text:
History of Tennessee/Antebellum Tennessee (1796-1861)

Early Memphis
The area of Memphis had been populated long before becoming a part of the United States. Memphis was first populated by indigenous peoples many years prior to becoming part of the United States due in part to its geographical location. The land was found favorable because it is along the Mississippi River, while still being situated high enough to prevent flooding. The land would later be claimed by the Spanish, French, and British before coming into American hands. The US purchased the land in 1818 from the Chickasaw Indians. The town of Memphis was founded a year later by Andrew Jackson, James Winchester, and John Overton. Memphis was officially incorporated into the state of Tennessee in late 1826. Early Memphis found great success due to its prime location along the river, while the surrounding areas such as the Mississippi Delta were prime for cotton plantations, allowing the city to become a major player in the cotton market. This market at the time was mostly dominated by slave owners and because of that, Memphis became a large hub for the slave trade. By the 1850s, Memphis boasted the only east-west railroad in the south allowing it to grow to become the largest landlocked cotton market in North America at the time. This also caused Memphis to become a major target in the Civil war, which would come in the following years. The industry became so lucrative that when the debate over seceding to the union came, it was because while the town was definitely on the side of pro-slavery, they were hesitant to leave as there was a lot of money coming from the northern markets and leaving would cause a massive blow to business. The town of Memphis was designated by the government for white settlement after purchase. In the 1830s, the Indian Removal Act passed, forcing many people from their homes and to be relocated west of the Mississippi. Memphis became a hub for what would later be called the trail of tears, as many left from that point on their way to their new homes of designated Indian territory. Due to the slave-based nature of the economy in Memphis, African Americans made up a sizeable chunk of the population. This percentage grew from the town's founding until the war, when around one-quarter of the population were slaves. By the time the war began, the town had a population of about 55,000.

Founders Of Memphis
Founded in 1819 by the three men pictured, Memphis was named after the Egyptian city of the same name. The name was chosen due to the Egyptian city also being the capital and located on a prominent river.

Early Knoxville
Knoxville became part of the state of Tennessee in 1815 after much negotiation between surveyors and the regional Cherokee over boundaries. It served as the first capital of Tennessee up until 1817. Knoxville did not have a booming economy in it's early days, but rather was known as a "rough around the edges" hub for travelers to stop and rest as they made their way down the river or westward across the country. Hundreds of travelers passed through the city on a daily basis, prompting quick growth of local businesses. The geographical location of the town signaled a prosperous economic future as it was at the convergence of three rivers. Knoxville quickly became a sales hub for the local area as many came down from the surrounding mountains of the Appalachian to head into the town for imported goods. The town most prominently brought in cotton from the south in exchange for locally grown products. Much like Memphis, the town's population and business center experienced real growth once the railroad was built in the 1850s. Knoxville's growth had been hindered by the fact that it was relatively isolated due to the mountain ranges that blocked off the city from everyone else. It became very difficult to traverse by road and thus severely stunted the growth of the population for many years following its founding. Due to these issues, Knoxville legislators were some of the most enthusiastic when it came to building a rail line that connected them with the rest of the states. Unfortunately, before its eventual introduction in 1854, the city witnessed the financial failure of one line in the 1830s. This introduction put the expansion on a fast track as the population went on to more than double in the decade. The city went on to open multiple factories producing train cars among other things before the civil war began.

Early Nashville

Before becoming incorporated in 1806, the area was home to Fort Nashborough, a small stockade located in the middle of what would become Tennessee. The fort would become a cornerstone of the early city, which would quickly grow and flourish due to its prime positioning in relation to the rest of the state, as well as the Ohio River. The city thrived and continue to grow, quickly becoming the state's capital from 1812 to 1817. In 1817, Knoxville once again became the capital of Tennessee, however, Nashville would regain capital status in 1826, a title which it still holds today. In the late 1840s, when the cholera epidemic made its way to the interior states, Nashville found itself hit hard. Over 1849-1850, cholera ran rampant in the town. It is approximated that over the course of these two years, between 700-800 people lost their lives due to the epidemic. This was devastating due to the fact that the population of Nashville at the time was already under ten thousand. The most notable life claimed by the outbreak was that of James K. Polk, the acting president at the time. While he was not considered to have contracted cholera while in Nashville he did, however, succumb to it in Nashville in the summer of 1849. In the mid-1850s, the railroad was built through the city, further taking advantage of the prime location that it was founded on. This led to the further expansion and boom of the city with its perfect location. However, this prime location proved detrimental once the civil war came, causing it to be a focal point for the opposing sides.

Cherokee Wars
The Cherokee-American War, otherwise called the Chickamauga Wars, were a number of significant clashes and skirmishes between the Cherokee and other affiliated tribes and European settlers in the southern frontier of the United States, caused by an increase in European settlement in Cherokee lands, such as Tennessee. The conflict lasted through 1776-1795. The War split into two parts, the first part lasting from 1776-1783 and the second part lasting from 1783-1794. During the first part of the war, (Included the Revolutionary War) the Cherokee formed an ally with the British to fight against their American adversaries. The second part of the war consisted of the Cherokee location/settlement shifting to the West. As a result, The Cherokee served as a surrogate between New Spain and the United States of America.

The sacred home of the Cherokee Nation was, what is now, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, settled by the Cherokee in approximately 1000 A.D. after leaving from the New England states. Cherokee living was hunting, trading, growing their food and living in small, matriarchal communities. The first Europeans arrived in 1540, when explorer Hernando de Sota, of Spain, surveyed the Cherokee territory. When more European explorers and traders came to the North America, the Cherokee had settled and controlled much of the southeastern United States. In the late 1700’s, many, many settlers arrived from Europe ready for a life in the United States. The Cherokee fought with settlers but eventually withdrew to the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Tennessee Cherokee used a lot of the tools, weapons and methods brought by the settlers and these items affected their everyday life as they began to hunt animals for their pelts, not only for food, as they needed pelts to trade for goods. The more people arrived to settle on the Cherokee land, the more conflict arose. These battles against whites with better weapons, as well as new diseases brought over from Europe led to much Cherokee death. A conflict between British soldiers and the Overhill Cherokees at Fort Loudoun ended with British surrender on August 7, 1760. Captain Paul Demeré and some men were ambushed and the fort and the rest of the soldiers were taken prisoner. The Cherokee were the last native group to live in Tennessee. The fur trade changed the Cherokee way of life forever. The Cherokee became dependent on European goods and over hunted the region’s animals. The French and Indian War and the Seven Years' War led to even more fighting between the Cherokee and American settlers, as British and Spanish used the Cherokee to fight the Americans further their own ambitions. The Cherokee Nation heavily influenced the southern frontier including the state of Tennessee. The name Tennessee itself was named when British settlers arrived at a Cherokee village called Tanasi which means “winding-river” or “river of great bend” which is now referred to as the Little Tennessee River. The war was considered very irregular as it consisted of guerrilla tactics, periods of inactivity, and a range of small to larger battles. The Seven Years’ War (between French and Natives) also influenced further tension amongst the Cherokee and American settlers. Dragging Canoe, also known as The Savage Napoleon, was a Cherokee leader who led Cherokee warriors and other members from neighbouring Indian tribes during the war.

