. DGSS Congress was held in conjunction with the V. Conference of the European Federation of Sexology (EFS) in Berlin's "House of World Cultures", hosting some 270 delegates from 34 countries. Its theme: "For A Millennium of Sexual Health". In 2002, the XVth DGSS Conference from June 21–23 was moved, following the DGSS  president-elect Gunter Runkel, to the romantic, historic town of Lüneburg (near Hamburg) and its modern university. Its general theme: "Sexualities in the Third Millennium - Recent Developments in Sexuality Research". Again, sexologists from many nations attended, colleagues from the United States forming the largest contingent. In 2004, the XVI. DGSS Conference on "Sexualities and Social Change" was likewise held in Lüneburg, where the XVII. Conference ("Sexuality and Love") also took place on Sept. 22-24, 2006. The XVIIIth DGSS Conference ("Sexuality and the Media") will take place in Munich from Nov. 7-9, 2008, again with many Americans scheduled to attend.

Magnus Hirschfeld Medal recipients

Since 1990, the DGSS has been awarding its Magnus Hirschfeld Medals for Sexual Science and for Sexual Reform. Recipients so far were Ernest Borneman (Austria), John P. DeCecco (U.S.A.), Liu Dalin (China), Jonathan Ned Katz (U.S.A), Milton Diamond (U.S.A), John Money (U.S.A), Martin S. Weinberg (U.S.A.), Richard Green (U.S.A/UK) and Hu Peicheng (China) for Sexual Science (Sexology); Herman Musaph (The Netherlands), Imre Aszódi (Hungary), Ruth Westheimer ("Dr. Ruth"; U.S.A.), Maj-Briht Bergström-Walan (Sweden), Oswalt Kolle (The Netherlands), Manfred Bruns (Germany), William Granzig (U.S.A), Rolf Gindorf, Rita Süssmuth (Germany) and Robert T. Francoeur (U.S.A.) for Sexual Reform.

References

External links
 DGSS Web Site

Research institutes in Düsseldorf
Sexology organizations
Sexual orientation and medicine
Organizations established in 1971
Medical and health organisations based in North Rhine-Westphalia
1971 establishments in Germany


Liquefied petroleum gas (also known as LPG, LP Gas or autogas) is a mixture of hydrocarbon gases. It is commonly used in the household, for example for cooking, or as fuel for heating. LPG is replacing Chlorofluorocarbons more and more, also because it is less harmful to the ozone layer.

Very often, mixes of propane and butane are sold.

Other websites
Pixie Gas  LPG Supplier based in the United States

Petroleum

Liquefied petroleum gas


Appleby East railway station is a closed railway station that was situated on the Eden Valley Railway between Kirkby Stephen East and Penrith in Cumberland (now in Cumbria), England. The station was formerly one of two that served the town of Appleby-in-Westmorland, the other being Appleby West station on the Midland Railway's Settle to Carlisle line. The latter station is still open, albeit now simply called Appleby station.

History
Opened by the Eden Valley Railway, it became part of the London and North Eastern Railway during the Grouping of 1923. Passing to the Eastern Region of British Railways on nationalisation in 1948, it was then closed by the British Transport Commission in 1962.

The site today
The station is fairly intact and is used by a scrap merchant.

In 1995, the Eden Valley Railway Society was formed with the aim of restoring the line and reintroducing a train service. The society, now renamed the Eden Valley Railway Trust, now operates a heritage service from Warcop station, and is upgrading the track towards Appleby East for public service.

References

External links
 Station on navigable O.S. map. Northerly of the two stations.
 Cumbria's Lost Railways - Appleby East Station
Appleby and the Eden Valley Railway

Disused railway stations in Cumbria
Former North Eastern Railway (UK) stations
Railway stations in Great Britain opened in 1862
Railway stations in Great Britain closed in 1962
Appleby-in-Westmorland
1862 establishments in England

Appleby East railway station


메노 시몬스(, , 1496년 ~ 1561년 1월 31일)는 급진 종교 개혁가로 1496년 네덜란드 비트마르숨에서 출생하였다. 원래 프리스랜드 지역의 로마 가톨릭 사제였다. 후에 네덜란드 재세례파의 온건파 초기지도자이며, 그의 추종자들이 메노나이트 교회(Mennonite Church)를 세웠다.

