Primus Pilus

All that aside, nobody has proven that secession was illegal, or that Lincoln actually acted inappropriately, once he was inaugurated. Despite the anti-slavery rhetoric of the Republican party, Lincoln was not president at the time of secession and made no claim that he would end slavery via illegal executive proclamation once in office. Despite perceived threats against various individual states rights, the southern stated seceded without such a legal right having been expressly granted in the constitution. Secession and seizure of federal installations was an act of war and once again, Lincoln was left with 3 choices: ignore the Constitutional agreement between the states and allow secession, agree to disband the Union regardless of the Constitution based on the perceived rights granted in the original (but superseded) Articles of Confederation (even though most of the seceding states had not been a part of that agreement), or go to war for preservation of the original legal agreement. Edit: by the by, I laid out my reasoning for the illegality of secession here. The original post was seemingly ignored or perhaps just summarily dismissed. A pox upon you all!

You sure wouldn't have wanted to see any that night

Sparty on dude! Don't burn any couches.

Was it "In Search of"? My impression of the show had always been that the basis was generally some far-fetched alternative history theory intermixed with some well placed realism. Was this the episode that tries to explain the pyramids as shelters against some great end of world cataclysm rather than tombs for the pharaohs?

Much like the colonies hoped for French intervention in the Revolution against Great Britain, the Confederate States hoped for European intervention in the American civil war. Both Great Britain and France had much to gain economically in a split of the states, but other than some clandestine aid, both were reluctant to get directly involved. Tension with Lincoln's federal government was real and can be illustrated in the "Trent Affair" of 1861. (The US capture of a British steamer transporting confederate envoys to Europe). Ultimately British intervention started to materialize with some earnest in 1862 but the major Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg in the south) that ended in a bloody stalemate showed Europe that the war was nowhere near reaching a conclusion. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation shortly thereafter virtually hamstringing the diplomatic efforts of the Confederacy. Despite the fact that the Proclamation did virtually nothing (because the Union did not control the slavery states) it had the effect of swinging the political and public relations pendulum in its favor. European powers could not reasonably justify opposing a nation intending to eliminate slavery regardless of the merit behind it's initiation. To be fair, British intervention never went much beyond the point of preliminary discussion among such leaders as Foreign Secretary Earl Russell, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Chancellor William Gladstone but Lincoln's proclamation eliminated the possibility of such discussion evolving into something much more. However, you might want to read more about those gentleman and the Trent Affair to better understand the perspective of your own nation at the time. As for France... ultimately, they just wanted Mexico.

I'll get you started... presumably you'd like to read more modern secondary sources rather than Suetonius on the Flavians or Cassius Dio to the Severan period, etc. Understand that I am attempting to present a concise overview here and nothing terribly in-depth on a specific period or event. However, as one example, the first civil war of the imperial era is worth examining to understand the transition from the eroding pseudo-Republic of the Julio-Claudians and the completed transition into unveiled empire. 69 AD: The Year of Four Emperors by Gwyn Morgan. Unfortunately, there really aren't a great deal of long term narratives dealing with the middle imperial period. Most of what is available is individual biographies of the Emperors in sequence. However, in addition to biographies of the Flavians (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) and the Adoptive period Nerva - Marcus Aurelius), here are a couple of the more sweeping overviews that you might like to investigate: The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition by Michael Grant (provides some background on Trajan and Hadrian leading into Antoninus Pius and ending with Marcus Aurelius) The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine by Pat Southern (covers roughly late 180's - 337) The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180-395 by David Potter

Faustus, while this may not quite tie into the Indiana/Michigan theme, you may very well enjoy this personal favorite of mine... Forty Years A Fur Trader on the Upper Missouri

Just thought I'd add this for reference if anyone wasn't sure what I was going on about.

It is interesting that many predatory animals were eliminated almost entirely even in rather vast tracts of land that we might designate as "Wilderness". In Michigan's upper peninsula, despite the very limited farm land and the relatively small population, the mining (mainly copper) and timber industries of the 19th century still thought the better of letting cougars and wolves roam freely in areas of human inhabitation. Both were virtually eliminated. Today however, the Gray Wolf is making a steady comeback away from the endangered list. The Cougar (or mountain lion) while still exceptional at secluding itself and avoiding absolute verification by the Dept. of Natural Resources, has been increasingly reported by locals throughout the UP and even in the more densely populated metropolis in southeastern Michigan. Despite losing ground with the expansion of human habitation in the southern peninsula, the Black Bear population is relatively strong and stable. I believe the estimates are that there are some 15-20,000 Bears in the state, but less than 3,000 in the lower peninsula. As opposed to the Cougar and Wolf, I don't believe the Black Bear has ever been considered endangered here. Of course, with an abundant White-Tailed Deer population at roughly 1.5 million, it's no real surprise that predatory animals are having a bit of a resurgence.

