OCC CIV NOTES 10/27

English Civil Wars 1642-6, 1648
1645 New Model Army/ Debates over sovereignty, natural (native) rights
Execution of Charles I 1649/Declaration of Republic/Abolition of House of Lords
Abolition of Church of England's Monopoly on religion/Growth of Protestant sects/Including presbyterians, congregationists, quakers, baptists
Collapse of press censorship/debates over all hierarchies-social, religious, political, gender

in 1640, england had a hereditary monarchy, with a small group of hereditary nobles (60-150), and ~15,000 gentlemen
-population was ~5 million
-had a significant middling group as well (yoman farmers, etc)
-vast majority of the population was dirt poor
-since the poor had nothing at all, not even food for themselves, they could never make any money
-once you have enough food to have even a tiny bit of surplus, you can sell it during famine, and make big bucks
-this means the middle and upper classes can actually profit off of famine
-enclosure starts up around this time as well
-much more efficient than communal farming
-even though the middle class is gaining economic power (by selling food in famine), it's not gaining any political power
-england had a bicameral system, house of lords (hereditary) and house of commons (elected)
-house of commons had very limited franchise- you need a certain amount of property, a certain amount of status in the town/city, etc
English monarchy was extremely powerful
-king had the power to enforce law, appoint people, remove them, etc
-however, he LACKED a certain amount of power
-kings lack the power to tax, this must come from the parliament
-as a consequence of this, the monarchy was constantly short of money
-king also doesn't have the power to appoint the juries in a court, even if the judge is
-king tries all sorts of things to raise money, cause he really really needs it
-one such practice was forced loans- you loan me money or i throw you in jail
-misdirection also employed (give me money to build ships! gets money, builds banquet halls)
There is another religious divide
-even though the official church is protestant, large parts of culture were still catholic, presbyterian, etc
-Puritans believe that the church of england is corrupt, needs reform
-some peace out to go to america
-some stay in england, try to reform the church
-they see that the church promotes a carnivalesque, idle, and poor lifestyle
-they can't reform, because the king (head of the church) won't reform
-king won't reform because he himself is idle, etc
-they HUGELY oppose the king
-when the King has to call a parliament (he's forced by angry scots), its a bad thing...
-sends anglican bishops to scotland, they have to be armed in the pulpits to stay alive
-calls parliament, concedes to every single one of the political demands, none of the religious ones, also wants to have a standing army
-parliament refuses the army, calls up its own army
-civil war starts!
-parliament creates the 'new model army' during the first civil war (1642-6)
-new model army- opens up the ranks to non-nobles, extremely religiously radical, is a NATIONAL army, not a regional army
-parliament is RETARDED... doesn't PAY THE ARMY...
-HE SAID 'YE GODS!!!!' YE GODS!!!!
-army gets angry. starts killing shit
-parliament sees this. makes ANOTHER mistake. starts to disband the army WITHOUT PAYING IT
-the LEVELERS are another big group, explains the civil war
-they're huge proponents of natural or native rights
-the people elect 'agents' to defend their view of what they've been fighting for.
-1647 a document is published with the agreement of the agents and people
-essentially is a proposal for a written constitution based on natural rights
-believed that the people in general should have franchise, not just the wealthy
-believed that the representative assembly (house of commons) should have supreme authority
-believed that the law should apply equally to all subjects, and they also have the entitlement to dissent from government policy (including religious worship)
-the Putney Debates are held to talk about this shit
-the leveler send representatives
-the rank and file officers of the army send reps
-the noble officers send reps
-BUT!!! if we're all gonna be equal, what happens to individual property?
-cromwell and the other nobles argue that if the commoners are enfranchised, then they'd surely take away property, take away property rights
-levelers (rainsborough) argue for total male democracy
-argues 'why should we respect property since it comes from tyranny anyways?' (norman conquest of 1066 gave most landowners their lands)
-debate breaks up after rainsborough calls a general assembly of the army
-at that moment, the king escapes from custody, another civil war starts
-in this civil war, solidarity is more important than ideological squabbles
-there are a few mutinies, but cromwell brutally suppresses them
-there's another year of civil war. good stuff

OCC CIV NOTES 10/26

King James VI and King James I are the SAME PERSON
-scottish king first, became king of england. good stuff
-wrote a work in defense of monarchy...?

we're talking about the resistance period... huh?
lots of violence going on... protestants against catholics, protestants against protestants
-both prot. and cath. just hate the jews
-lots of religious wars between states and groups
-30 years war is a nice example of this
vast majority of protestants require obedience to secular authority
-huge evidence for this is in Romans 13
-Calvin took Romans 13 as justification for the idea that all authority was from God and to be obeyed
-this means that rulers really really liked protestantism
there was, however, a major upspringing of resistance theories, the idea that there is 'just resistance' against unjust rulers who violate personal rights

