Humanities desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

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.

December 17[edit]

Unacceptable and acceptable[edit]

I have noticed that Germans and Italians look at their own history in a different way. Almost all Germans are ashamed of Nazis and Hitler, but many Italians look at italian fascism and Mussolini with pride, even Berlusconi refused to condemn Mussolini in a TV interview and other time he called him "a great statesman". Also when I went to Italy last year I was suprised to see a lot of Mussolini memorabilia all around the country, while Im pretty sure that its impossible to find something like that in Germany. In Italy its legal and you can even see people wearing shirts with Mussolinis picture on it. Not to mention football players like Christian Abbiati and Paolo Di Canio that are openly fascist, even though they both claim that they are not nazis.

My question is how come that Italians(many recognized intellectuals as well) have a different view of their WW2 and pre-WW2 past then Germans? Was Italian fascism so different then German fascism and whats the main difference? Is it just the mentality of these nations or is there an explanation in the natures of these regimes? How come one of the is unacceptable in this century while the other one is considered folklore? СССССС (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference, in terms of history, is that Italy for the most part lacked participation in the Holocaust. Italian Fascism in general was based on some rather strong theories of nationalism and the role of the state, but they were never tied up with the disgusting racial politics that thrived in Germany. Fascism and Nazism are not quite the same thing. Fascism is anti-democratic and dictatorial, to be sure, and all of the evils that usually go with that, but Nazism is more about open warfare against your own people than Italian Fascism. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Mussolini was a confirmed racist according to his adoring mistress, and the Fascist government had a policy of forced Italianization and social Darwinism. Also the Blackshirts were often quite brutal. Still, as Mr. 98 points out, the Fascists had little direct involvement in the Holocaust before the German occupation of Italy, so they have earned less moral outrage than the German Nazis. Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they shot him, so they get some points for coming to their good senses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is then what went wrong suddenly to many states to turn against their citizen? For example, in a country like Germany, many sources indicate that Jewish population had been much assimilated and had a higher portion of established positions of residency in comparison to the population ratio. The emergence of notable academicians in varieties of disciplines is an example. This would not had been an easy task to pass the controlled stages if there had been a hostile environment.Couchworthy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with any question like this, there are a large number of interrelated causes. The short version, though, is that people were going through some hard times in the 1930's and were looking for somebody to blame. The Jews were a good choice (there were lots of rich Jewish bankers, for example, and people like blaming rich bankers for things [as we well know!]). --Tango (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the myth that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Many people praise the fascist governments of improving counties after the destruction of WWI and the great depression although how much this is down to fascist politicians and policies is debatable. Also Mussolini is remembered for making Italy a significant power once more, the bombing and gassing of foreign civilians in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is mostly downplayed as it was a brutally short war. You may be interested in this review by George Orwell of a pamphlet by Michael Foot which hypothetically puts Mussolini on trial shortly after the fall of the fascist government (the pamphlet itself does not seem to be online) meltBanana 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of the problem is that Italy just can't seem to make up its mind. They basically switched sides in both World War I and II. There was a joke during the Israeli 6-day war in 1967: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy had its share of atrocities, from the above mentioned forced Italianisation to anti-Jewish policies and a number of concentration camps (like Gonars and Rab - this second one was really only a summer retreat, according to the recently flogged Berlusconi) but they did keep these things local, i.e. confined to Great Italy alone, and they did switch sides, as Bugs points out, so they were given some (unjustified, IMO) leniency after the war. But the main difference I see is that Germany went through strict denazification after the war, and Italy (and Japan, for that matter - another offender) didn't, so fascist rhetoric and apologetics can creep into modern discourse much more unobstructed.