During the American Revolution, the Cherokee fought against the American settlers in their region, and also as allies of British against their American colonies. For example, Fort Watauga at Sycamore Shoals was attacked in 1776 by Dragging Canoe and his over 1,000 Cherokee warriors and nearly wiped out Fort Nashborough (which later became Nashville) the Battle of the Bluffs in April 1781. With The 1775 Treaty of Sycamore Shoals, also known as the Transylvania Purchase, the Cherokee sold Kentucky and Middle Tennessee to the American colonies. Dragging Canoe hated this Treaty and said the settlement of those lands would be “dark and bloody,”. At the end of the American Revolution, most Cherokee wanted peace with the United States. When the Treaty of Dewitt's Corner was signed in June 1776, Dragging Canoe and his warriors moved further down the Tennessee River to further white settlement from a better location. Since there were more loyalists in the south, British troops started to focus their war campaign south towards the end of 1778. The revolutionary phase or the Cherokee of War 1776 (first part of the war) consisted of the Cherokee fighting settlers and others that intruded their land. This phase started off with the Loyalists retreating back from Cherokee land as tensions began to rise rapidly. Known and feared Loyalists such as John Stuart (Superintendent of Indian Affairs) and Thomas Brown both flee to ensure their safety. Northern Tribes (Iroquois, Ottawa, etc.) were led by a British governor to delegate with southern Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee). This was done to encourage all the tribes to fight alongside the British against the Americans. Dragging Canoe accepted these terms by accepting ceremonial belts from the potential partnering tribes. Before fighting alongside the northern tribes, Dragging Canoe first initiated a small battle/raid in Kentucky. After the small raid in Kentucky, the first Cherokee campaigns commenced. War parties were sent to South and North Carolina. The Cherokee conquered land around the Blue Ridge, and the Catawba River. Following that, Cherokee and Loyalist (dressed like Cherokee) attacked a fort (named Lindsay Station) in South Carolina. There were no Cherokee casualties. Ultimately, there were multiple attacks on the American frontier. Forts and land were captured by the Cherokee, partnering tribes and the loyalists to ensure their power. The affected colonies were determined to respond back to recover their crippled frontier. Thousands of men were sent throughout the frontier, which included the areas of Little Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia. The Colonial Response resulted in numerous battles such as the Battle of Twelve Mile Creek, Ring Fight, Battle of Tugaloo, and the Battle of Tamassee. After a series of battles, a summit meeting, which included western tribes (Muscogee, Mohawk, Seneca, Etc.), was held in January 1783. The meeting was held in St. Augustine (capital of Eastern Florida), where Dragging Canoe, along with 1,000 Cherokees attended. The summit requested for a union with the Indians to oppose colonists and the American settlers. A couple of months after in Tuckabatchee, the Cherokee and other major/smaller tribes attended another council meeting. This meeting ended with a disagreement about the federation and the Treaty of Paris was written and signed. The treaty was signed in May, 1783 and was designed to create boundaries between the State of Georgia and the Cherokee. The Treaty of Paris was signed between the British and the United States which ended the American Revolution. After signing the treaty, Dragging Canoe partnered up with the Spanish as they had a lot of influence in the south. The Spanish and Dragging Canoe worked together to oppose the Americans. Smaller Indian bands such as the Chickasaw and Muscogee signed the Treaty of French lick in November 6, 1783 which was designed to prevent them from attacking/fighting/going to war, with the United States. During this time, the Lower Cherokee were also prevented to attack until more Americans settled in the frontier. Warfare broke out in the summer of 1776 in east Tennessee and later spread to along the Cumberland River in Middle Tennessee.

During the American Revolution, the Cherokee fought against the American settlers in their region, and also as allies of British against their American colonies. For example, Fort Watauga at Sycamore Shoals was attacked in 1776 by Dragging Canoe and his over 1,000 Cherokee warriors and nearly wiped out Fort Nashborough (which later became Nashville) the Battle of the Bluffs in April 1781. With The 1775 Treaty of Sycamore Shoals, also known as the Transylvania Purchase, the Cherokee sold Kentucky and Middle Tennessee to the American colonies. Dragging Canoe hated this Treaty and said the settlement of those lands would be “dark and bloody,”. At the end of the American Revolution, most Cherokee wanted peace with the United States. When the Treaty of Dewitt's Corner was signed in June 1776, Dragging Canoe and his warriors moved further down the Tennessee River to further white settlement from a better location. The climax of the Cherokee influence occurred from 1788-1792 which was during the Post-Revolutionary stage. From 1788-1789, the Cherokee-Franklin War occurred, which was the most violent war since the wars of 1776. In 1789, a council at Coweta, declared that Cherokee and Muskogee can no longer trust both the Spanish and Americans. Furthermore, the council wrote a letter to Great Britain to announce they were willing to be loyal to the king in return for his support. However, this plan never really fell through. Commencing this, this stage of the war consisted of a range of treaties and battles. There was a Prisoner exchange, Treaty of New York (1790), Bob Benge’s War, and the Battle of Wabash. Ultimately, these series of events led to the death of Dragging Canoe. In 1792, Dragging Canoe died from a possible heart attack after celebrating northern victory. A majority of the conflicts ended in November 1794 with the Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse. The Northwest Indian War ended with the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. The Cherokee and other Indian tribes were forcibly removed from their lands when the Indian Removal Act in 1830 was passed into law. The Cherokee called this the Nunna daul Isunyi—"the Trail Where We Cried" or "Trail of Tears”. Most of West Tennessee remained Indian land until the Chickasaw Cession of 1818, when the Chickasaw ceded their land between the Tennessee River and the Mississippi River.

African American Slave Life on Plantations
African American life on the plantations of Tennessee during the Antebellum period leading up to the civil war, represented the larger societal interactions between races in economics, politics, and culture. Ideals of white supremacy supported the oppression and forced labour of African American slaves within plantations. Divided across the landscape, plantations in the west were primarily of cotton export, while those in the middle-featured tobacco, livestock and wheat. Madison County is representative of Tennessee’s slaveholding and cotton producing southwestern sector. In 1860, two out of five white families, within the area, owned at least one slave. Anywhere from one, to fifteen, to one hundred slaves may be employed on a singular plantation, depending on the geography, and the requirements of the produce and planter. The Hermitage, a one thousand-acre plantation owned by former president Andrew Jackson, at its largest size, exploited the labor of one hundred and forty African American slaves.

Institutional Slavery in Tennessee
Slavery was prevalent in the Antebellum era in Tennessee, with there only being a population of 77,262 residents in the state, of which 10,613 were slaves by the year 1796. The legal status of each of these slaves were determined by the North Carolina Act of Cession which legally allowed slavery in the new statehood of Tennessee. By this time in the United States, governments had more control over slavery compared to the slave owners, which made committing any crimes against these slaves more difficult to do without consequence. This sometimes meant slaves were rewarded with “more freedom of action and movement than was allowed in the older states and regions of the lower south.” To say that these slaves and their families had it easier than others though, would be an overstatement, as the physical, mental, and emotional pain these families went through remained prevalent throughout slave history and afterwards. For young women who grew up as slaves, as explained by the Tennessee Tribute, "puberty marked the beginning of a lifetime of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse from masters and mistresses, and members of the planter family." Travelling as a slave was regulated by a system using passes which were supplied by their masters. "No slave, except a domestic servant, was supposed to leave his master's premises without a pass, explaining his cause of absence", Caleb P. Patterson noted in The Negroe in Tennessee. The rights slaves did have on these plantations included permission of one person to carry a gun for hunting during the cultivation for harvesting crops. However, if this person were caught hunting unlawfully, they were "whipped not exceeding 30 lashes." While slavery was still on the rise in the late eighteen to early nineteenth century, slaves could be purchased at about $300 each, and by the year 1832 that had risen to an average of about $800. However, in some counties including Davidson County, slaves were hired for as little as 15 dollars per year. In most circumstances, the prices of slaves would fluctuate with the rise of cotton culture as well as any changes to the country’s economic prosperity. The act of trading or selling slaves was often difficult, as it was illegal to do so between states from 1826 and 1855 and in 1823 self-hiring became illegal, which had the potential to land anyone caught doing so in trouble. It was much easier to hire slaves within Tennessee, as many slave-owners often “did not require the services of all their slaves at one time,” it was often that their neighbours would hire slaves from them for shorter periods of time. This was seen as very easy for all parties because cheap labor would be obtained by the hirer, and the owner was able to put one of his otherwise unused slaves to work for a profit.

Layout and Structure
Slavery in Tennessee followed a unique layout due to Tennessean geography. The Western section of the state was best suited to traditional agriculture development due to its placement on the banks of the Mississippi River. This portion of the state was dominated by white settlers from other U.S states, chiefly from Virginia. This focus on traditional agriculture meant that few large scale slave operations existed; large plantation style estates were deemed to be unprofitable in this region. While slavery did exist in Eastern Tennessee, it was usually limited to one or two slaves per owner. The center of the state was dominated by ranches and the raising of cattle, another style that did not lend itself to large amounts of slaves on one property. The Western portion of the state was dominated by large-scale cotton and tobacco plantations. The layout of the average plantation was similar to that of a small village. Many buildings were constructed to meet the high demands. The buildings varied farm to farm, however often included a smokehouse, icehouse, hen house, schoolhouse, slave quarters, livestock housing, corn pen, cotton house, and food shelters. The master, or planter’s quarters, was generally referred to as the “big house”, due to its elaborate display of wealth and power. The multi-storeyed mansions, furnished with luxury, stood in stark contrast to the small accommodations provided for African Americans. On average, slave quarters were made up of sixteen-foot by sixteen-foot log cabins that were intended by planters to keep their slaves, literally and figuratively, in their place. The difference in condition between the “big house” and slave quarters, serves as a physical representation of oppression from master to slave, and became a means of establishing a social hierarchy on the plantation. The organization of slave housing was generally divided by job. Cooks and house servants lived near the master’s house, while field hands lived closer to the crops. Storage pits featured beneath the floors of the slave cabins do not correlate with earlier African architectural forms and are evidence of the influence of European culture on African Americans oppressed on plantations.

Work and Leisure

The lives of slaves on the plantation were dictated by the agricultural calendar and seasons of plowing, planting, hoeing, and harvesting. Throughout the year, and across multiple plantations, slave labor varied due to the demands of the farm crop and master. For example, a cotton plantation, requires the harvesting, ginning, and baling of the crop. Slaves were also employed in mines, fields, manufactories, shops, and houses. Under particularly savage authority, slaves often worked deep into the winter, sometimes as late as February. Winter duties included fixing ploughs, cutting wood, knocking down stalks of cotton and corn, and collecting manure. Children worked to carry dinner and collect water. Slaves who were too old to work in the fields, regularly labored as cooks, and in the spinning and weaving of cotton. Skilled slaves worked as carpenters, horse trainers, groomsmen, mill workers, and wood cutters. Slaves were forcibly worked by their masters to the maximum possible potential, often through horrific, and inhumane conditions. In their free time, slaves tended to their gardens which provided an important supplement to their meagre diets. Although slaves were constantly deprived of breaks, regularly scheduled rests often came on Sundays as slaves occasionally attended church with their masters. Christmas, however, was the best opportunity for leisure as work lightened, and masters often granted certain freedoms, such as congregation at local free black households. Throughout the year planters kept records that tracked the harvest progress of slaves sorted by name and yield. The tense slave-master relationship varied as slaves were subject to different forms of treatment across different plantations.

Punishment and Resistance
As a slave, the consequences for not fulfilling your master’s wishes were brutal, savage, and inhuman. Regardless of age, whippings and lashings were given as regular punishment for disobedience. Reports describe the flagellation of slaves younger than fifteen. They were often chased down on horseback and beaten, leaving them broken, bruised, and bloody. In cotton picking season, women who did not work fast enough were punished in the harshest manner. Despite the abuse, when unsupervised, slaves on the plantation, often executed forms of resistance and revolt. A common method of rebellion was to purposefully work below the required quota, and not fulfill particular demands arranged by the master. Slaves often, also engaged in thievery of livestock and food, as well as robberies on the “big house”. The most substantial form of defiance was escaping the plantation in search of freedom. Slaves who ran away, were tracked and hunted by slave patrols. Patrols served the purpose of controlling the black population within American and maintaining fear. Once caught, slaves were returned to bondage and punished.

Slaves Brought to Trial
The legal process for accused slaves was another topic throughout the Antebellum period which became very corrupt and involved many changes. In all trials involving slaves, the jury in court were made up of justices and freeholders, who were all slaveholders. In 1815, there were 3 justices and 9 freeholders who were "empowered to try slaves for all offences", and by 1819 the amount of freeholders were increased to 12. It wasn't until 1825 where the jury may have contained non-slaveholders, if the full 12 freeholders could not be reached. However, the verdicts these non-slaveholders gave were often deemed invalid if it was shown that these jurors divided the jury decision. In 1835 the legal procedures surrounding slaves were switched for the better when special courts specifically for slaves were abandoned. The right of appeal was established and "no slave was to be tried by a jury until an indictment had been found against him by a grand jury in the regular way." This made Tennessee one of the 5 states to grant slaves the right of appeal. Although this did change the legal process for tried slaves in a major way, the fight didn't end for African Americans as only 13 years later the right of appeal was given back to the slave masters. In 1858, only a few years before the civil war, a law was passed which allowed 5 'creditable' (usually white) people to "file an accusation of insurrection or conspiracy to kill against a slave" which then allowed the judge to give permission to the jury to try the slave for this offence without waiting to file a notice regularly with the court. The rights of African Americans in the legal system at this time were never fair or even existent, since when one law helped these people out in the slightest way, there were always freeholders in the judicial system to diminish whatever progress had taken place.

Religion, Spirituality, and Beliefs
Although subject to forced assimilation into European culture, African Americans were largely able to maintain a strong independent belief-system, culture, and spirituality throughout the plantations of Tennessee. Items archaeologically recovered at plantation sites presumed to serve spiritual and religious purposes include: smoothed stones, glass beads, charms in the shapes of human fists, quartz crystals, reshaped ceramic, and animal bones. Identical items are found at slave dwellings throughout the eastern United States, and Caribbean. Quartz crystals, in arrangements with black stone and glass beads, draw similarities to the Minkisi, or charms, of the Bakongo peoples of the Congo-Angolan region of Africa. They reflect a larger African worldview of life and death, and are evidence of a distinct American slave culture influenced by the origin of African American slaves in Africa. Tiny copper alloy “fist-charms,” were believed to grant luck and fertility, as well as protection from harm. Colored glass beads served a multitude of medicinal, religious, and decorative purposes and were sewn onto clothing to ward off evil. The church and Christianity were used as a method to assimilate African Americans to white values, ideals, and culture. There, African Americans were taught subservience, and obedience. The ability of slaves on the plantations of Tennessee to preserve their rich spiritual heritage is analogous to African American persistence across the United States in the face of oppression, racism, cruelty and injustice.

Fear from Outside Communities
Present all throughout this time period is the fear from the white people of these societies of the African American population in general, and more specifically that they would eventually rise up against them. While Tennessee was one of the more liberal of the southern states when it came to the freedom and emancipation of slaves, it is clear that there was always an ongoing attempt to keep the power in their favor. As liberal as their policy on emancipation was, it also ensured that once a slave was emancipated they were to be removed from the state, as well as prevent already free blacks from immigrating to the state. It was their belief that it was the duty of African Americans to either be serving a master or “they should be removed from those areas where they were sufficiently numerous to endanger white dominance.” In the antebellum south generally, slavery was considered to present “a social system and a civilization with a distinct class structure, political community, economy, and ideology,” that was subscribed to mainly by the white members of society. They were the group most affected by the strong anti-slavery feelings felt by many in Tennessee, especially slave owners considering that many laws were in place that they would have seen as against them. Some of these included the master paying for anything stolen or damaged by the slave, be it food or clothing due to not being adequately provided so; as well as beating or physically abusing a slave becoming an indictable offense.

Life of Free African Americans
There were still many restrictions that people of color had to live by, even if they were considered to be free. Because of the dominating presence of slavery in these kinds of communities, the presence of those that were walking free angered many, “because of their self-sufficiency and very desire to live as free people” as well as the fact that they were made to be valuable counterpoints to all of those that were pro-slavery, typically those that owned slaves themselves. In order to maintain their legal status free African Americans had many rules that they had to follow on a daily basis. One of which was that they would have to have documents with them at all times that detailed exactly who they were and proved their freedom. Others were that they were exempt from joining the military, however it is believed that some may have been able to vote under the new constitution of 1834 in which “free men who should be contempt witnesses against a white man in court of justice” were allowed to vote. Most of those considered free were in most cases trapped in an in-between stage, in which they were “neither bond nor free.”

Decline of Slavery in Tennessee
The number of slaves in the state would begin to decline in the period leading up to the American Civil War. This decline was due to a number of factors. The key cause of the decline of slaves in Tennessee was due to a trend towards the sale of slaves into the Deep South. When the African slave trade was ended, the demand for slaves in the United States would skyrocket, with large cotton and tobacco plantations in Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia in need of increased labor. This meant that Tennessean slave owners could gain large profits by selling their slaves at auction; many opted to do so due to their dwindling profits within the state.

Davy Crockett
Davy Crockett is America’s quintessential folk hero, he is known as the king of the wild frontier and has come to represent America’s self-described resilient and conquering spirit. He is best known for his exploits in the military, particularly his participation in the battle of the Alamo, which is also a staple of American folklore.

Personal Life
Davy Crockett’s life began in a way that was not unique to any other American during the period. Davy was born in what was, at the time, North Carolina, but is known now as Greene County, Tennessee, on August 17th, 1786. Davy grew up in a poor, indebted family, and by the age of 12 he was indentured to a man named Jacob Siler by his father in order to clear one of his father’s debts. By 1802 Davy had entered the employment of a man named John Canady, for whom he worked for four years until 1806 when he was married to Polly Finley, and settled on a plot of land near her family home. Crockett and Finley had three children together and lived in three separate houses; the third of which in Franklin county is where Polly Finley died in 1915. Crockett would remarry a woman named Elizabeth Patton later that same year, with whom he had three children.

Military Career
Crockett’s military career began in 1813 when he enlisted as a scout for the Creek War. This was in response to the Fort Mims massacre of the same year, which Tennessee militia general Andrew Jackson used as a rallying cry for the war. Crockett served in the Creek war until the end of 1813. He re-enlisted in the military in August of 1814, when Andrew Jackson, now of the US Army, asked for support from the Tennessee militia in driving British forces out of Spanish Florida as part of the War of 1812. Once again Crockett returned home from service at the end of the same year. In the War of 1812, and to a lesser extent the Creek Wars, Crockett did not see much of the main action. However, it is here where his legend as an American folk hero began to grow. During his time in the Creek Wars, Crockett preferred hunting to feed his fellow soldiers over killing Creek warriors, which made him well known within the militia. Him being a soldier in general during the period helped initiate the creation of his legend by participating in what are considered essential wars in the American mythos.

