New

Stephen Bull

Stephen Bull


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On October 26, Nixon held a tense news conference of his own during which he unleashed a broadside against the media, saying he had "never heard or seen such outrageous, vicious reporting in twenty-seven years of public life." He added: "When people are pounded night after night with that kind of frantic, hysterical reporting, it naturally shakes their confidence. And yet I should point out that even in this week when many thought that the president was shell-shocked, unable to act, the president acted decisively in the interest of peace, in the interest of the country, and I can assure you that whatever shocks gentlemen of the press may have or others, political people, these shocks will not affect me in doing my job."

Whether or not he was fully in control of foreign policy, Nixon had now lost control of the evidence that would eventually damn him at home. In conceding on October 26 that a new special prosecutor would be appointed, he stated with bravado, "I do not anticipate that we will come to the time when he would consider it necessary to take the president to court." But his nightmare was worse even than that. Even before Leon Jaworski got properly into the job, much of Nixon's White House top echelon was dragged into court. The reason was that in agreeing to hand over the nine subpoenaed tapes, the president had omitted to point out that two of them did not exist. Now the court had to be told.

First a crestfallen Buzhardt found out what Nixon, his aide Steve Bull, Rose Mary Woods, and Haig had known since at least September 29: that apparently neither the June 20, 1972, telephone call with Mitchell nor the late-night meeting with Dean on April 15, 1973, had been recorded. On October 30, only a week after the judge had said how happy he was that Nixon was complying with his order, Sirica was told the bad news by Buzhardt in chambers. Buzhardt said that, as regards April 15, a timer had malfunctioned and the reel had run out. Jaworski's prosecutors wanted an open court hearing, but Buzhardt tried to fend them off by offering for interview the Secret Service agents in charge of the taping system.

When the Secret Service expert stated he had never heard of any malfunction, the prosecutors persuaded the judge to hold public hearings to subject the White House witnesses to cross-examination. What followed was the first courtroom confrontation between lawyers from the White House staff and the prosecutors they detested. There was no jury because it was not a trial, just an investigation. But, in fact, Nixon's last vestiges of credibility were on trial, with the press present in force to report the testimony.

This initial session had Buzhardt fumbling and altering his explanations. The reason the April 15 meeting had not been recorded now had nothing to do with a malfunction, but was because there were so many meetings that Sunday that the six-hour tape had been used up long before Dean arrived after 9 P.M. It also emerged that the custody of the tapes was something less than impressive. The Secret Service logs looked like fragments of brown paper bags. They disclosed that someone like Haldeman could take away original tapes with no documentation showing what was done with them before they were returned.

Steve Bull was given a tough time. He told about the transcribing sessions with Rose Mary Woods at Camp David and added a new detail - that the tapes had been taken to Florida as well. He also revealed that he and Nixon had spent up to twelve hours listening to tapes the previous June, before Butterfield disclosed the existence of the system. The White House instantly refused to make available this June tape of Nixon listening to tapes, the so-called tape of tapes. It now became horribly clear that Nixon, at the time he proposed the Stennis compromise, was well aware the full complement of tapes no longer existed and that he had intended pushing through Buzhardt's written summaries without revealing this fact.

Each spool of tape lasted for six hours, and sometimes on weekends a reel ran out and was not immediately replaced. That, evidently, was what had happened to the April 15 recording; the tape had run out when Nixon and Dean met at 9:17 P.M., and since that happened to have been a Sunday night, there had been no Secret Service agent on duty to change the reel. As for the June 20 call, Buzhardt explained to the court that it had been made from a telephone in the residence quarters of the White House that had not been connected to the recording system.

Steve Bull disclosed to the court on November 2 that he had learned that the April 15 tape did not exist a month earlier, on September 29, when he had looked for it in order to give it to Rose Mary Woods to transcribe at Camp David. Bull also testified that he had obtained twenty-six of the tapes for Nixon in early June, and that the president had reviewed some of them in preparation for Dean's Senate testimony. On June 25, Nixon had even ordered one of the tapes to be flown to him in San Clemente; when no courier flight was available, Bull testified, Buzhardt had listened to it at Haig's request.