I remember seeing some American movie from the sixties or seventies that was basically tourist propaganda for Italy (it was paid for in part by Italy, and it was called Pronto! or Forza! or something those lines). It had a minor character, a cab driver who made nostalgic references to Mussolini. The character was meant to be humorous, a living-in-the-past sorta yokel, but I couldn't help thinking that exchanging his longing for Benito to return with a longing for Adolf to return would make him a very grim character indeed. And at least as far as I am concerned, those two are easily exchangeable - 65 years ago both of them had a hard-on for exterminating the hell out of my ancestors. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it the other way round: the humbling of Germany after WWII is an extremely rare exception in history. I can think of no other country that was actually, literally forced to come to terms with its past like that. For this to be possible, Germany had to be roundly defeated and conquered beyond any possible second-guessing (unlike, say, Germany in the First World War, or Japan in WWII, which surrendered before an invasion). All great powers (and many not so great powers) have hideous things in their history, but almost all retain the privilege of considering them glorious memories of great men and great deeds. Or at least someone else's fault, like blaming Hitler for all the crimes of his lesser Axis allies. Stalin came in third in the vote for the greatest Russian ever, and I suspect they actually rigged the vote so he wouldn't win (that would have been a bit unseemly, not least since he wasn't Russian). Napoleon, an aggressive militarist dictator, is a hero to many French people. Likewise Charles XII of Sweden. Many Belgians don't exactly share the rest of the world's view of the history of the Congo. British people don't like to think that the RAF bombed German cities just to butcher civilians, but it did. Americans have pretty much forgotten the conquest of the Philippines, which was the Iraq war of its day, and so has the rest of the world. Etc., etc. So in this respect, Mussolini's continued respectability in Italy is not unusual. Italy switched sides in the war, and after that, the Allies needed to get along with the locals more than they needed to judge them. Plus after the war, there was a pretty powerful Italian Communist party to contend with, so the western powers were not interested in alienating the right wing.--Rallette (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody thinks there was no Holocaust activity in Italy, you might want to read The Garden of the Finzi-Continis. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the post above, the Italians, just as the Americans, have never needed to face their history in the same way as the Germans, who pretty much had it rubbed in what had been done in their name, see Denazification. Sometimes the U.S. approach to this was just plain stupid though, see this.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is really saying that the Italians had clean hands in this regard, but they were certainly cleaner than the Germans. Gonars and Rab are much more like "regular" wartime internment camps than they are like Auschwitz or Buchenwald. And I do think that most people see a difference between "let's deport some of our Jews to another country and let them figure out what to do with them" and taking on the job of actual slaughter.

Let's phrase this another way. If Hitler hadn't butchered people in camps, how would he be remembered? Probably a LOT better—people would say, "well, he was tough and dictatorial, to be sure, and he did start that war and all, but the country was in a pretty bad place when he took over, and he offered a way out of that for a lot of people." I mean, heck, Russians still talk that way about Stalin a good deal of the time, even with all his atrocities.

I think the German stance on the Nazis is actually more odd. Most countries have a more mixed stance towards their previous dictators, in my limited experience. They recognize that dictators rarely just "show up"—there are usually conditions that give them the power to take over. Being a warmonger doesn't immediately put you into "no longer remotely sympathizable" camp. Butchering civilians does not, either (as has been pointed out, basically every European and Western power has done this fairly routinely). But committing genocide seems to still carry with it that special edge. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it all boils down to personal opinion in the end, I guess. I don't like the fact that there are some people in high Italian politics that refuse to see Mussolini for the war criminal he was simply because it was my own people that were chalked up for destruction. Granted, "destruction" in this sentence amounts to elimination of national identity by forced italianisation and there were only some extreme cases, but for me that's enough to seriously not like the fascists. Nor people who to this day fail to admit they were criminals. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but basically every major participant nation committed war crimes during WWII. The fact that the Italians "only" killed a few thousand people in their camps (compared to the millions in Hitler's, or the hundreds of thousands of civilians the US and British killed in their indiscriminate bombing campaigns) makes it hard to really narrow out Mussolini as one of the major bad guys, I think. He wasn't great, but he's no Hitler. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Hitler was worse then Stalin if you are purely counting, but people still argue about the subject. But the fact is Hitler was beaten and died, but Stalin was left to do what he pleased, occupying most of eastern Europe for 50 years under oppression. He is seen as worse in a lot of eastern Europe. Mussolini doesn't measure up to either. Vespine (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the fallacy in this?[edit]

Suppose you want to prove a statement; for the sake of example I'll use "All (non-albino) crows are black." This statement is clearly equivalent to its contrapositive, "All non-black objects aren't (non-albino) crows." Therefore, any evidence gathered to support this second statement supports the original statement as well, so you can simply observe several hundred non-black objects in your house, and this is as good evidence as observing an equal number of black, non-albino crows. Therefore, it is possible to prove, in the scientific sense at least, every possible statement by applying this same method. --75.28.53.166 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article: raven paradox. Algebraist 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an object is a raven, then it is black.

If an object is not black, then it is not a raven.

