where did the battle of alamo take place

The Battle of the Alamo (February 23 – March 6, 1836) was a pivotal event in the Texas Revolution. Following a 13-day siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna launched an assault on the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas, United States), killing all of the Texian defenders. Santa Anna's cruelty during the battle inspired many Texians—both Texas settlers and adventurers from the United States—to join the Texian Army. Buoyed by a desire for revenge, the Texians defeated the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, on April 21, 1836, ending the revolution.

Battle of the Alamo

Several months previously, Texians had driven all Mexican troops out of Mexican Texas. About 100 Texians were then garrisoned at the Alamo. The Texian force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by eventual Alamo co-commanders James Bowie and William B. Travis. On February 23, approximately 1,500 Mexicans marched into San Antonio de Béxar as the first step in a campaign to retake Texas. For the next 10 days, the two armies engaged in several skirmishes with minimal casualties. Aware that his garrison could not withstand an attack by such a large force, Travis wrote multiple letters pleading for more men and supplies, but the Texians were reinforced by fewer than 100 men.

In the early morning hours of March 6, the Mexican Army advanced on the Alamo. After repelling two attacks, the Texians were unable to fend off a third attack. As Mexican soldiers scaled the walls, most of the Texian soldiers withdrew into interior buildings. Defenders unable to reach these points were slain by the Mexican cavalry as they attempted to escape. Between five and seven Texians may have surrendered; if so, they were quickly executed. Most eyewitness accounts reported between 182 and 257 Texians died, while most historians of the Alamo agree that around 600 Mexicans were killed or wounded. Several noncombatants were sent to Gonzales to spread word of the Texian defeat. The news sparked both a strong rush to join the Texian army and a panic, known as "The Runaway Scrape", in which the Texian army, most settlers, and the new Republic of Texas government fled from the advancing Mexican Army.

Within Mexico, the battle has often been overshadowed by events from the Mexican–American War of 1846–48. In 19th-century Texas, the Alamo complex gradually became known as a battle site rather than a former mission. The Texas Legislature purchased the land and buildings in the early part of the 20th century and designated the Alamo chapel as an official Texas State Shrine. The Alamo is now "the most popular tourist site in Texas".[5] The Alamo has been the subject of numerous non-fiction works beginning in 1843. Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths and legends spread by many of the movie and television adaptations,[6] including the 1950s Disney mini-series Davy Crockett and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo.

Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited many federalists to revolt.[7] The border region of Mexican Texas was largely populated by immigrants from the United States. These people were accustomed to a federalist government and to extensive individual rights, and they were quite vocal in their displeasure at Mexico's shift towards centralism.[8] Already suspicious after previous American attempts to purchase Mexican Texas,[9] Mexican authorities blamed much of the Texian unrest on American immigrants, most of whom had made little effort to adapt to the Mexican culture.[10]

In October, Texians engaged Mexican troops in the first official battle of the Texas Revolution.[11] Determined to quell the rebellion, Santa Anna began assembling a large force, the Army of Operations in Texas, to restore order.[12] Most of his soldiers were raw recruits,[13] and a large number had been forcibly conscripted.[14]

The Texians systematically defeated the Mexican troops already stationed in Texas. The last group of Mexican soldiers in the region—commanded by Santa Anna's brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos—surrendered on December 9 following the siege of Béxar.[11] By this point, the Texian Army was dominated by very recent arrivals to the region, primarily adventurers from the United States. Many Texas settlers, unprepared for a long campaign, had returned home.[15] Angered by what he perceived to be American interference in Mexican affairs, Santa Anna spearheaded a resolution classifying foreigners found fighting in Texas as pirates. The resolution effectively banned the taking of prisoners of war: in this period of time, captured pirates were executed immediately.[15][16] Santa Anna reiterated this message in a strongly worded letter to United States President Andrew Jackson. This letter was not widely distributed, and it is unlikely that most of the American recruits serving in the Texian Army were aware that there would be no prisoners of war.[17]

When Mexican troops departed San Antonio de Béxar (now San Antonio, Texas, USA) Texian soldiers established a garrison at the Alamo Mission, a former Spanish religious outpost which had been converted to a makeshift fort by the recently expelled Mexican Army.[18] Described by Santa Anna as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name",[18] the Alamo had been designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, not an artillery-equipped army.[19] The complex sprawled across 3 acres (1.2 ha), providing almost 1,320 feet (400 m) of perimeter to defend.[20] An interior plaza was bordered on the east by the chapel and to the south by a one-story building known as the Low Barracks.[21] A wooden palisade stretched between these two buildings.[22] The two-story Long Barracks extended north from the chapel.[21] At the northern corner of the east wall stood a cattle pen and horse corral.[23] The walls surrounding the complex were at least 2.75 feet (0.84 m) thick and ranged from 9–12 ft (2.7–3.7 m) high.[24][Note 1]

To compensate for the lack of firing ports, Texian engineer Green B. Jameson constructed catwalks to allow defenders to fire over the walls; this method, however, left the rifleman's upper body exposed.[20] Mexican forces had left behind 19Â cannons, which Jameson installed along the walls. A large 18-pounder had arrived in Texas with the New Orleans Greys. Jameson positioned this cannon in the southwest corner of the compound. He boasted to Texian Army commander Sam Houston that the Texians could "whip 10 to 1 with our artillery".[25]

The Texian garrison was woefully undermanned and underprovisioned, with fewer than 100Â soldiers remaining by January 6, 1836.[26] Colonel James C. Neill, the acting Alamo commander, wrote to the provisional government: "If there has ever been a dollar here I have no knowledge of it".[26] Neill requested additional troops and supplies, stressing that the garrison was likely to be unable to withstand a siege lasting longer than four days.[26][27] The Texian government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance.[28][Note 2] Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army:[Note 3] on January 14, Neill approached one of them, Sam Houston, for assistance in gathering supplies, clothing, and ammunition.[28]

Houston could not spare the number of men necessary to mount a successful defense.[29] Instead, he sent Colonel James Bowie with 30 men to remove the artillery from the Alamo and destroy the complex.[28][Note 4] Bowie was unable to transport the artillery since the Alamo garrison lacked the necessary draft animals. Neill soon persuaded Bowie that the location held strategic importance.[30] In a letter to Governor Henry Smith, Bowie argued that "the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Béxar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march towards the Sabine."[31][Note 5] The letter to Smith ended, "Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give it up to the enemy."[31] Bowie also wrote to the provisional government, asking for "men, money, rifles, and cannon powder".[31] Few reinforcements were authorized; cavalry officer William B. Travis arrived in Béxar with 30 men on February 3. Five days later, a small group of volunteers arrived, including the famous frontiersman and former U.S. Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee.[32]

On February 11, Neill left the Alamo, determined to recruit additional reinforcements and gather supplies.[33][34] He transferred command to Travis, the highest-ranking regular army officer in the garrison.[31] Volunteers comprised much of the garrison, and they were unwilling to accept Travis as their leader.[Note 6] The men instead elected Bowie, who had a reputation as a fierce fighter, as their commander. Bowie celebrated by getting very intoxicated and creating havoc in BÃ©xar. To mitigate the resulting ill feelings, Bowie agreed to share command with Travis.[34][35][36]

As the Texians struggled to find men and supplies, Santa Anna continued to gather men at San Luis Potosi; by the end of 1835 his army numbered 6,019 soldiers.[37] Rather than advance along the coast, where supplies and reinforcements could be easily delivered by sea, Santa Anna ordered his army inland to BÃ©xar, the political center of Texas and the site of Cos's defeat.[37] The army began its march north in late December.[37] Officers used the long journey to train the men. Many of the new recruits did not know how to use the sights of their guns, and many refused to fire from the shoulder because of the large recoil.[38]

Progress was slow. There were not enough mules to transport all of the supplies, and many of the teamsters, all civilians, quit when their pay was delayed. The large number of soldaderas – women and children who followed the army – consumed much of the already scarce supplies. The soldiers were soon reduced to partial rations.[39] On February 12 they crossed the Rio Grande.[40][Note 7] Temperatures in Texas reached record lows, and by February 13 an estimated 15–16 inches (38–41 cm) of snow had fallen. Hypothermia, dysentery, and Comanche raiding parties took a heavy toll on the Mexican soldiers.[41]

On February 21, Santa Anna and his vanguard reached the banks of the Medina River, 25 miles (40 km) from Béxar.[42][43] Unaware of the Mexican Army's proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta.[44][Note 8] After learning of the planned celebration, Santa Anna ordered General Joaquín Ramírez y Sesma to immediately seize the unprotected Alamo, but sudden rains halted that raid.[43]

In the early hours of February 23, residents began fleeing Béxar, fearing the Mexican army's imminent arrival. Although unconvinced by the reports, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower, the highest location in town, to watch for signs of an approaching force. Several hours later, Texian scouts reported seeing Mexican troops 1.5 miles (2.4 km) outside the town.[44] Few arrangements had been made for a potential siege. One group of Texians scrambled to herd cattle into the Alamo, while others scrounged for food in the recently abandoned houses.[45] Several members of the garrison who had been living in town brought their families with them when they reported to the Alamo. Among these were Almaron Dickinson, who brought his wife Susanna and their infant daughter Angelina; Bowie, who was accompanied by his deceased wife's cousins, Gertrudis Navarro and Juana Navarro Alsbury, and Alsbury's young son;[46] and Gregorio Esparza, whose family climbed through the window of the Alamo chapel after the Mexican army arrived.[47] Other members of the garrison failed to report for duty; most of the men working outside Béxar did not try to sneak past Mexican lines.[48]