Political Career
In 1821 Crockett ran successfully for a seat in the Tennessee General Assembly. He represented Lawrence and Hickman counties. Crockett’s main concern while in office was legislation to ease the tax burden on the poor as well as fighting for the rights of impoverished settlers of the newly civilized Tennessee. Crockett’s time in the assembly was also noted by his opposition of many candidates endorsed by Andrew Jackson as well as his endorsement of John Williams, Jackson’s opponent in being elected to the senate in 1823. Crockett’s political career continued when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 1825, losing to Adam Rankin Alexander. He then ran again the following year and was elected for the 1827-1829 term. In 1928 Andrew Jackson was elected President and in 1830 introduced the Indian Removal Act, which made it legal to remove Native Americans from their ancestral lands west of the Mississippi in favor of white settlers. Crockett voted against this bill and was the only Tennessean to do so. The opposition of Jackson’s policy was not well received, and Davy was defeated in the 1831 election by William Fitzgerald. Crockett was able to defeat Fitzgerald in 1833 and return to office. He served until 1835 when he was defeated by Adam Huntsman, it was during this final term that Crockett wrote his autobiography.

Texas Revolution and Battle of the Alamo
It was after Crockett’s final term in public office is when the most well-known period of his life began. This began while he was still in office when he considered the idea of moving to Texas, which was not yet a part of the United States, if Jacksons successor Martin Van Buren was elected President. A year later, Crockett, now out of office, discussed the idea of raising a group of volunteers with his friend Benjamin McCulloch to head to Texas for the impending revolution against the Mexican Government. The expedition began on November 1st, 1835. This would be the last time Crockett would see any of his children. His youngest daughter noted that her father was “dressed in his hunting suit, wearing a coonskin cap, and carrying a fine rifle.” This image of Crockett has become as legendary as his name, or any of his actions. Despite Crockett being a prominent politician for most of his life this image of him is part of the reason he’s known as the quintessential frontiersman or the “King of the Frontier”. Unfortunately, Crockett’s campaign in Texas was unsuccessful as he was killed on March 6th, 1836 during the Battle of the Alamo. This battle is one of the most famous events and American history and in American folklore, as all defendants of Alamo fort were killed by the Mexican Army.

Legacy
Crockett’s exploits as a soldier and frontiersmen as well as his legendary coonskin hat and hunting outfit, coupled with his participation in the Battle of the Alamo has turned him into perhaps the most famous figure in American Folklore and one of Tennessee’s most famous residents. He is also well-known for same of his tamer exploits such as sticking up for impoverished people while in office, and opposing the Indian Removal Act, and Andrew Jackson in general.

Indian Removal Act, 1830
In 1830, President Jackson authorized the “transfer” of five Native American Indian tribes to land in Oklahoma to supposedly “preserve them from white culture.”  The Tribes included the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee.

The proposal to remove Indians from the lands had been presented decades earlier, in 1803 by President Thomas Jefferson, but was not enacted until the Jackson Era. Before then, Native Americans had been allowed to remain on the lands within the states if they assimilated into American society. Southerners supported and shared the same ideologies as President Andrew Jackson and considered the Native American’s to be “uncivilized”. This caused high tensions between the Colonists and the Natives, and with the state government about land rights and sovereignty. In response to the growing tension, President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Act made it so the U.S. government could trade and use land previously owned by Native Americans, as agreed in older treaties with the tribes, for White settlement and expansion. The U.S. government forcibly relocated Native Americans Oklahoma, causing death of more than 5,000. Native American culture was quickly diminishing because of these acts and ideologies of the Americans. Following the proclamation of the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee tribe took to legal action in order to distinguish the power that the Federal Government had over their land and their rights. The Cherokee fought in the Supreme Court for a ruling in 1823 about the relationship between the Federal Government and the Native American tribes, and whether or not the Government had the jurisdiction in this case to order their removal. Georgia planned to remove Cherokee and Creek peoples from northern and western parts of the state, as the Federal government was in a locked dispute with the Cherokee in court. There was no determined law yet, which allowed for a loophole in the division of lands for the time being. Georgians did not accept the legitimacy of the federal treaties and began to remove Natives. They threatened violence if the federal army were ordered to defend the tribes. Tension grew worse and endangered many more Native Americans. Jackson did nothing to defend or stand up for the Natives, as he had fought against them and thought of them as “savages”. The decision of the Supreme Court was that the Native Americans did in fact have to adhere to federal law. The Government was at liberty to trade and sell the land. In December 1829, Georgia’s legislature enacted a complete law that nullified all Cherokee laws and subjugated them to the laws of the State. Before this, Georgia had been living as a Native American state within a state. Native American titles to lands were extinguished and given back to the states in which they resided. Georgia agreed to give the Federal Government jurisdiction over the new Western lands, which were promising in farmland and eventually the discovery of Gold. Here, it is clear to see the American Ideology of Manifest Destiny shining through.


text:
RHIT MA113/Partial Derivatives

=Partial Derivatives=

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: RHIT MA113/Partial Derivatives


text:
RHIT MA113/Vector Functions

=Vector Functions=

Velocity
Velocity is equal to the derivative of position with respects to time, $$\vec{v} = \frac{d}{dt}\,\vec{r}$$

Tangent and Normal Vectors
The Tangent Vector is the unit vector tangent to the motion, $$\vec{T} = \frac{\vec{v}}{\left\Vert\vec{v}\right\|}$$. The Normal vector, similarly, is the unit vector normal to the motion, $$\vec{N} = \frac{\frac{d\vec{T}}{dt}}{\left\Vert\frac{d\vec{T}}{dt}\right\|}$$

Acceleration
Acceleration is equal to the derivative of velocity with respects to time, $$\vec{a} = \frac{d}{dt}\,\vec{v}$$

title: RHIT MA113/Vector Functions


text:
RHIT MA113/Equation Sheet

=Equation Sheet=

title: RHIT MA113/Equation Sheet


text:
Public-Private Partnership Policy Casebook/I-77 HOT Lanes (Charlotte)

This case study tries to review and analyze the Public-Private Partnership policy delivery method, which was implemented for the I-77 HOT Lanes (Charlotte) Project. It is the collaborative work of Behzad Burhanuddin, Getahun Madebo and Taylor Bonner, graduate students at George Mason University. The following casebook explores the key actors, project characteristics, policy challenges, and history associated with the I-77 HOT Lanes (Charlotte) PPP Project. It was prepared in partial fulfillment requirement for George Mason University's Public-Private Partnership graduate course, taught by Dr. Jonathan Gifford.

Abstract & Summary
A public-private partnership is a contractual agreement formed between a public owner or agency (such as a state or local government) and a private sector entity. This relationship allows for substantial private sector participation in the delivery and financing of a government-owned project. The purpose of this case study is to examine the public-private partnership between the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Spanish-based company Cintra in the development of the I-77 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization requested that the N.C. Department of Transportation develop express lanes on I-77, as well as on I-485 and U.S. 74. NCDOT determined it would approach the I-77 project as a public-private partnership to leverage private funding to build and open the project sooner than with state funding.

A few of the principal objectives of the project as set by the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization and NCDOT include:
 * Ease congestion along the I-77 corridor,
 * Ensure seamless integration of the project with other public works projects along the corridor,
 * Establish operating speed standards on the HOT Lanes during morning and afternoon peak periods, and
 * Achieve an average free-flow speed of 45 mph on the HOT Lanes (or 80 percent of the current posted speed limit for general purpose lanes that are not tolled, if higher)

The goal of the I-77 Express Lanes project is to provide more reliable travel times on 26 miles of I-77 from the Brookshire Freeway (Exit 11) in Mecklenburg County to N.C. 150 (Exit 36) in Iredell County than what is currently offered by general purpose lanes alone. The northern section of the I-77 Express Lanes from Hambright Road near I-485 to N.C. 150 opened in June 2019, while the southern section from I-277 to Hambright Road is scheduled to open later in 2019.

What the Project Will Do As planned, there will be two express lanes added in each direction between uptown Charlotte and Exit 28 in Cornelius. Between Cornelius and Exit 36 in Mooresville, there will be one express lane added in each direction.

The existing high-occupancy vehicle lanes (one in each direction) on the southern part of the project, commonly known as carpool lanes or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, are being converted to express lanes.

The existing general-purpose lanes will always remain free of charge for all users. The project is not planned to add or take away any general-purpose lanes, but the existing lanes will be resurfaced to preserve the pavement and provide motorists with a smoother ride.

Express Lanes: The Power to Choose Express lanes are the key to improving mobility along the I-77 corridor. They offer drivers a choice: pay a toll and use the express lanes to avoid travel delays or continue driving on the free general-purpose lanes.

The decision is entirely in the hands of motorists utilizing I-77. Each individual can determine how valuable his or her time is and decide if the potential time savings is worth the express lane toll cost.