These revelations became the headlines of Saturday, November 3, just two days after the announcement of the selection of Jaworski to be the new Special Prosecutor.

It was November of 1973. A year earlier, Nixon had won reelection in a landslide, carrying every state except Massachusetts as well as more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Now, polls showed that 60 percent of the American people felt he was not capably handling the presidency. Nixon escaped the headlines by sailing with his friends Abplanalp and Rebozo aboard Rebozo's yacht. Back on land, The New York Times, Time magazine, and even the longtime Nixon loyalist Detroit News ran editorials urging that, as a public service, Nixon resign. "That weekend in Florida," Nixon later wrote, "was a new low point for me personally."

A strange thing happened that weekend. Buzhardt and Garment flew down to Florida, checked into a hotel near the president's estate, and went to see the boss. Nixon was firming his resolve and looking for ways to rehabilitate his image. The two lawyers had another notion in mind.

The Final Days opens with a scene of Buzhardt and Garment flying to Key Biscayne, convinced that after six months of losing battles with the Congress, the courts, and the Special Prosecutor, Nixon must resign, and they must advise him to do just that. Woodward and Bernstein write that this trip was one Al Haig did not endorse...

This, then, was the setting for one of the more curious episodes in the history of Watergate, the eighteen-and-a-half-minute gap in a taped conversation. The gap has usually been attributed to a mistake on the part of Nixon's personal secretary Rose Mary Woods, and/or to a deliberate attempt by a mechanically clumsy president to erase information detrimental to him. But there was a more sinister aspect to the affair than has previously been understood, and it involves Haig and Buzhardt and an especially well-timed and dramatic revelation by Deep Throat.

Back on September 28, anticipating that the appellate court would rule that the tapes must be turned over, Nixon had asked Haig to arrange for Rose Mary Woods to go to Camp David and transcribe the subpoenaed conversations. Woods was a particularly good choice for this task because she knew intimately the president's patterns of speech, and also knew most of the voices on the recordings-those of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and other counselors. Fiercely loyal to Nixon, she could be counted on to delete the expletives and the scatological characterizations that sometimes dotted their chatter, not to be shocked by the conversations, and to keep silent about their contents. To help with the technical arrangements, Haig turned to John Bennett, the deputy presidential assistant whom Haig had appointed custodian of the recordings in July.

The next day, Woods and Steve Bull drove to Camp David carrying eight tapes and three Sony tape recorders provided by Bennett. In the privacy of rustic Dogwood Cabin, Woods began what she soon discovered would be a long and painstaking weekend of listening and typing. She spent twenty-nine hours just on the first item listed on the Special Prosecutor's subpoena, the June 20, 1972, meeting in the president's EOB office attended at various times by Nixon, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman, a meeting that lasted from 10:30 A.M. to nearly noon. As pointed out earlier, the quality of the recordings taken from the EOB office was less satisfactory than those recorded in the Oval Office.

The president was at Camp David that weekend and came in to check on his secretary's progress. She told him it was slow going because she had to replay sections of the tape over and over to get an accurate account. Nixon himself put on the headphones and listened for about five minutes. "At first all I could hear was a complete jumble," he recalled in his memoir. "Gradually I could make out a few words, but at times the rattling of a cup or the thump of a hand on the desk would obliterate whole passages." The Oval Office tapes that he had personally listened to back in June had been much easier to understand, he told Woods, and then left the cabin after sympathizing about her arduous task.

Bull had a problem, too, that weekend. He was to locate the conversations called for in Cox's subpoena on the correct six-hour tape reels, and cue them to the proper beginning spots to ready them for Woods. He found the June 20 EOB tape, but could not match up the conversation on the reel with the subpoena list. The list asked for one conversation among the participants, and there had been two on the morning of June 20, one between Nixon and Ehrlichman, and a second immediately thereafter between Nixon and Haldeman.