By late afternoon Béxar was occupied by about 1,500 Mexican soldiers.[50] When the Mexican troops raised a blood-red flag signifying no quarter, Travis responded with a blast from the Alamo's largest cannon.[51] Believing that Travis had acted hastily, Bowie sent Jameson to meet with Santa Anna.[49] Travis was angered that Bowie had acted unilaterally and sent his own representative, Captain Albert Martin.[52] Both emissaries met with Colonel Juan Almonte and José Bartres. According to Almonte, the Texians asked for an honorable surrender but were informed that any surrender must be unconditional.[49] On learning this, Bowie and Travis mutually agreed to fire the cannon again.[52][Note 9]

The first night of the siege was relatively quiet.[53] Over the next few days, Mexican soldiers established artillery batteries, initially about 1,000 feet (300Â m) from the south and east walls of the Alamo.[54] A third battery was positioned southeast of the fort. Each night the batteries inched closer to the Alamo walls.[55] During the first week of the siege more than 200 cannonballs landed in the Alamo plaza. At first, the Texians matched Mexican artillery fire, often reusing the Mexican cannonballs.[56][57] On February 26 Travis ordered the artillery to conserve powder and shot.[56]

Two notable events occurred on Wednesday, February 24. At some point that day, Bowie collapsed from illness,[58] leaving Travis in sole command of the garrison.[58] Late that afternoon, two Mexican scouts became the first fatalities of the siege.[59][Note 9] The following morning, 200–300 Mexican soldiers crossed the San Antonio River and took cover in abandoned shacks near the Alamo walls.[55][59][60] Several Texians ventured out to burn the huts[60] while Texians within the Alamo provided cover fire.[61][62] After a two-hour skirmish, the Mexican troops retreated to Béxar.[55][62] Six Mexican soldiers were killed and four others were wounded.[55] No Texians were injured.[63]

A blue norther blew in on February 25, dropping the temperature to 39 °F (4 °C).[56] Neither army was prepared for the cold temperatures.[64] Texian attempts to gather firewood were thwarted by Mexican troops.[56] On the evening of February 26 Colonel Juan Bringas engaged several Texians who were burning more huts.[65] According to historian J.R. Edmondson, one Texian was killed.[66] Four days later, Texians shot and killed Private First Class Secundino Alvarez, a soldier from one of two battalions that Santa Anna had stationed on two sides of the Alamo. By March 1, the number of Mexican casualties were nine dead and four wounded, while the Texian garrison had lost only one man.

Santa Anna posted one company east of the Alamo, on the road to Gonzales.[55][68] Almonte and 800Â dragoons were stationed along the road to Goliad.[69] Throughout the siege these towns had received multiple couriers, dispatched by Travis to plead for reinforcements and supplies.[51][70] The most famous of his missives, written February 24, was addressed To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World. According to historian Mary Deborah Petite, the letter is "considered by many as one of the masterpieces of American patriotism."[71] Copies of the letter were distributed across Texas,[72] and eventually reprinted throughout the United States and much of Europe.[59] At the end of the first day of the siege, Santa Anna's troops were reinforced by 600 men under General Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma, bringing the Mexican army up to more than 2,000 men.

As news of the siege spread throughout Texas, potential reinforcements gathered in Gonzales. They hoped to rendezvous with Colonel James Fannin, who was expected to arrive from Goliad with his garrison.[73] On February 26, after days of indecision, Fannin ordered 320 men, four cannons, and several supply wagons to march towards the Alamo, 90 miles (140 km) away. This group traveled less than 1.0 mile (1.6 km) before turning back.[74][75] Fannin blamed the retreat on his officers; the officers and enlisted men accused Fannin of aborting the mission.[76]

Texians gathered in Gonzales were unaware of Fannin's return to Goliad, and most continued to wait. Impatient with the delay, on February 27 Travis ordered Samuel G. Bastian to go to Gonzales "to hurry up reinforcements".[77] According to historian Thomas Ricks Lindley, Bastian encountered the Gonzales Ranging Company led by Lieutenant George C. Kimble and Travis' courier to Gonzales, Albert Martin, who had tired of waiting for Fannin. A Mexican patrol attacked, driving off four of the men including Bastian.[Note 10][78] In the darkness, the Texians fired on the remaining 32Â men, whom they assumed were Mexican soldiers. One man was wounded, and his English curses convinced the defenders to open the gates.[Note 11][79]

On March 3, the Texians watched from the walls as approximately 1,000 Mexicans marched into Béxar. The Mexican army celebrated loudly throughout the afternoon, both in honor of their reinforcements and at the news that troops under General José de Urrea had soundly defeated Texian Colonel Frank W. Johnson at the Battle of San Patricio on February 27.[80] Most of the Texians in the Alamo believed that Sesma had been leading the Mexican forces during the siege, and they mistakenly attributed the celebration to the arrival of Santa Anna. The reinforcements brought the number of Mexican soldiers in Béxar to almost 3,100.[81]

The arrival of the Mexican reinforcements prompted Travis to send three men, including Davy Crockett, to find Fannin's force, which he still believed to be en route.[82] The scouts discovered a large group of Texians camped 20 miles (32Â km) from the Alamo.[83] Lindley's research indicates that up to 50 of these men had come from Goliad after Fannin's aborted rescue mission. The others had left Gonzales several days earlier.[84] Just before daylight on March 4, part of the Texian force broke through Mexican lines and entered the Alamo. Mexican soldiers drove a second group across the prairie.[83][Note 12]

On March 4, the day after his reinforcements arrived, Santa Anna proposed an assault on the Alamo. Many of his senior officers recommended that they wait for two 12-pounder cannons anticipated to arrive on March 7.[85] That evening, a local woman, likely Bowie's cousin-in-law Juana Navarro Alsbury, approached Santa Anna to negotiate a surrender for the Alamo defenders.[86] According to many historians, this visit probably increased Santa Anna's impatience; as historian Timothy Todish noted, "there would have been little glory in a bloodless victory".[87] The following morning, Santa Anna announced to his staff that the assault would take place early on March 6. Santa Anna arranged for troops from BÃ©xar to be excused from the front lines so that they would not be forced to fight their own families.[87]

Legend holds that at some point on March 5, Travis gathered his men and explained that an attack was imminent, and that they were greatly outnumbered by the Mexican Army. He supposedly drew a line in the ground and asked those willing to die for the Texian cause to cross and stand alongside him; only one man (Moses Rose) was said to have declined.[88] Most scholars disregard this tale as there is no primary source evidence to support it (the story only surfaced decades after the battle in a third-hand account).[89] However, Travis apparently did, at some point prior to the final assault, assemble the men for a conference to inform them of the dire situation and giving them the chance to either escape or stay and die for the cause. Susannah Dickinson recalled Travis announcing that any men who wished to escape should let it be known and step out of ranks.[90]

The last Texian verified to have left the Alamo was James Allen, a courier who carried personal messages from Travis and several of the other men on March 5.[91]

2 crowbars
2 axes

At 10 p.m. on March 5, the Mexican artillery ceased their bombardment. As Santa Anna had anticipated, the exhausted Texians soon fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many of them had since the siege began.[94] Just after midnight, more than 2,000 Mexican soldiers began preparing for the final assault.[95] Fewer than 1,800 were divided into four columns, commanded by Cos, Colonel Francisco Duque, Colonel José María Romero and Colonel Juan Morales.[92][93] Veterans were positioned on the outside of the columns to better control the new recruits and conscripts in the middle.[96] As a precaution, 500 Mexican cavalry were positioned around the Alamo to prevent escape of either Texian or Mexican soldiers. Santa Anna remained in camp with the 400 reserves.[93][97] Despite the bitter cold, the soldiers were ordered not to wear overcoats which could impede their movements.[93] Clouds concealed the moon and thus the movements of the soldiers.[98]

At 5:30Â a.m. troops silently advanced. Cos and his men approached the northwest corner of the Alamo,[96] while Duque led his men from the northwest towards a repaired breach in the Alamo's north wall.[99] The column commanded by Romero marched towards the east wall, and Morales's column aimed for the low parapet by the chapel.[99]

The three Texian sentinels stationed outside the walls were killed in their sleep,[99][100] allowing Mexican soldiers to approach undetected within musket range of the walls.[99] At this point, the silence was broken by shouts of "¡Viva Santa Anna!" and music from the buglers.[95] The noise woke the Texians.[100] Most of the noncombatants gathered in the church sacristy for safety.[101] Travis rushed to his post yelling, "Come on boys, the Mexicans are upon us and we'll give them hell!"[99] and, as he passed a group of Tejanos, "¡No rendirse, muchachos!" ("Don't surrender, boys").[94]