Drivers who choose not to use the express lanes will also see an operational benefit: As other motorists opt to take the express lanes, there will be less congestion in the general-purpose lanes, thus making the commute more efficient for those relying on the free lanes, as well. Motorcyclists, buses (excluding school buses), and carpoolers with three or more occupants (including the driver) may use the express lanes for free.

North Carolina is not the only state investing in express lanes as a way to alleviate traffic backups. Other states such as California, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, Florida and Georgia are among those successfully implementing them in urban areas to make travel more efficient for all drivers.

Introduction
In this case study, the I-77 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes public-private partnership (P3) in Charlotte, North Carolina will be examined. This partnership consists of two major players: the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Mobility Partners by Cintra, a Spanish-based company with extensive experience in design, build, finance, operate, maintain (DBFOM) toll road P3 contracts. The private investment total from Cintra came out to be $647 million with only $95 million coming from North Carolina. Tolls to use the HOT lanes will be based on a dynamic tolling system, similar to those found in Northern Virginia on I-495 and I-95. This means that tolls will likely be at their highest during peak periods in the morning and afternoon. Dynamic tolling is one of the ways that can be used to maintain traffic volumes in the HOT lanes, which then ensures that the 45 MPH average free-flow speed performance metric (set in the initial contract) is accomplished.

Following the bid acceptance and financial close, the construction was set to take roughly three years, but the project is currently in its fourth year of construction. With the project still under construction, Cintra is now facing a $10,000 fee per day for each section still incomplete. About half of the lanes (13 miles) have been opened to the public (see map above), but this controversial project is still facing much public scrutiny. Common public complaints come from concerns regarding potential high tolls, increased congestion due to the construction, and the preference towards additional general-purpose lanes rather than HOT lanes. The current concession agreement entitles Mobility Partners to operate and maintain the HOT over a 50-year term in which the lanes will then be passed back into the responsibility of NCDOT.

History
The possibility of the I-77 HOT Lane project first came about in 2007 after NCDOT, South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), and Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) coordinated a joint study to determine areas where express lanes could be effective in relieving congestion. As a result of this study, I-77 North was identified as the best candidate for express lanes - specifically between exits 11 and 28. The next several years were spent conducting a feasibility study to consider converting existing HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes into tolled express lanes. Following the conclusion of the study, NCDOT decided to use a public-private partnership to design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) the proposed I-77 HOT lanes. This would be the first-ever P3 in North Carolina. Once the project scope was refined, NCDOT vetted four potential bidders. This vigorous process took place in 2013 and included a series of meetings to assist each bidder in developing a detailed analysis of the contract requirements. Once all bids were submitted by March 2014, the proposals were examined and subject to 200 pass/fail criteria. Only twelve days later, NCDOT announced that Cintra’s limited liability corporation, Mobility Partners, had won the bid on the DBFOM contract for the I-77 HOT lanes. The winning bid entailed a $647 million investment with only $95 million coming from the state of North Carolina. Financial close was reached just over a year later in May 2015 with construction beginning in August of the same year. Originally, the project was expected to be completed by mid-2018, with a final deadline of January 7, 2019. If the project were to exceed this date, the concessionaire would have to pay a penalty of $10,000 per section per day over the deadline. However, this deadline was extended nine months by NCDOT because of the addition of I-77 pavement improvements to the scope of work. Most recently, the deadline was extended once again to November 1, 2019. Currently, the project is still under construction (November 2019), but roughly half of the express lanes have been opened between exits 23 and 36.

List of actors
After that, the North Carolina General Statute Chapter 136-18(39) authorizes DOT to utilize the public-private partnership approach as a delivery method for its highway expansion program. The I-77 Express Lanes Project (Project) was award to company called I-77 Mobility Partners LLC and the scope of the project was to provide improvements along nearly 26 miles of the I-77 corridor north of Charlotte, including the conversion of existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to express lanes or high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and the construction of new HOT lanes and two major interchanges.

The key actors in this project studied under two different categories:

Project Proponents

 * North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): State agency responsible for building and maintaining state roads, including interstate highways. The future owner of the I-77 Express Lanes, and the public partner in this P3.
 * Cintra, S.A.: Parent company of I-77 Mobility based in Madrid, Spain, and one of the world's largest developers of transportation infrastructure, mostly toll roads.
 * I-77 Mobility Partners: A private special-purpose company assembled as a subsidiary of Cintra to construct, operate and collect revenue from the Express Lanes contractor with NCDOT.
 * Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) Federal United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) loan provider for I-77 Mobility Partner.
 * Aberdeen Global Infrastructure Partners II, L.P: Equity Provider for the project.
 * GCM TH Investments, LLC & GCM BD Investments, LLC : Equity providers.
 * City of Charlotte, N.C: Primary players consist of City Council, which has majority support for the I-77 Express Lanes project.
 * Patrick Lloyd McCrory: Former Mayor of Charlotte, who supports the Express Lanes project, although many of his fellow elected Republicans oppose the project.

Project Opponents:

 * Widen I-77: An organization of citizens who oppose the project, and instead, favor adding more free general-purpose lanes to the congested section of the highway. Preventive actions go as far as suing the state to stop the implementation of the I-77 HOT lane project.
 * Mecklenburg County, N.C.: This is one of two counties in which a section of I-77 with Express Lanes is crossing. The majority of the County's Board of Commissioners opposes the project.
 * Town of Mooresville, N.C.: A town located in Iredell County, the northern boundary of the I-77 Express Lanes. The majority of the Town Council opposes the project.
 * Town of Huntersville, N.C: This town Located in Mecklenburg County, north of Charlotte along I-77 and the majority of the Town Council opposes the project.
 * Town of Davidson, North Carolina: A town from which a section of I-77 express lane cross and is located at the northern of Mecklenburg County. The majority of the Town Council opposes the project.
 * Town of Cornelius, N.C.: Located at the northern end of Mecklenburg County, immediately west of Davidson, along I-77 between Charlotte and Mooresville. The majority of the Town Council opposes the project.
 * John "Mac" McAlpine V: Former minister at Charlotte's Pleasant Hill Presbyterian Church who has organized other regional business leaders to lobby state legislators in opposition to the Express Lanes.

Timeline of events
A brief study of the milestones/events that occurred from the project initiation until date (November 2019) are outlined below:

 * 2007-2009 - South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) conducted research to determine where improvements of traffic could help minimize excess over a 10-county area surrounding Charlotte. As a result, the I-77 corridor was selected as a high priority.
 * July 2010 - North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) conducted a feasibility study to look at converting existing I-77 HOV Lanes into Express Lanes and lengthening of existing general-purpose lanes.
 * March 2011 - NCDOT announced that the I-77 Express Lanes project will be conducted under a public-private partnership (P3), quoting that the private funding would allow the project to be constructed faster than traditional public procurement. Following this announcement and in July 2011, The Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) amended its 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to include Express Lanes on the corridor.
 * June 2012 - NCDOT explored the use of variable tolling on the Express Lanes to address long-term congestion issues and minimize public funding for the project and in May 2013, four potential bidders were shortlisted.
 * March 31, 2014 – NCDOT received and review bids and on April 11, 2014 -Cintra was announced as the winner of this bidding with a total investment of $647 million.
 * May 20, 2015 – After several amendments of project financing deadline, financial close was achieved on May 20, 2015.
 * May 28, 2015 – The Notice to proceed (NTP) for the construction of the project was released.
 * November 16, 2015 – Actual construction of the project began.
 * June 01, 2019 – After nearly four years of construction, the northern section of the I-77 toll lanes near Charlotte has been opened to traffic.
 * November 16, 2019 – Charlotte, NC – I-77 Mobility Partners announced that the southern section of I-77 Express from I-485 to I-277 in uptown Charlotte, will open on November 16, 2019 beginning at 8 p.m. With Saturday’s opening, drivers will now be able to use all 26-miles of I-77 Express.

Project Advisors
The advisors all had extensive experience advising public agencies on the analysis, development, procurement, and implementation of P3 projects. The key major advisors included the following:

 * Nossaman LLP – P3 legal advisor. Nossaman has advised on P3 projects in over 30 states. For more firm information see http://www.nossaman.com/infrastructure.
 * Hunton & Williams LLP – P3 and state legal advisor. Hunton & Williams advises on international and U.S. P3 projects. For more firm information see https://www.hunton.com/en/practices/public-private-partnerships-and-infrastructure/.
 * KPMG LLP – P3 financial advisor. KPMG advisory services advise on infrastructure projects international and are one of the leading P3 financial advisors on the U.S. For more firm information see https://advisory.kpmg.us/deal-advisory/infrastructure.html.
 * Parsons Brinckerhoff (now known as WSP) – technical advisor. Parsons Brinckerhoff, now known as WSP is an international engineering firm that has advised on numerous P3 and managed lanes projects

Narrative
In May 2010, the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) endorsed the concept of converting the existing HOV lanes on I-77 to express lanes and extending them to at least Exit 28. This concept was taken after considering the results of NCDOT feasibility studies. The studies indicated that the express lanes could provide an incentive for increased transit use and carpooling. As a result, the HOT lanes could reduce the number of vehicles utilizing the general-purpose lanes and improve travel times in the existing general-purpose lanes. To achieve this goal, a public-private partnership (P3) was identified by NCDOT as an option to consider for a DBFOM contract. NCDOT initiated the P3 procurement by issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on February 15, 2012. Eleven major developers showed interest in the project and contractors requested one-on-one meetings with NCDOT and its advisors to discuss the proposed Express Lanes Project. From which, only four of them submitted statements of qualifications to NCDOT by the March 15, 2012 deadline. Between March 2012 and May 2013, MUMPO worked with NCDOT to evaluate numerous scenarios for converting the existing HOV lanes to express lanes, which would include extending them north, as well as constructing one or two new express lanes in certain sections of I-77. Once the Environmental Assessment (EA) was concluded in July 2013, NCDOT could solicit RFPs and begin the bidding process. On April 11, 2014, NCDOT announced the selection of Cintra as the winner of the bidding and the project was award Cintra (I-77 Mobility Partner) for 50-year concession period with a total investment of $647 million. Cintra fully disclosed their history as part of the pre-qualification process and met all criteria to be eligible and selected as vendor for this Project. Cintra was required to disclose all project history and meet eligibility criteria as part of the pre-qualification process. Also included in this process, Cintra submitted their financial model, assumptions, instructions, sensitivity capabilities, audited financial statements at or before the time and the project's vendor, and did not have a history of project defaults within the United States at the time this Project's Comprehensive Agreement in June 2014. However, there were two known Cintra projects that had financial problems after the fact, The Indiana Toll Road and the SH-130 in Austin, Texas. Both were operating and solvent toll roads when NCDOT executed this Project's Comprehensive Agreement. The Indiana Toll Road went into bankruptcy proceedings in September 2014 while the SH-130 filed for bankruptcy protection in March 2016.

Project Financing
The Project Financing Deadline (01/22/2015) was established as 210 days after the Effective Date (06/26/2014) of Commercial Close. The project financing deadline was subsequently extended three times to accommodate the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Investment Act (TIFIA) loan process. Amendments 1-3 extended the number of days from 210 to 335, as a result of delay caused by the TIFIA loan negotiation and closing process. Changes during the negotiations process required an additional commitment by the Proposer/I-77 Mobility Partners LLC and NCDOT as shown in CA Amendment 5, which increased the public share amount from $88 million to $94.7 million and to increase the equity position of the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC from $234.2 million to $247.96 million to help maintain the I-77 P3 Project finance plan and support the proposal costs to make up the reduction in the TIFIA Loan amount from $215 million original proposed to the U.S. Department of Transportation final approved TIFIA loan amount of $189 million. This section was pivotal in that the TIFIA Program Office made significant changes to the assumptions including reducing the loan amount from $215 million to $189 million. This change required multiple cross-team efforts to restructure the project financing including the need to add $13.76 million in private equity and $6.49 million in public funding to re-balance the finance plan. These efforts where supported by multiple CA amendments to the project financing deadline and to increase NCDOT funding and I-77 Mobility Partners LLC equity as described above. States the State and NCDOT shall have no obligation to pay debt service on any debt issued or incurred in connection with the Project or this Agreement.

The above $636 Million was allocated for the design, construction, reserve account and outlined below is the summary:

The financial proposal submitted by Cintra in March 2014 included $234 million of equity provided by Cintra. The final equity commitment at the financial close was $14.2 million higher with approximately 90% of the additional equity provided by Cintra. The remaining amount came from Aberdeen Global Infrastructure Partners II, L.P. Portions of Cintra’s share were subsequently acquired by other investors. Table 3 shows the equity participants as of December 31, 2016. The equity participants as of December 2016:
 * Cintra I-77 Mobility Partners, LLC                     50.10%
 * GCM TH Investments, LLC 	                         20.58%
 * John Laing I-77 Holdco Corp 	                         10.00%
 * Aberdeen Infrastructure Investment I-77 LLC            10.00%
 * GCM BD Investments, LLC 	                          9.32%

Tolling
The state granted the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC the exclusive right to impose tolls and Incidental Charges upon the Users of the HOT Lanes.

Toll Services
NCDOT shall provide certain electronic toll collection services and I-77 Mobility Partners LLC shall pay NCDOT the charges for such services.

Toll Revenue Risk
The I-77 HOT Lanes P3 project is a greenfield toll road project, meaning that the corridor had not previously been tolled nor had the surrounding area ever been tolled. As such, there is a risk associated with drawing customers and generating sufficient revenues to support the project. NCDOT has passed this risk onto the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC in Section 3.2.2 of the Contract Agreement (CA) where it clearly states that, “ I-77 Mobility Partners LLC understands and agrees that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement or any other CA Document, the risk of collection of tolls and Incidental Charges that may be payable to I-77 Mobility Partners LLC remains with I-77 Mobility Partners LLC, and that NCDOT does not, and will not be deemed to, guarantee collection or collectability of such tolls and Incidental Charges to I-77 Mobility Partners LLC or any Person.”

Toll Revenues
In the Contract Agreement there were several pertinent sections: These provisions protect the state's interest in having project debt and expenses paid before any equity distributions can be made, https://www.auditor.nc.gov/EPSWeb/Reports/Performance/PER-2018-4200.pdf,
 * Section 3.6.1 grants the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC the exclusive right, title, entitlement and interest in and to the Toll Revenues,
 * Section 3.6.2 outlines the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC rights to use Toll Revenues, and
 * Section 3.6.3 requires Toll Revenues to be used first to pay all due and payable operations and maintenance costs, specifically including all amounts due to NCDOT.

Toll Revenue Sharing
An additional protection in the CA for the state is revenue sharing built into the agreement through the use of specific revenue performance “bands” as shown below based on the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC’s “Internal Rate of Return” (IRR) percentage whereby the state is entitled to share a predetermined share of the excess revenue should the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC’s.

Procurement and Contracting Review
The key objective here is to identify if all aspects of the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process to ensure all rules, procedures, protocols, and guidelines were followed per state and federal laws. It is imperative to ensure no single bidder was advantaged purposefully or unintentionally over another.

Procurement Key dates

 * Bid submission: March 31, 2014
 * Announcement of Apparent Best Value Proposer: April 21, 2014
 * Reporting to the Joint Legislative Transportation Committee: April 21, 2014
 * Delivery of documents as per Section 6.2.1 of ITP: May 6, 2014
 * Commercial Close: June 20, 2014
 * Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee Report – April 25, 2014
 * Commercial Close – June 26, 2014 (62 Days post JLTOC and six days later than the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC Proposal “Commercial Close Key Dates” as identified in the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC Proposal section above) Legislative Government Commission Update – April 28, 2015 (22 days prior to Financial Close)
 * Financial Close – May 20, 2015

Project Delay
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Interstate 77 toll lane construction will continue well past the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s projected deadline, officials said Tuesday. The latest construction notice from Cintra advises possible lane closures through the end of the week. The I-77 toll lane project’s deadline is Oct. 31 and Cintra will face fines since the major project will not be completed by then. NCDOT will fine Cintra $10,000 per day, per unfinished section. There are three incomplete sections.

Liquidated Damages
The company building the Interstate 77 toll lanes project has requested more time to finish it. A spokesperson for the North Carolina Department of Transportation said the department has not decided whether the extension request will be granted. As of now, the project has to be wrapped up by Oct. 31. The delay won’t lead to fines — at least not immediately. Jen Thompson, a spokesperson at the state transportation department, said the contract calls for a financial penalty of $10,000 per day for each section that is completed after Nov. 1, 2019. The original deadline was Jan. 7, 2019.

Cost Rising
Costs for the toll lane project have risen from original estimates, according to the company. I-77 Mobility Partners has invested an additional $150 million in the project, bringing the total cost to about $800 million, Chief Operating Officer David Hannon told WFAE.

Leier said I-77 Mobility Partners, a subsidiary of Spanish construction giant Cintra, will pay the extra cost. The company, its lenders and investors are paying most of the express lanes' cost. NCDOT is putting in $95 million and could pay another $75 million in the coming years if toll revenues fall short.

Feedback from the Public
Improved Traffic Flow: Drivers have been using the lanes open so far, and the company says commuters have seen improved speeds on I-77 at rush hour. Interstate 77 is one of two toll projects to open this year in the Charlotte area. The other is the Monroe Expressway, a full toll road that takes drivers around crowded U.S. 74 in Union County. Over the past year, 153,000 NC Quick Pass toll transponders have been distributed to drivers in the Charlotte area, according to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority.

What if analysis
Canceling the contract could cost $300 million. N.C. DOT has previously said canceling the contract could cost $100 million. The State Auditor released a report Dec. 30 that said it could cost taxpayers between $82 million and the “fair market value” of the project, which a consultant said was $302 million. Kurt Naas is a spokesperson for the anti-toll lane group, Widen I-77. He said the consultant’s estimate of $300 million is based on Cintra’s own estimates of toll revenue, which he said is inflated. “It would be the highest-grossing toll road ever,” he said. The total cost of the toll lane project is about $650 million. Naas said it’s stunning the DOT negotiated a contract that would require payment of $300 million after Cintra has only spent a few weeks on construction. Regardless of how much the cancellation penalty is, Charlotte council members are fearful the General Assembly would pass legislation to make Charlotte or the Charlotte region pay. The Charlotte region would also lose $145 million in so-called “bonus” money that’s slated for north Mecklenburg to improve the roads and interchanges leading to the toll lanes. If the toll lanes are canceled, that money would be spread out across the state. In response to a complaint about Cintra, the DOT’s Office of Inspector General released a report Jan. 4 saying the process by which Cintra received the contract was fair and open.

Conclusion & Takeaways

 * NCDOT expects that the benefits of the Project will include: Decreased fuel consumption and added time savings for motorists, Increased incentive for motorists to carpool and take advantage of transit options, Provide reliable, superior travel times on the HOT Lanes, especially during peak hours and Provide revenue generation to help pay for improvements along I-77.

 * NCDOT established the Developer Ratio Adjustment Mechanism (DRAM) to enhance the overall credit of the project debt financing to help achieve the ratings required to issue bonds and to secure a TIFIA loan. The DRAM was developed in concert with all proposers during the RFP question and answer period. Having the DRAM in place assisted the project in being rated BBB by DBRS rating service and BBB- by Fitch Ratings rating service which were the targeted ratings needed for both Private Activity Bonds and TIFIA loans.

 * While not required by state law or policy in effect during the project procurement or implementation, it should be noted that based on our review NCDOT did not prepare a Value for Money analysis which compares the P3 approach to a traditional delivery approach to help ensure that the results of the proposal from the I-77 Mobility Partners LLC provides the best value for the public owner. Value for Money or similar “Cost Benefit” analysis is required in the law or policies for other states that have extensive experience in P3 projects like Florida, Virginia and Texas


text: Category:Book:Cornish

title: Category:Book:Cornish


text:
User:Carlabarleaza/sandbox

= The power of Tradition in India =

What is Power ?
Power can be defined as the capacity to influence the behaviour of others and the course of events. Power can be exercised by a person, a group, or a nation in mostly all fields : economic, social, technological ... The notion of power often implies a division between those who detain it and those who endure it. Power is also often balanced by counter-powers who limit the excesses. In this article, we will be talking about the power of tradition in India and more particularly How does tradition affects the status of women in society ?

Women in India are victims of Tradition
"India the most dangerous place in the world to be born a girl". Tradition makes girl feel unwanted in India. Indeed, there is a lot of discrimination against girls ranging from neglect to abuse and killing of unwanted female infants. Girls are widely regarded as a burden to Indian families who fear the high cost of their weddings. In fact, the bride's parents must pay for it at the expense of other basic needs. You'll be shock to learn that Indian females are twice as likely to die before the age of five. Unfairly, since day 1 girls destinies are pre-traced.

The status of widows in India and how tradition negatively affects their lives
In the past, traditionally, widows were burnt that is why nowadays, many conservatives Indian families see them as a liability. Once their husband dies they loose their identities and become the outcasts of society. As they are not financially independent while married, their destinies as widows is to live their lives in poverty and isolation. They are forced to beg in the streets and many of them earn a living through prostitution. Traditions are manmade and are prevalent in society due to its acceptance in the social milieu. In India, the patriarchal society has enforced wrong values towards widows. The power of tradition in India overpowers the law. Although, like in West Bengal some intents were done to change this situation by allowing remarriages, society objected. The application of legislation has been unsuccessful. To really make a difference in the longer term, traditional values will have to change and education is the key to transform and change positively a society by transmitting values and making new traditions.

The story of Rekha Kalindi, the face of a counter-power
Rekha Kalindi is a 13-year-old girl that refused to be married off and wanted to attend school instead. Even though Indian legislation makes it illegal for girls below the age of 18 to get married, once again the tradition overpowers the law, as it is common to see 10 year-old girls getting married. As it usually happens, her parents pulled her from school after they began arrangements for the wedding. She was brave when she did the unthinkable and said "no" to her parents. They withheld her food for nearly two weeks but she didn't give up and enlisted help. Pressured by the villagers and officials her parents finally conceded that she will not marry and continue to attend school. This is a great example on how a single individual, in this case a 4 feet tall humble girl, can help change society and tradition. As a matter of fact, they were no chil marriages during the past wedding season in her village. Her small act of rebellion changed her life, her village and now she hopes will change an entire nation.

Conclusion
In conclusion, tradition in Indian and across the world affects the role of women in society. Although there is progress being made, there is still a long way to go. Our generation and the next one should help building a more gender balanced society. Rekha's story should inspire us all to take actions in our own environments.

How can we define "truth"?

 * Truth is a match between what is said and what is. A statement is true if it corresponds to reality.
 * Things are real or not but it is the judgment that I have on the thing that is true or not.
 * Truth can be seen as an objective way to see and tell reality

Truth according to Platon
Common sense takes for real what is immediately perceptible (eyesight, hearing, touching, ...) in other words "the sensitive world" that we can tell by our senses. Nevertheless, I know that my eyesight can be mislead so until when can I say that my senses can tell me the truth.

Platon, an athenian philosopher in Ancient Greece, wrote in his oeuvre La République his vision about truth. To illustrate his thesis he decided to use an allegory, the cave allegory. Envision human figures living in an underground cave with a long entrance across the whole width of the cave. Humans have been here since their childhood and have their legs and necks chained so they cannot move and can only see what is in front of them. Above and behind them, a fire is blazing to distance they see only their own shadows that the fire throw on the opposite wall of the cave. Between the fire and the prisoners, there is a raised way with a long wall that is used as a screen where puppets player show their puppets. They only see the shadows of the objects that are shown. To them the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

Platon distinguish two worlds :

 * The "sensitive world" : knowledge by opinion, a reality that mislead, relativism, subjectivism, knowledge based on appearances (the cave)
 * The "perceivable" world : eternal, unchangeable, knowledge by essence, immaterial, (reality)

What we understand from this allegory is that we must detach ourselves from the sensitive world, because it is a poor, illusionary and fake knowledge.

The allegory compares the soul to a chained prisoner and the goal of this allegory is to show how human beings unchain themselves from the sensitive world to rise up to the contemplation of the "idea". The exit of the cave represents the rise of the soul towards the perceivable. There is a parallel between the alienation of the chained body and the alienation of the mind. The man is characterised as a puppet (doesn't know how to control itself, can't move by itself). Need something from outside to move.

There is two possibilities to exit the cave :

 * 1) The prisoner goes out alone, he is blinded by the sun, it hurts his eyes and so he decides to go back to the world that he knows. Here, Platon criticises a sudden education.
 * 2) The prisoner goes out with a philosopher. Proceed to a step-by-step education, he learns how to look at the sun, how to get used to luminosity. The philosopher is seen as a doctor who heels the souls.

The truth does't reside in sensations, it is made of unchangeable concepts that can only be thought of. Truth is designed and thought of, it can't be touched or seen, it can be reached only through the mind.

Platon seeks to put forward the universality of truth vs the particularity of opinions. To know we must free ourselves from prejudices and preconceptions.

Truth according to Descartes
Descartes seeks a sure foundation for building knowledge, a fixe point from which to base knowledge and access truth.

He proposes 2 methods to achieve this :

 * 1) The method of the doubt
 * 2) The method of the evil demon

title: User:Carlabarleaza/sandbox


text:
Talk:Ethical Debates in Connected Culture 2019

Hi

Here's a list of further reading that may be of use as general background reading. These are taken from an historical reading list that I put together a couple of years ago for a different module... I hope it's useful GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

General – the following are recommended books: Andrejevic, M. (2013) Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. Abindgon: Routledge.

Athique, A. (2013) Digital Media and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

Baym, N. K. (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity

Beckett, C. (2012) Wikileaks: News in the Networked Era. Cambridge: Polity

Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks. New Haven: Yale University Press

Blake, J. (2017) Television and the Second Screen: Interactive TV in the age of social participation. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bollmer G. (2016) Inhuman Networks: Social Media and the Archaeology of Connection. London: Bloomsbury.

______ (2018) Theorizing Digital Cultures. London: SAGE

Bolter, J. D. and R. Grusin (2000) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press

Bunz, M. and G. Meikle (2018) The Internet of Things. Cambridge: Polity.

Burgess, J. and Green, J. (2009) YouTube. Cambridge: Polity

Burgess et al (eds.) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: SAGE

Chouliaraki, L. (2013) The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism. Cambridge: Polity

Chun and Fisher (eds.) (2016) New Media, Old Media: a history and theory reader (2nd ed.). London: Routledge [1st ed. also available]

Dean, J. (2009) ‘Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism’, in Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.

Egenfeld-Nielsen, S., Smith, J., and S. Tosca (2008) Understanding Videogames: The Essential Introduction. London: Routledge.

Ess, C. (2013) Digital Media Ethics (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Polity

Flew, T. (2012) Creative Industries: Culture and Policy. London: SAGE

Fuchs, C. (2014) Digital Labour and Karl Marx. London: Routledge

Fuchs and Sandoval (eds.) (2014) Critique, Social Media and the Information Society. London: Routledge

Fuchs, Boersma, Albrechtslund, and Sandoval (eds.) (2012) Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. London: Routledge

Giddings, S. and Lister, M. (eds.) (2011) The New Media and Technocultures Reader. London: Routledge

Goffman, E. (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Allen Lane

Hinton, S. and L. Hjorth (2013) Understanding Social Media. London: SAGE.

Holt and Sanson (eds.) (2014) Connected Viewing: Selling, Streaming, & Sharing Media in the Digital Era. New York: Routledge.

Ibrahim, Y. (2018) Production of the ‘Self’ in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press

Katz, E. (ed.) (2008) Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press

Lange, P. G. (2014) Kids on YouTube: Technical Identities and Digital Literacies. Left Coast Press

Lanier, Jaron (2006) ‘Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism’ in Edge: The Third Culture. Available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

______ (2010) You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Vintage

______ (2013) Who Owns the Future? London: Allen Lane

______ (2018) Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. New York: Holt & Co.

Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. London: Penguin Books

______ (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury

Lévy, P. (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books

Lindgren, S. (2017) Digital Media & Society. London: SAGE.

Lister et al (2009) New Media: A Critical Introduction (2nded.). Abingdon: Routledge

Lovink, G. (2011) Networks Without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media. Cambridge: Polity

______ (2016) Social Media Abyss. Cambridge: polity.

Mandiberg, M. (ed.) (2012) The Social Media Reader. London: New York University Press

Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McChesney, R. (2013) Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy. New York: The New Press

Mosco, V. (2014) To the Cloud: Big Data in a Turbulent World. Paradigm Press

Myers, G. (2011) Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum

Papacharissi, Z. A. (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity

______ (ed.) (2011) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. Abingdon: Routledge

Peraica, A. (2017) Culture of the Selfie: Self-Representation in Contemporary Visual Culture. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Rheingold (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Basic Books

Shirky, Clay (2008) Here Comes Everybody. London: Allen Lane

______ (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. London: Allen Lane

Suler, J. (2004) ‘The Online Disinhibition Effect’ in International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 184-188.

______ (2015) Psychology of the Digital Age: Humans Become Electric. Cambridge: Polity

Terranova, T. (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press

Turkle, S. (1996) Life on Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson

______ (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Perseus Books

______(2015) Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin

Vaidhyanathan, Siva (2011) Googlization of Everything (and why we should worry). Berkley, CA: University of California Press

Walker Rettberg, J.(2008) Blogging. Cambridge: Polity

______ (2014) Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Webster, F. (2002) ‘The information society revisited’. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: social shaping and social consequences of ICTs. London: SAGE.

Winston, B. (1998) Media Technology and Society: A History, From the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.

Also – highly recommended journals (accessed via library electronic journals):

Journal of Information Technology

Big Data & Society

Social Media + Society

New Media & Society

Media, Culture & Society

Convergence


text:
Wildlife Gardening/Season/Autumn

Multicolor
Liquidambar styraciflua

shrubs Itea virginica Rhus aromatica Rhus glabra Rosa setigera

Brown
Alnus maritima Carya cordiformis Carya glabra Carya laciniosa Carya ovalis Carya ovata Carya tomentosa Crataegus mollis Fraxinus tomentosa Magnolia acuminata Magnolia virginiana Platanus occidentalis Populus deltoides Quercus alba Quercus bicolor Quercus imbricaria Quercus macrocarpa Quercus montana Quercus muehlenbergii Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Taxodium distichum

shrubs

Aronia melanocarpa Cornus amomum Hydrangea arborescens Hydrangea quercifolia Rhus aromatica Rubus allegheniensis Viburnum dentatum Viburnum rufidulum

Green
Asimina triloba Cercis canadensis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Maclura pomifera Salix nigra

shrubs

Ilex verticillata Lindera benzoin Rhus aromatica Symphoricarpos orbiculatus

Orange
Acer freemanii Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Aesculus flava Aesculus glabra Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier arborea Amelanchier interior Amelanchier laevis Carpinus caroliniana Crataegus coccinea Crataegus punctata Prunus americana Prunus serotina Quercus bicolor Quercus imbricaria Quercus montana Quercus muehlenbergii Quercus palustris Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Sassafras albidum Taxodium distichum

Shrubs

Amelanchier canadensis Fothergilla gardenii Itea virginica Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Ribes americanum Rosa setigera Viburnum cassinoides

Pink
Euonymus atropurpureus

shrubs Euonymus atropurpureus Viburnum acerifolium

Purple
Cornus alternifolia Cornus florida Crataegus coccinea Crataegus crus-galli Crataegus phaenopyrum Crataegus viridis Diospyros virginiana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus tomentosa Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus alba Quercus imbricaria Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Rhus glabra Taxodium distichum Viburnum lentago Viburnum rufidulum

Shrubs

Aronia arbutifolia

Baccharis halimifolia Cornus alternifolia Cornus amomum Cornus racemosa Cornus sericea Hydrangea quercifolia Itea virginica Rhus aromatica Rhus glabra Rosa setigera Rubus allegheniensis Viburnum acerifolium Viburnum cassinoides Viburnum dentatum Viburnum lentago Viburnum opulus var. americanum Viburnum prunifolium Viburnum rafinesquianum Viburnum rufidulum

Red
Acer freemanii Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier arborea Amelanchier interior Amelanchier laevis Carpinus caroliniana Cornus alternifolia Cornus florida Crataegus coccinea Crataegus phaenopyrum Crataegus punctata Crataegus viridis Diospyros virginiana Euonymus atropurpureus Fraxinus tomentosa Liquidambar styraciflua Malus ioensis Nyssa sylvatica Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Quercus ellipsoidalis Quercus michauxii Quercus montana Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Quercus shumardii Rhus copallina Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Sassafras albidum Taxodium distichum Viburnum lentago Viburnum rufidulum

shrubs

Amelanchier canadensis Aronia arbutifolia

Aronia melanocarpa

Baccharis halimifolia Cornus alternifolia Cornus amomum Cornus racemosa Cornus sericea Euonymus atropurpureus Fothergilla gardenii Hydrangea quercifolia Itea virginica Rhus aromatica Rhus copallina Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Ribes americanum Rosa setigera Rubus allegheniensis Viburnum cassinoides Vaccinium corymbosum Viburnum acerifolium Viburnum dentatum Viburnum lentago Viburnum opulus var. americanum Viburnum prunifolium Viburnum rafinesquianum Viburnum rufidulum

Yellow
Acer freemanii Acer rubrum Acer saccharum Acer saccharum subsp. nigrum Aesculus glabra Alnus maritima Amelanchier arborea Amelanchier interior Amelanchier laevis Asimina triloba Betula alleghaniensis Betula lenta Betula nigra Betula papyrifera Betula populifolia Carpinus caroliniana Carya cordiformis Carya glabra Carya illinoinensis Carya laciniosa Carya ovalis Carya ovata Carya tomentosa Celtis occidentalis Cercis canadensis Chionanthus virginicus Cladrastis kentukea Crataegus mollis Diospyros virginiana Fagus grandifolia Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus quadrangulata Fraxinus tomentosa Gleditsia triacanthos Gymnocladus dioicus Hamamelis virginiana Juglans cinerea Juglans nigra Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Maclura pomifera Magnolia acuminata Magnolia virginiana Morus rubra Ostrya virginiana Populus deltoides Populus tremuloides Prunus americana Prunus serotina Quercus bicolor Quercus imbricaria Quercus macrocarpa Quercus montana Quercus muehlenbergii Quercus velutina Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Salix nigra Sassafras albidum Tilia americana Ulmus rubra

Shrubs

Betula pumila Cephalanthus occidentalis Chionanthus virginicus Clethra alnifolia Corylus americana Dirca palustris Fothergilla gardenii Hamamelis vernalis Hamamelis virginiana Hydrangea arborescens Ilex verticillata Itea virginica Lindera benzoin Physocarpus opulifolius Rhus glabra Rhus typhina Rosa setigera Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Viburnum acerifolium

title: Wildlife Gardening/Season/Autumn


text: Category:Book:RHIT MA113

title: Category:Book:RHIT MA113