Haig phoned the cabin on the morning of September 29 to see how the work was going, and Bull told him he simply could not find the one long conversation referred to on the subpoena. Haig called Buzhardt, who had remained in Washington, and explained the situation. Buzhardt made a judgment, which Haig then passed to Woods, who typed a note that she gave to Bull. The note later became part of the documentary evidence assembled by the House Judiciary Committee. It reads, in full: "Cox was a little bit confused in his request re the meeting on June 20th. It says Ehrlichman Haldeman meeting-what he wants is the segment on June 20 from 10:25 to 11:20 with John Ehrlichman alone. Al Haig."

Bull promptly went back to his search, and it was then that he discovered that two of the other subpoenaed conversations were missing; he passed the information to Haig.

According to Time magazine, only a handful people in the White House were privy at this early date to the existence of the tape gaps. They were Richard Nixon, Rose Mary Woods, Alexander Haig, Charles Colson, Stephen Bull (Alexander Butterfield's assistant) and three of the President's attorneys: Fred Buzhardt, Leonard Garment and Samuel Powers.

If Time is correct, and if Woodward and Bernstein have told the truth, then four of these eight must have been Bernstein's sources. Declaring Nixon and Woods "nonstarters," Time eliminated attorney Samuel Powers from consideration, saying that his tenure at the White House was too brief. Stephen Bull was then ruled out because he did not match Woodward's description of Throat. There, however, the magazine balked, unwilling to go any further. But of the four candidates with whom its readers were left, three could be eliminated at once. Colson, for example. The idea that Colson might be Deep Throat is as comical as it is surreal. Not only had he planned to "shove it to the Post, " but he would hardly have told Woodward-as Throat did-that he, Charles Colson, was the official to whom Howard Hunt was reporting about his undercover operations. Colson, in any case, can be eliminated as a candidate for Throat on the grounds that his government career ended in the midst of the Watergate affair, whereas Woodward tells us that Throat continued in federal service for years afterward. This same reason rules out Leonard Garment, and as for Fred Buzhardt, he cannot have been Deep Throat because, according to Woodward, "If [Throat] were to die, I would feel obliged to reveal his identity." Since Buzhardt is dead and we still do not know who Throat is, we must conclude that he is someone else.

Which is to say Haig, since only he is left among Time's eight candidates. But who is to say that the magazine was correct when it asserted that only eight people knew of the tape gaps during the first week in November i973? The White House was full of tremulous whispers in the fall of that year, and no one can say for certain just who knew what or when they learned it.

Nixon told his press secretary, Ron Ziegler, that having reached the low point he was now prepared for the ascent. It was going to be "a turning point for our approach to dealing with Watergate," he later wrote. "`We will take some desperate and strong measure,' I told Ziegler, `and this time there is no margin for error.' " He planned a televised speech for November 7, precisely one year after he'd been reelected, to launch Operation Candor. He would display not the wounded president but the man who had come back from many previous political defeats and who would once more rise from the ashes. The speech would be followed by ten days of "bridge-building" breakfast meetings and private chats with hundreds of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and a swing through the South to trumpet the message that the president was still on the job and fighting for the country.

This, then, was the setting for one of the more curious episodes in the history of Watergate, the eighteen-and-a-half-minute gap in a taped conversation. Al Haig."

Bull promptly went back to his search, and it was then that he discovered that two of the other subpoenaed conversations were missing; he passed the information to Haig.

The entire crew returned to the White House on Monday, October 1. Woods had still not finished transcribing the first conversation, but back at her White House office she now had a more convenient mechanical setup. The Secret Service had supplied her with a Uher 5000 recorder that included a foot pedal for easy operation.

Just after two that afternoon, she rushed into Nixon's EOB office, visibly upset and saying, "I have made a terrible mistake." After completing her work on the Ehrlichman conversation, she told Nixon, she had forwarded the tape to make sure that she had indeed transcribed all of that section. As she was doing so, a call came in on her office phone and she had a conversation of four or five minutes. When she hung up and went back to work on the tape, she was rudely greeted by a shrill buzzing sound. A section of the Haldeman conversation had been wiped out.

Later, Woods would reconstruct her mistake for a court hearing. She stated that she must have pushed the "record" button on the machine rather than the "stop" button, while unintentionally resting her foot on the pedal throughout her phone call, an action that kept the machine running and, in effect, recording noise over the previously recorded conversation.

Nixon calmed Woods and told her the mistake was not of consequence because Buzhardt had told him that the Haldeman portion was not among the subpoenaed tapes. Haig called Buzhardt, who reconfirmed that the Haldeman conversation was not on Cox's list, and Nixon was relieved.

He should not have rested easy, because Buzhardt was at the very least plain wrong. The counsel had been in continuous touch with Cox since the subpoena had been served, and was in possession of a memo from Cox, dated August 13, that clarified the grand jury subpoena and made it plain that what he expected was Nixon's conversation with "John D. Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman in his Old Executive Office Building [OEOB] office on June 20, 1972 from 10:30 a.m. until approximately 12:45 p.m." Any lingering doubt that both conversations were sought was removed by the additional statement in Cox's memo that "Ehrlichman and then Haldeman went to see the President" that morning (italics added for emphasis). Moreover, Buzhardt had also had his alarm bells rung on the matter of the subpoenaed tapes by the news from Steve Bull that two of the conversations couldn't be located. That he reassured Nixon a second time as to the Haldeman conversation's irrelevance suggests that Buzhardt either didn't look at Cox's explanatory August 13 memo, or that he deliberately ignored it. Error of omission or commission?

When Bennett took the stand in Sirica's courtroom on November 6 and described his custodianship of the recordings, his role in providing the tapes to Bull for the trip to Camp David, and so on, the issue was the missing two conversations. The next day, November 7, when Bennett returned to the stand, he told the court that he'd had a talk the previous evening with Rose Mary Woods during which she complained of an unexpected "gap" in one of the tapes she was reviewing for the president.

But this wasn't the gap in the June 20 conversation that she had inadvertently caused. It was a different tape, which as it would turn out had no gap. Woods hadn't mentioned the gap in the June 20 tape to Bennett, but had told Bennett that she'd been reviewing a tape that hadn't even been subpoenaed, an April 16, 1973, Nixon-Dean meeting. "I think she was puzzled," Bennett testified. "The tape was on the machine. She said, `I've got a gap in this.' " Two days earlier, Bennett told the court, he'd given Woods a new batch of six tapes and had said that the president wanted her to listen to that particular Nixon-Dean conversation and that it was among those reels somewhere.

Rose Mary Woods was called to the stand the next day. She said she had checked the tape and had been mistaken and that there was no gap in that tape. When cross-examined, she made clear that all she had meant by the word "gap" was a missing conversation. With that, the inquiry into this particular gap was settled, and the hearing went on to consider other matters. But by raising the specter of one gap, Bennett had opened up the possibility that the still-secret four-to-five-minute erasure on the June 20 Haldeman tape would shortly be uncovered in the court hearing. That, of course, would be damaging both to Woods and to Nixon.

Meanwhile, Bennett's testimony was the occasion for some curious doings at the Washington Post.

There were two stories on the front page of the Post on November 8, 1973, the day on which Woods testified. Under the headline TAPES HAVE PUZZLING "GAP" were two articles. One, under the subhead NIXON AIDE TESTIFIES, was the straight news account of Bennett's court testimony on the previous day, in which he had quoted Rose Mary Woods about a gap that puzzled her.

The second, situated next to the first, was under the subhead PARTS "INAUDIBLE." This second story was written by Bernstein and Woodward, and said that "portions of the seven White House tapes" that Nixon was to turn over to Sirica "are `inaudible' and thus will probably fail to definitively answer questions about Mr. Nixon's role" in Watergate. Quoting "White House sources" to whom the reporters had talked over the past three days, the story said the tapes were marred by "`gaps in conversations,' 'unevenness,' 'excessive background noise,' 'periods of silence,' and 'cut-ins and cut-outs during conversation.' " The article stated flatly that "there is serious concern among the President's aides and advisers that the latest problems regarding the tapes will further strain the credibility of the White House." For instance, the reporters quoted a "high-ranking presidential adviser" as saying, "This town is in such a state that everybody will say, 'They've doctored the tapes.' " This same official had "made clear he rejected that notion."

Two paragraphs down, the reporters quoted a source who clearly did anything but reject the doctoring notion:

"Of five sources who confirmed that difficulties have risen concerning the quality of the tapes, one said the problems "are of a suspicious nature" and "could lead someone to conclude that the tapes have been tampered with." According to this source, conversation on some of the tapes appears to have been erased - either inadvertently or otherwise - or obliterated by the injection of background noise. Such background noise could be the result of either poorly functioning equipment, erasure or purposeful injection, the same source said. The four other sources disputed that there is anything suspicious about the deficiencies and insisted the tapes are marred only by technical problems that can be satisfactorily explained in court."

Who was the one source who believed that an effort might be under way to destroy evidence? Later, in All the President's Men, the authors of the article revealed that it was Deep Throat. Sometime in the first week of November 1973, Woodward initiated a meeting with his source in the underground garage, and received startling information: "Deep Throat's message was short and simple: One or more of the tapes contained deliberate erasures."


Turnbull attended Cambridge University where he gained his first degree. He currently holds 2 MAs in Theology and Military History and a PhD [ clarification needed ] from the University of Leeds where he is a lecturer in Far Eastern Religions. [2]

He was on the editorial board of the short-lived Medieval History Magazine (2003–2005), which was published in association with the Royal Armouries. He was a consultant for the widely successful PC game Shogun: Total War and also its well-received sequel Total War: Shogun 2, both products of Creative Assembly, as well as historical advisor on the severely panned Hollywood film 47 Ronin starring Keanu Reeves. [3] [4] He was also a narrator for the Netflix documentary series Age of Samurai: Battle for Japan in 2021. [4]

He became semi-retired, but holds the post of Visiting Professor of Japanese Studies at Akita International University in Japan. [2]


How to Print

To print a full, legible page of this article, follow the instructions below. Note: some browsers and operating systems behave differently.

  • Right click on the page image and select "Copy."
  • Open a new document in Word or in an image processing program (like Microsoft Word or Paint). To insert the image into the document, select "Paste".
  • Resize the image to fill the page, if necessary.
  • If the article has several pages, repeat these steps for each page.
  • Print the document, and then name and save it for future reference.

Also, we can make a photocopy of the microform record on your behalf and mail it to you for $15. See more about purchasing copies at the Society.


Stephen Bull - History

Ashley Hall Plantation, established in the early 1670s, is one of the earliest settlements on the Ashley River. The plantation was established by Stephen Bull, an English settler who arrive in Carolina in 1670. Bull and his descendants (including William Bull and William Bull, Jr.) who lived on the plantation were prominent in such diverse areas as government, science, engineering, agriculture, and military affairs. The Bull family lived at Ashley Hall until 1865, when the plantation house was burned to prevent its destruction by Union forces. The Ashley Hall property contains one of the oldest standing houses in the state (a small ca. 1675 tabby-walled house with a 20th century second story addition), the ruins of the Georgian plantation house (1704) which was burned in 1865, the monument to the second Governor William Bull erected ca. 1791, two prehistoric Indian sites, and two 18th century well sites associated with the plantation. In the 18th century a garden in the Italian style extended from the house to the riverbank. The grounds are much the same as they were originally with open spaces, woods, shrubs, and an unobstructed view of the Ashley River and the city of Charleston beyond. Listed in the National Register June 5, 1975.

