Humanities desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13[edit]

War of 1812[edit]

Is there consensus among historians regarding which nation (United States, Great Britain/Canada) was responsible for starting the war, and which nation, if any, won? I have always believed that the British incited it by violating America's sovereignty, and that America won as its sovereignty was unchallenged after the war. However, you can also look at it from the perspective of the United States finding a way to go to war so that it can prove its worth, followed by a failure to capture Canada, and the capitol being sacked. Lastly, the British may have suffered a humiliating defeat at New Orleans, but the war was technically already over, so should that even count as a War of 1812 victory for the United States, or just a victory in a generic battle not particular to any war? --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The war was not technically over at the time of the Battle of New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent had been signed, but not yet ratified. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Puzzledvegetable, the Historian's views section has a good answer to this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Why America forgets the War of 1812 for a brief interview with Don Hickey, professor of history at Wayne State College in Nebraska, who wrote the latest history of the war. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The White House's color and "The Star-Spangled Banner" are two oft-mentioned subliminal references to the War of 1812. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call The Star-Spangled Banner subliminal. It's literally a poem about the Battle of Baltimore. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I wonder what percentage of American citizens know that? (I'm guessing about the same percentage that can sing it on key.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like to say that the U.S. national anthem is a description in archaic elevated poetic diction of a war that few people know much about, set to a melody that many find unsingable -- and by and large Americans kind of like it that way...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I like to say that since the music is from a drinking song, once everyone has had a few then it gets easier to sing. Hence its use at sporting events, where a sizeable portion of the crowd is feelin' good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzledvegetable -- During the Trent Affair international incident in the U.S. Civil War, many pointed out that the government of Britain was taking positions on seizing persons from neutral vessels and recognizing an individual's changed nationality which were exactly the opposite of the British positions 50 years earlier (which had helped precipitate the War of 1812)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that from a typical Canadian perspective, the US tried to conquer Canada to liberate it from Britain, even though we didn't want to be liberated, and we soundly defeated you. Sure it makes no sense to say "we" because Canada was not an independent country yet, but that doesn't matter at all. We learn this in elementary school, everybody knows it. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you burned the White House, but when the Brits tried to take Baltimore, they heard "The Star-Spangled Banner" sung and fled in terror. Then in 1814 we took a little trip along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin', though there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago. We fired once more, and they began a-runnin', down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop -- it's not only that Canada wasn't yet independent, but also that there didn't begin to be a unified Canada until 50 years later. In 1812-1815, inhabitants of the maritime colonies would not have considered themselves "Canadian" and wouldn't have usually been called "Canadian" by others (in the case of Newfoundland, not until 1949!)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moos is correct (except for the number 50), but "Canada" was a meaningful term at the time. "Canada" had been preapproved for admission to the US, if it wanted, back in 1777 in the Articles of Confederation. (Joke: Apparently the answer "No, thank you" was not understood.) By 1791 the area so named consisted of the two colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, which were then unified in 1841. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1840, Toronto and Quebec were united with each other, but neither was united with the Maritimes (that wouldn't happen until over 20 years later). AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest everyone read up on the Battle of Plattsburgh. While less famous than New Orleans or the campaigns around DC and Baltimore, it was potentially much more important. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:6D9E:CD5D:662E:5310 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wartime nuclear program[edit]

According to our articles (German nuclear weapons program and Japanese nuclear weapon program), both Nazi Germany and Japan had a military nuclear program of some sort during WWII. Was there an equivalent in Fascist Italy? Our article (Italian nuclear weapons program) starts after the end of the war. --93.70.70.198 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The “go-stop-go” of Italian civil nuclear programs, beset by lack of strategic planning, exploitation for personal gain and unscrupulous political conspiracies: 1946-1987 says that Enrico Fermi and his team carried out fundamental neutron experiments in Rome in 1934, but was forced to leave for the USA in 1938 by Italian racial laws because his wife was Jewish. Most of his team followed and were quickly recruited into the Manhatten Project. Only Edoardo Amaldi remained in Italy and continued research during the war. There seems to have been no weapons programme. Alansplodge (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chateau of the Count and Countess of Morambert in the Dordogne[edit]

In our article John Ralfs, we read that his wife died at "the chateau of the Count and Countess of Morambert in the Dordogne". What was that chateau called? Do we have an article? Who was the Count of Morambert? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange, Morembert is a small (~100 inhabitant) village with no chateau and quite far from Dordogne (while Morambert doesn't have an article even in the french wiki). The "count" (very dubious this was a legit title) could have some estate in the Dordogne however. French article says that

Morembert était un fief qui relevait de la baronnie de Ramerupt et du duché de Pinay. Il est cité seulement à partir du xvie siècle mais des personnages portant le nom apparaissent en 1298. Les derniers seigneurs connu sont Antoine Chérot et Catherine de Saligny, son épouse qui sont négociants à Troyes en 1783 pour partie ; pour une autre part, Adelaïde d'Aulnay et son époux J-B Agenoust jusqu'en 1873.

.

(provided "Morembert" is what we are talking about)Gem fr (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that "De Morambert" was just a family name of some commoner, improperly translated into "of Morambert" (like, if Éleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours had been turned into "of Pont of Nemours" Gem fr (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The French Article says: "Morembert was a fief which belonged to the barony of Ramerupt and the duchy of Pinay. It is mentioned only from the sixteenth century but characters bearing the name appear in 1298. The last known lords are Antoine Chérot and Catherine de Saligny, his wife who are traders in Troyes in 1783 partly; on the other hand, Adelaïde d'Aulnay and her husband J-B Agenoust until 1873." Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rider - War Rents League, Liberal[edit]

I would be interested to learn more about Dan Rider, Honorary Secretary of The War Rents league, editor of The Wit and Wisdom of Lloyd George, author of Rent Raising Made Illegal. I would also like to know more about the War Rents League. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuncanHill, Ten Years' Adventures Among Landlords and Tenants is Rider's own book. Unfortunately, I can only find it in a snippet view.

But, here it is summed up in a brief account written for children in December 1927: These things make us think of the Rent Acts which were introduced during the war and are now in abeyance. Their story is told by Mr. Dan Rider in his new book on Ten Years’ Adventures Among Landlords and Tenants. In September, 1914, he heard that a poor young mother whose husband had gone to fight was going to be turned out, with her baby, by her landlord. He set himself to fight the battle of this and other poor women, and the War Rents League was started. So many letters reached him on the subject that once a whole post-office vanload was delivered. Such was the self-sacrificing devotion of the workers who took the matter up that when the first Rent Restriction Act was passed they were able to say this Act has only cost us ten shillings. In Mr. Rider’s book there are many stories of hardships and sorrow, but there are cheering tales as well. Many landlords were extremely generous, like the one who reduced the rents of his Manchester houses from 10s. to 6s. 8d. in every case where a husband had been killed in the war.

Even more interesting, a character sketch/biography of him forms one chapter of The London Roundabout, published 1933.

This book also looks promising for more on the league: Landlord and tenant in urban Britain, 1838-1918; if you have an archive.org account you can borrow it like a library book. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those look very interesting indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]