I'm an avid summer camper and love the outdoors, though ultimately I am drawn to my computer and the comforts of home. Regardless, this summer I thought it might be wise to limit my excursions within my home state of Michigan due to the cost of fuel. I had originally planned a drive to Virginia for such things as Monticello and various other colonial and civil war historical attractions, but alas... I expect my boys (7 and 4) will appreciate that more in a couple of years anyway. It's roughly 600 miles and a 10.5 hour drive Now, in my infinite wisdom rather than drive the 10 hours and 600 miles mentioned above, this year one trip will be the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The drive to Pictured Rocks less at about 6.5 hours and 400 miles but to Porcupine Mountains the distance is roughly the same as the Virginia trip. Alas for my incredible planning skills. In any case, Michigan's upper peninsula is largely desolate, but beautiful thick forests with a sparse human population. Roughly 300,000 people inhabit an area the size of Denmark. I'd personally recommend either location to anyone, but especially those in the general Midwestern vicinity. Pictured Rocks is in the Hiawatha National Forest and the Lake Superior State Forest. Porcupine Mountains is simply designated as "Wilderness". Watch out for Bears!

As you suggest, only if voted upon by the majority of assembled Congress could such a law be binding on the whole. The right was there in theory, but it needed a fully supportive congressional vote (which could not yet be obtained in 1860). In essence, the southern states were seceding illegally over a right that could not be infringed anyway... despite vocal political machinations to it's effect by the abolitionist movement.

The right of secession can be seen in the constitutional ratification agreements of New York and Virginia. Both states clearly held out for such a provision before joining the "United States" in ratifying the constitution of 1787, but neither had such a written clarification presented as a piece of the adopted federal constitution. Virginia's opening statement to the federal constitutional ratification (highlight is mine) certainly implies the right to secession, but again, such a sentiment was not adopted into the binding agreement for the states as a collective entity: The Declaration of Independence may be more clear depending on one's interpretation: However, the declaration is not a binding agreement between the unified states, but is rather a document presenting a split with Great Britain for all the states. Nor do the confederation or constitutional ratification agreements of each individual statess bind the other states in the federal agreement. The Articles of Confederation did absolutely present each state as a sovereign entity in both Article II and III: ...but that document and the Perpetual Union that it created was superseded by the Constitution and the Federal government that replaced it. While it can be argued that the Articles were assumed to remain in effect and that the Constitution was ultimately a grand addition to, or edit of, the Articles, Article XIII presents a serious problem (as argued by Lincoln himself as justification for force of arms). While secession may have been legal, it was only legal if ratified by a congressional majority. And of course, as suggested, the Articles had been superseded by the Constitutional document that did not allow for such contingencies in Articles II and III of the Confederation. Obviously the Constitution and Constitutional Law is open to interpretation and debate, but I did find it important to note that the document itself does not grant the legal and implicit right to secession. Article 4 goes so far as to discuss procedures for admittance of new states and the rights of said states, but still makes no mention of secession. It would seem to me a rather major point for the most ardent Anti-Federalists to have missed. Was it an understood right via the original Articles of Confederation, or did the individual ratification agreements of each state circumvent the binding federal agreement? Perhaps some believed so and still do, but it is unquestionably not clarified in the federal binding document between all the states; whether we assign the lack of clarification to complete intentional design of federalist proponents or negligent incompetence by anti-federalist opponents. Edit: Let me further clarify that I understand the anti-federalist argument that all rights remained in effect by virtue of the fact that the federal government had no authority to infringe on previously existing documents (such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles). Despite the nebulous inclusion of Amendment IX, the right of secession is still not clarified. In essence the anti-federalists, rather than opposing a bill of rights and other federal authorities as being counter productive to understood freedoms, perhaps would have better served their viewpoints if such views had been written with clarity and put forth for formal adoption by all the states.

Pontius Pilatus. Interesting conversation on a number of issues from provincial government to Tiberius to the existence/trial of one particular religious icon.

i was using a combination of the encyclopedia britannica and this website. I guess i can't prove the validity of this website, but alot of the information for the encylopedia and the website coincided...I didn't actually know, i was trying to research it and make a debate about it While I accept and report ancient conjecture that Caligula was likely involved in the death of Gemellus, just to be clear, my own narrative makes no mention of the Gemellus insanity issue. In any case, the source material is Cassius Dio book 59.1

That was actually MPC... I just posted it on his behalf. Just giving credit where it's due.