View the complete text of the nomination form for this National Register property.

Most National Register properties are privately owned and are not open to the public. The privacy of owners should be respected. Not all properties retain the same integrity as when originally documented and listed in the National Register due to changes and modifications over time.

Images and texts on these pages are intended for research or educational use. Please read our statement on use and reproduction for further information on how to obtain a photocopy or how to cite an item.


Ashley Hall Plantation

Ashley Hall Plantation is a historic plantation complex located on the Ashley River near West Ashley, Charleston County, South Carolina. The plantation was established in the early 1670s by Stephen Bull. The property includes a small tabby-walled house (c. 1675) with a 20th-century second story addition, the ruins of the Georgian plantation house (1704) which was burned in 1865 to prevent its destruction by Union forces, a monument to the second Governor William Bull (c. 1791), two prehistoric Indian archaeological sites, and two 18th century well sites associated with the plantation. The tabby house is considered one of the oldest standing houses in the state. [2] [3]

In 1915, the 1000 acre property was bought by Julius Jahnz for the price of $30,000, one of the highest prices paid for a real estate sale in many years. [4] In the run up to World War I, some locals circulated a rumor that German-born Jahnz was shipping large amounts of concrete to his new property to erect a German fortress. In reality, the concrete was being used to construct a modern creamery on 400 acres of the property. Jahnz also undertook the clean-up of the grounds including the ruins of the Bull house and a monument erected to Bull's memory. [5]

  1. ^ ab"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. July 9, 2010.
  2. ^
  3. John W. Califf and Elias B. Bull (February 1975). "Ashley Hall Plantation" (pdf) . National Register of Historic Places - Nomination and Inventory . Retrieved June 2014 . Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^
  5. "Ashley Hall Plantation, Charleston County (Address Restricted)". National Register Properties in South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Archives and History . Retrieved 2014-08-01 .
  6. ^
  7. "Julius H. Jahnz Buys Bull Place". News & Courier. Charleston, South Carolina. March 18, 1915. p. 8.
  8. ^
  9. "A Model Estate of the Old Bull Place". News & Courier. Charleston, South Carolina. February 17, 1917. p. 10.

This article about a plantation in South Carolina is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


Stephen Bull - History

Flickr A depiction of the brazen bull in the Torture Museum in Bruges, Belgium.

The webs of Arachne, the foam that birthed Aphrodite, the love between Psyche and Eros — the mountain soil of Ancient Greece was rich loam for legends. While the canon is replete with epic loves and warlike glory, the stories that stick with us best are those of gore. The horror of the minotaur, the sack of Troy, the tragic fate of Medusa are as vivid in Western consciousness as if they stood before us in the red-and-black palette of an amphora.

Even more gruesome than these, however, is the legend of the brazen bull.

Once upon a time in ancient Greece (around 560 B.C.), the seaside colony of Akragas (modern day Sicily) was controlled by a powerful but cruel tyrant named Phalaris. He ruled a wealthy and lovely metropolis with an iron fist.

It’s said that one day, his court sculptor Perilaus showed off his new creation to his master — a replica of a bull, in gleaming brass. This was no simple statue, however. It was affixed with pipes and whistles, hollow on the inside, and constructed over a roaring fire. This bull was actually a melodic torture device.

When the fire was stoked sufficiently, the poor soul would be thrown into the bull, where the heat of its metal body roasted him alive. The pipes and whistles converted the screams of the damned to the snorts and growls of a bull, a flair that Perilaus calculated would tickle Phalaris.

Whether or not it pleased him, the bull proved useful to him — the first victim of many was supposedly Perilaus.

But like so many stories, the truth of the brazen bull is hard to verify.

YouTube A depiction of how the brazen bull worked.

Famed poet and philosopher Cicero recalls the bull as fact, and as proof of a cruel ruler’s viciousness in his series of speeches In Verrum: “… which was that noble bull, which that most cruel of all tyrants, Phalaris, is said to have had, into which he was accustomed to put men for punishment, and to put fire under.”

Cicero later used the symbol of the bull to represent Phalaris’ cruelty and wondered if his people may have fared better under foreign dominion rather than be subject to his brutality.

“…[To] consider whether it was more advantageous to the Sicilians to be subject to their own princes, or to be under the dominion of the Roman people when they had the same thing as a monument of the cruelty of their domestic masters, and of our liberality.”

Of course, Cicero was a political operator and used his speech to paint Phalaris as a villain. Fellow historian Diodorus Siculus wrote that Perilaus remarked:

“If you ever wish to punish some man, O Phalaris, shut him up within the bull and lay a fire beneath it by his groanings the bull will be thought to bellow and his cries of pain will give you pleasure as they come through the pipes in the nostrils.”

Diodorus’ Phalaris asked Perilaus to demonstrate his meaning, and when he climbed in the bull, Phalaris had the artist shut in and burned to death for his loathsome invention.

Whether evil tyrant or vigilante leader, one thing is clear: Phalaris and his brazen bull make a story for the ages.


400 acres granted to Stephen Bull. It appears Bull was already occupying the property (4, p. 61).

Stephen Bull was a prominent diplomate between the colony and Native Americans. The Etiwan Indians made Bull a chief (1, p. 3).

The first dwelling erected on the plantation was a small one-story house. This was the house where Stephen Bull lived and where all of his children were born (4, p. 61).

– William Bull, Stephen's son, was the plantation's next owner. He was active colonial governor of South Carolina November 1737 - December 1743 and was also active in Indian affairs (1, p. 3).

This mansion stood until 1865 when Colonel William Izard Bull set fire to it to save the home of his ancestors from destruction by Union troops (1, p. 3).

– William Bull's son, William Bull II was Ashley Hall's next owner. Just like his father and grandfather, William II negotiated with the Native Americans including a treaty with the Catawba Indians of South Carolina and Iroquiois Confederacy as well as a peace treaty that ended the Cherokee War of 1763 that was signed at Ashley Hall Plantation. He also served as acting governor of South Carolina five separate times between 1760 and 1775 (1, p. 3 and 8).

– William Stephen Bull was the plantation's fifth owner (1, p. 8).

– Kennerty was not successful in farming the plantation and would lose it a short time later (5).

– Due to the high cost of property taxes, the Kennerty family sold off all but 30 acres (5).

  • Alphabetical list – Stephen Bull (1676-?) William Bull (?-1782) William Bull II (?) William Bull, nephew (1782-?) William Izard Bull William Stephen Bull Julius H. Jahnz John William Kennerty (1900-?) William Charles Kennerty (1919-1930s) Rosina Kennerty, Rosemarie Kennerty Signeous, and William Charles Kennerty Jr. (1930s-?)

World War I Trench Warfare: Pt.1: 1914-1916 by Stephen Bull (Paperback, 2002)

The lowest-priced, brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging (where packaging is applicable). Packaging should be the same as what is found in a retail store, unless the item is handmade or was packaged by the manufacturer in non-retail packaging, such as an unprinted box or plastic bag. See details for additional description.

What does this price mean?

This is the price (excluding postage) a seller has provided at which the same item, or one that is very similar to it, is being offered for sale or has been offered for sale in the recent past. The price may be the seller's own price elsewhere or another seller's price. The 'off' amount and percentage signifies the calculated difference between the seller's price for the item elsewhere and the seller's price on eBay. If you have any questions related to the pricing and/or discount offered in a particular listing, please contact the seller for that listing.


