Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 5

Restoration of the Monarchy after the English Civil War

Hi, why exactly did the English Parliament restore the monarchy after Cromwell's Commonwealth? Every other revolution tended to abstain from having a monarchy, unless the revolutionary government was deposed by a foreign power, such as the downfall of the French Republic.

They didn't have a strong successor after Cromwell died.
Sleigh (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the monarchy was restored in France by coup (twice, by Napoleon and Napoleon III), not by a foreign power. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP meant the Bourbon Restoration of King Louis XVIII by the coalition powers after Napoleon was defeated (also occurred twice, first in 1814, and second in 1815, after the Battle of Waterloo). Sodacan (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The English Parliament that restored Charles II was a very different one that had his father killed years earlier. The English republicans began to fight amongst themselves after Oliver Cromwell was dead. They weren't sure if they wanted his weak son Richard Cromwell to continue as Lord Protector or a proper republican constitution (the latter faction was led by Sir Arthur Haselrig). Charles Stuart was the best choice because he was willing to compromise on almost everything, this made it easier for him to return. The House of Stuart was restored in 1660 alright. But was it really the same kind of monarchy that was restored? Sodacan (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't perceive the forces that removed Charles I as joined at the hip in terms of republican motivation. There was a right old pot pourri of issues with Charles I - personal rule, taxation, Scotland, his hideous people skills, religion etc - and for many of those who rebelled against him, the more pliant (as Sodacan points out) Charles II was very much palatable. Furthermore, Cromwell's replacement with his son would have been seen by some as replacement of one dynasty by another, even less palatable one. Finally, there will have been those among the rebels who never wanted Charles I deposed, some who never wanted him executed, but got caught up in the sweep of events. It's too easy to look back and see a homogenous group of people linked by one ideology, when that's simply not the case. This is the case with modern political bandwagons, too. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite Charles II seeming to be more palatable, it took only six months for his newly royalist parliament to get around to executing 10 of the regicides of Charles I and disinterring 3 others in order to re-execute them. Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, the Restoration as such only lasted for 28 years, until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the concommitant Bill of Rights 1689, which put an end to the absolute monarchy of which the Stuarts were so enamoured. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the Commonwealth was desperately unpopular. Once in power, Oliver Cromwell was more of a military dictator than a parliamentarian, and Richard Cromwell had already been deposed by the army before Charles was recalled. [1] My local parish paid for the church bells to be rung for three continuous days when the king returned. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This continues to bother me.

we do not speculate on the morality and motives of living people, see WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That Mr. Sandy Berger has performed valued services for our Nation is a matter of public record. That he seemingly acted out of character on multiple occasions at and around the National Archives is also a matter of public record. It is only logical to conclude that he acted either reasonably or unreasonably. There is no assertion the he acted unreasonably. Therefore we may conclude that he acted with reason(s) even if only in his own mind. If you have the means, please direct me to any documents that shed light on the question as to "Why?" Mr. Berger acted in a fashion contrary to the laws and regulations concerning protected government documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) You'd have to ask him that. --Jayron32 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I think the basic problem here is the assumption that people act for only one motive. I can easily act in the interest of a particular nation in general, but then decide (like e.g. Snowden and Manning) that a higher interest demands that I act in a way that may be perceived as harming that nation. And I can just as easily decide that my personal interest demands that I act in a way that may be perceived as harming that nation - maybe because the US embassy offers me US$ 100000000 to switch Merkel's secure cell phone with a compromised fake, or maybe because the North Korean secret service has my mother in law as a hostage, and threatens to release her if I don't give them the plans for the bomb. And it's not always clear if the overriding impulse is higher or lower - when Nixon ordered Watergate, he probably was of the honest opinion that his continued administration was in the interest of the nation. Or maybe he just wanted to stay in power. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Close per BLP. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the Korean War which started on 25 June 1950 continue thru this day?

My understanding is that there was an "Armistice Agreement" concluded between the government of North Korea and the United Nations Command. What are the practical results of the lack of a "peace treaty"? For instance, what are the barriers to the United States establishing an embassy in Pyongyang? For instance, what are the barriers to the North Koreans establishing an embassy in the Washington DC metropolitan area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Korean War, especially 2013 when it declared the armistice to be null and void, North Korea continues to treat South Korea, the USA, and anyone else connected with the armistice as an enemy. That's the barrier. If NK were to decide it has had enough of this after 60-plus years, it could declare and put into practice a non-aggression stance, put out feelers for a peace treaty, and ask for diplomatic relations with those other entities. And it's certainly possible. We had a ten-year, bitterly fought war with North Vietnam, and now we have diplomatic relations with the united Vietnam which was once our enemy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's look a bit deeper. Why does NK want to keep the hostilities going ? They certainly must know they would lose a shooting war, so what's with with the brinkmanship ? (I see no reason to think China would help them, if they invaded SK, and the US would certainly fight them, as US troops are in SK.) It's because their government needs an enemy to justify it's existence. This way they can say "The military dictatorship is the only way to protect our citizens from the enemy". StuRat (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some sources for that. Might be right, but I can think of a lot of things that might be right. For example (just a question) -- suppose you live in North Korea and suggest a peace. What would happen to you? Is there anyone there who can suggest a peace? Wnt (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the generals probably could, especially if it's put as "We need a long period of peace so we can restore our economy and use it to build up our military for the eventual war". StuRat (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There never was a final Soviet-Japanese peace treaty after WW2 (due to the Southern Kurile Islands issue), yet the Soviet Union (then Russia) and Japan have had relations... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia and Japan have Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, but NK and SK don't have a similar agreement/treaty. Oda Mari (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That agreement stopped the state of war but wasn't a formal peace treaty. Hack (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oda Mari is correct that it's more than exists between N.Korea and the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Eleventh hour" armistice