Indeed, this is and was the case. As I said in a previous post, the majority of white farmers in the south were not large plantation slave holders, but, there was a real concern that emancipation would throw off the social and economic status of those generally poor white farmers. In their minds (understanding that I am speaking in very broad and generic terms), at least they held a position above slaves and they supported its continuation despite not really gaining any direct reward from that forced labor (and in fact had a tough time competing with the large slave owning plantations).

Ah, apologies are mine -- I should have realized you were talking strictly about the Ptolemy dynasty. I guess I was so enamoured of Hatshepsut that I had to get in a plug for her. But here's my question: Does history tell us whether the ruling, Ptolemaic Cleopatras were named "Cleopatra" from birth, or did they acquire the name of "Cleopatra" upon succession to the throne? -- Nephele There certainly are an inordinate number of Cleopatras out there. Additionally, I appear to be wrong in my earlier assessment. There was a queen Berenice II for a short time in 81 BC. However, she also appears to be known as Cleopatra Berenice which would lend credence to the notion of Cleopatra as a title. However, this not being an area of great personal knowledge or typical area of interest, I'm having difficulty tracking down appropriate sources in verification. There seems to be some contention that Cleopatra itself was a dynastic name. Perhaps we can liken it to Caesar. Once a name that evolved into a title by its association with the ruling family.

How about Queen Hatshepsut? While she preceded Cleopatra VII by some 1400 years, she was a woman pharoah of Egypt. My apologies, I meant only within the Ptolemy dynasty.

Arsinoe and Berenice were also common names for women in the Ptolemy dynasty. Though I agree that "Cleopatra" was technically not a title, in it's support and to my recollection (which I readily admit may be faulty), no one other than a Cleopatra ever functioned in the role of an independent queen.

Yes indeed, the opposition was killed off or exiled (or in opposition away from Rome like Sertorius in Hispania). Those who remained were Sullans and/or people of similar conservative political ideology and benefited by Sulla and his policies. Additionally, Sulla did give up the dictatorship and took no action that would give the impression that he intended to maintain it forever or that he intended to restore the monarchy. Caesar, on the other hand, whether one agrees or disagrees, did give a real impression that he positioned himself as a real king abroad and potentially even at Rome. For the most part he did. It just took him a bit longer to do the job, and the death of many opponents was masked by the fact that they occurred in battle. Notice that most of those involved in his death were actually considered his friends. Of all of those named, only Quintus Ligarius showed any real history of being an anti-Caesarian as an opponent in the war in Africa. (Lucius Tillius Cimber's brother had been exiled but Cicero claims that Tillius himself was a strong partisan of Caesar... at least prior to joining the conspiracy). Of course, in fairness to Caesar famed clemency, Ligarius was one of those who had been pardoned and we certainly can't be certain of the partisanship of the 50 or so other conspirators who have not named in our surviving sources.

Macedonian is not Greek but the people are generally thought to be related. Such distinctions are a source of endless confrontation between modern Macedonians and Greeks, especially as it relates to Alexander. At least it is generally agreeable that the Ptolemies were definately part of the broader Hellenized world. Likewise, many groups lay claim to Cleopatra's heritage, from the afore-mentioned Greeks and Macedonians to sub-saharan Africans, Berbers, Egyptians and even Arabs (though they had not yet arrived in Egypt). The most sensible explanation is that she was a large part Macedonian due to a presumed lineage with the Macedonian successors of Alexander; but the lineage cannot be traced definitively. There is therefore some potential for the inclusion of various local "nobility" into her geneology in the 250 or so years between Alexander and her birth.

The temple dates to 28 B.C., and its ruins stand adjacent to the emperor's imperial palaces on the city's famous Palatine Hill. Until now the original design of the temple had not been well understood, partly due to the ruins' poor state of preservation. Also, previous efforts to model the temple had been based on outdated historical assessments rather than on the ruins themselves. Stephan Zink, a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, studied the site and its archaeological remains to produce new measurements and other data to accurately recreate the temple... National Geographic

Greeks yesterday hailed a new study showing the modern-day island of Ithaca is the same as that of Homer's legendary hero Odysseus, rejecting a recent British theory that pointed to a nearby island. British researchers last year claimed they had solved an intriguing classical puzzle, saying the kingdom of Ithaca was located on another Ionian island, further west. This new study shows how wrong and inaccurate the British theory is, Ithaca councilor and former island Mayor Spyros Arsenis told Reuters of the study conducted by Greek geology professors and other scientists over eight months... Ekathimerini

You'll have to do some clicking around, but Roman-Britain.org provides some excellent detail.