History questions not worth their own thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are there any good sources on the "All-Mexico movement," people in the U.S. that argued in favor of complete annexation of Mexico after the Mexican-American War?
 
And to create a trifecta of questions...

Around what year did Republicans turn their back on civil rights (talking about pre-1980) and why?
 
Around what year did Republicans turn their back on civil rights (talking about pre-1980) and why?

Please clarify what you mean by "turning their backs."
 
Lincoln and Grant supported civil rights (as much as they could for their time), Strom Thurmond (and there was someone else too, a Republican during FDR's reign, but I can't remember his name) did not. And Strom got a lot of popular support from Republicans.

Of course, post-1980, civil rights were almost no longer an issue, so Reagan, the two Bushes, and McCain can't be said to have any definitive stance on such an issue.
 
Lincoln and Grant supported civil rights (as much as they could for their time), Strom Thurmond (and there was someone else too, a Republican during FDR's reign, but I can't remember his name) did not. And Strom got a lot of popular support from Republicans.

No, Strom Thurmond did not get a lot of support from Republicans. He switched to the Republican Party in 1964, which is generally considered the re-aligning year (don't know if that's what you were looking for), but he was widely hated by everybody, except segregationists, who themselves were dispersed between Republicans and Democrats almost equally.

If you're speaking solely of minority civil rights, then I point out that every president from Truman to Nixon played a very large part in the extension of the aforementioned rights. In this sense, it's not really fair to say that either party "turned their backs" on civil rights. Rather, there was a group of people explicitly against them, who belonged to both parties in varying degrees.
 
No, Strom Thurmond did not get a lot of support from Republicans. He switched to the Republican Party in 1964, which is generally considered the re-aligning year (don't know if that's what you were looking for), but he was widely hated by everybody, except segregationists, who themselves were dispersed between Republicans and Democrats almost equally.

If you're speaking solely of minority civil rights, then I point out that every president from Truman to Nixon played a very large part in the extension of the aforementioned rights. In this sense, it's not really fair to say that either party "turned their backs" on civil rights. Rather, there was a group of people explicitly against them, who belonged to both parties in varying degrees.

Thank you.
 
Question: In the Middle Ages, if the Cardinals were in conclave choosing a new pope, and a king needed to divorce his wife, who would he talk to?

The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce; you can only ask for dispensation. Also, what do you mean needed to divorce his wife? And until late 19th, early 20th century most civil law recognized the husband's sole authority in matrimony.
 
Was Erwin Planck (famous person and son of Max Planck, another famous person) really involved in the plot to assasinate Hitler? Is it known to what extent?
 
I need a 15th-century (c.1400-1520) Italian painting from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City to analyze. Preferably one thats easy to analyze, any recommendations?
 
AFAIK communist influence on both Indian and Pakistani independence was negligible at best. (And, once again, socialism =/= communism.) The main drive for independence came from Gandhi's Congress party, which has basically ruled ever since India gained independence. Anyway, after independence, India displayed a rather sizeable communist party (which in some regional states actually ruled), but Pakistan did not. Somehow a predominantly Muslim population and communism don't mix well, it seems. On the international scene India has adopted the so-called Third Way (between communism and capitalism) for quite some time. (Also ofcourse, once both India and Pakistan became independent the Bangla Desh separation occurred, but that is another matter.)

Nehru was a Fabian Socialist so it had a good deal of influence, and for many years the Indian economy was basically a command economy.
 
The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce; you can only ask for dispensation. Also, what do you mean needed to divorce his wife? And until late 19th, early 20th century most civil law recognized the husband's sole authority in matrimony.

Like if he was she couldn't produce children, and/or he really needed t make a marriage alliance with someone else. So can he just leave her, or does he need the Pope's permission?
 
Also, another question, though not for anything academic but rather out of personal curiosity: were there still any British Loyalists in America around by the War of 1812, and did they contribute anything of note to the British cause?
 
were there still any British Loyalists in America around by the War of 1812, and did they contribute anything of note to the British cause?
Can't say for sure, but seeing as the "Loyalists" (and not just the so called "Late Loyalists") in Canada contributed as much to the Americans as the British, I doubt they did much.
 
I have two questions.

What happened to Lafeyette during the French Revolution? The last mention of him I know of is he was commanding the national guard in Paris during the early days of the French Revolution.

Why is Chesty Puller a legend in the Marine Corps?
 
What happened to Lafeyette during the French Revolution? The last mention of him I know of is he was commanding the national guard in Paris during the early days of the French Revolution.

He fled France in 1791, got captured in the Austrian Netherlands, was imprisoned until Belgium was annexed by the French Empire, and did nothing from that point on until the Bourbon Restoration.
 
Why is it that Romania is the only axis power to walk away from WWII with more land then what they stared out with?
 
Uh...they didn't. They ended with less. You're thinking of Bulgaria, who took it from Rumania, and so no one really cared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom