Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 12

= October 12 =

RMS Titanic and American Civil War veterans question
I've seen that there were several Titanic's passengers who were in a way or another, involved in the American Civil War. Can anybody tell me if they were all Confederates or Unionists? Thank you. For instance, Isidor Straus was Confederate. And how old did they have to be to lie within the range of born before or during the Civil War? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the Titanic sank in 1912, which is 47 years after the end of the US Civil War (1861-1865). If you figure they had to be, say, 15-65 to fight in it, that means they would have to be 62-112 on the Titanic.  People born before the Civil War would be approximately 51 or older, and those born during the Civil War would be approximately 47-51 (I say approximately because those events didn't all occur on the same day of the year, but they were all in April or May, so it's close enough for our purposes).  StuRat (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand it now. Thank you StuRat. Isidor Straus was 14 by 1859, so he fought in the Civil War for the Confederates. Francis Davis Milletwas also involved in the American Civil War by helping his father and taking part himself in the war. I was surprised to find so many US Civil Warveterans on board the Titanic. I didn't know there were so many on board. Thank you again. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would have been quite unlikely if there weren't both Union and Confederate veterans, due to the large number of Americans in that age group on board. May I mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean I shouldn't have been surprised to find American Civil War veterans on board? hahaha. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider the case of John Clem, the "Drummer Boy of Chickamauga" who was promoted to Sergeant in 1863 at the age of 12. He would have been 60 when the Titanic sank. "Over 100,000 boys younger than 15 enlisted in the Union Army, there were even 300 boys younger than 13." Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

big face rock
I want to know the name of a location (a city) that has many big rocks with the face shapes. I think it is somewhere in America continent but not sure. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean man-made faces like Mount Rushmore or natural formations that some claim look like faces like the (now deceased) Old Man of the Mountains? -- Jayron  32 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rushmore is the most famous/visited but there are many in America and the world, you may want to check this out (all world locations)Category:Mountain monuments and memorials. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that of all the memorials on that list only the Crazy Horse Memorial features a huge carved face like Mount Rushmore. The rest are either full statues or various kinds of structures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's on the American continent? The moai of Eastern Island would fit your description.  2001:18E8:2:1020:749C:5B76:1D8E:3D22 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moai, that's it! That's what I'm looking for. Thanks everyone for suggestions!Pendragon5 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are the carved statues. The location you asked for is Easter Island (not Eastern Island).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:Saddhiyama actually found that category by going to Stone Mountain so that's also on the list. Marketdiamond(talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

History:The recall of Colonel Amherst and smallpox
Hi, I'm wondering whether the reason Amherst was removed from command was because the Brits found out about his plan for killing Native Americans using smallpox.--I'd like to think that at least some of the higher ups had scruples, and "fired" Amherst for that reason.Thanks198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it was considered here, but even if one has no concern about the genocide of Native Americans, spreading smallpox among them may very well lead to the disease jumping from them to people they did care about. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article on Amherst says that he was recalled because his policies provoked the war that the smallpox gambit was intended to stop. If part of the criticism levied against him was his attempt at genocide, the honors that he subsequently received very shortly after his return to England and continued to receive thereafter would suggest that the objection certainly wasn't very strong. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's really known that Amherst in fact distributed smallpox-tainted blankets -- in several letters he said it would be a good thing to do, but didn't say that he had done it. AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Soldiers in Amherst's army did try the smallpox-blanket tactic at Fort Pitt, probably without success, but the surviving documents indicate that they thought of it and tried it before Amherst even mentioned it. This is such a striking coincidence that it might mean the idea had been bandied about before then. I've never seen any evidence that Amherst's superiors learned about the idea. Some would have no doubt been horrified, though in the next war, the American colonists were sure the Bristish were deliberately trying to infect them, and in 1777, a British officer once again suggesting doing just that. See http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm. —Kevin Myers 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Myers is correct for the location, and just for clarity that is Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) since naming things after Prime Minister (and State Secretary) Pitt was actually quite popular in Pre-Revolutionary North America and quite a number of forts and towns were named Pitt or derivations. "remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake" What do you mean? Do you mean that the Siege of Fort Pitt was a battle the Native Americans had to win? Best wishes, Rich Peterson 216.86.177.36 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * June 24, 1763: Fort Pitt: Captain Simeon Ecuyer gifts the Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the small pox ward "out of regard to them" after the tribe pledges to renew their friendship. While the exact meaning of his phrase is unclear, a later invoice appears to establish the purpose was transmittal of small pox, the world's first use of bio weapons.
