Humanities desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

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.

July 18

What was Rhode Island's status before it ratified the Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution took effect on June 21, 1788, when it was ratified by the ninth state, Connecticut. But what was the status of the other four members of the original Articles of Confederation from that point on - Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island - before they ratified the Constitution? Were they part of the United States? Were they part of a separate United States? --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution was simply an illegal treaty between the states. "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled." Congress had authorized the Constitutional Convention for the purpose of writing amendments to the Articles, not a whole new constitution, and amendments to the Articles were only allowed to be adopted if "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." The various governments simply found it convenient to ignore those provisions and treat the new Constitution as legitimately adopted—in effect, a bloodless revolution in favor of the new-style government. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read in, for example, History of Rhode Island, its refusal to ratify the constitution led to it being treated as a foreign nation by the other 12 states in the union. As far as the other 3 states you mention, those that ratified after the ninth state (New Hampshire, FWIW) necessary to ratify the Constitution and bring it into the force of law, it is likely that they were not treated as independent nations; remember that communication in those days went as fast as a horse could carry it, and as such, there was not an expectation of "instantness" that we have today. See History of the United States Constitution#Ratification of the Constitution, by the time that they got from the "It's been ratified" to "We need to organize and hold elections to form our first government, two additional states (bringing the total to eleven of thirteen) had ratified the constitution. The twelfth state, North Carolina, ratified on November 21, 1789, eight months after the government had started meeting on March 4, 1789, what had been the official inauguration day, though even on March 4, there was not a quorum in either house of Congress, it took some more weeks for representatives and senators from enough states to make it to New York to do so. It wasn't until the end of April that the President and Vice President had been sworn in. I can't find any information to indicate if North Carolina was treated as a foreign nation (or threatened to be) during the months of 1789 between when Congress started performing official business and they ratified the Constitution, but Rhode Island was under that direct threat until it ratified almost a year later. --Jayron32 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had the book Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier out of the library a while back. If I remember correctly, the delay in implementing the new government after New Hampshire ratified was not only due to slow communications and the time to organize elections but also because it was hoped the remaining states would fall into line quickly and avoid any problems such as they actually had with Rhode Island. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. So it seems like the best method is to just consider them all in the U.S. and not do any trickery. (I'm working on new versions of Territorial evolution of the United States etc. and was wondering how to handle this) --Golbez (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, Rhode Island was "gently" coerced into joining the Union. Being surrounded, they were not really in a position of strength. Now, if Virginia or Massachusetts had failed to sign on, it could have been serious trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were doing a progressive map like File:US states by date of statehood.gif or File:Non-Native American Nations Control over N America 1750-2008.gif, you could use three similar but distinct colors to show the "US under the Articles", "US states that ratified the Constitution before it took effect", and "US states under the Constitution". --50.100.189.160 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jurisdiction & admissibility

What 's the difference between jurisdiction and admissibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.166.186 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Jurisdiction and admissible evidence. Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low population density of central inner Spain

Why is central inner Spain (apart from the Madrid region) so sparsely populated? It's rather comparable with Scandinavia or northern Russia, than with Italy or France.

--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the map in Climate of Spain, a large portion of the center appears to be classified as BSk - cold, semi-arid climate. So the rain in Spain stays mainly ... elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right but the precipitation and temperature do not strictly correspond to the density.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That area appears to be known as the "Meseta Central" or "Inner plateau" (no separate en.Wikipedia article)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography_of_Spain#The_Inner_Plateau_and_associated_mountains Katie R (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains are also difficult to farm, necessitating building and maintaining ledges, which is rather labor intensive. Also, you can't bring in heavy machinery to harvest such crops, so that is also labor intensive. This has been done in places, such as parts of Asia, where the mountains get enough rain, the labor supply is plentiful, and there is a lack of more accessible farm land. In other areas mountain pastures are used to feed livestock, but those support a lower population, since much of the food energy is lost when it's converted into meat. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article describes the landscape as "barren rugged slopes". So probably not very productive as pasture either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but pasture doesn't need to be as productive, as goats, etc., have a knack for finding a tuft of grass here and there, which would be impractical for humans to try to harvest. Obviously more productive pasture will support more animals and thus humans, though. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spain also experienced a decent rate of urbanization during the 20th century, including during and after the Franco period (an increase from 61% to 77% between 1965 and 1985, "slightly higher than the average for the advanced industrial countries" Spain: A Country Study, Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988). Of the top ten cities of Spain, and with the exception of Madrid, as noted by Любослов, only Zaragoza is not at or near the coast, and it's still not in central Spain. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:EU_NUTS_2_population_density_2007.svg (linked by OP) shows a similar pattern in Greece and Turkey. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking pets to war