The phrase "wikt:eleventh hour" long precedes the Armistice with Germany, signed on "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month". According to the article the armistice was actually signed at 5 am to go into effect at 11 am. I suppose it is not likely that other events, i.e. Germany basically losing the war, and the abdication of the previous day, could have been shifted, and at least some time was needed for the message to go out. Still, I wonder: by how much was the armistice delayed, and how many people died, in order that the negotiators could have their sound bite? Wnt (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And note that "the 11th hour" means "just in time", while many would find it to have been entirely too late, allowing millions to be killed in WW1 and sowing the seeds for WW2. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a BBC programme a few years ago about men who were killed on the last day of the war, including some after the Armistice came into effect: see here for some details. I don't know whether the time of the Armistice was delayed for a soundbite, but it really would have taken some hours for the orders to get to all the active units, and obviously there has to be some fixed time for the ceasefire. Even in WW2 there was a long gap between the German surrender and the official end of hostilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the above programme...Last Day of World War One...its just not a very good one. Tommy Pinball (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the diplomats and the generals didn't assume that the real war was over at 1100 hours on 1918-11-11. Before the Hochseeflotte was scuttled at Scapa Flow seven months later, its ships and men were kept under constant (although sometimes minor) guard; when they violated the armistice by scuttling the ships, they were sent to prisoner-of-war camps. Unlike the conclusions of other wars, e.g. Japan's surrender in World War II, the 1918 armistice was highly conditional: Germany could have continued fighting for a good while longer (it was losing, but it definitely hadn't yet fought to the end), so since they knew that the fighting might not yet be over, it wasn't a waste of effort to continue fighting through 1059 hours. Finally, also note that the last casualty of all, Henry Gunther, was really a victim of his own hubris or stupidity. With one minute to got before the armistice, he began attacking a group of German soldiers; they basically tried to stop him non-violently, since there wasn't any point to continued fighting, but he shot at them, so they shot him in self-defence. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay this time for real

Sandy Berger chose to plead guilty to a single federal misdemeanor charge on April fools' day 2005. By pleading guilty he loses (or waives) his right to remain silent in the Federal Criminal Court context concerning this charge. Did the sentencing judge question Mr. Berger as to the motive for his criminal conduct? Did Mr. Berger's lawyer, Mr. Lanny Breuer, make any substantive statements concerning Mr. Berger's criminal conduct either within or outside of court? Was Mr. Berger represented by any lawyers in addition to Mr. Breuer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Trial transcripts are sometimes posted in the internet. Have you looked for this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the Sandy Berger week? Anyway, Freedom of information in the United States might grant us the right to request these trial transcripts too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If he gets fed up with the US, he could move to his own island and become a Berger King. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

funny 49.226.188.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of his plea bargain whether or not allocution was required. A defendant usually agrees to allocute in exchange for a lesser sentence. But as Bugs says above, only the trial transcripts will tell you for sure whether this was the case in Mr. Berger's trial.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Novel ridiculing a character convinced of his self-importance

It is, I think from the end of the XIX or beginning of the XX century. It's not a novel that is on everyone's mind, but a slightly obscure work, which still managed to be a classic. Any suggestion? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Diary of a nobody? 77.98.28.96 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Joesph McCarthy HUAC hearings

McCarthy was asked something like :Have you, sir, at long last, no decency at all?' Would like exact quote, name of who asked it and citation of any background info. Many thanks, Bill Forester PWForester (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" See Joseph N. Welch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Transcript and video: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, it was the Army–McCarthy hearings, not HUAC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Not many senators in the US House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no special elections for US executives (president, governor...)

Why are no special elections for the offices president and governor held in America when the incumbent dies, resigns or is impeached? On the federal level the vice-president assumes the office of president, in the states usually the lieutenant-governor (in most states) becomes governor. Why is there no special under such scenario? Vacancies in the Senate and House are filled with special elections (I don't know about the state legislatures). A special election for presidents and governors would provide legitimacy for the officeholder. A vice-president or a lt.-governor who assumes the office shorty after the inauguration is head of state for almost four years without being elected to this post. --92.226.203.131 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But voters know the system, and when they go to the ballot box, they know they're not just voting for a president, but also for his running mate who would, in the event of the president's death or resignation, become president, and so they take that possibility into account when casting their vote. I mean, if Jesus Christ ran for president but had Adolf Hitler as his running mate, that would deter a lot of people from voting for Jesus (with his track record of being struck down in his prime and all). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Both ineligible anyway; not natural-born citizens. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone knows Jesus is from Texas and Hitler from Massachusetts. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the Hitler part, but I'm sure there are a lot of hombres named Jesus in the American southwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would a Jewish person pick a nazi party member as a running mate? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To balance the ticket. And keep in mind we're talking about a parallel universe here - a universe in which Hitler might have been best known for job-creation in the wallpaper business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no special elections because the US Constitution doesn't allow for it. It specifies how and when the Prez and the Veep are elected. For members of the Congress and Senate, it leaves it up to the states how to fill vacancies. And if Jesus dies and fails to be resurrected, the country is stuck with Hitler until or if he breaks the law, in which case he can be "recalled", i.e. impeached. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not clear that an impeachable "high crime (or) misdemeanor" even has to be against the law. One position is that "an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is". That's almost certainly true in practice — the Supreme Court would almost certainly reject any lawsuit claiming that the conduct for which a president was impeached was not against the law, as not justiciable. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

True. But in any case, the impeachment process allows for getting rid of a sitting president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The chances of it are incredible high, 8/ 44. I hope every voter considers carefully the vices of all candidates. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Probability is not the same as historical frequency, but if you do want to estimate it that way, you should say 8/43. There have been 44 presidents only if you count Grover Cleveland twice. It's the difference between a set and a multiset. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how 8 out of 44 counts as "incredible". I have no difficulty whatsoever believing it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Be it 8/44 or 8/43, there's a lack of any citation that this average is statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Statistically significant" is a technical term that is meaningful only in the context of statistical hypothesis testing. What hypothesis are you testing? --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether 8 of a country's 43 executives dying in 200+ years is "incredible" or on par with other countries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I calculate for Great Britain/United Kingdom 5 out of 45 former Prime Ministers dying in office, one of whom (Compton) is described as "a figurehead". 11%. And for France, 4 out of 29 presidents, including the Fourth Republic presidents who were titular, plus Louis Napoleon and the transitional ones after 1945. 14%. Incumbents can't be included, for obvious reasons, so in the US it should be 8 out of 42. 19%. This comes up as non-significant when I run a chi-square test on it - you might want to take further advice about the stats on the Maths desk, but really we need a bigger sample of comparable countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In more ways than one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senate vacancies are filled at least temporarily by appointments by the state governor. Depending on state law and when the vacancy occurs they may end up serving the remaining term. Rmhermen (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? If your senator dies, there's still 99 other senators. The Senate can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops. If your congressman dies, there's still 434 other congressmen. The House can still continue to do its work if a crisis develops.

If your Governor dies, no-one else can do that job until a replacement is elected. What if there's a crisis, or the governor is in the middle of some important policy push? There wouldn't be a Lt Governor, because why would you create an elected position whose sole purpose is to take over for a week or two until a special election. There'd probably be someone to take over, the Senate President, Secretary of State etc., but that person wouldn't have a mandate and would probably not get anything done pending the special election. At best, you'd have weeks of stagnation. At worst, you could have a constitutional crisis, as nobody has a mandate to lead the state. 92.30.141.47 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A crisis? Like the state Obamacare portal not working? A policy push? Like outlawing 24oz sodas? What in the world does a governor do that needs doing immediately, other than to issue death-row reprieves, or call out the state militia or national guard in case of invasion or earthquake? And why couldn't an acting governor do that? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Think about it. This question relates to Presidents/Governors. If Bush died in the aftermath of 9/11, or Obama during this years shutdown. The country would be waiting weeks for a special election to be held before proper steps could be taken. An interim acting president would not have the mandate of a Vice President-cum-President to do anything.

If there was a special election during the 2013 shutdown due to some catastrophe making the presidency vacanct, we'd probably have Acting President Boehner for a few weeks (like I said originally, if you have special election, you do away with a reason for having a Vice President. The Speaker would probably be next in the line of succession). Then after a month or two, you'd have a new President. Not having a special election process for executives means there's a directly elected number two who takes over instantaneously should the worst happen.

Also can you imagine if say, Clinton died in April 2000? Can you imagine getting a nationwide special election together, including fundraising, primaries, debates? And you'd have Dennis Hastert in charge for a few months. And then of course, there'd be the regular election in November. 92.30.165.141 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)