Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 18

= September 18 =

War of 1904
What did Japanese people think of war with Russia?K Limura 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Russo-Japanese_war - bottom line is they were unhappy with the treaty terms. Exxolon 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Exxolon. Sorry i put question badly. I meant Japanese ordinary public.K Limura 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That section does contain some information about the people's responses. There are references to riots for a start - have a good read through! Exxolon 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, K, let's see now. To begin with it might interest you to know that Japanese success in the war against Russia created a set of preconceptions among the western powers, preconceptions that were to last well into the century: that the Japanese were a martial people, the Prussians of the east, fed from birth on the code of Bushido; a nation whose soldiers cared nothing for self-preservation, whose people sacrificed all for the emperor and the greater good. But the Japanese are as varied as people anywhere else, and the stresses and strains of the war produced a whole mixture of reactions. Among other things, there were complaints in the press about the lack of patriotism and the 'degeneracy' of modern youth. Consider this gem from September 1905;

"Recently male students have taken to wearing perfume and cosmetics and acting in a listless manner. Female students, by contrast, swagger about the city in tight-sleeved dresses, radiating energy.  In a world where the loser [Russia] defeats the victor [Japan] in peace talks, one almost expects leaves to sink and rocks to float."

During the conflict itself there was a general mood of patriotism, and people did support the troops, though enthusiasm began to wane somewhat as the conflict was dragged out, and demands for contributions of money and goods got ever more irkesome. Organisations like the Patriotic Women's Association, set up to look after the families of those lost in action, were criticised for snobbery and class prejudice, attending to the dependants of officers but not men.

Government policy was also the subject of criticism. At first people were told to cut back on luxuries, like drinking and smoking. But by the close of 1904, as the financial pressures of the war mounted, a tax was placed on sake and tobacco, and a new emphasis placed upon consumption. This met with some ironic comment in the press, "Half a year ago, we were told, 'Think of the national emeergency! Don't drink!  Don't smoke!'  Now, tobacco is a state monopoly and sake taxes go into the war effort.  Now we are told, 'Think of the emergency!  Drink and smoke your fill!'  It would seem that smokers and drinkers are becoming true patriots!"

As always, and as everywhere, there was a growing gap between the official optimism and practical realism, especially when campaigns dragged on longer than expected. The mounting casualties in the battle for Port Arthur was also a cause of growing cynicism and war-weariness. By the time it was captured, after several hard months of combat, a new phrase had come into popular use, expressing a mood of disbelief, "The cheque is in the post and Port Arthur is about to fall." Even after the most heartening victories, like that of Tsushima in May 1905, other considerations sometimes outweighed feelings of patriotism. In the city of Gifu, for example, an entire ward refused to celebrate because of concerns over the mayor's use of war donations. In the end, despite all of their efforts and sacrifices, many people felt that they had won a war only to lose a peace. Clio the Muse 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Iwakura mission
What did Japanese learn from Iwakura mission of 1872?K Limura 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Iwakura_mission and check the references/external links for more detail. Please use the search box to find articles too! Exxolon 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For a moment there I thought you meant the Itokawa mission – shows you where my head is at! —Tamfang 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One very useful lesson in realpolitik was delivered to the Japanese ambassadors by Bismarck, when they dined with him in Berlin in March 1873. He told them that Japan must rely on its own efforts in maintaining its independence against the hungry imperial powers, like England and France, not on international law and diplomacy. The main conclusion they took back to Japan after their prolonged tour was that defence came only through strength; that strength came only through economic power; that economic power only came with modernisation. The path taken, though, was to be uniquely Japanese. Clio the Muse 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Justice Today
Is justice today actually just? 76.198.94.201 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I shrink from responding to such a vague question. But I will say that one could find many examples of both just and unjust outcomes in today's world, exactly as has always been the case since time immemorial and will always be the case forever.  We could give you a better answer if you gave us more information about where you're referring to and what sorts of justice you'd like to know about.  --  JackofOz 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) That question is so broad it's almost impossible to answer. Which justice system? USA? UK? Sharia? In what context? For the criminal? The victim? Society? It can be argued that the goal of any justice system is to acheive justice as well as how far apart the ideal and the realities are. Exxolon 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A short answer to a short question: "Most justice is imperfect". In someone's wise words (I forget where this is from) "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under railway bridges and beg in the streets." And (wandering off your question) you might like this little verse, attributed to Lord Justice Bowen:
 * The rain it raineth on the just
 * And also on the unjust fella;
 * But chiefly on the just,
 * Because the unjust steals the just's umbrella.
 * Xn4 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an excellent article last week's Spectator (London, 13 September) on this very subject, 76.198, though it is addressed specifically to the inadequacies of the British system of justice. Anyway, the author, Leo McKinstry, takes his cue from the old Hollywood clasic, Twelve Angry Men. He sees this as a significant step in the advance of the 'bleeding hearts', a move along a road that would see the state lose confidence in its ability to enforce the law. This is how he concludes;

