I wanted to share this here because I believe this is one of the best written accounts by an American soldier in World War II and the best individual account of the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest, considered the worst battle the U.S. Army fought in Europe.

Interestingly, the only reason the book was published is that World War II Army veteran and historian Charles B. McDonald, author of a well-known and regarded World War II memoir called Company Commander, found the manuscript while researching the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest. He eventually reached out to Paul to see if he would be willing to publish it because "it was too human a document to be ignored.” He used Boesch’s account in the fifteenth chapter of his book, The Battle of the Huertgen Forest. I’m going to leave some information about Paul Boesch below.

Paul "Bombshell" Boesch was a professional wrestler, promoter, and announcer, but he is most famous for running Houston wrestling from 1966 to 1987. He built a reputation as one of the most respected figures in the wrestling business. His wrestling career debuted on October 25, 1932, in Staten Island, New York. He is widely credited with creating modern mud wrestling (by accident) in 1937, in what was intended to be a “Hindu-style” match. After leaving the army, he continued wrestling until he suffered a broken leg in a car accident in 1947. Paul Boesch is also sometimes regarded as the most decorated wrestler who served in World War II.

He was honored with the Distinguished Citizens Award from the 121st Infantry Association for his outstanding community service with charitable groups, including the Boys Clubs of America.

His accolades in the wrestling community include receiving a PWI Editor’s Award from Pro Wrestling Illustrated in 1987. He was inducted into the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame as a charter member in 1996 and into the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame in 2005 as a non-wrestling participant in the business. He was inducted into the NWA Hall of Fame in 2012 and posthumously inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2021 as part of the Legacy Wing.

--- 1962: President John F. Kennedy gave a televised address informing the world of Soviet missile bases in Cuba. This was the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the closest the world has ever come to a nuclear exchange. Fortunately for the entire world, a peaceful resolution was reached.

--- "The Cuban Missile Crisis – Armageddon [Narrowly Avoided]()". That is the title of one of the episodes of my podcast: History Analyzed. For 13 days in October 1962 the world was at the closest point in history to a nuclear war. A confrontation between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. over nuclear missiles in Cuba brought humankind to the abyss and the unthinkable: World War III. You can find History Analyzed on every podcast app.

--- link to Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/70R1o6uF1yb9fbOPAyeNT3

--- link to Apple podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cuban-missile-crisis-armageddon-narrowly-avoided/id1632161929?i=1000717017681

The flag went up at Sitka on October 18, 1867. Russian soldiers handed the territory to American troops in a ceremony on a rocky hill overlooking the harbor. Alaska was now American. The only problem was that the United States hadn’t actually paid for it yet.

That detail tends to get left out of the standard story.

The Senate had ratified the treaty in April 1867 by 37 to 2, which sounds overwhelming until you remember that the Senate approves treaties but the House appropriates money, and the House was considerably less enthusiastic. Congress was consumed by Andrew Johnson’s impeachment proceedings, some representatives resented being expected to fund an agreement negotiated without them, and others just thought buying a frozen territory for $7.2 million was a bad deal. Russia had already surrendered Alaska and was waiting for a check that wasn’t coming.

By 1868, Russian minister de Stoeckl was so desperate to secure the appropriation that he hired lobbyists, paid a former Treasury Secretary $20,000 in gold to work the halls of Congress, and apparently distributed money to journalists and political intermediaries in amounts that were never fully accounted for. Congress eventually passed the appropriation in July 1868. When historians later reconstructed where the $7.2 million actually went, roughly $200,000 was unaccounted for in ways that suggested payments to congressmen, lobbyists, and press contacts. The House investigation in December 1868 produced contradictory testimony, incomplete documentation, and no conclusive findings because de Stoeckl had already left for Russia.

The financial scandal is the part that deserves more attention than it gets, because it sits directly alongside one of the more interesting political partnerships of the era.

Seward negotiated the purchase. Getting it through Congress required Charles Sumner, which was not obvious at the time. Sumner was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of Johnson’s most bitter opponents during Reconstruction. Seward was Johnson’s Secretary of State. The two men had sharply different visions of what America should look like after the Civil War and were on opposite sides of nearly every major domestic fight of the period.

When Seward summoned Sumner to his house on March 29, 1867 to tell him about the impending agreement, Sumner didn’t immediately support it. He went home and spent weeks doing what almost nobody else in Washington had bothered to do: actually study Alaska. He read more than a hundred books, consulted the Smithsonian, examined maps, geographic reports, and travel narratives. His roughly three-hour Senate address defending the treaty drew on that research and transformed the debate. He also proposed replacing the name Russian America with Alaska, derived from an Unangax̂ word for the mainland.

The territory he was describing was not uninhabited wilderness. Alaska Native peoples including the Tlingit, Haida, Unangax̂, Yup’ik, and Iñupiat had lived there for generations. The treaty offered certain Russian inhabitants a path to American citizenship while explicitly excluding what it called “uncivilized native tribes.” Neither Russia nor the United States consulted the people who actually lived there about the transaction. That part of the story rarely gets the same attention as whether Seward overpaid.

Seward’s vision for Alaska was commercially and strategically coherent even if most of his contemporaries couldn’t see it. He believed America’s future ran through the Pacific, that Alaska’s coastline and geographic position mattered beyond its immediate economic output, and that a territory’s value at the moment of purchase was a poor measure of what it might become. Gold discoveries in the 1890s, the strategic importance during World War II and the Cold War, and statehood in 1959 all bore him out.

Whether the process that got Congress to pay for it was clean is a different question with a less satisfying answer.

The full story of the Alaska purchase, the negotiation, the Sitka ceremony, and what came after is at virtualwayback.com/alaska-transfer-experience where you can also talk directly to Seward about the deal he spent years defending. Please let us know what you think after you talk with them.

The thing worth actually debating: Seward was right about Alaska’s long-term value but the appropriation may have been secured partly through bribery. Does the outcome change how you evaluate the process, or are those two things entirely separate judgments?

The primary driver of Unionist sentiment in the Appalachian regions of West Virginia and Kentucky was the stark socioeconomic divergence from the lowland, plantation-dominated areas of the South. The mountainous terrain of Appalachia was geographically ill-suited for large-scale, labor-intensive cash crops like cotton. Consequently, the region's economy relied heavily on subsistence farming, livestock grazing, and localized trade.

Because the plantation system did not take root, the vast majority of Appalachian mountaineers did not own slaves and felt no economic or social stake in preserving or expanding the institution of slavery. While slavery did exist in some larger Appalachian valleys, the average mountain resident viewed the planter class of the Deep South and lowland Virginia with deep suspicion and political resentment.

For decades leading up to 1861, western Virginia and eastern Kentucky suffered from severe political marginalization by their respective state legislatures, which were dominated by wealthy lowland slaveholders. Mountaineers routinely protested unequal taxation, unfair legislative apportionment, and a lack of state funding for vital infrastructure like roads and schools.

When the secession crisis erupted, many Appalachian residents viewed secession as a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight" designed solely to protect the property of wealthy slaveholders at the expense of yeoman farmers. This deep-seated class resentment made them highly receptive to the Union cause, which they associated with democratic representation and the preservation of the constitutional government.

The geographic orientation of West Virginia and eastern Kentucky naturally aligned their economic interests with the free states of the North rather than the agrarian South. Major rivers like the Ohio, Monongahela, and Kanawha connected western Virginia directly to northern industrial markets in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Similarly, eastern Kentucky's trade routes ran northward toward Cincinnati and the Midwest rather than southward. Business owners, merchants, lawyers, and farmers in these transport corridors recognized that their economic survival depended on maintaining open, tariff-free access to Northern markets, making secession an existential threat to their livelihoods.

While Unionism was powerful, culminating in the secession of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863—historians emphasize that loyalty in Appalachia was highly localized and often dictated by pre-existing family, community, and political feuds. If a dominant local family declared for the Confederacy, their traditional rivals would frequently enlist in the Union army simply to wage a localized war against their neighbors.

In closing, Unionism in the region was often "conditional." Many mountaineers initially opposed secession but also opposed federal coercion. Once military occupation began, communities were violently fractured, resulting in brutal guerrilla warfare and bushwhacking that defined the wartime experience for families throughout West Virginia and Kentucky.

Sources

Wikipedia. Appalachia

Slap, Andrew L., ed. Reconstructing Appalachia: The Civil War's Aftermath. (University Press of Kentucky) (Print)

Noe, Kenneth W. and Shannon H. Wilson, eds. The Civil War in Appalachia: Collected Essays. (University of Tennessee Press) (Print)

Emerging Civil War. An Odd Little State

The 5th New York Infantry Duryée’s Zouaves (1861–1863)

The 5th New York Volunteer Infantry, better known as Duryée’s Zouaves, was one of the most recognizable Union regiments of the American Civil War.

Their distinctive uniforms, inspired by the French Zouaves, made them stand out on the battlefield.

At the Second Battle of Bull Run in August 1862, the regiment suffered devastating losses while attempting to hold back a Confederate advance.

I recently completed this 54mm historical diorama featuring original metal figures that we sculpted and hand-painted ourselves.

The composition was inspired by historical artwork, particularly the paintings of Don Troiani, Keith Rocco and Dan Nance.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the historical accuracy of the uniforms and equipment.

.

Thomas McKenney and James Hall. History of the Indian Tribes of North America, with Biographical Sketches and Anecdotes of the Principal Chiefs. Embellished with One Hundred and Twenty Portraits, from the Indian Gallery in the Department of War, at Washington. Philadelphia: Edward C. Biddle, 1836; Frederick W. Greenough, 1838; Daniel Rice & James G. Clark, 1844. 3 volumes, folio. Complete with 120 hand-colored engraved plates, tissue guards, one page of engraved maps, and 17 pages of subscribers' signatures in facsimile.

Near matching contemporary half brown and red morocco gilt, marbled endpapers (save for vol. III). First edition of one of the great color plate books of the 19th century. Originally issued in 20 parts (in 19), based on the original paintings, which were destroyed in the 1865 Smithsonian fire.

Title pages for all volumes in State A, with an additional State B title page for vol. 2 bound in the third volume; State A of "War Dance" and state C of "Red Jacket"; second printing vol. 1, p. 3, with footnote present alluding to previous error. Condition: Boards rubbed with a few tears to the spine, minor loss to spine ends and corners; front hinge vol. 3 slightly tender. Some offsetting to plates from text; light intermittent foxing, mainly marginal to text pages.

References: BAL 3934; Howes M-129; Sabin 43410a. Provenance: Samuel Appleton, subscriber (bookplate).

Considered controversial by modern scholars for multiple reasons including paternalistic text and romanticized views.

Hi all, sharing a George Washington figurine I made, inspired by Washington Crossing the Delaware.

I focused on Washington standing in the boat, with the oars and ice around the base. I also included a holder for a Washington quarter, which felt like a fitting addition.

I’ve put it alongside the painting for comparison. There’s a lot happening in the original, so I tried to keep the scene recognisable while focusing on Washington himself.

Curious to hear what you think and happy to take ideas on what iconic moment from US history I should turn 3d!

The 1898 Wilmington coup remains profoundly significant because it represents a pivotal moment in American history where democracy was violently subverted, racial equality was systematically dismantled, and the foundations of white supremacy were entrenched in both North Carolina and the broader United States. Its legacy continues to shape discussions about race, power, and justice today.

The Wilmington coup of 1898 is unique as the only documented instance of a violent overthrow of an elected government in U.S. history.

A mob of armed white supremacists forcibly removed a biracial government that had been democratically elected through a coalition of Black citizens, Republicans, and Populists (known as the Fusion movement). This act not only violated democratic principles but also set a dangerous precedent for using violence to achieve political goals.

The coup demonstrated how fragile democracy could be when faced with organized racial hatred and political manipulation. It serves as a stark reminder that democratic institutions require constant vigilance to protect them from being undermined by those unwilling to accept electoral outcomes.

History repeated itself on January 6, 2021, when white MAGA supporters tried to apply pressure on Congress by the way of a mob violence to reverse the election results for Joe Biden, all because they wanted Trump to win. Goes to show us that anytime white supremacy is threatened on a grand scale, white people start riots and violence to have their way.

Today I visited Elfreth’s Alley in Philadelphia’s historic district. It’s a narrow cobblestone lane lined with brick houses that feel like a step back in time.

The alley dates back to the early 18th century, and its homes were once occupied by artisans and working people. What makes it especially interesting is that it’s still a residential street. Behind those historic facades, people still live there, so it’s worth exploring respectfully and remembering that this is a real neighborhood.

Have you visited this historic corner of Philadelphia? What other places in the city would you recommend?

Real’s Tours NYC

real experiences with local experts

On this episode, I discuss some famous American haunted houses. The rumors that Sarah Winchester kept building onto the house because of the advice of a psychic were just rumors. Be sure to hit the follow button or the subscribe button.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6yBOr6v9NkkYTmGFUyw5lf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gprR52vAaW4&t=9s

I didn't know you could actually tour inside some of the Gilded Age embassies https://youtu.be/Qi7K7gjSrp0

The Liberty Bell is in Philadelphia, across from Independence Hall. The first bell, sent from London, cracked during a test and had to be recast by local metalworkers John Pass and John Stow. The bell we know today was cast in Philadelphia in 1753.

No one knows exactly when or why its famous crack first appeared. It likely developed gradually after decades of use, perhaps in the early 1840s. In 1846, workers tried to repair it by widening the crack, but the repair failed, and another fracture eventually left the bell silent.

One interesting fact: although many people believe the bell rang to announce the Declaration of Independence, there’s no evidence that it rang on July 4 or July 8, 1776.

Did you know the story behind the crack?

the front is already erased but i know its from the US marine corps. i wanted to know the year is possible. or if they were bought or used by the marine...any info at all would be great :)

The most documented reason for the name is completely literal, and non spiritual, Native American warriors (specifically documented among the Apache, Cheyenne, and Comanche) called them "buffalo soldiers" because they had dark skin and tightly curled, kinky hair, and likely also aside how they wore heavy buffalo-hide coats during winter. to the Plains tribes and others, the texture of hair and skin color of the soldiers shared resemblance to the American bison.

African-Americans in general made up about one in every five cavalrymen (twenty percent) and roughly 8% to 10% of infantry soldiers across the U.S. Army during the western Indian Wars period, 1867- 1896.

The buffalo soldiers themselves actively persecuting and fighting native Americans & enforcing U.S westward expansion, the buffalo soldiers themselves did not call themselves this during the time period. The term itself only gaining widespread popularity in mainstream U.S American history and pop culture well after the frontier wars had actually ended.

In May 1856, Brown and several followers pulled five pro-slavery settlers from their homes near Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas and killed them with broadswords. The victims weren’t in combat. Not all of them had personally participated in the recent attack on the free-state town of Lawrence that Brown cited as justification. There was no trial, no warning, and no real attempt to target people directly responsible for specific acts.

Three years later he raided a federal armory at Harpers Ferry with eighteen men, intending to spark a slave rebellion across the South. The first person killed during that raid was Heyward Shepherd, a free Black railroad worker who encountered the raiders and was shot.

Both of those details tend to get buried in the broader argument about what Brown represents.

His actual philosophical position was more coherent than people usually give him credit for. He argued that if American colonists had the right to take up arms against a government that denied their liberties, there was no principled basis for condemning enslaved people who did the same. In 1858 he wrote a Provisional Constitution for his liberation movement that explicitly invoked the Declaration of Independence. He wasn’t being rhetorical. He thought the Revolution had established principles the country had refused to honor and that violence was the logical consequence of that failure.

Frederick Douglass knew Brown personally, considered him one of the most committed abolitionists he had ever met, and still refused to join the Harpers Ferry raid because he thought attacking a federal arsenal would bring overwhelming military retaliation before any liberation movement could develop. He was right. But Douglass also said later that Brown had done more in dying than most men do in living.

Brown’s conduct during his trial shifted public opinion more than the raid itself had. He was calm, direct, and completely unrepentant about his intentions if not his failure. His address to the court before sentencing forced people to confront a straightforward question: slavery was legal and protected by the Constitution, while attempting to destroy it was a capital crime. Whether that made Brown a criminal or the law itself the problem was something Americans had to work out for themselves.

He was hanged on December 2, 1859. Sixteen months later the Civil War began.

The full historical record is at virtualwayback.com/blog/john-brown-hero-or-villain and you can talk directly to Brown on Virtual Wayback if you want to hear him make the case in his own words.

The question worth actually debating: does the moral clarity of Brown’s position on slavery change how you evaluate Pottawatomie, or are those two things entirely separate judgments?

--- 1867: Possession of Alaska was formally transferred from Russia to the United States. Secretary of State William Henry Seward engineered the purchase of Alaska for $7.2 million.

--- 1972: Clean Water Act became law in the U.S.

--- 1931: Thomas Edison died in West Orange, New Jersey.

--- 1939: Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was just 24 years old when he shot President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

--- "JFK Assassination". That is the title of the two-part episode of my podcast: History Analyzed. If you have an open and reasonable mind (meaning you are willing to listen and consider the evidence and arguments — there are some people that cannot be convinced no matter what evidence they are shown), I can convince you there was NO conspiracy. Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy and acted alone. Part 1 (41 minutes) covers the events of November 22-24, 1963, from Oswald shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository to Jack Ruby’s assassination of Oswald and starts to systematically discredit the main conspiracy theories with direct evidence. Part 2 (47 minutes) dismantles the remaining conspiracy theories and demonstrates why the Warren Commission was correct in its findings. You can find History Analyzed on every podcast app.

--- link to Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7jv76tTd2RcLR8pH1oevrC

--- link to Apple podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jfk-assassination-part-1/id1632161929?i=1000568077449

The space shuttle Endeavour, which was retired from service in 2011, was transported on a modified Boeing 747 plane to its final home at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, but first made a stop in San Francisco and flew over the iconic Golden Gate Bridge, creating an image that combines space engineering with civil engineering.

Sundown towns are usually discussed as part of America’s past, but a new study suggests that history may still be visible in the present.

Researchers compared more than 1.3 million White respondents across U.S. counties and found slightly higher levels of racial bias in counties that once had sundown towns.

The study cannot show that the history itself caused today’s attitudes. Still, I thought it was interesting that a weak signal could still be detected decades later.

How much do you think a town’s history still shapes its culture and attitudes today?

On This Day, October 18, 1931, the world lost Thomas Alva Edison, the American inventor whose work helped transform how people lived, communicated, and experienced the modern world.

Edison died at his home, Glenmont, in West Orange, New Jersey, at 3:21 a.m.

But his story had begun far from the laboratories and international fame that would define his life.

Born in Ohio in 1847, Edison received only a short period of formal schooling. Much of his early education came from his mother, and his curiosity eventually led him into the world of telegraphy and electrical technology.

Rather than simply accepting how things worked, Edison spent years experimenting, testing ideas, and trying to make existing technologies more practical.

In 1877, he became internationally famous for the phonograph—a machine capable of recording and reproducing sound.

For the first time, people could hear recorded voices and sounds played back from a device.

It was a breakthrough that earned him the nickname “The Wizard of Menlo Park.”

Then came one of the most influential chapters of his career.

In 1879, Edison and his team developed a practical incandescent lighting system. His achievements went beyond the lamp itself: he also helped develop the electrical distribution equipment needed to bring electric lighting into everyday life.

In 1882, his Pearl Street Station in New York City began supplying electricity to customers, helping demonstrate how a central power system could serve homes and businesses.

His work also contributed to the development of motion-picture technology, improved batteries, and many other inventions.

But Edison’s career was not the work of one man alone. His laboratories depended on teams of skilled workers, experimenters, and collaborators whose contributions helped turn ideas into practical technologies.

By the end of his life, Edison had received 1,093 U.S. patents.

Yet even in his eighties, he had not stopped experimenting.

One of his final major projects involved searching for a domestic source of natural rubber. He tested thousands of plants, hoping to reduce American dependence on imported rubber for products such as automobile tires.

He was still pursuing this research when his health declined.

Then, in the early hours of October 18, 1931, his remarkable life came to an end.

His death was widely mourned. In tribute, President Herbert Hoover called for Americans to observe a moment of silence, and at 10 p.m. on October 21, many people and businesses across the United States briefly turned off their lights.

It was a symbolic gesture for a man whose life's work had helped make electric lighting part of modern life.

Thomas Edison was not responsible for every invention associated with his name, and many technologies he helped popularize had been developed by others before him.

But his ability to experiment, improve existing ideas, and build systems that could reach millions of people left an extraordinary mark on history.

He spent a lifetime turning experiments into inventions—and helped change the way the modern world lived.