People Places
History Art
Science
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site is a partial reconstruction of the most important fur trading post on the upper Missouri, 1829-1867. The fort site is about two miles from the confluence of the Missouri River and its tributary, the Yellowstone River, on the North Dakota/Montana border, 25 miles from Williston, North Dakota. In 1961, the site became one of the earliest declared National Historic Landmarks in the United States and was named Fort Union Trading Post by the National Park Service to differentiate it from Fort Union National Monument, a historic frontier Army post in New Mexico; the historic site interprets how portions of the fort may have looked in 1851, based on archaeological excavations as well as drawings by contemporaries, including Rudolf Kurz, the post clerk in 1851. Fort Union first known as Fort Henry or Fort Floyd, was built in 1828 or 1829 by the Upper Missouri Outfit managed by Kenneth McKenzie and was capitalized by John Jacob Astor's American Fur Company.

Until 1867, Fort Union was the central, busiest, trading post on the upper Missouri, instrumental in developing the fur trade in Montana. Here Assiniboine, Cree, Blackfoot, Hidatsa and other tribes traded buffalo robes and furs for trade goods including beads, clay pipes, blankets, cookware and alcohol. Historic visitors to the fort included John James Audubon, Sha-có-pay, Captain Joseph LaBarge, Kenneth McKenzie, Father Pierre DeSmet, George Catlin, Sitting Bull, Karl Bodmer, Hugh Glass, Jim Bridger. At first, Indians traded beaver pelts for Euro-American goods because of the popularity of beaver hats in the East and in Europe; when silk and woolen hats became more popular during the 1830s, demand for beaver pelts decreased, the trade shifted to bison robes. During the historical period, Fort Union served as a haven for many frontier people and contributed to further economic growth on the American frontier; as headquarters for the American Fur Company, it played a primary role in the growth of the fur trade and allowed fur trade entrepreneurs to exert considerable influence in forming policies that affected the Indian nations of the region.

The presence of the fort near the northern border of the United States symbolized national sovereignty in the region. The fort maintained a large inventory of firearms. In turn, Indians used the firearms in hunting for buffalo robes. Northern Plains Indians preferred the English-made "North West Gun," a smooth-bore flintlock, because of its reputation for quality and reliability. Conflicts between Euro-American traders and Indians were less frequent around Fort Union than conflicts between the Indian tribes themselves. However, during the summer of 1863, when many tribes along the Missouri River became hostile to whites, Fort Union was nearly under siege, steamboats and their passengers were exposed to significant danger. Fort Buford, nearby site Missouri-Yellowstone Confluence Interpretive Center Fur trade in Montana List of National Historic Landmarks in Montana National Register of Historic Places listings in Roosevelt County, Montana List of National Historic Landmarks in North Dakota National Register of Historic Places listings in Richland County, North Dakota Barbour, Barton H..

Fort Union and the Upper Missouri Fur Trade. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3295-2. Chittenden, Hiram Martin. History of early steamboat navigation on the Missouri River: life and adventures of Joseph La Barge, Volume I. New York: Francis P. Harper. ——. History of early steamboat navigation on the Missouri River: life and adventures of Joseph La Barge, Volume II. New York: Francis P. Harper. ——. The American fur trade of the far West, Volume I. New York: Francis P. Harper. ——. Life and travels of Father Pierre-Jean de Smet, S. J. 1801-1873, Volume I. New York: Francis P. Harper. Chittenden, Hiram Martin. Life and travels of Father Pierre-Jean de Smet, S. J. 1801-1873, Volume II. New York: Francis P. Harper. De Vore, Steven Leroy. Beads of the Bison Robe Trade: The Fort Union Trading Post Collection. Friends of Fort Union Trading Post. ——. "Fur Trade Era Blacksmith Shops at Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, North Dakota". Historical Archaeology. Springer. 24: 23. JSTOR 25615792. Matzko, John Austin.