''The Fonda hero is meant to be the champion of individual liberty against the scourge of McCarthyite bullying. But towards the end of film he turns into a bully himself, demanding total adherence to his viewpoint. He refuses to accept that some other jurors can still think the teenager is guilty. His conduct can almost be seen as a metaphor for the modern liberal takeover of our justice system. Common sense about crime, like locking up offenders, has to be denied. The protective institutions, which once saw themselves as the guardians of the public, have to be brainwashed into thinking differently. Anything that smacks of robustness had to be smeared as sadistic or reactionary.

''The Fonda position is regarded as the height of compassion, but it is nothing of the sort. By letting the guilty walk free and crimes go unpunished, liberal campaigners have inflicted misery on the genuinely innocent. It is one of the bizarre paradoxes of modern liberalism that those who trumpet their concern for the vulnerable should actually be such noisy supporters of criminals, the nastiest and most aggressive people in our society. The acquittal of O.J. Simpson was the perfect example of the doctrine espoused by Twelve Angry Men, with someone who looked like an obvious killer found not guilty because of whispers about racism and a catalogue of spurious challenges over hard evidence. Barry Shreck and Johnny Cochrane, Simpson’s ruthless and cynical lawyers, were the real-life incarnation of Henry Fonda’s architect. Here in Britain the same process is at work. As violent crime soars, and thugs laugh at the justice system, we are all paying the price for Fonda’s morally inverted liberation.'' Clio the Muse 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

earley cars engines compared to curent egines
how wher early car engine difrent than car engines from today like did they not use internal com. engines did they not have as meny pistons thanks i am a car fanatic woo hoo =P--Sivad4991 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This question would be better served on the science desk. See Automobile - it has a history section and details on all the fuels and technologies used. Also see Internal combustion engine for an overview of it's history
 * {comment removed per WP:BITE) byEdison 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)).
 * Exxolon 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You understood what they were asking though, yes? Maybe English isn't their primary language.  Dismas |(talk) 03:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

i read both automobile and internal comustion pages but i didnt find wat i was looking for i want to know how hey compare andcan any 1 find a picture of a old car engine thanks every 1 --76.235.177.136 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