참고 문헌

J.A. Brandsma, Menno Simons Van Witmarsum (1960), a biography containing a careful evaluation of stories and legends about Menno Simons; C.J. Dyck (ed.), A Legacy of Faith: The Heritage of Menno Simons (1962), a discussion of Dutch Anabaptism with three chapters devoted to Menno Simons; I.B. Horst, A Bibliography of Menno Simons, ca. 1496-1561(1962), the definitive bibliography of his writings; C. Krahn, "Menno Simons," Mennonite Encyclopedia, vol. 3 (1957), a major interpretive article by one of the foremost scholars of Dutch Anabaptism; F.H. Littell, A Tribute to Menno Simons (1961), a discussion of the significance of the theology of Menno Simons; H.W. Meihuizen, Menno Simons (1961), a biography giving particular attention to the place of Menno Simons in the life and culture of his time; Menno Simons, Opera Omnia Theologica (1681; The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, ed. by J.C. Wenger, 1956), the definitive English-language edition; K. Vos, Menno Simons, 1496-1561 (1914), the standard work (in Dutch).

1496년 출생
1561년 사망
종교 개혁 관련자
재세례파 신학자
네덜란드의 신학자
메노파 기독교인
16세기 개신교 신학자
네덜란드의 기독교 평화주의자
네덜란드의 복음주의자

메노 시몬스


Niccolò Polo (, ;  – ) and Maffeo Polo (, ; or Matteo , ;  – ) were Italian traveling merchants from the Republic of Venice, best known as the father and uncle, respectively, of the explorer Marco Polo. The brothers went into business before Marco's birth, established trading posts in Constantinople, Sudak in Crimea, and in a western part of the Mongol Empire in Asia. As a duo, they reached modern-day China before temporarily returning to Europe to deliver a message to the Pope. Taking Niccolò's son Marco with them, the Polos then made another journey through Asia, which became the subject of Marco's account The Travels of Marco Polo.

First voyage

Leaving Niccolò's infant son Marco behind, Niccolò and Maffeo left Venice for Constantinople, where they resided for several years.  The two brothers lived in the Venetian quarter of Constantinople, where they enjoyed diplomatic immunity, political chances and tax relief because of their country's role in establishing the Latin Empire in the Fourth Crusade of 1204. However, the family judged the political situation of the city precarious, so they decided to transfer their business northeast to Soldaia, a city in Crimea, and left Constantinople in 1259 or 1260. Their decision proved wise. Constantinople was recaptured in 1261 by Michael Palaeologus, the ruler of the Empire of Nicaea, who promptly burned and razed the Venetian quarter and reestablished the Byzantine Empire. Captured Venetian citizens were blinded, while many of those who managed to escape died aboard overloaded refugee ships fleeing to other Venetian colonies in the Aegean Sea.

Their new home on the north rim of the Black Sea, Soldaia (present-day Sudak, Crimea) had been frequented by Venetian traders since the 12th century. When the Polos reached it, it was part of the newly formed Mongol state known as the Golden Horde. Knowing that they could not return west to Constantinople, they planned to venture east and return at a later date. The Polos continued their journey to Sarai, where the court of Berke Khan, the ruler of the Golden Horde, was located. At that time, the city of Sarai was no more than a huge encampment, and the Polos stayed for about a year. The Polo brothers became merchant partners, ortoq, of Berke to sell wares entrusted to them.

Finally, they decided to avoid Crimea, because of a civil war between Berke and his cousin Hulagu or perhaps because of the bad relationship between Berke Khan and the Byzantine Empire. Later, they moved east and crossed the Tigris River, and walked 17 days through the northern end of the Arabian desert where they did not encounter any towns or villages save for a few Tatar nomads with tents and livestock. Eventually, when they reached Bukhara, the brothers realised they could not continue their journey nor return the way they had come from, so they decided to stay here for three years.

While still in Bukhara, Niccolò and Maffeo met a travelling messenger of the Ilkhanate ruler Hulagu. The messenger was on his way to meet Kublai Khan and decided to invite the brothers on his journey. In 1266, they reached the seat of Kublai Khan, the leader of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, at Dadu (present-day Beijing). In his book, The Travels of Marco Polo, Marco explains how Kublai Khan officially received the Polos and sent them back with a Mongol named Koeketei as an ambassador to the pope. They brought with them a letter from the Khan requesting 100 educated people to come and teach Christianity and Western customs to his people and oil from the lamp of the Holy Sepulcher. The letter also contained a paiza, a golden tablet a foot long and  wide, allowing the holder to acquire and obtain lodging, horses and food throughout Kublai Khan's dominion. Koeketei left in the middle of the journey, leaving the Polos to travel alone to Ayas in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. From that port city, they sailed to Acre, capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The long sede vacante between the death of Pope Clement IV, in 1268, and the election of the new pope in 1271 delayed the Polos' attempts to fulfil Kublai's request. As suggested by Teobaldo Visconti, then papal legate for the realm of Egypt, in Acre for the Ninth Crusade, the two brothers returned to Venice in 1269 or 1270, waiting for the nomination of the new pope. Here Niccolò met up once again with his son Marco, now 15 or 16, who had been living with his aunt and another uncle in Venice since the death of his mother at a young age.

Second voyage

As soon as he was elected in 1271, Pope Gregory X (the former Teobaldo Visconti) received the letter from Kublai Khan, remitted by Niccolò and Maffeo. Kublai Khan was asking for the dispatch of a hundred missionaries, and some oil from the lamp of Jerusalem. The two Polos (this time accompanied by the 17-year-old Marco Polo) returned to Mongolia, accompanied by two Dominican friars, Niccolò de Vicence and Guillaume de Tripoli. The two friars did not finish the voyage due to fear, but the Polos reached Kanbaliq and remitted the presents from the Pope to Kublai in 1274. It is usually said that the Polos used the Northern Silk Road although the possibility of a southern route has been advanced. The Polos spent the next 17 years in China. Kublai Khan took a liking to Marco, who was an engaging storyteller. He was sent on many diplomatic missions throughout his empire. Marco carried out diplomatic assignments but also entertained the Khan with interesting stories and observations about the lands he traveled. According to Marco's travel account, the Polos asked several times for permission to return to Europe but the Great Khan appreciated the visitors so much that he would not agree to their departure.

Only in 1291 did Kublai entrust Marco with his last duty, to escort the Mongol princess Kököchin (Cocacin in Il Milione) to her betrothed, the Ilkhan Arghun. The party traveled by sea, departing from the southern port city of Quanzhou and sailing to Sumatra, and then to Persia via Sri Lanka and India. In 1293 or 1294 the Polos reached the Ilkhanate, ruled by Gaykhatu after the death of Arghun, and left Kököchin with the new Ilkhan. Then they moved to Trebizond and from that city sailed to Venice.

Popular culture
Niccolò and Maffeo Polo are featured in the 2011 video game Assassin's Creed Revelations. They are inducted into the Assassin Order by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, who bequeathed them his Codex and five Memory Seals (which can be collected in several secret locations), before the brothers established various Assassins Guilds. A Niccolò's journal titled The Secret Crusade is also featured in the game.
The brothers are also featured in Netflix's historical fiction series, Marco Polo which premiered in 2014.
Niccolò and Maffeo are characters in the 1982 miniseries Marco Polo, played by Denholm Elliott and Tony Vogel, respectively.
They are portrayed by Massimo Girotti and Mića Orlović in the 1965 movie Marco the Magnificent.

Notes

References

13th-century births
14th-century deaths
Business duos
Sibling duos
Marco Polo
13th-century explorers
Year of birth unknown
Year of death unknown
13th-century Venetian people

Niccolò and Maffeo Polo


The Alchemist () is a novel by Brazilian author Paulo Coelho that was first published in 1988. It was originally written in Portuguese. It became a widely translated international bestseller. It is about a young Andalusian shepherd in his journey to the pyramids of Egypt, after having a recurring dream of finding a treasure there.

References

1988 books

The Alchemist (novel)


Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Charles Russell, 3rd Baronet VC (22 June 1826 – 13 April 1883), was a British Conservative politician and soldier. He was a recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Military career
Russell was the second but eldest surviving son of Sir Henry Russell, 2nd Baronet, British Resident at the court of Hyderabad in India, and his second wife, Marie Clotilde daughter of Benoit Mottet de la Fontaine, Baron Fieffé de St Corneille. He was educated at Eton College and entered the Grenadier Guards in 1847. Charles inherited the baronetcy and the family estate of Swallowfield Park in Berkshire in 1852. He became a lieutenant and a captain the following year and accompanied his regiment to the Crimea where he took part in the Siege of Sebastopol and the Battles of Alma, Balaclava and Inkerman. He was a 28-year-old Brevet Major in the 3rd Battalion in the latter battle when the following action took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 5 November 1854, Brevet Major Russell offered to dislodge a party of Russians from the Sandbag Battery if anyone would follow him. A sergeant and privates, Anthony Palmer and another who was subsequently killed – were the first to volunteer. The party met much resistance and several times seemed to be on the point of annihilation but their skill, especially with the bayonet, finally brought success. Major Russell himself fought with great valour and in single combat wrenched the rifle out of the grasp of a powerful Russian. His citation read:

His Victoria Cross is displayed at The Guards Regimental Headquarters (Grenadier Guards RHQ), Wellington Barracks, London, England. He later achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Politics
He was involved in politics and sat as Conservative as Member of Parliament for Berkshire from 1865 to 1868 and for Westminster from 1874 to 1883. Lord Salisbury as Foreign Secretary (at which he served four times, and thrice was Prime Minister) appointed Sir Charles as Chairman of the Peruvian Bondholders Committee. Its aim was to "stop Peru from contracting a fresh loan to buy munitions". More broadly the Europeans wished to delay US Navy assistance to Peru, which had already been defeated by the Chileans. Both Britain and France had large investments to protect: the rise of Peruvian bond stock, they contended was due to debt and military defeats. Britain refused to become embroiled; whereas the United States was spoiling for an international war. They secretly lobbied at Santiago against Russell and British interests to create a crisis. The Chileans "received with acclamation" in the City of London, assigning profits of Tarapaca mines and the nitrate-rich Guano Islands to the indebted bondholders. On this basis, Russell welcomed Chile's conquest of southern Peru. The Americans responded, to the alarm of the Foreign Office and Admiralty, by leasing the Peruvian port of Chimbote as a Naval base. Russell was more concerned with the financial implications for City investors. Wary of the risks of a proxy war, the bondholders urged Parliament to recognise General Yglesias, the new Peruvian leader. The Americans stubbornly refused to grant the new government of 1884 recognition of its international status, even after the Treaty of Ancon had ceased hostilities.

He died unmarried on 13 April 1883 and was buried in the family vault beneath his family's transept (built in 1832) in the Church of England church of Swallowfield, Berkshire. He was succeeded in the baronetcy by his brother, George.

References

External links

Location of grave and VC medal (Berkshire)
Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990,

1826 births
1883 deaths
Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Grenadier Guards officers
British recipients of the Victoria Cross
British Army personnel of the Crimean War
Crimean War recipients of the Victoria Cross
Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Berkshire
Deputy Lieutenants of Berkshire
People educated at Eton College
People from Swallowfield
UK MPs 1865–1868
UK MPs 1874–1880
UK MPs 1880–1885
Knights of the Legion of Honour
Recipients of the Order of the Medjidie
British Army recipients of the Victoria Cross

Sir Charles Russell, 3rd Baronet


Masonry is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound together by mortar. The term "masonry" can also refer to the units themselves.

The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile. Masonry is generally a highly durable form of construction.

Applications

Masonry is commonly used for the walls of buildings, retaining walls and monuments. Brick is the most common type of masonry. Concrete block masonry is rapidly gaining in popularity as a comparable material.

Related pages
Castle
Defensive wall
Stonemasonry
Freemasonry

Other websites

 Mason Contractors Association of America
 MasonrySystems.org
 International Masonry Institute
 International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
 Masonry Advisory Council
 National Concrete Masonry Association

Construction

Masonry


Siem Reap (,  )
Siem Reap () is a city in Northern Cambodia. It is the capital of Siem Reap Province. This city surrounds Angkor Wat, the world's largest religious monument.

History
The name "Siem Reap" can be translated to mean 'defeat of Siam' (siem in Khmer), and is commonly taken as a reference to an incident in the centuries-old conflict between the Siamese and Khmer kingdoms, although this is probably apocryphal. According to oral tradition, King Ang Chan (1516–1566) had named the town "Siem Reap" after he repulsed an army sent to invade Cambodia by the Thai king Maha Chakkraphat in 1549. Scholars such as Michael Vickery consider this derivation to be simply a modern folk etymology, and maintain that while the names Siem Reap and Chenla. the old Chinese name for Cambodia, may perhaps be related, the actual origin of the name is unknown.

The traditional tale claims that King Ang Chan of Cambodia tried to assert greater independence from Siam, which was then struggling internally. The Siamese king Chairacha had been poisoned by his concubine, Lady Sri Sudachan, who had committed adultery with a commoner, Worawongsathirat, while the king was away leading a campaign against the Kingdom of Lan Na. Sudachan then placed her lover on the throne. The Thai nobility lured them outside the city on a royal procession by barge to inspect a newly discovered white elephant. After killing the usurper, along with Sudachan and their new-born daughter, they invited Prince Thianracha to leave the monkhood and assume the throne as King Maha Chakkraphat (1548–1569). With the Thais distracted by internal problems, King Ang Chan attacked. He seized the Siamese city of Prachinburi in 1549, sacking the city and making slaves of its inhabitants. Only then did he learn that the succession had been settled and that Maha Chakkraphat was the new ruler. Ang Chan immediately retreated to Cambodia, taking captives with him. King Maha Chakkraphat was furious over the unprovoked attack, but Burma had also chosen to invade through Three Pagodas Pass. The Burmese army posed a much more serious threat, as it captured Kanchanaburi and Suphanburi. It then appeared before Ayutthaya itself.

The Thai army managed to defeat the Burmese, who quickly retreated through the pass. Maha Chakkraphat's thoughts then turned to Cambodia. Not only had Ang Chan attacked and looted Prachinburi, turning its people into slaves, but he also refused to give Maha Chakkraphat a white elephant he had requested, rejecting even this token of submission to Siam. Maha Chakkraphat ordered Prince Ong, the governor of Sawankhalok, to lead an expedition to punish Ang Chan and recover the Thai captives. The rival armies met, and Ang Chan killed Prince Ong with a lucky musket shot from an elephant's back. The leaderless Thai army fled, and Ang Chan allegedly captured more than 10,000 Siamese soldiers. To celebrate his great victory, King Ang Chan supposedly named the battleground "Siem Reap", meaning 'the total defeat of Siam'.

Pub Street, Siem Reap
In reality, surviving historic sources make this derivation appear unlikely, since they date the decline of Angkor to more than a century before this, when a military expedition from Ayutthaya captured and sacked Angkor Wat, which began a long period of vassal rule over Cambodia. The 1431 capture coincided with the decline of Angkor, though the reasons behind its abandonment are not clear. They may have included environmental changes and failings of the Khmer infrastructure.

From the 16th to the 19th centuries, infighting among the Khmer nobility led to periodic intervention and domination by both of Cambodia's more powerful neighbors, Vietnam and Siam. Siem Reap, along with Battambang (Phra Tabong) and Sisophon, major cities in northwest Cambodia, was under Siamese administration and the provinces were collectively known as Inner Cambodia from 1795 until 1907, when they were ceded to French Indochina. During the 18th century, under the rule of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, it was known as Nakhon Siam ('Siam's city').

Appearance
Siem Reap is a cheerful city that embraces travelers like old friends. This region was the site of successive capitals of the Khmer Empire from the ninth to the 15th centuries. The ruins, collectively known as the Angkor Archaeological Park, are located about four miles north of the city center. The city surrounds Angkor Wat as well.

Gallery

Siem Reap at Night.

References

Settlements in Cambodia
Siem Reap province

Siem Reap


National Coalition for Marine Conservation is now operating as "Wild Oceans." Founded in 1973 by fishermen, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC) is the United States's oldest public advocacy group dedicated exclusively to conserving ocean fish and their environment.   The NCMC's mission is to build awareness of the threats to USA marine fisheries and convince policy-makers to restore and protect publicly owned fishery resources.  Its efforts focus on stopping overfishing, reducing bykill caused by indiscriminate fishing gear, and stemming the loss of critical marine habitat.

NCMC's five program areas are:

 Bring Back the Big Fish – restoring and conserving large pelagic fish: (billfish, swordfish, tuna, and sharks),
 Conserving Marine Ecosystems – expanding traditional single-species management to an ecosystem-based approach, with emphasis on key predator-prey relationships,
 Fisheries Reform – promoting proactive laws and policies governing the utilization of marine resources,
 Ahead of the Curve – identifying opportunities to prevent overfishing and advocating precautionary management, and
 Resources and Education to Conserve Fish – informing and educating the public with the latest information and newest ideas.

The organization maximizes its conservation efforts by teaming up with other groups such as local fishing clubs and national environmental organizations.  NCMC has been a leader in efforts to stop shark finning in all US waters; implement longline area closures to reduce the bykill of large pelagic fish; implement a pro-active fishery management plan for dolphin and wahoo; protect sargassum (critical habitat for pelagics) from commercial exploitation; and implement measures to conserve populations of overfished blue and white marlin.

NCMC is funded by private foundations and individual members.  Members include conservation-minded fishermen, scientists, divers, boaters, fishing clubs and associations, and wildlife enthusiasts.

See also
 Environmental effects of fishing
 Marine conservation
 Marine ecosystem

References

External links
 National Coalition for Marine Conservation

Nature conservation organizations based in the United States
Fisheries conservation organizations
Marine conservation organizations


The Aleut are Native Americans from the Aleutian Islands. They live in Alaska and Russia. Their traditional clothes were made from the skins of sea lions, seals, sea otters, and birds.

Language
The Aleut speak the Aleut language, which they call Unangam Tunuu. However, most of them don't speak it well nowadays. Many speak English and Russian.

History

Contact with Russians
In the 18th century, Russians came to Alaska. The Russians taught the Aleut about their religion, the Russian Orthodox version of Christianity. They also traded furs with them.

California
The Aleut killed many members of the Nicoleño Tribe in California during a conflict.

Culture

Housing
The Aleut lived in special houses called barabara. It was partly underground to protect them from the elements.

Food
The Aleut hunted many sea creatures for food and their furs. They also liked to eat berries.
Alaska Natives

Aleut


Endosymbiosis occurs when a symbiont lives inside the body or the cells of another organism. It is a very widespread phenomenon in living things.

Examples are:
Rhizobia: nitrogen-fixing bacteria which live in root nodules on plants of the pea family.
Singly-celled forams which include a single-celled alga inside the cell. This is 'facultative', which means they may or may not do it. A more far-reaching version is idioplastic endosymbiosis. Here, the foram consumes the alga, but keeps its chloroplasts in working order.
Green algae inside marine polychaete worms.
Single-celled algae inside reef-building corals.
Gut flora (often flagellates) inside the digestive systems of insects and vertebrates which digest plant cellulose. These are 'obligate' symbionts, which means the host must have them.
Lichen: fungus+alga or bacterium.
Mycorrhiza: fungal hyphae and roots of trees.

Eukaryote theory
Endosymbiont theory is the idea that eukaryote cells arose in evolution by the fusion of previously free-living protists (prokaryotes).p143 The theory was first suggested by the Russian botanist Konstantin Mereshkovsky in 1905. The  nature of lichens had been worked out; mitochondria and chloroplasts had been seen in cells, and their similarity to bacteria noted. The theory was initially dismissed, but was re-examined when more was known about cell biology, by Lynn Margulis

The eukaryote cell is the type of cell all animals and plants are made of. Some cell organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, contain DNA. In each case, this DNA is thought to be the remnant of the  genome of a once independent bacterium. The theory is that the eukaryote cell evolved by the fusion of several bacteria or archaean organisms. Together, the new cells survived, prospered and evolved into new and complex forms of life. The origin of other organelles in the eukaryotic cell is still under review: the cell nucleus, its membrane, chromosomes and centromeres; the Golgi body; the flagella or cilia; the intracellular membranes. Some of these may also have had a symbiotic origin.

Examples:
Mitochondria live inside the cells of all animals, plants, and fungi. They make a fuel for the cells called ATP; it is the most common fuel in the body. Mitochondria were once bacteria, but now they cannot live outside animal cells.

Choroplasts are plastids which live inside the cells of photosynthetic organisms. They contain chlorophyll, which grabs energy from sunlight and makes it into sugar. Chloroplasts were once cyanobacteria. Glaucophytes are an algae with chloroplasts that are more like blue-green bacteria: the cell walls are still sensitive to antibiotics.

Kelp and other brown algae are different from other endosymbiotic associations.  A brown algae cell fused with the cell of a green algae, which already had an endosymbiont.  This is called secondary endosymbiosis.

The endosymbiont for some dinoflagellates was once a brown algae. This is called tertiary (third) endosymbiosis.

Endosymbiosis in prokaryotes
There is evidence that symbiosis happened between ancient bacteria to produce the double-membrane class known as gram-negative bacteria. Since the gram-negative bacteria include the cyanobacteria, this was the first of several such events in the history of the eukaryotes.

References

Evolutionary biology
Cell biology
Microbiology

Endosymbiosis


William Hillyard Anderson (October 12, 1911December 28, 1997) was an American producer best known for his work with The Walt Disney Company. He also served on the company's Board of Directors from 1960 to 1984.

Early life and career
Anderson was born in Smithfield, Utah. From a young age, he had the desire to be an actor. To pursue his dream, he moved to California, where he found himself playing small radio parts. He eventually abandoned acting in favor of the automobile industry. He studied pre-law at El Camino College Compton Center and the University of Southern California.

In 1943, the Walt Disney Company hired Anderson to work in their  production control department. By 1951, Anderson had risen in the ranks to become production manager for Walt Disney. In 1956, he was named vice president in charge of studio operations. His first film as a producer was Old Yeller. He was given an associate producer credit. In 1959, Anderson's wife Virginia was instrumental in bringing Hayley Mills to his attention. He then suggested to Walt Disney that the English actress would be a good fit for the lead role in Pollyanna. He later produced Disney's 1960 adaptation of The Swiss Family Robinson. He worked extensively on the ABC television series Zorro, starring Guy Williams. He went on to produce many more successful Disney films like The Moon-Spinners, The Happiest Millionaire and The Apple Dumpling Gang.  In 1960, he became a member of Disney's Board of Directors, a position he would hold until 1984. Anderson died from a cerebral hemorrhage in 1997 after suffering a fall. He was inducted as a Disney Legend in 2004.

References

External links

1911 births
1997 deaths
American film producers
American television producers
University of Southern California alumni
El Camino College Compton Center alumni
Disney people
People from Smithfield, Utah

Bill Anderson (producer)


Oakland is a village in Burrillville, Providence County, Rhode Island, United States.  It was developed in the 19th century at the site of a stone mill (now surviving only in fragmentary ruins) near the confluence of the Chepachet and Clear Rivers. It is one of the few remaining stone mills in this state.   Most of the village is included in the Oakland Historic District, a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Most of the housing in the village was originally built to house mill workers, although there are several more elaborate houses built for mill executives.

Students living in Oakland attend Burrillville Middle and High School. Oakland is a small, yet beautiful community hidden in the top left corner of Rhode Island. Oakland offers many woodland areas and rivers. The small town relies on volunteer firefighters. Each day a town whistle sounds from the Oakland-Mapleville Fire Department at five-o'clock pm, as well as each time fire personnel is in need. Many historic mills are scattered throughout the town, as well as mill-style neighborhoods.

See also
National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence County, Rhode Island

References

External links

Preserve America

Historic districts in Providence County, Rhode Island
Villages in Providence County, Rhode Island
Burrillville, Rhode Island
Shingle Style architecture in Rhode Island
Providence metropolitan area
Villages in Rhode Island
Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Rhode Island
National Register of Historic Places in Providence County, Rhode Island

Oakland, Rhode Island


The Big Mac is a kind of sandwich sold at the fast food-chain McDonald's. It is 550 calories, and is made using two beef patties, Big Mac Sauce, dehydrated onions, shredded lettuce, sliced pickles, and a slice of cheese. Also, the Big Mac Index is measured in how much a Big Mac costs in foreign currencies.

The Big Mac was created by Jim Delligatti, one of Ray Kroc's earliest franchisees, who was the owner of some restaurants in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. It was designed to compete with a similar Big Boy sandwich. Customer response to the Big Mac was so good that it was begun to be made nationally in 1967. One of its well-known and unique features is a middle slice of bread ("club" layer) used to make sure the contents do not move about and to prevent spills.

References

Other websites
Big Mac at mcdonalds.com
Canadian Website

McDonald's
American food
Sandwiches

Big Mac


Fungi are in biology one of the 4 kingdoms of multi-celled based life. It is difficult to define exactly which organisms are fungi, as they are and are neither plants nor animals. For example:
animallike properties: they eat, but digest (have digested) their food outside their body
plantlike properties: they propagate with spores; their cellwands are hard, but made of chitine rather than cellulose
nonlike properties: they do not have a compact body, but grow threadlike shapes, (mycelium).

The kingdom of celled living creatures
fungi (Latin: fungi)
animals (animalia)
plants (plantae)
'other' organisms, most single cell (protista)
Other organisms without distinct cells: bacteria, viruses, and so forth.

Fungi occuring in Tonga are the lichens and mushrooms.

Talingelinga/en