Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 24

= May 24 =

When did the states join the Confederacy?
Unfortunately, the list we have at Confederate States of America seems to be unsourced. And I am having lots of trouble finding primary sourcing for the dates. Por ejemplo: I can find the law that allows for the accession of North Carolina ("An Act to admit the State of North Carolina into the Confederacy, on a certain condition.") but it only kicks in when a presidential proclamation has been made... and I have been unable to find such a proclamation, let alone the date it was made. Is there any truly solid sourcing of the dates of admittance/accesison? --Golbez (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Confederate States of America lists the dates of Admission to Confederacy. The first six states jointly created the Confederacy on February 4, 1861 and then the five states afterward joined presumably by other treaties/ordinances. Some of the dates are actually wrong.
 * Yes, the fact that the dates on that article are wrong (several, in fact) is why I came here. But, worse than being wrong, they're unsourced. Also, that link is useful but it's Texas applying to the Confederacy; it unfortunately does not answer the question of when the Confederacy admitted them. --Golbez (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it just requires some digging and most of these dates might turn out to be right in the end. For Texas: An Act to admit Texas as a Member of the Confederate States of America is dated to March 2, 1861. Texas accepted statehood on March 22 in "An Ordinance In relation to a union of the State of Texas with the Confederate States of America, March 22, 1861". --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

All acts issued by the CSA to admit the latter five states can be founded here
 * An Act to admit Texas as a Member of the Confederate States of America, March 2, 1861
 * An Act To Admit the Commonwealth of Virginia as a member of the Confederate States of America, May 7, 1861
 * An Act to Admit the State of Arkansas into the Confederacy May 20, 1861
 * An Act to Admit the State of North Carolina into the Confederacy, on a certain condition. May 17, 1861 these are conditional acts of admittance before this state officially seceded; don't know if there are later documents
 * An Act to Admit the State of Tennessee into the Confederacy on a certain condition, May 17, 1861 acts of admittance before this state officially seceded; don't know if there are later documents
 * Well that's the main problem I'm having - the laws to admit NC and TN require a proclamation and I can't find this proclamation. The "May 17, 1861" date on those is for the laws, but if you look at the act itself it says that, for example, Tennessee has to ratify the constitution, then relay this to the president, and, "upon the receipt whereof, the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of said State of Tennessee into the Confederacy" It sounds like NC and TN couldn't be admitted until a presidential proclamation was made. I can't find any record in the congressional proceedings about them being admitted... so far, there seems to be no primary sourcing of NC and TN being admitted to the CSA. --Golbez (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For Tennesse, the dates seems to be July 22, 1861 when "In a proclamation, Jefferson Davis accepts Tennessee as a member of the Confederacy" . Let seem if we can find the proclamation. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be better writing to the central library at each state's capital, or to museum of the state's history, asking for clarification of when that state joined the Confederacy. LongHairedFop (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been unable to find online what you are looking for. LHF's idea seems like the best, although not the quickest, way to get definitive answers. If you do, though, be sure to ask them to kindly include their sources for their answers because it might be hard to cite a letter in a WP article. As a Civil War "buff" myself, I often find there's a paucity of such information. Probably because history is written by the victors.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "History is written by the victors" is one of those untrue truisms, and never more untrue when it comes to the American Civil War. Examples abound. —Kevin Myers 04:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Finding the actual proclamation is hard. I think that if it could be found, it would be in "The Messages and Papers of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy", and indeed Davis references the proclamation on August 31, 1861 in an address to his Congress: "Our loved and honored brethren of North Carolina and Tennessee have consummated the action, foreseen and provided for at your last session, and I have had the gratification of announcing, by proclamation, in conformity with law, that those States [Tennessee and North Carolina] were admitted into the Confederacy." But I've had no luck finding the proclamation itself, or even the date thereof. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

professor Robert Solomon Wistrich ..NEUBERGER prof, not  as spelled on Wikipedia

 * This would be better at Talk:Robert S. Wistrich. However, according to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's website (here), the professorship is indeed callled the "Erich Neuberger Professor of Modern Jewish History".  I've made the appropriate correction. Tevildo (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Loving your colonizer?
Migration trends indicate that lots of subjects of colinization have migrated to the lands of their colonizers. For example Indian subcontinent to Britain, West Africans to France etc. Is there any info (wikipedia or otherwise) on why they migrated to a place that was widely viewed as being an enforcer of oppression? 2.96.211.22 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Standard of living. -- Jayron 32 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Access. Many former colonies get preferred treatment when attempting to immigrate to that nation.  So, no getting packed into leaky boats to try to sneak in illegally.


 * 2) Language. Many residents of former colonies learn the language of their former "oppressor", and know that language is a big first step when trying to start over in a new land.


 * 3) Cultural similarities. For example, in the case of England and India, we have common sports like cricket, common forms of government (parliamentary), etc. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We? Aha, at last StuRat outs himself as an Anglo-Indian Detritus Detroiter.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, the colonizers are (mostly?) dead, and with them largely went their policies. The places themselves didn't do any of the bad things associated with the colonial days, nor their current bosses. Also remember, not every person in an "oppressed peoples" group felt or feels oppressed. Some have great (or fine) times, despite or because of their new alien overlords. Viewing things too widely distorts them.


 * Anyway, do you have a source for "migration trends indicate"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mass migration from the Commonwealth into Britain is usually dated from the arrival of the MV Empire Windrush from Jamaica in 1948. At that time Jamaica was still a British colony and its residents could go back and forth as they pleased (as long as they could afford the travel fares of course). Britain had an enormous labour shortage following the war, while the economies of the colonies were not in good shape either, so there was a great incentive for economic migration. You could be a supporter of colonial independence and still live in Britain; see for example C L R James or Claudia Jones. Another part of the world that had mass migration to Britain was the Sylhet region of present-day Bangladesh, and there it followed from centuries of contact, with many Sylhetis having worked as lascars on British ships from at least the 18th century. Then there's migration into France, another complicated story. Actually, in the 20th century, immigration from Spain, Italy, Portugal and Poland was on an even larger scale than migration from North Africa or other colonies. Of course many people from North Africa and from Francophone Africa south of the Sahara have long-standing links to France. Often these go back to before the end of colonial status. Again, you could be a supporter of independence and still live in France, cf Leopold Senghor. Ho Chi Minh lived in both Britain and France, and as a notice informs us in Newhaven, was a pastry cook on the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perspective is a tricky thing. According to British Indian, they're the most visible minority, so it might seem to an Englishman that 1.4 million Indian immigrants is a lot. But according to this, there are 6 million in the Gulf Cooperation Council and 23 million elsewhere across 130 countries. From that angle, it doesn't look like many choose Britain. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Economic opportunity, or lack thereof, often outweighs sentiment in migration decisions. People move based mainly on what they think is best for themselves and their families. Attitudes toward historical events are generally less important.  For example, millions of Mexicans have moved to the United States even though the United States forcibly seized a third of Mexico's territory in 1845.  It is doubtful that such a history of aggression and humiliation endears many Mexicans to the United States, but they choose to move to the United States anyway because of the opportunity, as Jayron points out, for a higher standard of living and better opportunities. Marco polo (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A more recent example directly contributing to the standard of living is the smuggling of firearms into Mexico to fuel the drug wars. Even now, the urge to find a safer place outweighs the urge to boycott that place for some of its inhabitants' roles in the unsafety. Easier to swallow pride than eat it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It can be disputed that the "Mexicans" at the time of the Mexican-American War, in 1845 were feeling that much together bound by a nationalistic feeling: see the case of California. A fascinating though otherwise, when thinking about the original state of mind of the concerned, is how much "longing for a higher standard of living" when achieving it by crossing a border, may translate sometimes in terms of pure metamorphosis. --Askedonty (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ( You can even achieve it for cheap if in from a country with stronger currency. )


 * I really enjoy getting colonoscopies. The prep is a bitch, but the anesthesia is great.  I always ask "have you started yet" as I come out of it.  You just shouldn't drive for the next several hours. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)