More on female editors
Hi.I asked a question not so long ago about female editors. Thanks to all who responded. But I really just wanted to know how many females there are here on the reference desk. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnie X (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And what are they wearing? —Tamfang 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Try putting that the other way around ("I really just wanted to know how many males there are here on the reference desk"), and the penny might drop, Barnie. Xn4 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Barnie, one of the great delights of the online world is that one can reveal as much or as little of one's personal life as one wishes. You will have noticed how few people wanted to answer your previous question. That is because they don't want you to know, and it is their absolute right to keep that private. All you need know is what comes through the quality of their replies. Male/female, young/old, rich/poor, we are all equal here until we make ourselves unequal through demonstrating our wisdom or otherwise. SaundersW 08:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only way to answer this one is to go to the talk page and take a survey, probably asking people to take part. Also, how do you define who being at the reference desk? For example, haven't seen you, Barnie, here before... maybe if this is only your second posting, do we count you?  What about someone who stopped using it last month?  Although maybe the other explanation for people not telling us is not just about privacy, they simply thought the given answers were enough.martianlostinspace email me 11:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Martians have male and female? Or are you asexual? Or even hermaphrodite? We should know - you'll mess up the statistics. --Dweller 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Corvus cornix 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, kind alien, Dweller. Since first contact, our scientists have been trying to connect the earth concept which you call "gender" to Martian anatomy. So far, we believe that the martian idea of "성ج本ن%олό$일본σμ£日ια", approximately pronounced "phanthree78blojMNVBX", could equate to the human concept, but this is yet to be confirmed. If true, it would mean that we have between five and twelve genders, depending on ethnic group. Normally, 43-68% of these genders must be present to permit procreation, although if one is lacking, it may be replaced by 2 of another gender. I am sure such kind hosts as yourselves would be prepared to accomodate me in your statistics.martianlostinspace email me 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If two replace one, wouldn't that give a higher percentage than required? how does that work? :) Wrad 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we really must discuss the sexuality of my species, can we please not do it here in full view? I understand that even in human culture it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss sexuality in public.martianlostinspace email me 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore lostinspace, he's lying. Martians have 3 sexes. Males, females and asexuals. Asexuals rear the young, females hunt, males look after the females. lostinspace is an asexual. Cheers Nil Einne 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a non-martian (I assume) would know?martianlostinspace email me 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought Martians were all men! Speaking as a citizen of Venus, of course.  Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, a sweet Venetian. Barnie X 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Errr... Barnie, Venetian describes someone from Venice, Italy. As romantic as Clio may be (considering the topic), I think you're looking for Venusian. Slight difference.martianlostinspace email me 08:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or venereal, although that word tends to give the wrong impressions these days.... Laïka  14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure we all appreciate martian's willingness to enlighten us, his/her/its response does not conform to WP:V and WP:RS. I trust no one will add it to any article without proper citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One of our Earth buildings appears to already accomodate Martian genders: See http://www.othermag.org/blog.php?p=209 -- AnonMoos 09:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Beer Flood
Hi,

I read somewhere once that there was once a beer flood in London that caused several people to drown in beer, but I couldn't find this anywhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone know if this story is actually true?

Thanks!
 * I couldn't find anything here on Wikipedia but a Google search for the term "beer flood" yields several results that look promising. Dismas |(talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the story is true. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have an article on the molasses disaster mentioned in that link. Rmhermen 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meux%27s_Brewery. -- !! ?? 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Political rivalry
In the region of South Asia, I know that in Bangladesh, it's political rivals are Awami League(leftist) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party(rightist), so what about its South Asian counterparts? Does India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their own political rivals among themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any democracy has competing political parties, right and left. The existance of the above parties apparently getting 40% of the vote each makes it probably a two party system.  You can see the articles on these at "Politics of [country]", eg Politics of India using the search bar on the right.martianlostinspace email me 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Quibble: So far as right and left mean anything coherent, they seem to me to stand for stability and equality respectively, and I wouldn't expect those two to be the poles of every democracy. —Tamfang 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support for Tamfang's quibble: even some Western-style democracies find their two main parties are both, in European terms, of the 'right' or the 'left'. When you get into South Asia, rival political parties may have quite different polarities, such as ethnic or tribal or religious ones. Xn4  05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fouad Siniora
I read Fouad Siniora's bio article and it didn't say which political party he belongs to, which indicates that party is in country's government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.98 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the Lebanese government of July 2005 article, Fouad Siniora is a member of Future Movement, part of the March 14 Alliance. See also: Politics of Lebanon.&mdash;eric 05:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this economist?
I recently came across the homepage of an academic economist. All I remember from his/her site is that they are writing a forthcoming book, which has the words 'price' and 'theory' in its tentative title. Any idea who this economist may be? 129.78.64.105 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Price Theory or Price Theory and Applications? SGGH speak! 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * David D. Friedman has also written a textbook titled Price Theory, but can any of these be described as "forthcoming"? —Tamfang 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lord/Lady of the Manor"
When the lord was out, the lady takes the role of being the leader, but if something happens to the Lord, does the lady lead or does someone else come in because women are used in other ways, not to lead. Please put a list of pages where i can find information on medieval: Leaders Kings and Queens Sport Rankings Lifestyles Clothing Thankyou for your time and effort! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.153.57 (talk • contribs)
 * Lord/ Lady of the manor
 * Knights
 * Weaponry
 * =most important


 * We have articles on all those things, including Lord of the Manor.


 * Generally speaking, when a powerful man died, his title, lands and other property passed to his eldest son, or to another close male relative. Females wielding significant power in their own right was rare, but not unheard of; there were three female monarchs in a row in 16th century England, for example. FiggyBee 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wives were often placed in charge of their husband's affairs temporarily, while they were off fighting somewhere...Adela of Normandy and Sibylla of Anjou held a lot of power while their husbands were off on crusade, for example. For your other questions, check out History of western fashion, knight, medieval football, and medieval weapons. Adam Bishop 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A Lady of the Manor was often called a Chatelaine. Corvus cornix 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle Day
What is Bicycle Day? Is it celebrated as a holiday? 207.69.139.140 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One meaning of Bicycle Day is explained here. Gandalf61 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard of bicycle days - where people are supposed to ride around on bicycles.. Not sure if there is a fixed day .87.102.116.240 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A soldier's declaration
On Wikisource, the featured text for the month is s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration, by Siegfried Sassoon. We havent been able to work out who it was primarily addressed to. i.e. did he write it to be published in the newspaper, or to be read aloud at the House of Commons, or perhaps it was addressed to his army superiors before finding its way into the public.

As a separate question, how does being read aloud at the House of Commons, or printed in a 1917 UK newspaper, affect the copyright of this work in the UK. We are currently using PD-1923 which justifies Wikisource hosting it, but it would be nice to provide a more liberal license for non-US readers. John Vandenberg 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Norton Anthology of English Literature says:

Siegfried Sassoon's declaration of war against the war appeared in the Bradford Pioneer on July 27, 1917 ... (This statement was made to his commanding officer by Second-Lieutenant S. L. Sassoon, Military Cross, recommended for D.S.O., Third Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers, as explaining his grounds for refusing to serve further in the army. He enlisted on 3rd August 1914, showed distinguished valour in France, was badly wounded, and would have been kept on home service if he had stayed in the army.)


 * And our article says:

At the end of a spell of convalescent leave, Sassoon declined to return to duty, instead, encouraged by pacifist friends such as Bertrand Russell and Lady Ottoline Morrell, he sent a letter to his commanding officer titled A Soldier’s Declaration, which was forwarded to the press and read out in Parliament by a sympathetic MP.


 * Does that help?


 * On that basis, it is difficult to see why the text would not benefit from the usual (since 1995) copyright term in the UK of life plus 70 years. Which, for Siegfried Sassoon, leaves another 30 years before it is out of copyright.  -- !! ?? 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because it is Florida law that is relevant: see the text and links on Template:PD-US. Basically, anything published in the US before 1923, as this almost certainly was, is no longer copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What does Florida law have to do with the copyright status of this work in the UK, which is what the questioner asked? -- !! ?? 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, !! ; as a result, the blurb on the Wikisource Featured Text has been expanded, and I wrote an article for Bradford Pioneer. It is a shame that our UK readers are not supposed to read the front page of Wikisource this month; I will take that up with the team over there. John Vandenberg 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloane Rangers
I see the question I placed earlier today has been removed (is that allowed?) so I'll place another and ask my original in a more 'appropriate' place. Here is my new one: what exactly is a Sloane Ranger? Are they all superior young women? Some examples would be nice.Barnie X 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Sloane Ranger. Some suggested members of the sub-species are listed in the article. Very few are in captivity. Xn4 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * None; they are far, far too wild! Clio the Muse 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A people's contest
This is how Abraham Lincoln described the war between the states. I would be interested to know what motivated men on either side to fight? Have there been any studies of the subject? Tower Raven 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the word "contest" had a different context 150 years ago. While the inquiry into the people's motivations is interesting, I doubt they were in it for fabulous prizes.  Beekone 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of northerners fought because of Nationalism (i.e. the U.S. couldn't fulfill its destiny as a great nation if it had half its territory amputated, including the outlet of the Mississippi river at New Orleans, which was a vital trade link for much of the midwest); because they were heartily sick of southern leaders seeming to dominate the U.S. government and forcing into U.S. federal law measures which were extremely unpopular among a broad section of the northern population (e.g. the 1854 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the 1857 Dred Scott decision etc.), and southern secession in 1861 seemed to be part of this "rule or ruin" strategy; and because the southerners were the ones who started the shooting war, and were thus considered the agressors by many. Most northerners were against the extension of slavery to new geographical areas (the political issue of the 1848-1860 period), and held little goodwill towards slaveholders (who were viewed as being part of the sinister nefarious "Slave Power" political conspiracy), but relatively few northerners would have given abolition of slavery as the main reason why they were fighting, and during the first 2 years or so of the war, the idea that the war was being fought primarily to free the blacks, rather than to restore the union, was extremely controversial among northern whites. AnonMoos 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget those who fought because they were drafted. &mdash;Tamfang 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What you need to look for is two books in particular, both by Bell Irtwin Wiley-The Life of Johnny Reb: the Common Soldier of the Confederacy and The Life of Billy Yank: the Common Soldier of the Union, originally published some sixty years ago and reprinted in the late 1980s. In the latter Wiley says that the Union soldier went to war often for the highest of motives, though in time grand visions scaled to narrow horizons;

The primary interest were physical comfort, food, drink, girls, furloughs, mail and gambling, in about that order, and ultimate objectives sooner or later simmered down to finishing an unpleasant though necessary job as soon as possible and getting home.

The Confederate soldiers, most of whom had no slaves, and little understanding of the grander constitutional questions, were often motivated by one thing, and one thing only: hatred of the Yankee invaders.

The debate has broadened slightly since Wiley published his studies, with some historians placing a far greater emphasis on ideological factors, though this often depends on the perspective one happens to adopt: the experience of battle or those things that brought men to the battle in the first place. Some were drafted, but to the very end most on both sides were volunteers. Battle itself, the experience of battle, became a bonding factor for men who had lived through common dangers. One southern soldier wrote that while the men were all desperate to get away on furlough, they were nearly always just as desperate to get back, "There is a feeling of love-a strong attachment for those with whom one has shared a common danger, that is never felt...under any other circumstances."

Religion was also an important factor, possibly just as important as it once was in the English Civil War of the seventeenth century, something that gave the ugliness a more transcendent quality. While a northern soldier sang that 'as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free' a southern artillery officer, even after the fall of Atlanta, could not believe "that our father in Heaven intends that we shall be subjugated by such a race of people as the Yankees."

People in both sides, interestingly, also sought justification in the actions of their antecedents during the American Revolution. The Rebels took comfort in another great southern Rebel, while the Northerns argued that the ideals of the Founding Fathers had been undermined by a southerm 'aristocracy.'

Comradeship, necessity, faith and high ideals, however these are interpreted, brought men to, and kept them in, a universe of battle. Clio the Muse 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides the Americans who fought, there were plenty of foreigners who travelled to America to fight in the Civil War. A number of Australians (figures vary) sailed to America (usually disembarking in California) and made their way east until they found some soldiers and joined them.  Apparently, rarely did these Australians enlist in a particular army for ideological reasons; rather for the excitement that travelling to the other side of the world and shooting strangers brings.  In this article  there is a reference to the Confederacy warship 'Shenandoah' visiting Melbourne during the war and recruited locals for the war. --Roisterer 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How many of the Founding Fathers 'were' "southern aristocracy:" plantation dwelling slave-owners? Was there a discussion during the writing of the Constitution and the ratification that, like a gang, once you join, attempts to leave will be met with violence?  If a European country decided to leave the EU, would the other EU countries have a right to invade it? Edison 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a small taste, but George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, all Virginia slave holders were respectively the 1st, 3rd, and 4th presidents. Washington of course was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Madison was one of the primary architects of the US constitution.  Czmtzc 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the 1770's almost all the British North American colonies (both north and south) had slavery, but most revolutionary leaders (both north and south) admitted that slavery was a bad thing which eventually should be eliminated. It wasn't until ca. 1818-1819 (when slavery had been abolished in all northern states, while slavery in the south had received a major economic boost from use of the cotton gin) that slavery first became a "sectional" issue in U.S. politics, pitting north against south.
 * The question of whether states had a right to secede from the U.S. was not touched on in the U.S. constitution, and diverse people had diverse opinions on this as a purely abstract theoretical constitutional question -- but in the context of the politics of 1861, a large number of northeners (including some who had very little regard for the well-being of blacks) were very determined not to allow a bunch of southern political rascals and Slave Power conspirators to destroy the national greatness of the United States of America in pursuit of their "rule or ruin" policies... AnonMoos 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember from my past reading of American history that secession first became a serious political issue during the War of 1812, with the threat that some of the northern states might leave the Union, because the conflict with Great Britain threatened their economic well-being. And surely it was not always northerners who were concerned with the integrity of the Union.  Was it not Andrew Jackson, despite his general sympathy for the South, who took a strong line with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis?  Anyway, in the end the Civil War did at least address and settle the central political ambiguity in the Constitution; that the United States is a nation, not a loose alliance of sectional interests.  And in relation to Edison's point, the EU is not, nor could it ever be, a 'nation'-or at least I hope not.  You see, Clio is a firm believer in states' rights!  Clio the Muse 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nation, my foot. Did the Russian conquest of the Caucasus remove any doubt that Georgia etc are part of the Russian nation?  Lincoln's illegal war, like any war of conquest or reconquest, solidified only an empire – which has since arguably become a nation.  —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the word illegal was unwise. Sorry.  &mdash;Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The conquest of Georgia and the other nations of the Caucasus-which predates the American Civil War by half a century-made these places part of the Russian Empire, not part of the Russian nation; for they all preserved their unique cultural and political identity. This is just as true of India, which became part of the British Empire after the suppression of the Mutiny in 1857, though clearly not part of the British nation.  The United States, by any reasonable definition, was already a nation before the Civil War, though increasingly torn by sectional disputes.  I have little doubt the Andrew Jackson would have taken the same action as Linclon in 1861 in the face of secession, just as Andrew Johnson, another southerner, sided with Union.  Secession, carried out in the face of the opposition of at least one state governor, was the bring secession within the secession, and civil war within the civil war.  In the end, with the exception of South Carolina, every southern state had formations serving in the Union army.  I mention this purely by way of fact.  You, Tamfang, seemed determined to fight old, unhappy, far off things/and battles long ago; I am not.  So please forgive me if I resist the temptation to debate with you....and your foot.  Clio the Muse 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the United States were a nation before 1861, a position with which I won't argue because I don't find the question interesting, then the war did not make it so. Questions of cultural identity are not resolved on the battlefield.  If you say silly things I'll call you on it whether or not you admit to "debating". – Thank you for the historical details in this last paragraph.  &mdash;Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for legality, since the southerners chose to start the shooting war, many in the north were persuaded that consitutional provisions such as "The Congress shall have power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" and "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War" applied. AnonMoos 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * When I say "Lincoln's illegal war" (an unwise chose of words, I now recognize) I refer not only to the invasion itself (which he threatened before the shooting started) but to his other violent acts against the democratic process, which I hope I need not enumerate. Since you frame this paragraph with "many in the north were persuaded", it is accurate and on topic (hurrah!).  Though I'll note that some in the North, such as the Chief Justice, were not persuaded that authortity to suspend habeas corpus rested with the President (that clause is in article I, not article II).  &mdash;Tamfang 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the supreme court justice who was responsible for that decision was the infamous Roger B. Taney, who had absolutely zero credibility in the north after his transparently shabby fraudulent manipulations of historical facts (and extreme bigoted racism) revealed in the Dred Scott decision.  A lot of Northerners thought that the only reason why "justice" Taney hadn't defected to the more ideologically-congenial climate of Mississippi (or whatever) at the beginning of the war was that he preferred to stay behind and conduct deliberate malicious judicial sabotage and vandalism for the intentional purpose of undermining the Union war effort.  If someone was needed to stand up for full democratic rights during wartime during the Lincoln administration, it couldn't be judge Taney, who was incredibly toxic in terms of northern politics after 1857. AnonMoos 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to The Professor and the Madman, many Irishmen joined the war for practice, hoping soon to fight the Sassenach. —Tamfang 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I just finished reading that. 38.112.225.84 22:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)