History questions not worth their own thread III

[Tee Kay]

India.

 

[Lord Baal]

Chile comes to mind.

I was thinking this. Chile certainly colonised Easter Island, which to this day is ruled by a governor and has an active independence movement.

 

[Masada]

And pepper (black, white or green) is too a spice, as well as a condiment. We just don't think of spices as being common.

Yeah, how is pepper not a spice?

Yes we need to remember that the concept of spices in 1824 is not the same as how we perceive spices today.

It wasn't spice, spice refers instead to clove, nutmeg and mace. I had thought I made the difference rather obvious? I italicised it for impact and was rather careful with how I used the word "That's quite right spice wasn't important" "Pepper isn't spice!" as opposed to a formulation like "That's quite right pepper/spices wasn't important" or "pepper isn't a spice" for instance.

Since it came from India, you don't need to go to Indonesia for it.

Whether it was important enough to grab Sumatra is arguable as it has already quite rightly been pointed out... it could be sourced elsewhere much cheaper.

All these theories would be great if there was an iota of evidence to support them. But to begin: India wasn't a major exporter of pepper in the 1820s and what it did export was considered to be 'inferior' to Sumatran pepper: soils, export specialisation and relative distance favoured Sumatra. Relative distance to where? China the largest single purchaser of pepper until well into the 1840s. And when the 'great transition' finally hit and European taste for pepper exceeded Chinese demand, Java was there to pick up the pieces thanks to the forced growth of export croup under the cultuurstelsel. As a result of these Dutch extractions Java became the largest export of pepper from the mid-1840s until well into the 1880s when the Liberals (Max Havelaar!) caught up with the cultuurstelsel and population growth reduced the amount of pepper under cultivation.

I also said nothing about there not being a pepper based inducement to invade. The intention in 1824 had been to clean up some of the more pressing Sumatran issues before Diponegoro began to tear Java apart in 1825, something that forced the Dutch to make hard decisions including putting the Padri War on effective hold until 1830. The Java War alone torn up the Dutch tax base in the Indies, forced it to spend up big on troops and left it with control of an island it didn't have the infrastructure in place to rule, the problems for which were compounded by the costs of the Padri War's resumption. All three forced a radical Dutch move in the cultuurstelsel which was intended to help pay for the costs ongoing costs of policing and ruling Java. The happy result (for the Dutch) was an influx of cash that allowed it in the 1860s to strut its stuff a bit more forcefully, leading it to make some unintended acquisitions in the 1860s particularly in Borneo. However by this time the economic value of Sumatra and the collapse of effective Acehnese power - and the resulting truncation of the territory it controlled - had left the Dutch without much of an incentive to do all that much conquering and without the usual steady stream of entreats from hard-pressed Datus to liberate them from Achenese interference. These Borneo additions were built on more assiduously in the period 1870-1900 when the situation in Java was deemed to be 'safe' and the costs - in cash and diplomatic terms - were lower and the benefits - in terms of plantations - were on the increase. Pepper such as it was, was still a hot ticket but it was one of a number of options: plantation rice was the Big Thing around Medan, tea and coffee were grown in the hills, sugar-cane was grown in the deltas, gold was extracted in a number of places and so on.

The British were content not to get involved in Sumatra because British interests were satisfied. Aceh was put under the British sphere in the 1824 Treaty which owed more to the threat of another power getting involved that some fear of Dutch invasion. It was also cheaper for the British to palm off the enforcement costs to the Dutch who were obliged to 'defend' their claimed territories and keep their 'side' of the straits clear of pirates. This was of course all informed by the understanding that the Dutch were still reeling from the Java War well into the 1840s and thus weren't capable of making good on their pretensions in any case. And when they were, the British made sure to improve on their rights in respect of the Indies trade in exchange for an understanding not to interfere. There were some cases where the British refused on the understanding that peace was more desirable than war, something the Dutch listened to and ultimately places Dutch policy in Sumatra under a distinctly British umbrella: Aceh in the 1880s springs to mind. But in general it wasn't that the Dutch didn't want to but simply that they couldn't in the financial position they were in. The British for their part were content to let the Dutch take stuff so long as they got their fair share.

Thanks Masada! You sorta answered my question. I blame myself for bad wording but I was wondering what was the possibility for Sumatra to fall into a British sphere of influence so that in a progressive timeline, the Dutch East Indies never held Sumatra and Sumatra was another British colony in South East Asia.

Eh, could do it that way or you could just have the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 fall through. The other possibility would be to have the agreement that Raffles negotiated with the Minangkabau Sultanate hold, insofar as it granted the Britain sovereignty over the region. (The Minangkabu didn't fall under the 1814 Treaty because it guaranteed Dutch holdings as at 1803 and seeing as how the Padri War hadn't started in 1803, Dutch claims were not enforceable under the earlier 1814 Treaty). Or just have the Brits move harder into Aceh (and take an expansive reading of Aceh's territory which would place the northern half of Sumatra under the British sphere) as per the 1824 Treaty.

 

[Dreadnought]

I've got an interesting question that I've just thought of:

Why wasn't California divided when it applied for statehood in the US, or while it was still a territory? Was there a specific reason they didn't divide it, with the Missouri Compromise line being the border between the two?

 

[Traitorfish]

I've got an interesting question that I've just thought of:

Why wasn't California divided when it applied for statehood in the US, or while it was still a territory? Was there a specific reason they didn't divide it, with the Missouri Compromise line being the border between the two?

I'm not sure about the main question, but it seems obvious that the answer to this one is that the Missouri Compromise line had nothing at all to do with California. It bore absolutely no relation to the internal geography or administrative divisions of California, it was used to describe a regional distinction on the other side of the continent, and it existed in no continuous form between Arkansas and California. It'd make about as much sense as trying to base the partition of Ireland on the Anglo-Scots border.

 

[Ajidica]

It is rather simple, California didn't want to be two separate states, they wanted to be one state. Normaly the government would simply have sent them back to the drawing board until they agreed to a two-state solution, but the government wanted to get some very lucrative taxes on the gold rush.

 

[Dachs]

For shame, Ajidica. For shame.

I've got an interesting question that I've just thought of:

Why wasn't California divided when it applied for statehood in the US, or while it was still a territory? Was there a specific reason they didn't divide it, with the Missouri Compromise line being the border between the two?

The Compromise of 1850 was the reason. An undivided, free-state California was one of the quids pro quo of the Fugitive Slave Act and other outrages.

 

[Traitorfish]

Besides, we've all seen what they think is a good idea for a flag. Did you really want to let them loose on another innocent canvas?

 

[Dachs]

Incidentally, the controversy over California provoked President Taylor, noted southerner, to angrily remark that the southerners pushing for a partition were "intolerant and revolutionary" and named Jefferson Davis as their "chief conspirator".

I'd give the full quote, except that my source doesn't (shame) and all of the books on Google Books that have the quote trace their wording back to my source (ha!).

 

[Dreadnought]

Well, if California had been divided along the line, wouldn't the Compromise of 1850 not be necessary?

I'm assuming the answer to the question is that the Missouri Compromise didn't have jurisdiction in the lands of the Mexican Cession.

 

[Dachs]

Well, if California had been divided along the line, wouldn't the Compromise of 1850 not be necessary?

I'm assuming the answer to the question is that the Missouri Compromise didn't have jurisdiction in the lands of the Mexican Cession.

California was constituted as a whole territory pretty much immediately after the Mexican Cession by a group of free-staters. The territory was basically bereft of slavers from the start. The Californians then tried to get the jump on everybody as the national debate over the whole thing was getting fired up and ratified a free-state constitution in 1849. It took a whole year for the negotiations to finish up and for Congress to finally decide that it was cool for the Californians to do this. (Incidentally, this is yet another reason why "popular sovereignty" was a load of garbage designed to just extend slavery to every state in the Union: it was only valid, apparently, if it led to a slaver constitution.)

You can bet your ass that the Californians wouldn't have jumped the gun like that just to comply with the Missouri Compromise line that probably didn't apply to them anyway (since it was only instituted for, you know, the Missouri-Arkansas border, and the language was unclear as to whether it applied further west).

 

[Louis XXIV]

(Incidentally, this is yet another reason why "popular sovereignty" was a load of garbage designed to just extend slavery to every state in the Union: it was only valid, apparently, if it led to a slaver constitution.)

That's a good point. Although I got the impression Popular Sovereignty wasn't so much a Southern idea as it was a northern Democrat idea. Essentially, it was a way to avoid pissing off Southerners without directly endorsing slavery itself as a good thing. People like Steven Douglas could claim they were only endorsing Democracy. Just like, after Dred Scott, he could claim he was only endorsing the rule of law, not expansion of slavery into all territories.

Kansas itself demonstrates popular sovereignty wasn't supported in the south. They weren't going to accept a free Kansas. The free-slave lines were drawn before Kansas started to vote, they were only supposed to go out and confirm what had been decided. When they didn't, that's when Congress had to scramble and recognize a minority government that had offered their competing pro-slavery Constitution. I don't think they necessarily wanted to expand slavery in all territories, they just wanted to keep it at least 50/50.

 

[Omega124]

Does anyone have a historical map detailing the layout of Stalingrad sometime into the battle?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Is it true that some states in early US history required that elected officials be professing Christians? How did they manage to get away with this?

 

[LightSpectra]

Before the 14th amendment, constitutional rights didn't apply on the state level, only with cases involving the federal government.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Interesting. I would have thought this wouldn't have gone on for that long seeing as how so many deists were involved in the framing of the constitution.

 

[civ_king]

Is it true that some states in early US history required that elected officials be professing Christians? How did they manage to get away with this?

If by require "elected officials to be professing Christians" you count having a loyalty oath that bars Catholics from taking office then yes. Also I do believe some states did require officials to be of certain religious sects, but those are now unenforcible.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I should add that these are for State officials. Federal Officers couldn't be required to take religious tests in order to serve (Art. VI, § 1, cl. 3). Now it probably was a factor in whether they were elected, but States were actually very hesitant to impose requirements not required by the Constitution on members of Congress. A few initially had property requirements, but they removed those early on (even when they kept them for State officers). Unless someone has information to the contrary, I'd have a hard time believing they'd also impose a requirement explicitly opposed by the Constitution.

 

[Plotinus]

Interesting. I would have thought this wouldn't have gone on for that long seeing as how so many deists were involved in the framing of the constitution.

In the English-speaking world, eighteenth-century deists typically regarded themselves as reforming Christians. It was French-speaking deists who typically regarded themselves as anti-Christian.

 

[say1988]

Why were the British not interested in acquiring Alaska? It would seem a strategically useful territory for them, especially with growing US power to the south.