Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 10

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

February 10

Determining the Constitution

Now that arguments for both sides re: the Constitutionality of Trump's trial are done and the majority of Senators agreed that it IS within the Constitution to proceed, does this mean that the entire Senate (including those who voted "no") should be proceeding as if it has been determined that it is within the Constitution to try Trump? That is, should ALL Senators now weigh the case based on it's merits rather than on whether or not they personally agree with the Constitutionality decision? 70.26.18.141 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If they want Trump acquitted, they'll vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nullification presumably exists within impeachment trials as it would within trial by jury. Whether it is good policy is another question entirely. As is the question of whether nullification is good policy. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

More than 1/3 of the senators have no intention of listening to the arguments or voting on the merits. They already decided long ago that there's literally nothing Trump could have done or could ever do that they would abandon his side or disagree with him. As he himself noted before he was even elected, he could have stood in the middle of fifth avenue and shot someone and enough Senators would still approve of it. They are unconvincable that he is capable of doing anything that, in their eyes, isn't perfect, and they will follow him anywhere. --Jayron32 12:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have donkeys and elephants. If Trump forms his own party, a good symbol would be a lemming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Or a nearly-blind, shiny, slippery, and slimy serpentine amphibian with the appearance of a large worm, living almost entirely underground.  --Lambiam 22:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Far more than 1/3 of the Senators' votes won't be influenced by the arguments. Probably more like 98 or 99 of the Senators. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Darktown Comics

So I wrote Engine Company 21 (Chicago) a couple days ago, and in my research I found this undergrad senior thesis which obviously I can't use but which provided some great sources (and I feel like someone should have suggested she submit somewhere because her connecting the Black firefighters with the Darktown Brigade is just beautiful...but I digress.) I'm trying to find sources discussing Currier & Ives' Darktown Comics, and I'm coming up almost zero, and it's surprising me because I'd have thought someone somewhere would have thought this was worth writing about. I feel like maybe this is discussed somewhere as a part of an article, and I just don't know how/have the database power to find it? Can anyone help me find scholarly (or any) articles? --valereee (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In the 19th century, they were called "Caricatures", not really "Comics". If they're like the rest of Currier and Ives' output, then they're single-page engravings... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Some search results (not sure how much use):-

Blogs and web articles: [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] - [5]

Books: [6] - [7] - [8]

From a "snippet view" book: "Peddlers sold Currier and Ives prints from street pushcarts . Traveling agents sold them in country stores. A London firm distributed them in England and on the Continent. The best - selling item appears to have been “Darktown Comics" at 73,000 copies. Some of the most original Currier and Ives work was done by distinguished artists , including George Catlin, George Inness, Eastman Johnson, and Thomas Nast." [9]

Additionally, archive.org has Mr. Currier and Mr. Ives : a note on their lives and times (1930) and Currier & Ives, printmakers to the American people (1942) which is available to "borrow" (i.e. read online for a limited time) if you set up a free account. Alansplodge (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both...that at least gives me something to start with, and maybe if I start searching just "Darktown" and "Currier and/& Ives" I can find more. I'm just so flummoxed that there isn't scholarship. It was their bestselling item -- I've seen that other places, too, I'm pretty sure. Something about how they were purchased by someone and the only item that was still produced were these. And the undergrad thesis attached it to white fears about reconstruction, which clearly it was. Only she's the only one I've found making that connection. —valereee (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

In politic, the queen of Prussia was an absolutist just like her husband? --87.2.66.76 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.66.76 (talk)

According to the German Wikipedia, after the Prussian Reforms following the defeat against Napoleon, “Der König regierte nicht mehr im Stil eines absolutistischen Herrschers, vielmehr delegierte er Verantwortung an Spitzenbeamte, die ihre Gebiete mit einer gewissen Eigenständigkeit bearbeiteten.” (“The king no longer ruled in the style of an absolutist ruler; rather, he delegated responsibility to top officials who managed their fields with a certain degree of independence.”) Note that Frederick William had simply inherited Prussia's absolute-monarchy model of statehood; he and his wife operated within its confines, as was expected of them.  --Lambiam 23:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Abraham-Louis Breguet

He was initially in favor of the revolution, but he repudiated it in 1793. What were his political views during the empire and the Restoration? --87.2.66.76 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.66.76 (talk)

A lot of your questions about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution imply that there were only two positions to take, either as a monarchist or a revolutionary. In reality, there were often several different political positions, and MANY people found themselves in the middle, neither absolute monarchists, nor ardent extremists. Some may have been in favor of republican ideals, but not of the radical left, and yet were often found to be enemies of the revolution because they didn't side with the extremists who, in both revolutions, gained control of the government. In each case, people who worked hard to overthrow the monarchy quickly found themselves on the wrong side of the revolution as more and more radical groups became uncompromising in their ideals. The parallels between the two is rather striking, you can draw connections (for example) between Georges Danton and Alexander Kerensky, between Maximilien Robespierre and Vladimir Lenin, between the Committee of Public Safety and the Bolsheviks, between Napoleon and Stalin, etc. It's important to note in both cases, there were shades of political leanings between many people, and there were people who favored everything from constitutional monarchy to democratic republic to socialist dictatorship, and every possible shade in between. Also also very important, there were many people who were largely apolitical at times, or did not feel strongly. Many people working in the trades or the sciences or any number of fields were among the "go-along-to-get-along" crowd, and were not really openly political. Even some really famous political figures seemed to be above the political fray, notably Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who managed to be the only person I can think of to serve every French government from the Ancien Regime through the Revolution, through Napoleon, the Restoration, and the July Monarchy. Honestly, if you really want to see a fascinating life lived at the center of a turbulent revolutionary time, Talleyrand is the guy you want to get into. I'm sorry I was not able to find more about the specific watchmaker in question, but I thought maybe you'd be interested in looking at these revolutions from a wider lens. --Jayron32 14:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

He was the French Vicar of Bray... AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Or the old Roman man in Catch-22. --Jayron32 00:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a fair comparison; the initial high ideals of 1789 had by 1793 given way to Reign of Terror. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrey Vyshinsky

Some of his trials are also against tsarist supporters? --87.2.66.76 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.66.76 (talk)