 * July 13, 1763: Col. Bouquet writes back to Amherst: "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."
 * July 16, 1763: Amherst replys to Bouquet: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
 * Not my words and also remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake. Marketdiamond (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the first use - I think I remember reading the Mongols catapulted bubonic plague corpses before the great European outbreak. (The article says that also but doesn't give a source) Wnt (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

EU Nobel Peace Prize
What did the EU do that they got the Nobel Peace Prize this year? -- Jethro  B  18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically, it came into being after World War 2 and there hasn't been a war in Europe since.Here's the award citation. Why this year in particular? Maybe the Nobel committee wanted to try and remind us Europeans what we have achieved before we tear ourselves apart ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been a war on the North American continent since WWII either - are Canada, America, and Mexico entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize as well?? The EU deals with other regions as well and gets involved in some conflicts, but a lot of these conflicts have not been solved and still remain.  I don't have anything against the EU, I'm just trying to understand why they got the Nobel Peace Prize, as it's not so clear to me. -- Jethro   B  18:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a better way of looking at it would be that Europe has been in a state of intermittent war between nation-states more or less continually for the past fifteen hundred years (or more). It's not simply that the EU hasn't had a war among its member states for sixty years, but that they haven't even come close - this system has apparently managed to break a cycle that lasted for most of recorded history, which is quite a feat. The North American context isn't quite the same...
 * It's also worth noting that "peace" isn't simply, in the Nobel context, a matter of not having wars. The award talks about the EU promoting "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights" - it's remarkable the effect that the carrot of EU membership has had on some states in ensuring theCopenhagen criteria are adhered to. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And there was in fact a major genocide in Europe about two decades ago... -- Jethro  B  18:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not in the EU, however. Even today, from the successor states of Yugoslavia, only Slovenia has joined the EU, and Slovenia had peacefully seceded.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not correct, Stephan. Slovenia'a secession was not "peaceful", see Ten-Day War. Only the Serbes could not afford to do to much to them, as they had to deal with the Croatian right away after the Slovenian secession (and Serbia has a border with Croatia, which made it more urgent).--Lgriot (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooops. I did check before I wrote that, but apparently not carefully enough. I've struck it. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz(talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the Kosovo War is only an example of why the prize was wrongly awarded to the European Union. Iowafromiowa(talk) 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all a matter of the politicization of the Nobel committee. Look at the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.  I am not sure what further references we can provide here, other than debate and opinion. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've noticed that the way to get a Nobel Peace Prize seems to be to kill lots of people, then kill fewer people. Thus, since the death toll relative to WW1 and WW2 has been considerably reduced, they are as worthy of the prize as Arafat was for reducing the number of civilians he had murdered, in his later years.  Then there was the case of Obama getting one for "not starting the US invasion of Iraq". StuRat(talk) 19:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize." AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the Nobel Peace Prize page, "Unlike the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes, usually issued in retrospect often two or three decades after the awarded achievement, the Peace Prize has been awarded for more recent or immediate achievements, or with the intention of encouraging future achievements." Of course right after that is . Livewireo (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why not award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to chemists who've never done anything noteworthy, to encourage them to do so ? :-)StuRat (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call 67 years of peace between the members a "recent or immediate" achievement. And in any case, I am French living in Britain, and I assure you that I very thankful to the EU that in all the 40 years of my life I never had to travel to a frontline for the defense of the homeland against an invading army, unlike my grandfather. --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 67 years of peace happened very recently. 66 years of peace was a little less recent, but apparently that wasn't enough! --Tango(talk) 19:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The European Union is not 67 years old, so you cannot prize them for that. Furthermore: the EU is not the only European pan-national institution, the NATO seems more responsible for the peace in Europe, both among NATO members and between West/Central Europe and Eastern Block.OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And not forgetting the Council of Europe (of which the UK was a founder member in 1949). The EU has even stolen their flag!Alansplodge (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I get the impression the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is about as liberal as you can get, so aren't about to buy into the idea that a strong defense ensures peace. For them, unilateral disarmament is more likely to be awarded with a prize. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion, so if I don't get any replies here I may post a new question. What interests me is why the Nobel committee has awarded the Peace Prize to organizations 20 times when Nobel's will expressly stated that it should be given to "the person [my italics] who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His will also said that awards may not be made posthumously. No ifs or buts.  But there have been half a dozen posthumous awards, the latest as recently as 2011.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not doubting your word, Jack, but I can't see where in the will it says that.--Viennese Waltz 11:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems I assumed too much. I read about these rules in "Posthumous nominations" and assumed they came from Nobel himself.  That sort of makes me wonder what sorts of other conditions (or, indeed, freedoms) the Nobel Committee can impose.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War veterans' families benefits
I'm quite interested in the American Civil War because my grandfather served in the Union Army (yes, I'm old and my father was already old when he had me born) and I would like to know if there are further benefits for veterans' families now and if my grandfather can be taken to the Arlington Cemetery. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather (1845 – 1940). My father (1895 – 1955). Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this at the Department of Veteran Affairs. There is a pdf you may want to read on survivor's benefits. The social security administration pays out benefits to surviving family, but it has a list of who qualifies, and grandchildren are not eligible. There is a contact link at the bottom of the page if you wish to contact the VA, I would definitely suggest trying that.Livewireo (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me, I will read that. Iowafromiowa (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Living children of both Union and Confederate soldiers
This is my third question regarding the American Civil War, hope you understand since my grandfather fought for the Union Army. But I've come to know that there are living CHILDREN and WIDOWS of Civil War veterans. I would like to know how many children and widows of veterans from both sides are still alive today. Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The last widow of a Civil War veteran died in either 2004 or 2008, depending on how you count it. this story and Alberta Martin for the 2004 death, andthis story and Maudie Hopkins for the 2008 death.  For living Children of civil war veterans here is the list for the Union, last updated yesterday.  I can't find a similarly comprehensive list for confederate veterans, butgoogle search turns up several stories of living children of Confederate veterans.  -- Jayron  32  23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Peerage: pregnant widow of a childless peer
Has it ever happened that a British peer died childless leaving a pregnant widow or leaving a daughter and a pregnant widow? Did the title descend to the next-in-line (the daughter or a brother of the peer) and then revert to the posthumous child (son)? Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It happened to Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, who died several months before the birth of his son the future Henry VII of England. I'm not exactly sure what happened to Richmond in the meantime, but it doesn't seem to have passed to anyone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good example, as Edmund Tudor was a prisoner at the time of his death, and his peerage was forfeit. But our article on posthumous children lists several British peers. I believe (although I haven't a reference to hand) that peerages are kept pending the birth of any child en ventre sa mere; the succession would be backdated to the death of the previous holder if the child was female (if thus ineligible to inherit), or conferred immediately on the child (if eligible). AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the posthumously born peers listed there inherited the title from their father. I assumed that succession is automatic and that the next-in-line would succeed, with the title devolving upon the posthumous child if born alive and eligible to succeed. So, the 4th Marquess of London dies leaving the Marchioness pregnant and his brother becomes the 5th Marquess; however, the widowed marchioness gives birth to a son who immediately becomes the 6th Marquess. Similarly, the 8th Baron Windsor dies leaving a daughter (or two) and a pregnant widow; the daughter becomes the 9th Baroness (or the title goes into abeyancy if she's got a sister), but a brother is born and becomes the 10th (or, in case of abeyancy, the 9th) Baron. The only basis for this assumption is the arrangement made for Victoria's accession to the throne (Victoria would succeed William IV even if Adelaide was left pregnant, but the posthumous child would ascend upon birth as if Victoria had died, as the throne can never be vacant).Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An actual example occurs in the succession of the Petre Barony. The 7th Baron, Robert Petre, died in 1713, leaving a pregnant widow (Catherine, née Walmsley), who gave birth to the 8th Baron three months later. TheComplete Peerage says of such sons that they "succeeded to the peerage at their birth". The 7th Baron inspired Pope's Rape of the Lock- Nunh-huh 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a very good example! However, upon the 7th Baron's death, there was nobody in line to succeed to the barony; had the child been female, the title would've become extinct. Therefore, the only option in that case was to wait for the child to be born, as there was nobody to hold the title in meantime. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Here's a somewhat more apposite example.
 * When Edward Ward, the 8th Baron Dudley and 3th Baron Ward died of smallpox in March 1704 he left a pregnant wife (née Diana Howard) and no other progeny. He was succeeded by his posthumous son Edward Ward at his birth in June 1704.  The 9th/4th Baron died unmarried and childless, and was succeeded by his uncle, the brother of the 8th/3rd Baron.
 * So we can see that when the 8th/3rd Baron died, he had—in addition to his unborn son—a brother who would have inherited his titles on his death, had Diana not been pregnant.
 * The Dudley barony was a barony created by writ in 1440 in the English Peerage. The Ward barony was a barony created by letters patent in 1644 in the English Peerage with a remainder to heirs male. So the titles were separated on the death of William Ward, the 10th Baron Dudley/5th Baron Ward, as only the Dudley barony could pass through a female line. The Ward title passed to John Ward of Willingsworth Hall, heir male of the body of Humble, the first Lord Ward, while the Dudley title devolved to the heir general, Ferdinando Dudley Lea of Halesowen Grange. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this all suggests that during the period between the death of an otherwise childless peer leaving a pregnant widow and the birth of that possible heir, the title is considered at least conceptually to be dormant, that is, one for which the rightful holder, if any, is unknown, with the dormancy being sorted out once the child is born, rather than the solution you outline (provisional accession to the title, being rescinded if needed). However, I can't say I've ever actually seen the word dormancy applied in this exact situation, but it seems to capture the basic concept.  Similarly this would apply for an heir to a barony by writ with only daughters and a bun in the oven: dormant until birth, then devolving to the son (if male) or entering abeyancy between the daughters (if female, or stillborn).  - Nunh-huh 05:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not England, I know, but the case of John I of France bears some interest for this question. -- Jayron  32  23:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As does the much more recent case of Alphonse XIII of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the appropriately named Ladislaus the Posthumous, who succeeded to some, but not all, of his father's titles. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen Victoria's youngest son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany died in 1884, leaving a pregnant wife and daughter. The son succeeded to the title at birth. (Coincidentally, I just read that article a few minutes ago.)--NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837, allegiance was sworn to her subject to the rights of any posthumous child born to Queen Adelaide, widow of William IV. This was not done in 1952; either they considered it undignified or the Queen Mum was beyond the age of childbearing (age 51).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Denmark in Second Schleswig War
Did all of Europe seriously abandoned Denmark to fight out the Second Schleswig War by themselves against Prussia and Austria? In the background section of the article it states the reason why the other nations of Europe didn't help and Sweden promised to help but never came with reinforcement, but did no nation in Europe protest the seizure of 40% of Denmark's territories and the enlargement of the Prussia threat in Europe after the war. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem, I believe, isn't that the rest of Europe merrily allowed Prussia to seize what had been unambiguous Danish National Land since time immemorial. You're looking at the situation through the modern understanding of the nation state and of sovereignty, two concepts that really didn't reach maturity until well into the 20th century.  One thing to remember here is the complexity of the Schleswig-Holstein Question, which came to a head in that series of wars in the 19th century, but which had really existed for hundreds of years.  The lands of Schelswig and Holstein had a sui generis sort of status for much of history, being simultaneously lands that were part of the Holy Roman Empire with imperial immediacy, and the hereditary homeland of the Danish kings since Christian I.  The issue was simply which was more important: the relationship of the lands to the King of Denmark (as hereditary Danish lands) or to the German Confederation (as the successor state to the Holy Roman Empire).  The same sort of confusing status had existed in the United Kingdom until the ascension of Queen Victoria allowed theKingdom of Hanover to split off under Ernest Augustus I.  The Schleswig-Holstein question stubbornly refused to resolve itself with a convenient succession crisis, and so as the various nation-states of Europe began to coalesce into their "natural" and "legal" limits in the 19th century, the Schleswig-Holstein question flared up into war.  The rest of Europe didn't see the issue as one of Prussia violating Danish sovereignty, they saw it as a convoluted clusterfuck of a mess that they didn't want to get involved in.  