In the initial moments of the assault, Mexican troops were at a disadvantage. Their column formation allowed only the front rows of soldiers to fire safely.[102] Unaware of the dangers, the untrained recruits in the ranks "blindly fir[ed] their guns", injuring or killing the troops in front of them.[103] The tight concentration of troops also offered an excellent target for the Texian artillery.[102] Lacking canister shot, Texians filled their cannon with any metal they could find, including door hinges, nails, and chopped-up horseshoes, essentially turning the cannon into giant shotguns.[99] According to the diary of José Enrique de la Peña, "a single cannon volley did away with half the company of chasseurs from Toluca".[104] Duque fell from his horse after suffering a wound in his thigh and was almost trampled by his own men. General Manuel Castrillón quickly assumed command of Duque's column.[23]

Although some in the front of the Mexican ranks wavered, soldiers in the rear pushed them on.[102] As the troops massed against the walls, Texians were forced to lean over the walls to shoot, leaving them exposed to Mexican fire. Travis became one of the first defenders to die, shot while firing his shotgun into the soldiers below him, though one source says that he drew his sword and stabbed a Mexican officer who had stormed the wall before succumbing to his injury.[102] Few of the Mexican ladders reached the walls.[105] The few soldiers who were able to climb the ladders were quickly killed or beaten back. As the Texians discharged their previously loaded rifles, however, they found it increasingly difficult to reload while attempting to keep Mexican soldiers from scaling the walls.[23]

Mexican soldiers withdrew and regrouped, but their second attack was repulsed. Fifteen minutes into the battle, they attacked a third time.[23][102] During the third strike, Romero's column, aiming for the east wall, was exposed to cannon fire and shifted to the north, mingling with the second column.[23] Cos' column, under fire from Texians on the west wall, also veered north.[106] When Santa Anna saw that the bulk of his army was massed against the north wall, he feared a rout; "panicked", he sent the reserves into the same area.[107] The Mexican soldiers closest to the north wall realized that the makeshift wall contained many gaps and toeholds. One of the first to scale the 12-foot (3.7 m) wall was General Juan Amador; at his challenge, his men began swarming up the wall. Amador opened the postern in the north wall, allowing Mexican soldiers to pour into the complex.[105] Others climbed through gun ports in the west wall, which had few defenders.[108] As the Texian defenders abandoned the north wall and the northern end of the west wall,[105][108] Texian gunners at the south end of the mission turned their cannon towards the north and fired into the advancing Mexican soldiers. This left the south end of the mission unprotected; within minutes Mexican soldiers had climbed the walls and killed the gunners, gaining control of the Alamo's 18-pounder cannon.[98] By this time Romero's men had taken the east wall of the compound and were pouring in through the cattle pen.[108]

As previously planned, most of the Texians fell back to the barracks and the chapel. Holes had been carved in the walls to allow the Texians to fire.[106] Unable to reach the barracks, Texians stationed along the west wall headed west for the San Antonio River. When the cavalry charged, the Texians took cover and began firing from a ditch. Sesma was forced to send reinforcements, and the Texians were eventually killed. Sesma reported that this skirmish involved 50Â Texians, but Edmondson believes that number was inflated.[109]

The defenders in the cattle pen retreated into the horse corral. After discharging their weapons, the small band of Texians scrambled over the low wall, circled behind the church and raced on foot for the east prairie, which appeared empty.[106][108][110] As the Mexican cavalry advanced on the group, Almaron Dickinson and his artillery crew turned a cannon around and fired into the cavalry, probably inflicting casualties. Nevertheless, all of the escaping Texians were killed.[110]

The last Texian group to remain in the open were Crockett and his men, defending the low wall in front of the church. Unable to reload, they used their rifles as clubs and fought with knives. After a volley of fire and a wave of Mexican bayonets, the few remaining Texians in this group fell back towards the church.[109] The Mexican army now controlled all of the outer walls and the interior of the Alamo compound except for the church and rooms along the east and west walls.[111] Mexican soldiers turned their attention to a Texian flag waving from the roof of one building. Four Mexicans were killed before the flag of Mexico was raised in that location.[Note 13][112]

For the next hour, the Mexican army worked to secure complete control of the Alamo.[113] Many of the remaining defenders were ensconced in the fortified barracks rooms.[114] In the confusion, the Texians had neglected to spike their cannon before retreating. Mexican soldiers turned the cannon towards the barracks.[105] As each door was blown off Mexican soldiers would fire a volley of muskets into the dark room, then charge in for hand-to-hand combat.[114]

Too sick to participate in the battle, Bowie likely died in bed. Eyewitnesses to the battle gave conflicting accounts of his death. Some witnesses maintained that they saw several Mexican soldiers enter Bowie's room, bayonet him, and carry him alive from the room.[115] Others claimed that Bowie shot himself or was killed by soldiers while too weak to lift his head.[116] According to historian Wallace Chariton, the "most popular, and probably the most accurate"[117] version is that Bowie died on his cot, "back braced against the wall, and using his pistols and his famous knife."[116]

The last of the Texians to die were the 11 men manning the two 12-pounder cannon in the chapel.[112][118] A shot from the 18-pounder cannon destroyed the barricades at the front of the church, and Mexican soldiers entered the building after firing an initial musket volley. Dickinson's crew fired their cannon from the apse into the Mexican soldiers at the door. With no time to reload, the Texians, including Dickinson, Gregorio Esparza and James Bonham, grabbed rifles and fired before being bayoneted to death.[119] Texian Robert Evans, the master of ordnance, had been tasked with keeping the gunpowder from falling into Mexican hands. Wounded, he crawled towards the powder magazine but was killed by a musket ball with his torch only inches from the powder.[119] Had he succeeded, the blast would have destroyed the church and killed the women and children hiding in the sacristy.[120]

As soldiers approached the sacristy, one of the young sons of defender Anthony Wolf stood to pull a blanket over his shoulders.[119] In the dark, Mexican soldiers mistook him for an adult and killed him.[Note 14][121] Possibly the last Texian to die in battle was Jacob Walker,[122] who attempted to hide behind Susannah Dickinson and was bayoneted in front of the women.[123] Another Texian, Brigido Guerrero, also sought refuge in the sacristy.[119] Guerrero, who had deserted from the Mexican Army in December 1835, was spared after convincing the soldiers he was a Texian prisoner.[121][124]

By 6:30 a.m. the battle for the Alamo was over.[123] Mexican soldiers inspected each corpse, bayoneting any body that moved.[121] Even with all of the Texians dead, Mexican soldiers continued to shoot, some killing each other in the confusion. Mexican generals were unable to stop the bloodlust and appealed to Santa Anna for help. Although the general showed himself, the violence continued and the buglers were finally ordered to sound a retreat. For 15 minutes after that, soldiers continued to fire into dead bodies.[125]

According to many accounts of the battle, between five and seven Texians surrendered.[Note 15][126][127] Incensed that his orders had been ignored, Santa Anna demanded the immediate execution of the survivors.[128] Weeks after the battle, stories circulated that Crockett was among those who surrendered.[127] However, Ben, a former American slave who cooked for one of Santa Anna's officers, maintained that Crockett's body was found surrounded by "no less than sixteen Mexican corpses".[129] Historians disagree on which version of Crockett's death is accurate.[Note 16][130]

Santa Anna reportedly told Captain Fernando Urizza that the battle "was but a small affair".[131] Another officer then remarked that "with another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil".[Note 17][2] In his initial report Santa Anna claimed that 600 Texians had been killed, with only 70 Mexican soldiers killed and 300 wounded.[132] His secretary, Ramón Martínez Caro, later repudiated the report.[133] Other estimates of the number of Mexican soldiers killed ranged from 60–200, with an additional 250–300 wounded.[2] Most Alamo historians place the number of Mexican casualties at 400–600.[2][3][4] This would represent about one-third of the Mexican soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is "a tremendous casualty rate by any standards".[2] Most eyewitnesses counted between 182–257 Texians killed.[134] Some historians believe that at least one Texian, Henry Warnell, successfully escaped from the battle. Warnell died several months later of wounds incurred either during the final battle or during his escape as a courier.[135][136]

Mexican soldiers were buried in the local cemetery, Campo Santo.[Note 18][132] Shortly after the battle, Colonel JosÃ© Juan Sanchez Navarro proposed that a monument should be erected to the fallen Mexican soldiers. Cos rejected the idea.[137]

The Texian bodies were stacked and burned.[Note 19][132] The only exception was the body of Gregorio Esparza. His brother Francisco, an officer in Santa Anna's army, received permission to give Gregorio a proper burial.[132] The ashes were left where they fell until February 1837, when Juan Seguín returned to Béxar to examine the remains. A simple coffin inscribed with the names Travis, Crockett, and Bowie was filled with ashes from the funeral pyres.[138] According to a March 28, 1837, article in the Telegraph and Texas Register,[139] Seguín buried the coffin under a peach tree grove. The spot was not marked and cannot now be identified.[140] Seguín later claimed that he had placed the coffin in front of the altar at the San Fernando Cathedral. In July 1936 a coffin was discovered buried in that location, but according to historian Wallace Chariton, it is unlikely to actually contain the remains of the Alamo defenders. Fragments of uniforms were found in the coffin, and it is known that the Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms.[139]

In an attempt to convince other slaves in Texas to support the Mexican government over the Texian rebellion, Santa Anna spared Travis' slave, Joe.[141] The day after the battle, he interviewed each noncombatant individually. Impressed with Susanna Dickinson, Santa Anna offered to adopt her infant daughter Angelina and have the child educated in Mexico City. Dickinson refused the offer, which was not extended to Juana Navarro Alsbury although her son was of similar age.[2] Each woman was given a blanket and two silver pesos.[142] Alsbury and the other Tejano women were allowed to return to their homes in BÃ©xar; Dickinson, her daughter and Joe were sent to Gonzales, escorted by Ben. They were encouraged to relate the events of the battle, and to inform the remainder of the Texian forces that Santa Anna's army was unbeatable.[2]

During the siege, newly elected delegates from across Texas met at the Convention of 1836. On March 2, the delegates declared independence, forming the Republic of Texas. Four days later, the delegates at the convention received a dispatch Travis had written March 3 warning of his dire situation. Unaware that the Alamo had fallen, Robert Potter called for the convention to adjourn and march immediately to relieve the Alamo. Sam Houston convinced the delegates to remain in Washington-on-the-Brazos to develop a constitution. After being appointed sole commander of all Texian troops, Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400Â volunteers who were still waiting for Fannin to lead them to the Alamo.[143]

Within hours of Houston's arrival on March 11, Andres Barcenas and Anselmo Bergaras arrived with news that the Alamo had fallen and all Texians were slain.[144] Hoping to halt a panic, Houston arrested the men as enemy spies. They were released hours later when Susannah Dickinson and Joe reached Gonzales and confirmed the report.[145] Realizing that the Mexican army would soon advance towards the Texian settlements, Houston advised all civilians in the area to evacuate and ordered his new army to retreat.[146] This sparked a mass exodus, known as the Runaway Scrape, and most Texians, including members of the new government, fled east.[147]

Despite their losses at the Alamo, the Mexican army in Texas still outnumbered the Texian army by almost six to one.[148] Santa Anna assumed that knowledge of the disparity in troop numbers and the fate of the Texian soldiers at the Alamo would quell the resistance,[149] and that Texian soldiers would quickly leave the territory.[150] News of the Alamo's fall had the opposite effect, however, and men flocked to join Houston's army.[149] The New York Post editorialized that "had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren".[151]

On the afternoon of April 21 the Texian army attacked Santa Anna's camp near Lynchburg Ferry. The Mexican army was taken by surprise, and the Battle of San Jacinto was essentially over after 18Â minutes. During the fighting, many of the Texian soldiers repeatedly cried "Remember the Alamo!" as they slaughtered fleeing Mexican troops.[152] Santa Anna was captured the following day, and reportedly told Houston: "That man may consider himself born to no common destiny who has conquered the Napoleon of the West. And now it remains for him to be generous to the vanquished." Houston replied, "You should have remembered that at the Alamo". Santa Anna's life was spared, and he was forced to order his troops out of Texas, ending Mexican control of the province and bestowing some legitimacy on the new republic.[153]

Following the battle, Santa Anna was alternately viewed as a national hero or a pariah. Mexican perceptions of the battle often mirrored the prevailing viewpoint.[154] Santa Anna had been disgraced following his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto, and many Mexican accounts of the battle were written by men who had been, or had become, his outspoken critics. Petite and many other historians believe that some of the stories, such as the execution of Crockett, may have been invented to further discredit Santa Anna.[130] In Mexican history, the Texas campaign, including the Battle of the Alamo, was soon overshadowed by the Mexican–American War of 1846–48.[154]

In San Antonio de Béxar, the largely Tejano population viewed the Alamo complex as more than just a battle site; it represented decades of assistance—as a mission, a hospital, or a military post.[155] As the English-speaking population increased, the complex became best known for the battle. Focus has centered primarily on the Texian defenders, with little emphasis given to the role of the Tejano soldiers who served in the Texian army or the actions of the Mexican army.[156] In the early 20th century the Texas Legislature purchased the property and appointed the Daughters of the Republic of Texas as permanent caretakers[157] of what is now an official state shrine.[5] In front of the church, in the center of Alamo Plaza, stands a cenotaph, designed by Pompeo Coppini, which commemorates the Texians and Tejanos who died during the battle.[158] According to Bill Groneman's Battlefields of Texas, the Alamo has become "the most popular tourist site in Texas".[5]

The first English-language histories of the battle were written and published by Texas Ranger and amateur historian John Henry Brown.[159] The next major treatment of the battle was Reuben Potter's The Fall of the Alamo, published in The Magazine of American History in 1878. Potter based his work on interviews with many of the Mexican survivors of the battle.[159][160] The first full-length, non-fiction book covering the battle, John Myers Myers' The Alamo, was published in 1948.[161] In the decades since, the battle has featured prominently in many non-fiction works.

According to Todish et al., "there can be little doubt that most Americans have probably formed many of their opinions on what occurred at the Alamo not from books, but from the various movies made about the battle."[162] The first film version of the battle appeared in 1911, when Gaston Méliès directed The Immortal Alamo.[6] The battle became more widely known after it was featured in the 1950s Disney miniseries Davy Crockett, which was largely based on myth.[6] Within several years, John Wayne directed and starred in one of the best-known, but questionably accurate, film versions, 1960's The Alamo.[163][Note 20] In 2004 another film, also called The Alamo, was released. CNN described it as possibly "the most character-driven of all the movies made on the subject". It is also considered more faithful to the actual events than other movies.[164]

A number of songwriters have been inspired by the Battle of the Alamo. Tennessee Ernie Ford's "The Ballad of Davy Crockett" spent 16 weeks on the country music charts, peaking at No. 4 in 1955.[165] Marty Robbins recorded a version of the song "The Ballad of the Alamo" in 1960 which spent 13 weeks on the pop charts, peaking at No. 34.[166] Jane Bowers' song "Remember the Alamo" has been recorded by artists including Johnny Cash[167] and Donovan.[168] Singer-songwriter Phil Collins collected hundreds of items related to the battle, narrated a light and sound show about the Alamo, and has spoken at related events.[169] In 2014 Collins donated his entire collection to the Alamo via the State of Texas.[170]

The U.S. Post Office issued two postage stamps in commemoration of the Battle of Alamo and Texas Statehood.[171][172]


who sings drink a little drink smoke a little smoke

"Smoke a Little Smoke" is a song co-written and recorded by American country music singer Eric Church. It was released in June 2010 as the third single from his album Carolina. It is also the eighth single of his career, and the sixth to reach top 20 on Hot Country Songs. Church wrote the song with Jeff Hyde and Driver Williams.

Smoke a Little Smoke

Karlie Justus of Engine 145 gave the song a "thumbs-up", saying that it "puts Church’s bravado posturing to good use." She also praised the song's production, saying that it "makes no attempts to temper the song’s spot-on snapshot of trying to lose one’s self[…]in an effort to awkwardly make the project 'country.'"[1] In his review of the album, Slant Magazine reviewer Jonathan Keefe said that the song had "an interesting rhythm track[…]that actually reinforce[s] the tones."[2] Country Standard Time reviewer Jeffrey B. Remz called it a "stark [reminder] that Church is making a valiant attempt to rekindle the outlaw movement."[3]

Church began filming the song's music video in July 2010. The video includes Church driving vintage cars at Clarksville Speedway, and includes a cameo from NASCAR driver Kasey Kahne.[4] Of the video, Church said that he wanted to "show something[â€¦] that [the fans] haven't seen before."[4] The video was directed by Peter Zavadil.

"Smoke a Little Smoke" first charted in mid-2009 as an album cut, spending one week at number 57 on the Hot Country Songs charts. In June 2010, it re-entered the same chart also at number 57.The song was a minor top 20.

*sales figures based on certification alone
^shipments figures based on certification alone


where does the external jugular vein drain into

The external jugular vein drains into the subclavian vein lateral to the junction of the subclavian vein and the internal jugular vein.

External jugular vein

The external jugular vein receives the greater part of the blood from the exterior of the cranium and the deep parts of the face, being formed by the junction of the posterior division of the retromandibular vein with the posterior auricular vein.

It commences in the substance of the parotid gland, on a level with the angle of the mandible, and runs perpendicularly down the neck, in the direction of a line drawn from the angle of the mandible to the middle of the clavicle at the posterior border of the sternocleidomastoideus.

In its course it crosses the sternocleidomastoideus obliquely, and in the subclavian triangle perforates the deep fascia, and ends in the subclavian vein lateral to or in front of the scalenus anterior, piercing the roof of the posterior triangle.

It is separated from the sternocleidomastoideus by the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia, and is covered by the platysma, the superficial fascia, and the integument; it crosses the cutaneous cervical nerve, and its upper half runs parallel with the great auricular nerve.

It is provided with two pairs of valves, the lower pair being placed at its entrance into the subclavian vein, the upper in most cases about 4Â cm above the clavicle. The portion of vein between the two sets of valves is often dilated, and is termed the sinus.

