Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

I presume you are talking about the North, during the war itself. The newspapers shut down in those cases were invariably Copperhead newspapers that opposed the war, not slavery. It is true many abolitionists criticized Lincoln, but they were not arrested. For example, according to the "Report and Evidence of the Committee on Arbitrary Arrests in the State ...


2

Technically, the gap in the tapes was caused by Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods. But most people consider it unlikely that she would erase part of the tapes without the direction, or at least the consent of her boss. But here, the issue is one of the "slip between cup and lip." While Nixon is generally held responsible for the erasing of the tapes, he ...


8

There's a good chance he thought he did. There's actually an 18.5 minute gap in the tapes, about 3 days after the Watergate break-in. Of course that could have contained anything, including unrelated material. However, even sympathetic administration officials of the time now admit it was probably material that implicated him in the coverup of that ...


2

The electors were likely looking toward the future, anointing Hendricks as future (Vice) Presidential material. Hendricks was a Hoosier of national prominence who could help the Democratic Party make inroads into the North in 1876. Benjamin Brown retired from politics after the election, so there was no need for the electors to defer to him. And anyway, ...


2

It seems very unlikely. Why would Lincoln arrest men who, even if critical of the government, were even more critical of the slave states? My TLDR is that the majority of the arrests were of Southerners or Border Staters who, in some way, materially supported the Confederacy. The pattern of the arrests is entirely inconsistent with arrests for mere political ...


16

It's probably because Ganson--one of the handful of Democrats who voted for the 13th Amendment--was on the fence about this Amendment himself. Voting not to reconsider the bill is similar to voting "present" in order to duck a difficult issue. First, Ganson voted against the 13th Amendment the first time the House considered it. He was widely expected to ...


9

Quite possibly for procedural reasons. There are a lot of little nits about parliamentary procedures that encourage weird things like this. For instance, under the older Roberts Rules of Order extant at the time, a motion to reconsider could only be made by someone who voted on the prevailing side in the previous vote. So if there's a chance the vote might ...


12

The First World War and the Soviet Union happened. War time hysteria made labour groups and socialists, who were largely against the war, a target of vigilante attacks and political repression. To make matters worse, amid the political suppression internal divisions of the socialist movement spilled into the open. Encouraged by the revolutionary success in ...


-1

Monarchy was the "default" form of government prior to Greece and Rome. These two countries experimented with "democratic" and "republican" forms of government, respectively. When these forms of government ultimately failed (after considerable success), the world went back to the status quo ante--i.e. monarchy.


4

The main problem that secessionists would have faced in court is that the question had been settled over 40 years before the Civil War: secession was illegal. The only argument that supports unilateral secession, where a state just decides to leave and that's sufficient, is called "Compact Theory". The theory is that the US is not a single nation, but a ...


2

For the most part yes, as their fundamental issue in both cases was support for segregation and white supremecy. They were a bit different in theory, in that the AIP was founded as a conservative (far right) party that then courted southern whites, while the Dixiecrats were formed out of the southern Democratic party. However, in practice they both drew all ...


6

1) Long before Rome fell it had abandoned Republicanism. After Diocletian and the Crisis of the Third Century the Emperors no longer felt any need to consult with the Senate. The Senate's role in government and in the legitimacy of the Empire was symbolic. This is the first flaw in the question - the transition between Republic and Monarchy occurred during ...


14

The short answer is that it didn't. Monarchies did not become more common, and Europe in general did not adopt absolutist rule, immediately after the fall of Rome. First, to answer your literal question, monarchies were already common before Rome fell. Imperial Rome was itself a monarchy, even though the imperators were initially careful to maintain the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included