Suchergebnisse

Box 3, Folder 6 ; Born in Dublin, Ireland, in 1869, Thomas Aloysius Hickey arrived in America in 1892. Hickey joined the Socialist Labor party and the Knights of Labor in 1893 and became an ardent speaker, organizer, and writer, as well as private secretary to Eugene V. Debs. In 1900, he left the Socialist Labor Party and went on to cocreate the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and helped arrange several machinist strikes in New Jersey, which led to his blacklisting by employers. Moving to Butte, Montana, Hickey joined the Western Federation of Miners and helped recruit for the Socialist party. ; In 1911, he moved to Hallettsville, Texas, and started a weekly newspaper called The Rebel. Over time, Hickey became a prominent figure in the socialist movement and the slogan of his paper became the official slogan of the Socialist party in Texas. He served as the socialist candidate for lieutenant governor in 1912 and was married to Clara E. Boeer that same year. The government suppressed The Rebel in 1917 under the Espionage Act and in 1918, the Nonpartisan League fired Hickey as an organizer. ; In October 1919, he and other socialists organized the National Workers Drilling and Production Company. Hickey continued writing, serving as an advertising manager of the Desdemona Oil News and a correspondent for fourteen more newspapers such as the Texas Oil World and the Independent Oil and Financial Reporter. Withdrawing from the company in 1920, he moved to a farm near Stamford, Texas, and was publishing Tom Hickey's Magazine until his death on May 7, 1925, of throat cancer. ; The Handbook of Texas has published a more in-depth online biography of Thomas Aloysius Hickey at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search.html ; The collection contains correspondence, printed material, news clippings, financial and legal material, literary productions, and scrapbook material. The bulk of the collection is correspondence, including letters from Hickey's readers and from Socialist leaders such as Theodore Debs. The printed materials include newsletters, pamphlets, periodicals, and circulars. Principal subjects of this collection are the Socialist Party, World War I, and pacifism. ; Conservation Note: In 1985 and 1986, a large number of the papers in this collection were encapsulated within Mellinex polyester film and/or deacidified using Wei I'o aerosol solution. Those pages that were not treated remain fragile and brittle. Also, some of the double-sided tape used for the encapsulation is either coming loose or sticking to other pages. Additionally, the two volume German medical book set is in very fragile condition, with the binding falling apart and pages loose. The covers are also fading and deteriorating.

George Morgan Slaughter was the eldest son of C. C. Slaughter and C. C.'s first wife, Cynthia Ann Jowell. Born in Palo Pinto, Texas, on November 2, 1862, George received formal training in Texas schools and at the Virginia Military Institute. Later he served in the Spanish-American War. He married Alice Louise Donohoo (Allie D.) and together they had three children. Managing ranches for his father in West Texas and New Mexico, George became a prominent cattle breeder and was elected president of the Panhandle Cattle Raisers Association in 1910. He moved to Roswell, New Mexico, in 1900 and served as president of the American National Bank. On July 15, 1915, George passed away and was buried in Roswell. ; The Handbook of Texas has published a more in-depth online biography of George Morgan Slaughter at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/search.html ; The collection contains correspondence, news clippings, biographical information, genealogical data, poetry, and essays. The majority of the correspondence is between George Morgan and his father, Colonel C. C. Slaughter. ; Box 1, Folder 16

The article deals with the Bulgaria during the Balkan wars of the 1912-1913 and The First world war for the public protection of the Macedonian point of view on the Macedonian question. In the autumn of 1912 the first Balkan war began. Bulgaria and Serbia agreed on the division of Macedonia, but because of the meddling of the great powers Belgrade did not get the desired land on the Adriatic coast. Serbia then demanded a revision of the Treaty, to which Bulgaria refused. In the Russian public opinion disputes about belonging of Macedonia were developed. They were attended by Bulgarian and Serbian scientists, as well as Russian scientists. One of them was N. S. Derzhavin. He gave public lectures on the Balkans, took part in meetings of public organizations, where he debates with supporters of Serbia. The defeat of Bulgaria and the transfer of Macedonia under the power of Serbia caused him grief, and he began with renewed vigor for public activity. In particular, he prepared a book on the Macedonian question. The money for it was allocated by the Bulgarian government, but not immediately. As a result, the book was published after the beginning of the First world war, when Russian public opinion negatively related to Bulgaria. Then to N. S. Derzhavin asked for help in the publication in Russian of a book about the Balkan wars, the former Bulgarian Prime Minister I. Geshov. The article is based on published documents, materials from the funds of the Central state archive of Bulgaria, the state archive of the Russian Federation, the archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as the works of N. S. Derzhavin, his speeches at meetings of public organizations and memoirs of contemporaries. The scientist's relations with the Bulgarian authorities and scientists, relations with Russian colleagues who supported the position of Belgrade were reconstructed. On the basis of the received material the conclusion about the impossibility of accurately determining the motives for the occupation of active positions. A sincere love for Bulgaria and faith with their beliefs looks preferable. ; В статье рассматривается деятельность Н. С. Державина во время Балканских войн 1912–1913 гг. и Первой мировой войны по защите болгарской точки зрения на македонский вопрос, заключавшаяся в публичных выступлениях и печатных работах. На основании архивов России и Болгарии реконструируются его связи с болгарскими официальными лицами и учеными, взаимоотношения с российскими коллегами, поддерживавшими позицию Белграда, искренность его убеждений. Также осуществляется попытка выявить мотивы активности будущего советского академика.

В статье исследуется проблема участия представителей кооперативного движения дореволюционной России в политической жизни страны. Этот вопрос до сих пор остается дискуссионным среди специалистов, тем более что сами кооператоры неоднократно заявляли о своей аполитичности и нейтралитете.Целью данной статьи является анализ эпизода, связанного с участием кооператоров в создании кооперативной группы в Государственной думе России. Данный сюжет из истории кооперативного движения представляет несомненный интерес для исследователей. Затрагивая малоизвестные сюжеты непосредственного участия кооператоров в избирательном процессе, он расширяет и дополняет наши представления о недостаточно известных аспектах деятельности кооперации по созданию кооперативной группы в Государственной думе.Для достижения поставленной цели были выявлены и рассмотрены архивные источники, проанализированы мнения теоретиков кооперации и высказывания представителей кооперативных организаций по этому вопросу. Исследована подготовительная работа кооператоров, приведены примеры отношения политических партий к созданию кооперативной группы в Государственной думе России. В основу статьи положены общенаучные принципы познания, такие как историзм и объективность. Указанные принципы помогли оценить суть исследуемой проблемы, учитывая различные точки зрения как ученых, так и современников изучаемых событий. Анализ политики государственных учреждений по отношению к кооперативному движению показал, что система государственной власти традиционно была направлена против возникавших общественных ассоциаций и движений, правительство не желало передавать хотя бы малую часть своих полномочий в руки кооперативных учреждений, в то время как все время возраставшая роль кооперации в экономической жизни страны одновременно увеличивала и ее политические притязания. К участию в работе Государственной думы кооператоров склоняли и политические партии, которые всячески поддерживали оппозиционные настроения кооператоров. ; The article examines the problem of participation of representatives of the cooperative movement of pre-revolutionary Russia in the political life of the country. This issue is still a debatable topic among experts, especially since the cooperators themselves have repeatedly declared their apoliticality and neutrality.The purpose of this article is to analyze an episode related to the participation of cooperators in the creation of a cooperative group in the State Duma of Russia. This story from the history of cooperative movement is of undoubted interest for researchers. Touching upon little-known plots of direct participation of cooperators in the election process, it broadens and supplements our ideas about the insufficiently known aspects of the activities of cooperation in creating a cooperative group in the State Duma. To achieve this goal, archival sources were identified and reviewed, the views of theorists of cooperation and the statements of representatives of cooperative organizations on this issue were analyzed. The preparatory work of the cooperators is investigated, examples of the attitude to the creation of a cooperative group in the Duma of political parties are given. The article is based on the general scientific principles of cognition, such as historicism and objectivity. These principles helped to evaluate the essence of the problem under study, taking into account the different points of view of both scientists and contemporaries of the events studied. An analysis of the policy of state institutions in relation to the cooperative movement showed that the system of state power has traditionally been directed against emerging public associations and movements, the government did not want to transfer at least a small part of its authority into the hands of cooperative institutions. While the ever-increasing role of cooperation in the economic life of the country at the same time increased its political claims. Political parties also encouraged the participation in the work of the State Duma of cooperators, which strongly supported the opposition sentiments of the cooperators.