Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 June 25

= June 25 =

What was the point of this statement by Representative John Farnsworth?
I have previously read this 1966 article by Alfred Avins in regards to the views of the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment in regards to anti-miscegenation laws:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/552d54b3e4b07a7dd6a08bf5/1429034163395/Avins_Miscegenation+and+14th+Amend+Original+Intent+1966.pdf

On page 1231 of this article, Avins quotes Republican US Representative John F. Farnsworth as saying this:

"[Rep. Rogers] . .  . refers to another bugbear with which to scare ignorant people, that of amalgamation. He recites the statutes of various States against the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Well, sir, while I regard that as altogether a matter of taste, and neither myself nor my friends require any restraining laws to prevent us from committing any error in that direction, still, if my friend from New Jersey and his friends are fearful that they will be betrayed into forming any connection of that sort, I will very cheerfully join with him in voting the restraining influence of a penal statute. I will vote to punish it by confinement in the State prison, or, if he pleases, by hanging-anything rather than they should be betrayed into or induced to form any such unnatural relations.25"

My question here is this--what was the point of Farnsworth's comment here? I mean, wouldn't any hypothetical attempt to impose the death penalty for miscegenation in Washington DC (which is where US Congressmen lived while Congress was in session) be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional due to it violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments? If so, what was the point of having Farnsworth say that he would vote for something that would be declared unconstitutional by the courts?

I get the general point of Farnsworth's statement here--I just want to know why exactly he alluded to the death penalty for miscegenation if such a punishment for such an offense would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would not be so sure that the Supreme Court would have ruled that way, or that anyone would expect it to. The various states used to execute for far lesser offenses than we are used to today. The Supreme Court did not even begin to narrow the acceptable uses of capital punishment until relatively recently when they prohibited its use as a punishment for rape, though by then most states had voluntarily narrowed its use. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Very interesting! Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This was clear irony. I modern parlance, he was trolling Rogers Gem fr (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * But what would Farnsworth have done had a bill to ban miscegenation in Washington DC and to impose the death penalty for this actually reached the House floor? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Futurist110 -- it's wrapped up in 19th-century rhetorical style, but the clear implication is that he's sarcastically saying that if Rogers is worried about being unable to control his cross-racial lusts, then he'll support a bill with disincentives to reinforce Rogers' wavering will-power... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What would Farnsworth have done if such a bill would have actually reached the House floor, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * They would have joined in opposing it as an impingement on states' rights to decide what should be criminalized. There was a time when there were next to no federal criminal statutes, for example, McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz was tried and executed under state, not federal law.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant an anti-miscegenation statute that only covers Washington D.C.--over which the U.S. Congress has plenary power. Futurist110 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This sort of rhetoric, saying that giving blacks civil rights did not mean giving them equal social rights, was common then. Lincoln made similar points in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, especially the ones held in Southern Illinois.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get that. I was just wondering about the connection between the death penalty for miscegenation and the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That would have been a state law and the Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states until much later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What about an anti-miscegenation statute that only covers Washington D.C. (over which the U.S. Congress has plenary power), though? Futurist110 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Really not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any guesses as to what he would have done in such a scenario? Would he have been willing to put his vote where his mouth is and thus vote for the re-criminalization of miscegenation in Washington D.C.? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Costs of production
Imagine you're producing and publishing a document on a physical medium, e.g. as a book or on a CD. Your marginal cost is probably rather low, since CDs and paper don't cost a ton of money, and of course you have to account for overhead (business). But where does the cost of creating of the underlying work come in? For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the publishing company created the document and owns the copyright, so we don't need to address royalties in particular. I'm just wanting to say "this book costs X, which is higher than marginal cost plus overhead, because of factor Y, which represents the company's cost of creating the document in the first place", but I don't know what to call factor Y. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to know how fixed cost are accounted for in the publishing business? I am afraid the specifics are out of our abilities (mine, for sure).Gem fr (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cost of goods sold might help? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The author might be a staff member or someone who has submitted a manuscript. That's one such cost that might be either marginal or fixed depending. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, open-source printed textbooks are becoming somewhat more popular now; partial or total copyright release makes them a good deal cheaper than traditional textbooks, since the charge for an open-source printed textbook is generally limited to the cost of running the company and producing and distributing the printed copy, while the traditional-textbook publisher needs to regain all those costs plus the cost of developing the textbook in the first place. I've basically wondered what we'd call the textbook-development cost. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)