Observing several hundred non-black objects in your house does not prove that all ravens are black. All it proves is that if all ravens are black, then those objects are not ravens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not a paradox, is it, then? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most things called "paradox" aren't really paradoxes. They are just counter-intuitive statements. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a paradox, or just counter-intuitive? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most philosophers consider it to be a veridical paradox, in Quine's useful terminology. Algebraist 13:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The root of the fallacy - or the mistake, since it isn't really a logical fallacy - is that we create knowledge by thinking, rather than absorbing it directly from the outside world through our pores. Observing increasingly large numbers of black ravens is only valid evidence if it contradicts some theory that said you wouldn't be able to find X number of black ravens unless all ravens were black. Our (tentative) certainty that all ravens are black isn't based on having observed every raven. Even observing one black raven doesn't prove indisputably that one raven is black, since we are fallible. 213.122.6.175 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fallacy itself, though. If we cannot accept observation (ie. "The raven I am observing is black") then we cannot make any statement of fact. At some point you have to accept an observation as accurate (not indisputable, just accurate). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Book on the Roman Empire[edit]

I've been reading a lot of recent history lately, but realized that I haven't read a good book on the Roman Empire. Can anyone recommend a good summary book that is readily (read: inexpensively) available on Amazon and that offers a military and cultural history of the Roman Empire? I am especially interested in the comments of anyone who has read several books on the subject, and would like to suggest the one that they would read if they could only read one in their lifetime.NByz (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is very famous. Of course, you'd have to have about two months of time you could dedicate exclusively to reading it :) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to include a 500-1000 page suggestion above...NByz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire redirects to Gibbon's Decline and Fall. It only covers the period from Mark Aurel onwards. I have been listening to the LibriVox audiobook version (full text, free, variable speakers), and its great. Gibbon has a mean sense of humor, and is insightful. But of course it's very dated, and we now know a lot more. Mommsen's History of Rome is a classic, and complements Gibbon, but it's also 150 years out of date. If you like listening, the History of Rome Podcast is quite decent, in that it is competently and pleasantly spoken and does not make me wince when listening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Lane Fox's The Classical World has had good reviews and is available cheaply in paperback, if you search around. It also covers ancient Greece, and I believe it only runs to around the time of Hadrian, so it would complement Decline and Fall rather well. Warofdreams talk 10:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to the ole Amazon wish list. Have you read it? Can you recommend it?NByz (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read it; I bought it as a present for a relative who tells me it is very good - but they might just be being polite! Warofdreams talk 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov was not a historian, but he did write very readably and produced a two-volume history, "The Roman Republic" and "The Roman Empire". I liked them, but I haven't read enough other material to say how they compare. I also don't know if they're in print today, but libraries should have them. --Anonymous, 06:41 UTC, December 18, 2009.

Biggest buildings[edit]

Hi, is there a list on wikipedia where you can find the biggest buildings in the world? -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.84.42 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining biggest? Tallest, greatest by volume, largest by area? --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have the conveniently-named list of largest buildings in the world. If you are actually after the tallest buildings, see the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Warofdreams talk 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

geography question[edit]

What are amazing structure(s) that all of us should visit at least once in our lifetime ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.161.42 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Welch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wonders of the World. --Jayron32 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on where you are your income. I would love to visit the wonders of the world but financially it ain't possible so you may be interested in looking at the wonders of your own country. If that's England (like me) you'll have places like Buckingham Palace, White Cliffs of Dover, Humber Bridge, Worcester Cathedral, Stone Henge, Hadrians Wall, any of the Walled Cities (York - my home town - is particularly beautiful). In an ideal world Jayron's given you the answer, but realistically most people in the world won't get to visit all the listed wonders (plus there is much contention about the list itself!). 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

The list for Wonders of the Medieval World seems strange - the first three entries aren't Medieval at all! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second anon, you should visit Avebury too. Unlike Stonehenge, you can walk inside the circles, examine the stones up close, touch them, etc. Might be worth checking for any smaller stone circles or standing stones near you too, if you want to see that sort of thing. Visit on a misty winter morning and you'll have it to yourself. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hero & Copyright Law[edit]

I remember when watching a documentary about copyright law, RiP!, a scene in which they added up the total costs of clearing all the samples in Girl Talk's music and it was astronomical. Because of this he simple doesn't, which puts his music on a dubious level of legality. The recent game DJ Hero has a sample/mashup based soundtrack of almost songs.

1. Do the same standards of clearing samples apply to this game?

2. If so does anyone know either

a. whether or not they cleared the sample or

b. where I could find that out?