Reconstructing Fort Union. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-3216-7. Ross, Lester A.. Trade Beads from Archeological Excavations at Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center. "Firearms of Fort Union - The Flint and Fire of Fort Union: Firearms of the Fur Trade". National park Service. 2015. Retrieved September 4, 2019. MacVaugh, Fred. "Conflict at the Confluence: Catlin's Eyewitness Account". National park Service. Retrieved September 4, 2019. Media related to Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site at Wikimedia Commons Fort Union Trading Post Historic Site at NPS.gov

MoClay

The Moclay strata are formally designated as the Fur Formation. It is a diatomitic sediment of c. 56-54,5 Ma) age which crops out in the Limfjord region of Denmark from Silstrup via Mors and Fur to Ertebølle, can be seen in many cliffs and quarries in the area. The Diatomite Cliffs is on the Danish list of tentative candidates for World Heritage and may become a world Heritage site; the Heritage Agency of Denmark It is known for its abundant fossil fish, reptiles and plants. The Fur Formation was deposited just above the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary, about 54-55 million years ago, its tropical or sub-tropical flora indicate that the climate after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was moderately warm; the Fur Formation is divided into two members: The lower Knudeklint Member was named for a location on the island of Fur. The upper Silstrup Member was named for a location on Thy. Glacial tectonics have moved and folded all exposed mo-clay in a complicated pattern which permits precise mapping of movements of glaciers in the late part of the last ice age app. 25,000 years ago, has due to the ashlayers created an extraordinary pedagogical case for studying tectonics

Procedural parameter

In computing, a procedural parameter is a parameter of a procedure, itself a procedure. This concept is an powerful and versatile programming tool, because it allows programmers to modify certain steps of a library procedure in arbitrarily complicated ways, without having to understand or modify the code of that procedure; this tool is effective and convenient in languages that support local function definitions, such as Pascal and the modern GNU dialect of C. It is more so when function closures are available; the same functionality is provided by objects in object oriented programming languages, but at a higher cost. Procedural parameters are somewhat related to the concepts of first-class function and anonymous function, but is distinct from them; these two concepts have more to do with. In most languages that provide this feature, a procedural parameter f of a subroutine P can be called inside the body of P as if it were an ordinary procedure: procedure P: return f * f When calling the subroutine P, one must give it one argument, that must be some defined function compatible with the way P uses its parameter f.

For example, if we define procedure plus: return x + y we may call P, the result will be plus * plus = * = 27. On the other hand, if we define procedure quot: return u/v the call P will return quot*quot = * = 4. If we define procedure evil return z + 100 the call P will not make much sense, may be flagged as an error; some programming languages that have this feature may allow or require a complete type declaration for each procedural parameter f, including the number and type of its arguments, the type of its result, if any. For example, in the C programming language the example above could be written as In principle, the actual function actf, passed as argument when P is called must be type-compatible with the declared type of the procedure parameter f; this means that actf and f must return the same type of result, must have the same number of arguments, corresponding arguments must have the same type. The names of the arguments need not be the same, however, as shown by the plus and quot examples above.

However, some programming languages may be more liberal in this regard. In languages that allow procedural parameters, the scoping rules are defined in such a way that procedural parameters are executed in their native scope. More suppose that the function actf is passed as argument to P, as its procedural parameter f. While actf is being executed, it sees the environment of its definition; the implementation of these scoping rules is not trivial. By the time that actf is executed, the activation records where its environment variables live may be arbitrarily deep in the stack; this is the so-called downwards funarg problem. The concept of procedural parameter is best explained by examples. A typical application is the following generic implementation of the insertion sort algorithm, that takes two integer parameters a,b and two procedural parameters prec, swap: procedure isort: integer i, j; the parameters prec and swap should be two functions, defined by the client, both taking two integers r, s between a and b.

The prec function should return true if and only if the data stored in x should precede the data stored in x, in the ordering defined by the client. The swap function should exchange the contents of x and x, return no result. By the proper choice of the functions prec and swap, the same isort procedure can be used to reorder arrays of any data type, stored in any medium and organized in any data structure that provides indexed access to individual array elements. For instance, we can sort an array z of 20 floating-point numbers, z through z in increasing order by calling isort, where the functions zprec and zswap are defined as procedure zprec: return; the following code will rearrange the elements in each row so that all the values come before all odd values: integer i procedure eoprec: return <. The following example uses isort to define a procedure vecsort that takes an integer n and an integer vector v with elements v through v and sorts them in either increasing or decreasing order, depending on whether a third parameter incr is true or false, respectively: procedure vecsort: procedure vprec: if incr return v < v.