I'm wondering about this World War I photograph (1917) showing "Two American soldiers about to embark for duty, with their pets, a dachshund and a racoon. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" Were soldiers officially allowed (or even encouraged) to bring along pets at the time? Was it still allowed in WWII? What about nowadays? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comma seems to suggest these two soldiers about to embark on duty are with their pets, not about to embark on duty with their pets. I don't know of anything allowing or forbidding it, but it seems like a hassle to take them along. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, when WWII was coming, many people seem to have figured their pets would be better off dead, at the government's suggestion. Seems unlikely those soldiers would be allowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, big green unpalatable one (I actually saw the pic in a local magazine reminiscing on WWI, and the caption claimed it showed the two soldiers after disembarkment in Europe, which isn't what the linked caption says). Sorry, by the way, if the link doesn't work. It's one of those patronizing links that automatically redirects to my country web domain (.ch) and language (de), so I'm not even sure that changing it to .com would work. But people can view it by image-googling American + soldiers + dachshund + raccoon. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I can't understand all the German on the right, but I can guess by the context that it's not so relevant to the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was the case of Sergeant Stubby, the most decorated war dog in the first one. But he wasn't technically a pet (or a sergeant). Somewhere in between. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wojtek, a private in the Polish artillery (and a brown bear) who allegedly carried ammunition to the guns at the Battle of Monte Cassino. 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Sergeant Stubby, Able Seaman Just Nuisance has an official rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but speaking of war dogs, the Russians tried to use dogs with explosives on their backs to attack German tanks at the Battle Of Kursk. Unfortunately, it backfired (pardon the pun), because the dogs had been trained using Russian tanks, so they blew their own tanks up. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or so the story goes. See Anti-tank dog. Although not terribly effective, they don't seem to have destroyed any Soviet tanks. Alansplodge (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I heard the story on QI, and I trust Stephen Fry and his army of elves. And that article does say, they sniffed out their own tanks, beacause of the difference in smell between diesel and gasoline. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 13:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that I first read the story in The Book of Heroic Failures (1979), an amusing but hardly academic work. Our article quotes as its reference The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II edited by Chris Bishop, 2002 (p.205) which Google Books won't show me. The same story is quoted in Colonel Richardson's Airedales: The Making of the British War Dog School by Bryan D. Cummins which quotes it verbatim from Dogs at War: True Stories of Canine Courage Under Fire by Blythe Hamer 2001. So it seems to be well attested but only in fairly recent works and has a hint of the urban myth about it in my opinion. Red Road From Stalingrad: Recollections of a Soviet Infantryman by Mansur Abdulin has a brief eye-witness account of the successful use of anti-tank dogs on the Don Front in November 1942. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're drifting away from pure pets, here are Seven Insane Military Attempts to Weaponize Animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks again, unsavoury muscular mate (and everyone else), but the animals I was curious about were pets, without any military use apart from their potential of comfort, consolation, and cuddliness to their owner. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. I remember hearing stories of trench soldiers befriending and (often temporarily) adopting cats and dogs, but Google is frustrating. Even then though, they met during the war. I did find this, slightly more relevant than confirmed active duty animals. Funny story, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's this academic paper about the various ways dogs were seen and treated in WWI. Pretty deep, just skimmed through it. Stuff about pets, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]