Samineru (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the game DJ Hero has cleared the use of the copyrighted music for the specific purpose of use in the normal operation of the game. If you then were to take music you recorded from the game and passed it off as your own, then you would be violating copyright. --Jayron32 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, you could find out if they failed to clear samples by checking the news for a lawsuit. In practice, mainstream presentations of sampled music need to clear samples because there is a much higher chance of being caught. An artist who has not been paid for being sampled in a Kanye West song is more likely to a) find out about it and b) care than if they were sampled by an artist who sells 3000 copies of their album and has no mainstream airplay. Also, the more obvious the sample (or the more mainstream the sample), the higher risk of not clearing it. Someone sampled by The Bomb Squad is less likely to notice that it was their sample than Kanye sampling Chaka Khan's "Through the Fire" in "Through the Wire".--droptone (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are that there is some documentation that comes with the game, somewhere, that gives some hint of the sampling going on. I'd be surprised if they didn't clear all samples first—it would be kind of dumb in the case of a game that intended to sell a lot of copies. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um did you read the article you linked to? Specifically DJ Hero#Soundtrack "Over 100 individual songs based on master recordings have been licensed by Activision, composed into 94 DJ mixes by both participating internationally-known DJs and an in-house remix team; some mixes will feature the same song as both parts of the mix, as in turntablism". For any major game, you can be resonably assured the music is properly licensed. And yes, they definitely do have to get a license to use the music if it wasn't created for them or out of copyright. (GTA games are known for their licensed music [1].) How the costs compare to other stuff I don't know. Some TV series have either been held up (I believe it's been cited as a reason Cold Case has not yet been released on DVD) or had their music replaced when released on DVD because of licensing costs so it can be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Changes II[edit]

If, God forbid, this were to ever happen, where on earth would be the safest place to be? To be honest, the more I read about 2012 phenomenon, the skeptical I'm becoming of it. However, just in case..... --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See bullshit. --Jayron32 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safest place on earth to avoid a disaster is probably somewhere remote and a long way from fault lines. The south pole, or central Australia come to mind, but you would need to have them pre-stocked with supplies. Granted, the validity of the answer will depend on what the disaster would be. Mine was chosen with regards to human action (nuclear war, rioting etc), earthquakes or tsunamis. If you have a giant meteor heading for earth, well, maybe those are not good choices, but you pays your money and takes your chances. Googlemeister (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth and its people are likely to face many challenges over the next couple of decades, but I would be more concerned about the challenges given a high chance of probability by scientific investigators, such as climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and perhaps peak oil, rather than challenges predicted by religious myths. The scientifically supported challenges are global in nature, such that there is really nowhere to hide, though you might want to sell any beachfront property. The challenges I have mentioned are likely to spark social, economic, and political stress, including an increase in failed states and perhaps warfare and perhaps a breakdown in order in some areas. My personal advice, which I know I probably should not offer on the Reference Desk, would be to learn basic skills such as gardening and perhaps things like sewing or woodworking to prepare for severe economic trouble, and to find a community with strong community ties that will resist a breakdown in social order. All other things being equal, I would aim for small towns with a strong local economy, away from the coast but along a rail line. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would safe to be in a balloon or an airplane.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might delay your anihilation by a few seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question[edit]

Which is the port city

1.whose name is last name of its founder a government official, developer and entreprenuer 2. It is known only by its initials 3.,it has perfect stretch of white sandy beach that extends for miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.70.125 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trick. Get an axe. --M @r ē ino 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Would Abraham Lincoln have used a walking stick for whatever reason in the last years of his life? This is not a homework question. Just curious. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Wikipedia has an An unsourced, unverified story holding that Lincoln's widow bequeathed Lincoln's walking stick to Frederick Douglass. If you're dying to know for sure, call the Home of Frederick Douglass at (202) 426-5961 and ask. --M @r ē ino 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. I may have to follow up on your suggestion. Thank you very much.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't every 19th Century gent carry a stick? - see American "walking canes". Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of Lincoln's walking stick at Douglass' museum. --Sean 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was she regent?[edit]

Exactly which years was Louise of Savoy regent for her son? --85.226.44.238 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to nail down the exact dates from the information in the articles Louise of Savoy or Francis I of France. She was not regent because of the minority of the king, since he became king at age 20, well into adulthood by standards of the day. The Louise article indicates she served as regent during Francis's absence. This probably meant she was put in charge when he wasn't availible to be in charge, usually because of military campaigns he was on, or perhaps when he was off on diplomatic negotiations. Sometimes, she was sent herself on diplomatic negotiations (see War of the League of Cognac, where she was sent to negotiate an important treaty). So, I would guess that you could construct a reasonable timeline of when she was likely to have been regent based upon those times when Francis was away leading his army in a war, but it was also likely a common enough occurance that it was not noted as a regency in the traditional sense, like when a mother rules for her infant son. --Jayron32 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and who was regent in France after François was captured at the [Battle of Pavia (1525)|[Battle of Pavia]] (24 February 1525) and hauled off to Madrid, where he wrote to his mother?--Wetman (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Louise. But that is likely not the only time she was regent, and she was likely regent from before his capture. Someone had to be handling the domestic affairs of the kingdom while he was off fighting his wars. I wasn't doubting that she was an official regent at those times, I was only noting that nailing down the exact dates she served as official regent would be difficult from the sources availible at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia seem to mention 1515, 1525-26 and 1529, but I would like to have it confirmed - and were there other times? When was Francis abroad? --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis[edit]

I’m writing a piece on Jefferson Davis and am in need of some literature that portrays him in a negative light. I know he is disliked by the likes of David Potter and David Donald but I’m not sure where to look if anyone could point me to titles of their works that criticize Davis or if anyone can think of any other authors and titles that would be great. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.217 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot completely answer your question, because this isn't my field, but I do have two thoughts:
- If you can get to a full-size reference library -- like the main branch in a major city or university -- they should have both microfiche and electronic copies of newspapers from the 1860s. I can assume that Mr. Davis was portrayed in a very negative light by some Southern and most Northern newspapers of that era.
- You should also try to get your hands on a couple books from this Bibliography. Again, I don't know which ones are the critical ones, but for such a controversial figure, some of the books must be negative in tone. --M @r ē ino 22:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need "literature" as in "classic literature" or as in "something published"? I can point you to bits from a religious magazine that (if I remember rightly) might be a good example of what you want. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nyttend, Anything will do so long as is critical of him. I dont mind if its online, published, primary or secondry everything helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.217 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. What I have is from this PDF. Let me warn you, first: don't go there unless you have a fast Internet connection — it's 800 MB and the server isn't too fast. I downloaded this and several related documents last year for a school project, and the only way I could do it was to start the download before I went to bed so that it would download overnight. If you don't think you have the time to download the whole thing, tell me and I'll copy the text into my userspace, where you can read it easily. I've found three references to Davis in this document: on pages 189, 266, and 292. These page numbers are the numbers that you can see were on the original pages, by the way, and not necessarily those of the PDF itself. Context is (189) calling Davis a thief and a conspirator to rebel against the USA, (266) calling Davis the leader of "rebel hordes", and (292) talking about Davis coming in from a battle with blood-covered hands and saying that he's utterly unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper. The document is the 1861 volume of the Reformed Presbyterian, which was at that time one of the two official periodicals of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. As this denomination had been strongly anti-slavery since 1800, it was almost exclusively a northern denomination; its only church in a Confederate state was in what's today the northern part of the West Virginia Panhandle, where of course slavery wasn't as popular. If you don't have time/ability to download the entire document, I'll also get you whatever publication information you need. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The little book Why the North Won the Civil War by David Herbert Donald has a trenchant little essay by David M. Potter "Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in the Confederate Defeat" which details why he wasn't really the best man for the job. If Davis had given Robert E. Lee overall control over military matters and let Judah P. Benjamin run things on the civilian side, then probably the war could have lasted a year or more longer than it did... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, part of Davis' problem was that he needed to be a Lincoln and couldn't be, because the southern states didn't want a strong central government. That was just one of their many problems, of course. Ultimately, it was probably resources, or lack thereof, that made the south's cause hopeless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those arguments -- that the South lost because it didn't have a strong central government ("died of states' rights"), and that it lost because it had fewer resources -- are arguments Davis made, and form part of the Lost Cause interpretation. These views were once commonly held, but have been discredited, or at least qualified or strongly challenged. —Kevin Myers 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that helped turn the tide was when the north got some competent (and ruthless) leadership. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hits at this Google Books search, though you may have to track down the actual books to see what they have to say. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davis, given his rigid views and inflexible personal style, naturally made enemies of a huge range of Confederate officers and officials. The memoirs of Joseph E. Johnston were republished in trade paperback about 15 or 20 years ago. See also these secondary sources: Statesmen of the Lost Cause: Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet by Burton J. Hendrick (New York, 1939) and The Confederate Republic: A Revolution Against Politics by George C. Rable (UNC Press, Chapel Hill, 1994, ISBN 0-8078-2144-6). You can read the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States on line at the "American Memory" site of the Library of Congress. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]