These valves do not prevent the regurgitation of the blood, or the passage of injection from below upward.[1]

The external jugular vein varies in size, bearing an inverse proportion to the other veins of the neck, it is occasionally double.[2]

This vein receives the occipital occasionally, the posterior external jugular, and, near its termination, the transverse cervical, transverse scapular, and anterior jugular veins; in the substance of the parotid, a large branch of communication from the internal jugular joins it.

The external jugular is a large vein used in prehospital medicine for venous access when the EMT is unable to find another peripheral vein. It is commonly used in cardiac arrest or other situations where the patient is unresponsive due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a cardiac arrest using this vein has the advantage that the paramedic can stay at the head and intubate the patient as well. Although many EMTs and paramedics use this vein the American Heart Association still recommends the use of the cephalic vein.

Muscles of the head, face, and neck.

Section of the neck at about the level of the sixth cervical vertebra.

The venæ cavæ and azygos veins, with their tributaries.


who was the author of the art of the deal

According to Schwartz in July 2016, Trump wrote none of the book, choosing only to remove a few critical mentions of business colleagues at the end of the process.[4] Trump responded with conflicting stories, saying "I had a lot of choice of who to have write the book, and I chose [Schwartz]", but then said "[Schwartz] didn't write the book. I wrote the book."[4] Former Random House head Howard Kaminsky, the book's original publisher, said "Trump didnâ€™t write a postcard for us!"[4] The book was published in November 1987 by Random House, with the authorship given as "Donald Trump with Tony Schwartz".

Trump: The Art of the Deal

President of the United States
Incumbent

New York properties

Former notable properties

Business and personal

Trump: The Art of the Deal is a 1987 book credited to businessman Donald Trump and journalist Tony Schwartz. Part memoir and part business-advice book, it was the first book published by Trump,[1] and helped to make him a "household name".[2][3] It reached number 1 on The New York Times Best Seller list, stayed there for 13 weeks, and altogether held a position on the list for 48 weeks.[4]

The book received additional attention during Trump's 2016 campaign for the presidency of the United States. He cited it as one of his proudest accomplishments[5] and his second-favorite book after the Bible.[6] Schwartz expressed regrets about his involvement and he and the book's publisher, Howard Kaminsky, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book. Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.[4]

The book tells about Trump's childhood in Jamaica Estates, Queens. It then describes his early work in Brooklyn prior to moving to Manhattan, whereupon he engaged in building The Trump Organization. It then describes his actions and thoughts in developing the Grand Hyatt Hotel and Trump Tower, in renovating Wollman Rink, and regarding various other projects.[7]

The book also contains an 11-step formula for business success, inspired by Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.[8] Trump's steps are:

Trump was persuaded to produce the book by Condé Nast owner Si Newhouse after the May 1984 issue of Newhouse's magazine GQ – with Trump appearing on the cover – sold well.[8][10] Schwartz was hired to work on the book, and began working with Trump in late 1985. He interviewed Trump and – with permission from him – listened in on his phone calls.

Schwartz was the subject of a July 2016 article in The New Yorker in which Schwartz describes Donald Trump unfavorably and relates how he came to regret writing The Art of the Deal.[4] He also stated that if it were to be written today it would be very different and titled The Sociopath.[4] Schwartz repeated his self-criticism on Good Morning America, saying he had "put lipstick on a pig".[11] In response to these claims, Trump's attorneys have demanded that Schwartz cede all his royalties from the book to Trump.[12][13]

The Art of the Deal was published in November 1987 by Random House. A promotional campaign was undertaken in conjunction with the release of the book. This included Trump holding a release party at Trump Tower that was hosted by Jackie Mason and featured a celebrity-filled guest list.[8] There were a series of appearances by him on television talk shows.[14] Trump also appeared on a number of magazine covers as part of publicity for the book.[14]

Excerpts from the book were published in New York magazine.[8] The book has been translated into over a dozen different languages.[8]

Trump and Schwartz had an agreement to split royalties from the book on a 50â€“50 basis.[15][16]

In 1988, Trump set up the Donald J. Trump Foundation to give away royalties from the book's sales, promising four or five million dollars "To the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis" in Trump's words.[15][17] According to a Washington Post investigation those donations largely did not happen: the paper said "he gave less to those causes than he did to his older daughter's ballet school."[17] The Washington Post asked Trump's campaign if Trump had donated the $55,000 Trump earned in the first six months of 2016 to charity, as he promised in the 1980s, and it did not respond.[16]

By 2016, Schwartz said he had received some $1.6 million in royalty payments.[15] In October of that year, Schwartz said the royalties he was still receiving for the book "suddenly became, for me, blood money. I didn't want to be anywhere near it. It just feels wrong."[16] As a result, Schwartz said he would be donating the prior 6-months of royalties worth $55,000 to the National Immigration Law Center which advocates for more undocumented immigrants to remain in the USA legally. Schwartz had earlier donated royalties he received in the second half of 2015, worth $25,000, to a number of charities including the National Immigration Forum. Schwartz said he wanted to help the people Trump was attacking.[16]

Precise figures for the number of copies sold of Art of the Deal are not available because its publication preceded the Nielsen BookScan era.[14] It had a first printing of 150,000 copies.[8] Several magazine and book accounts state that it sold over 1 million hardcover copies[8] or 1 million copies.[4][9] A 2016 CBS News investigation reported that an unnamed source familiar with the book's sales placed the figure at 1.1 million copies sold.[15]

Trump asserted in his 2016 presidential run that Art of the Deal is "the No. 1 selling business book of all time."[18] In a detailed analysis by Linda Qiu in the Tampa Bay Times, other business books were found to have sold many more copies than Art of the Deal.[14] Qiu noted it was impossible to find exact sales figures, but gave a range of possibilities based on known claims and facts. Compared to six other famous business books, Art of the Deal ranked in fifth place according to her analysis; the first place book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, outsold it by a factor of 15 times.[14]

At the time of publication, Publishers Weekly called it a "boastful, boyishly disarming, thoroughly engaging personal history".[19] People magazine gave it a mixed review.[1]

In 1988, Trump and Ted Turner announced plans for a television-film based on the book.[20] The plans had been largely abandoned by 1991.[21]

Three years later, journalist John Tierney noted Trump "appears to have ignored some of his own advice" in the book due to "well-publicized problems with his banks."[22] Trump's self-promotion, best-selling book and media celebrity status led one commentator in 2006 to call him "a poster-child for the 'greed is good' 1980s".[23] (The phrase "Greed is good" was from the movie Wall Street which was released a month after The Art of the Deal.)

Jim Geraghty in the National Review said in 2015 that the book showed "a much softer, warmer, and probably happier figure than the man dominating the airwaves today."[5]

John Paul Rollert, an ethicist writing about the book in The Atlantic in 2016, says Trump sees capitalism not as an economic system but a morality play.[24]

The book coined the phrase "truthful hyperbole" describing "an innocent form of exaggerationâ€”and... a very effective form of promotion". Schwartz said Trump loved that phrase.[25][26] In January 2017, the phrase was noted for its similarity to the phrase "alternative facts" coined by Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway when she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statements about the attendance at Trump's inauguration as President of the United States.[27][28][29]

Aspects of the book were used as the basis for the 2016 parody film, Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie.[30]


what does title ix of the education amendments of 1972 prohibit

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Title IX

Title IX, as a federal civil rights law in the United States of America, was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688. It was co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh in the U.S. Senate. It was later renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002 after Patsy Mink, its late U.S. House co-author and sponsor. The following is the original text as made, signed into law by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1972:[1]

Title IX was enacted as a follow-up to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Act was passed to end discrimination in various fields based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the areas of employment and public accommodation.[2][3] The 1964 Act did not prohibit sex discrimination against persons not employed at educational institutions. Classical feminists during the early 1970s lobbied leaders to draft a separate law to include this demographic which was mostly applied to athletics, implicitly, at the time. This demographic was largely the student demographic enrolled at U.S. schools and universities. Title IX did not apply to employees, as they were already protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4] While TitleÂ IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports. Coverage of sports was implied, however, as this topic was the topic on which the lobbying was based. President Barack Obama used Title IX to apply to sexual orientation, gender identity, and physical/mental handicap through a series of "Dear Colleague" letters that remain in legal limbo.[5][6] Under U.S. President Donald Trump, this has been rescinded back to the original protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[7][8]

In 1967, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson wrote a series of executive orders involving the 1964 Act to make some clarifications. Before these clarifications were made, the National Organization for Women (NOW) persuaded him through successful lobbying, or influencing, his personal aides or Members of Congress to include the addition of women.[4] Executive Order 11375 required all entities receiving federal contracts to end discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment.[9] In 1969, a notable example of its successes was Bernice Sandler who used the executive order to retain her job and tenure at the University of Maryland.[10] She utilized university statistics in showing how female employment at the university had plummeted as qualified women were replaced by men.[4] Sandler then brought her complaints to the Department of Labor's Office for Federal Fair Contracts Compliance where she was now encouraged to file a formal complaint; in later citing inequalities in pay, rank, admissions, among others. Sandler soon began to file complaints against the University of Maryland and against other colleges while working with NOW and the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL). Sandler later filed two-hundred and sixty-nine (269) complaints against colleges and universities to only create a movement of her own, which led to the events in 1970.[4] In 1970, Sandler joined U.S. House Representative Edith Green's Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education and Labor Committee, and observed corresponding congressional hearings relating to women's issues on employment,and equal opportunity. In these hearings, Green and Sandler initially proposed the idea of TitleÂ IX. An early legislative draft was then authored by Representative Patsy Mink with the assistance of Representative Edith Green.[11] In the hearing, there were mentions of athletics. The idea behind the draft was a progressive one in somewhat instituting an affirmative action for women in all aspects of American education.[4]

Mink's initial draft of Title IX was formally introduced in Congress by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana in 1971 who then was its chief Senate sponsor with respect to congressional debate. At the time, Bayh was working on numerous constitutional issues related to women's issues regarding employment, and sex discrimination -- including but not limited to the revised draft of the Equal Rights Amendment. It was to build "a powerful constitutional base from which to move forward in abolishing discriminatory differential treatment based on sex".[12] As he was having partisan difficulty in later getting the ERA Amendment out of committee, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was on the Senate Floor for re-authorization; and on 28 February 1972, Bayh re-introduced a provision found in the original/revised ERA bill as an amendment. which would become Title IX.[13] In his remarks on the Senate Floor, Bayh states, "we are all familiar with the stereotype [that] women [are] pretty things who go to college to find a husband, [and whom] go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools [is to] not to waste a'man's place' on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the 'weaker sex' and it is time to change our operating assumptions."[14] He then furthers. "While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching. It is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work".[15] Title IX then became public law on 23 June, 1972.[16][17] When U.S. President Nixon signed the bill, he spoke mostly about desegregation busing, but did not mention the expansion of educational access for women he had enacted.[12][18]

When it comes to the wording of Title IX, it is unusually very brief and thus required specific, and concise language as well as clarifications to be soon articulated in its implementing regulations. U.S. President Nixon later directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry this out.[4] As a result, this law affected the statistical proportion of men's athletics; not its importance nor popularity. It soon prompted concern by critics, and as those concerns grew; they found ways to limit its impact. Senator Bayh later spent the next three years in keeping watch over HEW in order to get further regulations passed through the U.S. Congress; in which were soon carried out with its legislative intent of eliminating sex discrimination in educational institutions on the basis of sex.[12] When these regulations were issued during Summer 1975, they were partisan contested; thus resulted in hearings that were held by the House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities on the discrepancies between the regulations, and the law. Then in 1974, U.S. Senator John Tower introduced the Tower Amendment which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance.[19] Later that year, the Tower Amendment was thus rejected and the Javits Amendment soon proposed in return by U.S. Senator Jacob Javits in now stating that HEW must include "reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports" adopted in its place.[4] In June 1975, HEW published the final regulations detailing how Title IX would be enforced.[4] These regulations were codified in the Federal Register in the Code of Federal Regulations Volume 34, Part 106 (34 C.F.R. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/106 106] 34 C.F.R. 106 34 C.F.R. 106). It was not until this step was completed that many people truly understood the ramifications of Title IX as it would apply to athletics within educational institutions. Educational institutions receiving Federal financial assistance were given three years to comply with the Title IX regulations during that time as standard in protocol.[16] In reaction, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) soon claimed that the implementation of Title IX was illegal with respect to either case law, or constitutionally. They did not provide any concrete evidence. A revised Tower Amendment was then proposed out of successive lobbying of U.S. Congressional members, but Title IX as a whole lawfully stood in-tact.[4]

In 1979 with respect to HEW, under U.S. President Jimmy Carter's administration, they issued further clarification in its Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation.[20][21] Then in 1980, HEW was split into two separate agencies in accordance with the Department of Education Organization Act—the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED).[19] Its responsibility was for Title IX enforcement in educational institutions as it was then delegated to ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[22] These regulations and policy Interpretations soon clarified a number of key issues with respect to endorsing the separation of athletic teams by sex. These can be found in 34 C.F.R. 106.41 while comparable facilities can be found in 34 C.F.R. 106.33, and financial assistance in Section 34 C.F.R. 106.37. These subsections explain that evaluating the equality of these sections can be "strictly based on expenditures [which] is an unfair method for evaluating equity." The OCR came up with a way "to investigate" the equality of schools and institutions called, the Investigator's Manual on 28 July 1980. OCR then went further years later in issuing three letters of clarification in 1996, 1998 and 2003 respectively.. The first letter (1996) was written to clarify the proportionality test, the second (1998) to clarify the meaning of "substantially equal," and the third (2003) was to reaffirm the first clarification letter after a number of commission discussions and hearings.[23] Any other regulations have never been adequately codified in any shape or form after these years in the major sense; even under U.S. President Barack Obama, the interpretations found under Title IX is to be considered a legal gray area, and thus fraudulent until a federal court makes an official opinion.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 is tied to Title IX which was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell.[24] The Court held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.[25] This case was initially reached by the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.[24] The Department of Education's stance was that because some of its students were receiving federal grants; the school was thus receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program that only this program had to be in compliance. This ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX as it then made many athletic programs outside the purview of Title IX, and thus reduced its scope.[4] Grove City's victory, however, was short-lived. The Civil Rights Restoration Act successfully passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect.[16] In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by congresswoman Cardiss Collins required that federally assisted educational institutions disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's athletic teams; as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually.[19] In October 2002, less than a month after the death of U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution to rename Title IX the "Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act," which President George W. Bush signed into law.[26] On November 24, 2006, Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level; this was largely to introduce federal abstinent-only programs, which may have been a partial basis for the support of President Bush.[27]

Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether or not Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males.[by whom?] In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes. The increased exposure of female sports led to increased dominance by males of the governance of female athletics. For example, the male-dominated NCAA, which had been content to let the female-dominated AIAW run female championships, decided to offer female championships, thus leading to the eventual demise of the AIAW.[28]

Advocates of Title IX's current interpretation cite increases in female athletic participation, and attribute those increases to Title IX.[29][30][31] One study, completed in 2006, pointed to a large increase in the number of women participating in athletics at both the high school and college level. The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%.[32] A 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports has grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) Basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) Volleyball, 95.7%, (3) Soccer, 92.0%, (4) Cross Country, 90.8%, and (5) Softball, 89.2%.[33]

At the same time, many contend that the current interpretation of Title IX by the OCR has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports.[34] For example, though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990,[35] scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period.[36][37] The OCR's three-prong test for compliance with Title IX often is cited as the reason for these cuts.[37][38] Wrestling historically was the most frequently dropped sport,[38] but other men's sports later overtook the lead, such that according to the NCAA, the most-dropped men's sports between 1987 and 2002 were as follows: Cross country (183), indoor track (180), golf (178), tennis (171), rowing (132), outdoor track (126), swimming (125) and wrestling (121).[36]

Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys' athletics. For example, the College Sports Council has stated, "Nationwide, there are currently 1.3 million more boys participating in high school sports than girls. Using a gender quota to enforce Title IX in high school sports would put those young athletes at risk of losing their opportunity to play."[39] High school participation rates from the National Federation of High School associations report that in 2010–11, there were 4,494,406 boys and 3,173,549 girls participating in high school athletics.[40]

There have been different interpretations regarding Title IX's application to high school athletics. The American Sports Council sued the Department of Education in 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment that its policy interpreting Title IX's requirement for equity in participation opportunities is limited to colleges and universities.[41] The American Sports Council argued that "The three-part test and its encouragement of quotas, has no relevance to high schools or high-school sports, and no federal regulation or interpretation has ever said that high schools must abide by the three-part test".[39] On the other hand, the Department of Education insists that Title IX is a "valuable tool" for ensuring a level playing field for all students" and "plays a critical role in ensuring a fundamental level of fairness in America's schools and universities".[41]

Between 1981 and 1999 university athletic departments cut 171 men's wrestling teams, 84 men's tennis teams, 56 men's gymnastics teams, 27 men's track teams, and 25 men's swimming teams.[42] While some teams—both men's and women's—have been eliminated in the Title IX era, both sexes have seen a net increase in the number of athletic periods[clarification needed] over a similar time period as the above quote,[43] and by studies including more recent data, though when total enrollment which had likewise increased is controlled for, only women had an increase in participation.[44]

Because teams vary widely in size, it is more appropriate to compare the number of total participation opportunities. Additionally, the total number of college participation opportunities has increased for both sexes in the TitleÂ IX era, though solely for women when increased enrollment is accounted for, as men's participation remained static relative to university enrollment, and men's opportunities outnumber women's by a wide margin.[45]

The Women's Sports Foundation reported in a 2007 study of athletic opportunities at NCAA institutions that over 150,000 female athletic opportunities would need to be added in order to reach participation levels proportional to the female undergraduate population.[46] The same study found that men's athletics also receives the lion's share of athletic department budgets for operating expenses, recruiting, scholarships, and coaches salaries.[43]

Title IX applies to all educational programs and all aspects of a school's educational system. In the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three decisions clarifying that Title IX requires schools to respond appropriately to reports of sexual harassment and sexual violence against students. Civil rights activists and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) likewise maintain that "when students suffer sexual assault and harassment, they are deprived of equal and free access to an education."[47] Further, according to an April 2011 letter issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime."[48]

The letter, named the Dear Colleague Letter, states that it is the responsibility of institutions of higher education "to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence."[49] The letter illustrates multiple examples of Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence, and makes clear that, should an institution fail to fulfill its responsibilities under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose a fine and potentially deny further institutional access to federal funds.