Marketing Strategies

The success of Red Bull can largely be attributed to its widely popular advertizing campaigns. Titled as “Red Bull gives you wings”, the tagline has almost become synonymous with the product itself. The commercials carrying this message are trendy, innovative and are successful in creating the required buzz among the viewers as well as amusing them.

Aside from the fun aspect, the caricature or cartoon-based commercials convey the message that Red Bull is really an energizing drink and thus have played their part in creating the success story of the brand.

Apart from widespread media advertizing, Red Bull has a long-running association with extreme and adventure sports. So, popular performing sportspersons from skateboarding, surfing, kayaking, mountain and BMX biking, snowboarding, rowing and other similar disciplines have been sponsored by the company.

Red Bull has sponsorship deals with NASCAR and Formula 1 car racing teams and even has its own team named Red Bull Racing for the Formula 1 Championships. World champion racer Sebastian Vettel was the driver of the cars produced by the company from the years 2010 to 2013.

Red Bull also won the World Constructor’s Championships of race cars for the same number of years. Football club teams from the countries of Austria, Brazil, United States and Germany are sponsored by the brand. RB Leipzig, a top-level German Bundesliga (football league) team, is owned by Red Bull GMBH. Similarly, FC Red Bull Salzburg of Austria and FC New York Red Bulls od USA are also sponsored by them. Also, many extreme sports teams are sponsored by the company to associate the brand with high-performing athletes which serves to further its product as a stimulating and performance-enhancing energy drink among the masses.

Also, personalities from the dance and music industry have been promoting the brand to reach a wider customer base. Rap singers like Eminem have endorsed the brand in the Emcee Battle Rap Championships.

Red Bull GMBH also sponsors the popular flying event all over the world, “Red Bull Flugtag (airshow in German)” wherein the competitors showcase their indigenously-made machines and entertain the crowd in the process.

The “Red Bull House of Art” is a fellowship program by the company to encourage talented artists and designers to create showpieces over a three-month long period and finally displaying them in an exhibition.

Red Bull has significant presence in the world of video games also. It has sponsorships deals with many professional gamers and teams playing popular multiplayer games like League of Legends and DOTA 2.

Conclusion

Thus, Red Bull GMBH is a classic success story of the “east meets west” kind. The energy drink from Thailand “Krating Daeng” catering to the largely local working class populace was promoted and turned into a world-leading brand of its category within three decades of its international launch through visionary western entrepreneurship.

With over twenty different variations of its world-famous energy drink tailor-made to cater its millions of consumers all over the world, Red Bull is set to dominate its category for the foreseeable future.


This Day In Market History: 1960s Bull Market Ends

What Happened? On this day in 1966, the Vietnam-era U.S. bull market came to an end.

Where Was The Market? The S&P 500 was at 94.06 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 995.15.

What Else Was Going On In The World? In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that accused criminals must be read their Miranda Rights in order to be convicted, and the U.S. Department of Transportation was created. A new car cost an average of $2,650.

Death Of The 1960s Bull: The U.S. economy was booming in the 1960s. An increasing number of Americans bought stocks throughout the decade, sending the Dow near 1,000 for the first time in January 1966. In fact, the huge market boom of the 1960s was not unlike the boom of the 1920s. Between February 1956 and February 1966, the Dow more than doubled, gaining 111%.

Interest rates played a key role in the longevity of the rise.

“That bull run into the mid-1960s was actually an S&P secular bull trend that was associated with a low and rising interest rate environment," Bank of America analyst Stephen Suttmeier recently said.

Once the bull disappeared in 1966, however, it didn’t make its return for quite a long time. The Dow didn’t break 1,000 again until November 1980, more than 14 years later. It took more than 20 years for the Dow to double once more and close above the 2,000 level for the first time in January 1987.


Watch the video: fnia a série, episódio 7. (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Columbo

    It is possible to tell, this exception :)

  2. Baxter

    She should tell it - the error.

  3. Anwell

    You are wrong. I propose to discuss it. Write to me in PM, it talks to you.



Write a message

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos