Old civil war cannonball?

Old civil war cannonball? Topic: santa writing paper
July 19, 2019 / By Donelle
Question: When I was little my grandfather gave me a "cannonball". I was looking through some stuff in the garage and found it. I wanted to know if it is really a cannonball. It's made of cast iron, has some old rust an dents, I'm not sure on the weight and it's diameter is 4.5". It doesn't have any papers that came with it nor does it have a stamp of any kind. It's all round and doesnt have any type of creases it look old. I want to know if it is a legit cannonball. I recently had a garage sale and was selling it for 20$ because I thought and still do think that it's just a cast iron ball not a antique cannonball and some one told me that it's a real cannonball from the civil war and that it's worth a lot more but they didn't buy it. is it real and can it really be from the civil war if I live in Texas or could it be from the Alamo
Best Answer

Best Answers: Old civil war cannonball?

Caryn Caryn | 6 days ago
ARCO Publishing Co. has Military books on the Civil war with all sorts of weaponry. Also Ivan Hogg wrote allot of books concerning military weaponry. But as one of the Answers community said you may want to check if it is a hollow shell, if it had a bore in it then it was a explosive shell. If it has no bore for a fuse then it was a "Solid Shot". I do not think it was from the Alamo (Santa Ana and his troops stripped the fort bare after it fell), probably a left over from the Civil War. Sometimes military collectors are swap meets and gun shows, you can take it in for appraisal. There is another possibility, that the cannon ball could have come off of a naval gun as well so it could have come off a ship or fort battery. Just for sh#ts and giggles you should see if any of your family history has Confederate artillery in it.
👍 200 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Old civil war cannonball? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: santa writing paper

Caryn Originally Answered: List of civil rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have?
Some include: inheritance, adoption, joint taxes, survivor benefits, along with Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law. Also: http://www.afterellen.com/node/40311
Caryn Originally Answered: List of civil rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have?
- As the debate over legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples heightens, individual states in the U.S. are considering different types of protection for gay and lesbian couples under the law. They are civil unions, domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage. Currently in the U.S., only Connecticut and Vermont allow same-sex civil unions. (See where gay marriage or civil unions are legal around the world). Family landowner rights to fish and hunt. Legal requirements for wage assignments. Affirmance of relationship. Parties to a civil union can modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their legal relationship in the same manner and to the same extent as married people can through premarital and other agreements recognized and enforceable under the Vermont law....

Anima Anima
Since we don't seem to be functionally illiterate. Due to the fact you probably don't have all day to read the relaxation, here is the short variation. "Secession" and "establishing a struggle" will not be even similar things. Claiming in any other case is like claiming strolling out of your condominium is the same as setting hearth to it. As with all hyperlinks any Democrat has ever posted, yours DISPROVES your declare. NOTHING you presented here advocated warfare at all. Undoubtedly slavery was once a massive a part of the inducement to SECEDE but now not A SINGLE LINE of what you posted or which can also be discovered by using chasing your link suggests GOING TO battle. NO State and NO man or woman ever advocated "going to struggle to protect slavery." It with no trouble never occurred - as YOUR sources make simple.
👍 80 | 👎 -3

Wilmer Wilmer
If it is a cannonball don't put near fireplace gunpowder could still explode just warning you sorry don't know how to answer your question
👍 75 | 👎 -12

Wilmer Originally Answered: During the Civil War Reconstruction why were the Civil Rights of 1875 Unconstitutional?
Passed 1 March 1875, the law provided that all persons, regardless of race, were entitled to "the full and equal enjoyment" of accommodations of inns, public transportation, theaters, and other amusement places. It provided for either criminal or civil enforcement. If found guilty in a criminal trial, the lawbreaker was punishable by a $500 to $1,000 fine and between thirty days and one year in jail. Alternatively, the victim could file a civil suit for $500 in damages. Another provision barred the disqualification of jurors on account of color in any state or federal court. The Act also made U.S. law enforcement officials criminally and civilly liable if they failed to enforce its provisions. The equal accommodations provision of the 1875 Civil Rights Act was extremely controversial. It redefined what most Americans had thought to be mere "social rights" as civil rights, to which all were entitled. It also was based on an expansive interpretation of the Civil War constitutional amendments that gave Congress power to enforce rights not just when those rights were impinged on by states but when infringed by individuals as well. It not only barred the total exclusion of African Americans from specified facilities, it seemingly prohibited racially segregated facilities altogether. African American leaders, former abolitionists, and radical Republicans had pressed for this legislation since 1870, when Massachusetts Republican Senator Charles Sumner proposed an equal accommodations measure as the "crowning work" of Reconstruction. Sumner's proposal required integration not only of inns, transportation, and amusement places, but also of religious institutions, common schools, and legally incorporated cemeteries. However, most Republicans were extremely wary of the measure, fearing the political consequences, especially in the South. Although a truncated version of Sumner's bill passed the Senate in 1872, the House of Representatives never considered it. Sumner reintroduced the Civil Rights bill in December 1873. Republican opinion remained badly divided. Some southern Republican congressmen supported it in deference to their African American constituents. More conservative southern Republicans warned that it would destroy southern white support not only for the Republican Party but also for the region's struggling public schools. Nonetheless, the Senate passed the bill in May 1874, moved in part by Sumner's death two months earlier. The House passed the bill in March 1875, as a final Reconstruction measure in the lame-duck session of Congress that followed the elections of 1874, in which Republicans lost control of the lower branch in part due to the southern white reaction against the proposal. However, the House stripped the mixed-school provision from the bill, with many Republicans supporting the Democratic motion to do so rather than accept an amendment that would have condoned segregated schools. Recognizing that to insist on mixed schools would now kill the entire bill, radical Republican senators acquiesced to the amended measure. Despite the potential penalties, the law was only reluctantly enforced by federal officers, leaving most enforcement to private litigants. In 1883 the Supreme Court ruled in the Civil Rights Cases that the law exceeded Congress's constitutional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it applied to individual rather than state action. The law was not authorized under the Thirteenth Amendment, which was not limited to state action, because the rights involved were not civil rights, the denial of which would amount to a "badge of servitude." The Court sustained the jury provision in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880).

If you have your own answer to the question santa writing paper, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.