And I quote "Only three people...have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it." -- Jayron  32  20:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand Schleswig-Holstein Question, but the rest of Europe saw the First Schleswig War as Prussia's violation of Danish sovereignty and the status quo of the region in 1848, during the beginning of the whole nationalism spirit of the Revolutions of 1848. In the first war, Britain was openly against Prussia's invasion and was going to send her Navy to assist Denmark but the Danish refused at the time, Austria, France and Russia were all against Prussia in the first war and spoke out against the war, although no one actually send any forces to assist since Denmark could deal with it at the time. The reasons why these countries didn't support Denmark militarily in the second war like they tried to in the first war is explained, but what prevented them from protesting Prussia's takeover, and the fact that no nation came the aid of Denmark is really awkward since so many European wars involved the intervention of multiple nations. It doesn't make sense that no opposition to Prussia's takeover was ever made by the other nations after the war especially since no new independent Schleswig-Hostein state was ever created and Prussia just gain more territory when the purpose of the first war and the second war was to liberate the people of the region from Danish oppression. Also saying Prussia was somehow supporting nationalism and the whole idea that later became known as the self-determination, that Germans should rule Germans, is a bit ironic since a large amount of Prussia's population was Polish. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Danish government did actually hope that France or Great Britain would eventually intervene in favour of their cause as they had done in 1850. However it does not excuse the actions of the Danish government in this conflict in any way, since this hope was completely spurious. They actually acted on largely unfounded and unrealistic premises, and played right into Bismarcks hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first Schelswig war, I'm pretty sure that the intervention of other European powers was not necessarily to defend Danish sovereignty, but rather to preserve the Balance of power in Europe; that and NOT issues of sovereignty of nation-states, was the main engine of diplomacy and international relations in Europe throughout the 19th century. Indeed, on the issue of Sovereignty, the majority of residents of the areas seemed to favor unity with Germany rather than Denmark, as they were ethnic Germans.  The issue is confounded by the Revolutions of 1848, not explained by it.  That complicates, rather than simplifies, any understanding of the causes of that war.  -- Jayron  32  23:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Britain even pro-German in 1864? The article Second Schleswig War said Queen Victoria was because Prince Albert died, but wasn't Queen Victoria: A. a figurehead with no actual power over the foreign and military affair of the country, and B. didn't she withdraw from politics and court completely after Prince Albert's death and didn't come out of her mourning until the Golden Jubilee. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Britain was pro-Danish in this, but couldn't agree to act on the issue; see Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston. Palmerston is sometimes blamed for provoking the war; "In actuality, Palmerston’s attitude during the Second Schleswig War in 1864 considerably helped the German decisive victory in that war, by letting the Danes get the wrong impression that Britain would fight on their side and thus emboldening them to embark on a war they had no chance of winning alone." Alansplodge(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What was Christian IX's view on his daughter Alexandra's position in this, was their any strain in the two's relationship? Was there some hostility between the Danish Royal Family and the British Royal Family for not coming to Denmark's aid in 1864?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The U.K. couldn't save Hannover (which had been under the UK monarch from 1714-1837) in the Austro-Prussian war, so why should it have been expected to save Schleswig? (And Holstein was inhabited by Germans.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief reading of our article on Lord Palmerston and the link posted above, suggests that Palmerston thought that the appearance of a huge British fleet off the coast of Jutland might make the Prussians have second thoughts. I suspect that (rather like the Americans in Kosovo), he was anxious to avoid getting involved in a land war, especially in the light of British failings in the Crimea, and thought that a show of strategic power projection by the RN would do the trick. When push-came-to-shove, he couldn't get Cabinet approval to send the fleet and so nothing was done. An alliance with France, who had a far larger army, might have done the trick; but at the time, Palmerston's government was furiously building dozens of massive forts around the British coast ("Palmerston's Follies"), because he expected Napoleon III to invade. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In 1871 Queen Victoria allowed her fourth daughter, Princess Louise, to marry a subject, John Campbell, Marquess of Lorne, heir of the 8th Duke of Argyl. But her eldest son "Bertie", the future King Edward VII, opposed this breach of tradition, the first approval by the Sovereign of a non-princely marriage in England's Royal Family since Henry VIII's series of commoner queens. In defending her decision the Queen wrote to Bertie in 1869, explaining how dynastic interests had evolved, citing as an example the conflict in the 1850s and '60s created by the fact that his spouse was the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark, while that of Bertie's sister, the Princess Royal Victoria, was Frederick of Prussia, heir to Bismarck's German Empire: "Times have much changed; great foreign alliances are looked on as causes of trouble and anxiety, and are no good. What could be more painful than the position in which our family were placed during the wars with Denmark, and between Prussia and Austria? Every family feeling was rent asunder, and we were powerless." FactStraight (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When we think about history, we tend to blur things that happened just a few years apart from each other. Or maybe it would be more apt to say that we often form clusters of events in our minds when those events were very distinct when they happened. That is – I think – at work here with the OP and some of the follow-up questions.

First of all, in 1849 and 1864 the political situation was very different. In 1849 there was a very serious chance that Germany might unite. This of course would have upset the balance of powers. The First Schleswig War was fought by Prussia on behalf of the provisionary government for all of Germany. If I recall correctly the national assembly in Frankfurt had asked the Prussian king to help Schleswig-Holstein. The great powers at the time didn't only disapprove of a united Germany, they especially disapproved of this united Germany throwing its weight around and getting larger still. That's why they intervened on the Danish side. Just as they intervened in the Punctation of Olmütz in order to stop the Prussian king to unite Germany in 1850. Worries about Danish sovereignity didn't really come into it at all.

In 1864, nobody could foresee that the Second Schleswig War would be the starting point for a successfull attempt at German unification. In fact, German unification seemed very far off. (Just for comparison: If anyone had suggested in 1985 that German reunification would happen within five years he would have been called a lunatic.)

By then it had become obvious that in the new Europe of nationalistic sentiments a place like Schleswig-Holstein would always be a hotbed for rebellion as long as it was under Danish rule. So severing it from Denmark didn't sound all that bad especially since neither Prussia nor Austria were supposed to get the benefits of ruling over Schleswig-Holstein directly. You could say that in 1848 the great powers wanted to preserve the status quo. In 1864 they had come to understand that the status quo in Schleswig-Holstein had become untenable. As I said, matters of sovereignty didn't really play a role. And that is an important consideration as well: In 1864 Austria and Prussia acted in unison. That's two great powers to overcome for anyone who wanted to oppose them. In 1848 it had been Prussia alone with all the other great powers opposed.

There was no „Prussian Threat“ in 1864. In fact, Prussia had been one of the more peaceful states in Europe for 150 years and hadn't been a threat to anyone in the past 70 years or so. The reunited Germany, by the way, would not become a threat to anyone within Europe for another 50 years. Only shortly before WWI did Germany start being more aggressive towards its neighbours. Our view of the 19th century is always clouded by the thought that it ended all with WWI. So, had Germany not become so powerful, WWI would not have happened. Had Germany not have been united, WWI would not have happened. Had Prussia not taken Schleswig-Holstein in 1864, Germany would probably not have been united and its position would definitely not have been as strong. Had Prussia not have been allowed to take Schleswig-Holstein, WWI might not have happend. This sounds reasonable now, but nobody in the 1860ies would ever have seen it that way. People back then didn't like the idea of German unification much – people outside Germany, that is. On the other hand they had come to understand the force of nationalism and that sometimes it was impossible to stop it. --Zoppp (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only true by conflating Germany and Prussia in the 19th century. When one looks at Bismarck's Prussia, it is clear that Germany the perceived threat of German aggrandizement was directed not at "Germany" (which for a while was thought likely to unite under Austria), but at "Prussia" which expanded its borders at the expense of other sovereigns and/or ethnicities throughout the 19th century; part of the Kingdom of Saxony, Brunswick, Hannover, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, Alsace-Lorraine, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and finally the Crown of the German Empire. FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good place to remember what Disraeli said: "Only three people . . . have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business — the Prince Consort, who is dead — a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it." Textorus (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism.
If I have a midlife crisis, then it will be around philosophy. Until I had Anthem in tenth grade, I never saw the individualism-collectivism scale as having a correlation with freed-totalitarianism. Objectivism has done an effective job at making me doubt things. Yet, I cannot help but think that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔totalitarianism)), ¬(◻(individualism⇔freedom)) and that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔freedom)) or ¬(◻(individualism⇔totalitarianism)). I am not sure what sort of question I should ask. Can a totalitarian society not be collectivist? --Melab±1 &#9742;22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think of collectivism as being related to socialism and communism, with individualism being related to capitalism. You can get totalitarianism at either end of the spectrum, from Stalin to the French kings before the French Revolution. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What in the world did the French kings have to do with individualism? Or capitalism, for that matter? --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See bourgeoisie. That they allowed such a class to exist shows they allowed a certain degree of individualism and capitalism.StuRat (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Allowed to exist" does not show that there's any relation between that and their, what shall we say, "partial totalitarianism"? It was a check on their power, not an aspect of it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that Louis XIV was an "absolute" king in the sense that there was no lawful or pragmatic resistance to his authority -- like Stalin -- but whereas in Soviet Russia property explicitly belonged to "the people" and the state had the authority and power to appropriate it from individuals in the name of the the people, ostensibly to promote their interests as a group against the aggrandizement of individuals and "expropriating" classes. Whereas French society was organized on the principle that individuals held most property rights (by inheritance) and the state's function was to adjudicate conflicts in their rights, promoting the interests of citizens mainly by expanding the state's borders and trade at the expense of other nations, rather than of individuals in French society. Thus both Stalin and Louis XIV held vast power, but under near-opposite philosophies of government -- one acknowledging the fundamental right of individuals to their own property and the other denying any such right. It's a reasonable contrast. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just about to say that. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When I was younger and smarter, I was wholly convinced of the near perfectness of Ayn Rand's philosophy on the world and its stress on individuality over collectivism. I was an earnest disciple, and bought in to every word she said.  As I have gotten older and stupider, I have come to see more nuance in the world, and have adopted a more pragmatic view on humans with regard to the issue of collectivization vs. individuality.  I think Rand's conflation of the difference between power relationships with free association is a key flaw in her philosophy.  The issue is not whether people are dealt with as groups or as individuals, it is whether or not any aspect of their behavior is controlled by coersion or free choice.  The great paradox of Rand's philosophy is that it denies the possibility that free-thinking individuals would, of their own choice and volition, establish collectivities for their own interests, and that these collectivities can be benign, or from the other direction that an individual, acting in their own rational self interest, could oppress others.  Experience in the breadth of history clearly shows that both happen all the time, so the key issue shouldn't be whether people exist as self-interested individuals or in collectives (which are not mutually exclusive states) but rather on the level of control people have over the course of their own lives, and on how they relate to the power structures in their lives.  In simpler terms: Rand's conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism breaks down in the face of actual historical examples.  The world does not exist on a strictly two-dimensional axis, with all things evil on one pole and all things good on the other.  -- Jayron  32  23:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was a Randian from high school through freshman year in college, but there's a reason so many people describe her philosophy as "sophomoric". Conservative David Brooks famously wrote in 1997, "Many people remember their youthful passion for Ayn Rand the way they remember teen-age make-out parties. It seemed daring at the time, but now the memory of it just makes you feel queasy." The best way to understand why so many young Rand enthusiasts eventually dismiss her logical edifice as impractical and antithetical to human nature is to read either of the biographies written about her by her two greatest ex-disciples, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, who differ greatly in emphasis but whose analyses come to the same essential conclusion: Rand insisted that her philosophy/politics/psychology was seamless (either you recognize the inevitable logic in all of it, or none of it holds up) and not only pragmatic, but the only way humankind will, should or can live harmoniously and that individuals can be happy. The problem is that when her intimates describe her life, it is clear that she lived her philosophy only by being megalomaniacal in her relations with others and being in denial to/about herself. Bottom line, neither she nor anyone in the cult she originated has documentably lived in accordance with her principle of 100% logical action, and the two acolytes she said did so now admit they lived fake, unhappy and abusive lives for years in the effort to convince Rand and themselves that Objectivism was a viable personal discipline. Yet Rand's greatest scorn was levelled at Christian altruism -- on the grounds that it is an unlivable philosophy contrary to human nature, its adherents doomed to live guilt-ridden lives in failure to live in accordance with its inhumanly demanding standard. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, what I always wondered about is why collectivism doesn't seem to scale up. We can have small groups who share everything equally, and everything works well.  But, when nations try to do that, we end up with Stalin or Mao in charge.  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that, on the small scale, if somebody tries to take over and run things for his own benefit, everyone can just leave and form a new group without that leader.  Not so on a national scale. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't find it now, but look into something called the "rule of 150". I heard someone talk on it once, and it made a lot of sense.  150 is about the maximum number of people that can exist in a collective before everyone can't fully "keep track of" everyone else.  In small enough groups, everyone knows everyone else well enough that we can interact as equals, and we can all take active ownership in the group because we all know exactly how each individual group member relates to each other group member and the group as a whole.  So that's why small groups work.  In larger groups, more than about 150 people, it becomes impossible for the human mind to make enough rational connections to keep the group all together in our heads, so the small group dynamic breaks down, and it becomes a VERY different entity; people stop interacting with each other and the group in the same way, and that's why big groups don't work like small groups.  -- Jayron  32  01:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here it is: Dunbar's number. -- Jayron  32  01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. But it seems to me that collectivism can work on somewhat larger scales than that.  My limit of "when people are free to leave if they want to" could be highly variable in terms of size.  Even a tiny cult might threaten people who attempt to leave, while an entire nation could allow dissatisfied people to leave (and many do), but the particular difficulties of finding a new nation willing to accept you, selling all your possessions, moving thousands of miles, trying to find new employment, and leaving friends and family behind, all make it unlikely that everybody in a seriously mismanaged nation will just pick-up and leave.  Too bad, it would make for an effective way to get rid of dictators (there would be little point in remaining a dictator, with no subjects to tax and abuse).  StuRat (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, ditto interesting. I wonder if there's even been a place where the policy was "If you want to leave, not only are you welcome to do so, but the state will happily pay for all your expenses, because we don't want anyone here who doesn't want to be here, and it's in the national interest to ensure that those who want to leave do so as quickly and painlessly as possible".  Probably not.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, don't forget that the greatest punishment in Athenian democracy was not death, but exile: Citizens were welcome to leave the polis, but they were so confident that they lives in "the best of all possible worlds" that it was inconceivable that anyone would want to. As for collectivist experiments that were voluntarily initiated and lived, the kibbutz bears close scrutiny. It didn't fail because its adherents found it unworkable, but because their children found it undesirable -- in the face of all the goodies that could be accumulated and individually possessed on the outside. In other words, it was not so much the lofty desire for freedom from mutual responsibility for each other's welfare that youths rejected, as the mundane desire for stuff that seduced them away. Hmm. Maybe Rand knew whereof she spake after all... FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, wouldn't working collectively to acquire stuff be the most effective method ? Say the goal is to have luxury cars.  An individual might be able to afford one, but the collective could buy many, and allow each member to take turns with whichever one they fancied that day.  Just because you live on a collective doesn't mean you must have Spartan values. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're grappling with the theoretical concept of totalitarianism you could do worse than to read Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism.Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)