On March 15, 2011, Yale undergraduate student and alleged sexual violence survivor Alexandra Brodsky filed a Title IX complaint along with fifteen fellow students alleging Yale "has a sexually hostile environment and has failed to adequately respond to sexual harassment concerns."[50]

In October 2012, an Amherst College student, Angie Epifano, wrote an explicit, personal account of her alleged sexual assault and the ensuing, "appalling treatment" she received when coming forward to seek support from the College's administration.[51] In the narrative, Epifano alleged that she was raped by a fellow Amherst student and described how her life was affected by the experience; she stated that the perpetrator harassed her at the only dining hall, that her academics were negatively affected, and that, when she sought support, the administration coerced her into taking the blame for her experience, and ultimately institutionalized her and pressured her to drop out.[52]

When the Amherst case reached national attention, Annie E. Clark and Andrea Pino, two women who were allegedly sexually assaulted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill connected with Amherst student, Dana Bolger, and Brodsky to address the parallel concerns of hostility at their institution, filing Title IX and Clery Act complaints against the university on January 2013, both leading to investigations by the U.S. Department of Education.[53]

Following the national prominence of the UNC Chapel Hill case, organizers Pino and Clark went on to coordinate with students at other schools; in 2013, complaints citing violations of Title IX were filed by Occidental College (on April 18), Swarthmore College and the University of Southern California (on May 22).[54][55] These complaints, the resulting campaigns against sexual violence on college campuses, and the organizing of Bolger, Brodsky, Clark, Pino and other activists led to the formation of an informal national network of activists.[56][57] Bolger and Brodsky also started Know Your IX, an organization of student activists focused on legal education and federal and state policy change.

In addition to its use within formal complaints submitted to the Department of Education, Title IX has been utilized in civil litigation. In 2006, a federal court found that there was sufficient evidence that the University of Colorado acted with "deliberate indifference" toward students Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, who were sexually assaulted by student football players. The university settled the case, promising to change its policies and pay $2.5 million in damages.[58] In 2008, Arizona State University was the subject of a lawsuit that alleged violations of rights guaranteed by Title IX: the university expelled a football player for multiple instances of severe sexual harassment, but readmitted him; he went on to rape a fellow student in her dorm room. Despite its claim that it bore no responsibility, the school settled the lawsuit, agreeing to revise and improve its official response to sexual misconduct and to pay the plaintiff $850,000 in damages and fees.[59]

Between 2010 and 2016, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance explaining that transgender students are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. It instructed public schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in academic life. A student who identifies as a transgender boy, for instance, is allowed entry to a boys-only class, and a student who identifies as a transgender girl is allowed entry to a girls-only class. This also applies to academic records if that student is over the age of eighteen at a university.[60] The memo states in part that "[a]ll students, including transgender students, or students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX, a recipient generally must treat transgender, or gender non-conforming, consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes."[60]

In February 2017, the departments of justice and education under the Trump administration withdrew the guidance on gender identity issued by the Obama administration.[61]

The Education Department headed by Betsy DeVos announced on 12 February 2018 that Title IX did not allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their gender identities.[62]

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.[34][63][64]

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics (in spite of the third prong, which focuses on any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participation). Instead it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Critics say that prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest in spite of its gender-neutral language, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex", despite the fact that ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes". As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to take male athletic interest into consideration, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test actually operates to discriminate against men.[34][64]

Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels are merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics regardless of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest",[65] critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in which athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Author and self-described women's rights advocate John Irving opined in a New York Times column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title IX be maintained.[63]

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the underrepresented sex.[66] Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses.[67] On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e‑mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance.

In February 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test, offering several recommendations on TitleÂ IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities".[68][69] The Commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex", almost always females.[69]

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of Title IX the National Women's Law Center lodged twenty-five complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.[70]

There were several events praising the 40th anniversary of Title IX in June 2012. For example, the White House Council on Women and Girls hosted a panel to discuss the life-altering nature of sports. Panelists included Billie Jean King, All‑American NCAA point guard Shoni Schimmel of the University of Louisville, and Aimee Mullins, the first double-amputee sprinter to compete in NCAA track and field for Georgetown University.[71]

President Barack Obama wrote a pro-TitleÂ IX op-ed published in Newsweek magazine.[72]

The Women's Sports Foundation honored over 40 female athletes.[71]

On June 21, 2012, espnW projected a digital mosaic featuring the largest-ever collection of women and girls' sports images (all of which were submitted by the athletes themselves) onto the First Amendment tablet of the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The mosaic also included photos of espnW's Top 40 Athletes of the Past 40 Years.[73]

ESPN The Magazine produced its first "Women in Sports" issue in June 2012.[73]

Also in June 2012, ESPN Classic first showed the documentary Sporting Chance: The Lasting Legacy of Title IX, narrated by Holly Hunter.[74][75] It also showed the documentary On the Basis of Sex: The Battle for Title IX in Sports, and other programming related to women's sports.[76]

In 2013 ESPN Films broadcast Nine for IX, a series of documentaries about women in sports.[73] Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts and Tribeca Productions co founder Jane Rosenthal are executive producers of the series.[73]


when did the expansion of the gold mines take place in the east rand

East Rand Proprietary Mines (ERPM) is a 120-year-old underground gold mining operation on the Witwatersrand Basin at Boksburg, to the east of Johannesburg. The mine employed 2,740 people. It was the deepest mine in the world until 2008 at 3,585 metres depth, slightly more than the TauTona mine, also in South Africa, which was 3,581 metres at the time (in 2008 the TauTona mine completed a digging project that extended the depth of the mine by several hundred metres.)[1]

East Rand Mine

The mine closed in 2008. Historical gold production between 1896 and 2008 was 43 Moz at recovered gold grade of 8.1g/t (95% plant recovery).

A world class high grade gold deposit remains with existing in situ resources (SAMREC compliant) of 51 Moz, including; - Indicated resources of 4.33 Moz at 8.73 g/t Au - Inferred resources of 29.95 Moz at 8.55 g/t Au

The Cason mine dump was the world highest man made mountain. This dump is currently recycled. It is a shadow of itself and will probably disappear in the near future.

Recent production figures:[2]


when was coal first mined in the uk

There is no mention of coal mining in the Domesday Book of 1086 although lead and iron mines are recorded.[11] In the 13th century there are records of coal digging in Durham[12] and Northumberland,[13] Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, the Forest of Dean and North[14] and South Wales. At this time coal was referred to as sea cole, a reference to coal washed ashore on the north east coast of England from either the cliffs or undersea outcrops. As the supply of coal on the surface became used up, settlers followed the seam inland by digging up the shore. Generally the seam continued underground, encouraging the settlers to dig to find coal, the precursor to modern operations.[9]

Coal mining in the United Kingdom

Coal mining in the United Kingdom dates back to Roman times and occurred in many different parts of the country. Britain's coalfields are associated with Northumberland and  Durham, North and South Wales, Yorkshire, the Scottish Central Belt, Lancashire, Cumbria, the East and West Midlands and Kent.  After 1970, coal mining quickly collapsed and practically disappeared in the 21st century.[1]  The consumption of coal – mostly for electricity – fell from 157 million tonnes in 1970 to 18 million tonnes in 2016. Of the coal mined, 77% of  supplies were imported[2] from Colombia, Russia and the United States. Of the coal mined in the UK in 2016 all was from open-cast coal mines. Employment in coal mines fell from a peak of 1,191,000 in 1920 to 695,000 in 1956, 247,000 in 1976, 44,000 in 1993, and to 2,000 in 2015.[3]

Almost all onshore coal resources in the UK occur in rocks of the Carboniferous age, some of which extend under the North Sea. Bituminous coal is present in most of Britainâ€™s coalfields and is 86% to 88% carbon. In Northern Ireland, there are extensive deposits of lignite which is less energy-dense based on oxidation (combustion) at ordinary combustion temperatures (i.e. for the oxidation of carbon - see fossil fuels).[4]

The last deep coal mine in the UK closed on 18 December 2015. Twenty-six open cast mines still remain open [5] and Banks Mining said in 2018 they planned to start mining a new site in County Durham.[6]

The United Kingdom's onshore coal resources occur in rocks of the Carboniferous age, some of which extend under the North Sea.[7] The carbon content of the bituminous coal present in most of the coalfields is 86% to 88%.[8]
Britain's coalfields are associated with Northumberland and  Durham, North and South Wales, Yorkshire, the Scottish Central Belt, Lancashire, Cumbria, the East and West Midlands and Kent.

Stone and Bronze Age flint axes have been discovered embedded in coal, showing that it was mined in Britain before the Roman invasion. Early miners first extracted coal already exposed on the surface and then followed the seams underground.[9]

It is probable that the Romans used outcropping coal when working iron or burning lime for building purposes. Evidence to support these theories comes mostly from ash discovered at excavations of Roman sites.[10]

The early mines would have been drift mines or adits where coal seams outcropped or by shallow bell pits where coal was close to the surface.[15] Shafts lined with tree trunks and branches have been found in Lancashire in workings dating from early 17th century and by 1750 brick lined shafts to 150 foot depth were common.

Coal production increased dramatically in the 19th century as the Industrial Revolution gathered pace, as a fuel for steam engines such as the Newcomen engine, and later, the Watt steam engine.  To produce firewood in the 1860s equivalent in energy terms to domestic consumption of coal would have required 25 million acres of land per year, nearly the entire farmland area of England (26 m. acres).[16]

A key development was the invention at Coalbrookdale in the early 18th century of coke which could be used to make pig iron in the blast furnace. The development of the steam locomotive by Trevithick early in the 19th century gave added impetus, and coal consumption grew rapidly as the railway network expanded through the Victorian period. Coal was widely used for domestic heating owing to its low cost and widespread availability. The manufacture of coal also provided coal gas, which could be used for heating and lighting. Most of the workers were children and men.[17] A mining business owner, Jordan Geoff of Upton colliery, West Yorkshire was prosecuted in 1927 for manslaughter for inhumane treatment of his workforce.[citation needed]

UK coal production peaked in 1913 at 287 million tonnes.[4] Until the late 1960s, coal was the main source of energy produced in the UK, peaking at 228 million tonnes in 1952. Ninety-five per cent of this came from roughly 1,334 deep-mines that were operational at the time, with the rest from around 92 surface mines.[18] After modernisation of underground mining, a deep shaft mine could produce 700 million tonnes annually.[citation needed] In 1986, Kellingley colliery achieved 404,000 tonnes in a single shift.

In the 1950s and 1960s, around a hundred North East coal mines were closed.[19] In March 1968, the last pit in the Black Country closed and pit closures were a regular occurrence in many other areas.[20] Beginning with wildcat action in 1969, the National Union of Mineworkers became increasingly militant, and was successful in gaining increased wages in their strikes in 1972 and 1974.[21] Closures were less common in the 1970s, and new investments were made in sites such as the Selby Coalfield. In early 1984, the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher announced plans to close 20 coal pits which led to the year-long miners' strike which ended in March 1985. The strike was unsuccessful in stopping the closures and led to an end to the closed shop in British Coal, as the breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers was formed by miners who objected to the NUM's handling of the strike.[22] Numerous pit closures followed, and in August 1989 coal mining ended in the Kent coalfield.[23] Since 1981 production fell sharply from 128 to 17.8 million tonnes in 2009.

In 1994, Prime Minister John Major privatised British Coal after announcing closures, with the majority of operations transferred to the new company UK Coal.[24][25] Nevertheless, by this time British Coal had closed all but the most economical of coal pits.[26]

The pit closures caused coal production to slump to the lowest rate in more than a century, further declining towards the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s. This coincided with initiatives for cleaner energy generation as power stations switched to gas and biomass. A total of 100 million tons was produced in 1986, but by 1995 the amount was around 50 million tons.[27] The last deep mine in South Wales closed when the coal was exhausted in January 2008. The mine was closed by British Coal in the privatisation of the industry fourteen years earlier and re-opened after being bought by the miners who had worked at the pit.[28]

Following the limitations to the National Union of Mineworkers' power, British coal-dependent industries have turned to cheaper imported coal.[29]  In 2001, production was exceeded by imports for the first time. In 2014, coal imported was three times more than the coal mined in Britain, despite large resources in the country.[30] In 2009, companies were licensed to extract 125 million tonnes of coal in operating underground mines and 42 million tonnes at opencast locations.[4]

Coal mining employed 4,000 workers at 30 locations in 2013, extracting 13 million tonnes of coal.[30] The three deep-pit mines were Hatfield and Kellingley Collieries in Yorkshire and Thoresby in Nottinghamshire.[1] There were 26 opencast sites in 2014, mainly in Scotland.[5] British coal mines achieve the most economically produced coal in Europe, with a level of productivity of 3,200 tonnes per man year.[26]  Most coal is used for electricity generation and steel-making, but its use to heat homes has decreased because of pollution concerns. The commodity is also used for fertilisers, chemicals, plastics, medicines and road surfaces. Hatfield Colliery closed in June 2015, as did Thoresby, and in December 2015, Kellingley, bringing to an end deep coal mining in the UK. On 20 December, thousands of people turned out for a march in Yorkshire to mark the occasion. The march began in Knottingley and finished with a rally and party at Kellingley Miners Welfare club.[31]

The demand for coal is likely to fall with increasing focus on renewable energy or low-carbon sources and loss of industry due to globalisation. Oil and gas reserves are predicted to run out long before coal,[32] so gas could be produced from coal by gasification.[33]

On 21 April 2017, Britain went a full day without using coal power to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, according to the National Grid.[34] In April 2018, a new record was set of 55 hours without coal, which in turn was broken by a period of more than 72 hours without coal a few days later.[35]


least count of vernier caliper and screw gauge

If we use a metre scale for measurement of length, it may have graduations at 1 mm division scale spacing or interval. A Vernier scale on caliper may have a least count of 0.02 mm while a micrometer have least count of 0.001  mm.

Least count

In metrology, the least count of a measuring instrument is the smallest change in the measured quantity that can be resolved on the instrument's scale. [1]The least count is related to the precision of an instrument; an instrument that can measure smaller changes in a value relative to another instrument, has a smaller "least count" value and so is more precise. Any measurement made by the instrument can be considered repeatable to no less than the resolution of the least count. The least count of an instrument is inversely proportional to the precision of the instrument.

For example, a sundial may only have scale marks representing the hours of daylight; it would have a least count of one hour. A stopwatch used to time a race might resolve down to a hundredth of a second, its least count. The stopwatch is more precise at measuring time intervals than the sundial because it has more "counts" (scale intervals) in each hour of elapsed time. Least count of an instrument is one of the very important tools in order to get accurate readings of instruments like vernier caliper and screw gauge used in various experiments.

Least count uncertainty is one of the sources of experimental error in measurements.

The smallest value that can be measured by the measuring instrument is called its least count. Measured values are good only up to this value. The least count error is the error associated with the resolution of the instrument.

The least count error occurs with both systematic and random errors. Instruments of higher precision can reduce the least count error. By repeating the observations and taking the arithmetic mean of the result, the mean value would be very close to the true value of the measured quantity.


when is the second season of the messengers coming out

The Messengers is an American television series that aired on The CW during the 2014â€“15 season. The series was officially picked up on May 8, 2014,[1] and premiered on April 17, 2015.[2] The series was cancelled by the CW on May 7, 2015, but aired all of its episodes, and concluded on July 24, 2015.[3]

The Messengers (TV series)

A mysterious object plummets to Earth, sending out a shock wave that causes five strangers to die, only to miraculously come back to life moments later. The members of the group are Vera (Shantel VanSanten), a struggling radio-astronomer living in New Mexico who is searching for her missing son; Erin (Sofia Black-D'Elia), a young mother in Tucson, Arizona who is desperate to protect her seven-year-old daughter Amy from her abusive policeman ex-husband; Peter (Joel Courtney), a troubled high school student and orphan in Little Rock, Arkansas; Raul (J.D. Pardo), a federal agent in Mexico who is looking to escape his dangerous and violent undercover assignment; and Joshua (Jon Fletcher), a charismatic second-generation televangelist in Houston, Texas. Most mysterious of all is the figure known only as The Man (Diogo Morgado), who offers Vera the location of her abducted son if she will help him with one morally complicated task which puts her on a collision course with Rose (Anna Diop), a nurse in Houston who has been in a coma for seven years after being shot by an unknown hitman. Drawn together by fate and biblical prophecy, "The Messengers" soon learn they now have supernatural gifts that might be the only hope for preventing the impending Rapture.

The main characters of the series are the Messengers (real term: "Angels of the Apocalypse"), a group of ordinary humans chosen by God to determine if humanity is worth saving. They are hit by an energy wave from the meteorite that brought The Man to earth, which causes them to die for a few minutes. Then they awaken with strange supernatural abilities denominated as "gifts". However, their gifts have side-effects on their bodies unless the seven true Messengers are united.

Every generation there are four people who commit a grievous sin and are assigned to become the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Rose Arvale, the Horseman of Death, is the leader of the current generation, and they want to use The Man's meteorite as their ultimate weapon for the end of humanity. In contrast to the angel Messengers, the Horsemen immediately become aware of their powers upon a seal being broken as well as their destiny, and about each other's identity. It is also implied that all four of them are telepathic (only to each other) and can read each other's minds.

The Messengers has received mixed reviews from critics. Rotten Tomatoes gives the show a rating of 47% based on 17 reviews with an average rating of 5.6 out of 10.[23] The site's consensus reads: "The Messengers flashes bursts of potential, but ultimately sags beneath derivative, muddled storytelling". Metacritic gave the show a score of 56 out of 100, based on 15 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[24]

The Messengers was scheduled to premiere on April 10, 2015,[25][26] but was moved back a week to April 17, 2015.[2] In Australia, the series premiered on FOX8 on June 3, 2015.