John Knox- scottish theorist who believed that society was 'godly'
-any non-godly society must be overthrown by the people- it's their duty
those in power didnt quite accept this, because that means that everybody could rebel at any point
-they argue that there are different strata of society who could revolt at different points
-nobles were the ones who could rebel, not the people
-they believed that an unjust king was better than an anarchy

George Buchanan
-wrote a work in defense of the rebellion in scotland
-society was a construct of human beings, SECULAR in nature, not religious
-society was for the people's temporal benefits
-if a government became tyrannical, the people had the right to take its powers away
-this is essentially popular sovereignty

force is legitimate for Lutherans
-this idea is applied to politics
-they take this to mean that resistance is legitimate in the face of injustice
-rulers were appointed for the people, and if they didnt serve the people, then buh-bye

John Mair (or Major) was one of the major sources of the arguments that resistance was legitimate

King James VI of Scotland became King of England (James I) after Queen Elizabeth died without heir, james was the closest relative
-James I was a self-styled "philosopher king"
-wrote a bunch of books to prove this
-wrote one in defense of witch hunting, killed lots of witches
-wrote another one in defense of monarchy
-very aware of possible assassins, etc
-argued that a king to his people was like a father to his children and a head to its body
-as a head you ruled as best possible
-the head can cut off any other members of the body, but the body cannot survive without the head
-as a father you ruled with caring, as a father rules a family
-included the power to punish physically
-could even execute ones own family members
-resisting a father is only done by one animal in the animal kingdom- the viper
-if you rebel, you're a snake and a devil
-we kill you now. gg n00b.
-this means that the King was free from the fear of rebellion
-GOD is the only judge of whether a ruler has ruled well or poorly
-this judgment does NOT lie in the hands of the people
-in the 16th century, james built himself a palace. with a banquet house... who cares?
-okie dokie here comes the slide show and i dont care about it

King Charles I executed on 30 January 1649
-executed for being a tyrant
-for 'treason' against his people
-interestingly, for royalists, the king was a god-appointed office
-the killing of a king was DEICIDE
after Charles I was executed, england declared itself a Republic (1649-1660)
-royalty was abolished
-bishops were abolished
-the anglican church was essentially shat upon
-whole hosts of protestant sects sprung up during the republican period in england

IP NOTES 10/25

VII BoP in North America
United States vs State System
the regions in america are potentially nation-states after the European model
-there are sufficient cultural differences that they could have been national
-they're large enough that they could have been militarily powerful
5 Historical Junctures
1)1754-1763
-7 years war in Europe, we call it the French and Indian war
-Britain beats out France
-up until then, all of the nations of europe have colonies in America, but now Britain gets French colonies
-now North America is British, basically
2)1776-1783
-why do 13 states break away? and not ALL north america?
-only ~4 million people total in the 13 colonies
-the US is able to ally itself with France, allows them to beat out Britain
-why only the 13 states? didnt answer...
3) 1781-1789
-the 13 states were sovereign up until 1789
-they banded around because they were scared of European power
-this also happened because the dominant strata of society was LAWYERS, not monarchs, so no random wars, but deliberation
-the borders were fixed by people in London, so they were semi-fixed
-in an anarchic system, the small states would have been gobbled up, so they become the main movers and shakers in the formation of govt
4) 1861-1865
-possibly most significant juncture
-you can see that the state system doesn't really work too well
-if the south had won, there would most likely have been a whole bunch more wars as they fight over the west
-it was a 'Civil War'
-not really insurgencies, not guerilla warfare, but actually two sovereign states fighting with uniformed peeps, etc
-why did the North win?
-the north was just more powerful
-more industrial power, etc
-Railroads (developed ~1850), without which the union army would have fallen so quickly it wouldnt have even been funny
-north's railroads were hugely developed, while south's were much less so
-leadership was stronger in the North
-Lincoln just rocked. kicked some serious ass
-1862 was the most productive year of Congress for a loooong time
-the British didn't intervene
-if they had, the one side woulda rocked
-free labor vs slavery was the debate raging in Britain
-they believed that extinguishing slavery was more important than keeping naval hegemony in britain's hands

5) absence of balancing
-there weren't really any other powers to compete with the US formation
-Indians weren't a real competitor, because they were decimated by disease, plagued by disunity, and couldn't keep up with the American's pace of expansion
-There actually were independent states in America- Texas and California
-they made the decision to join the union
-Asians could have been a viable competitor on the west coast
-nice natural barrier (rocky mountains), tendency to wander, etc
-the building of a railroad to california tended to stop this
Domesticated BoP
1)fed-states Militia
2)representation

#14 BoP: Concert and Collective Security
I Evolution: Concert
the Concert of Europe- time when europe is really peaceful
1815-1854 and 1871-1914
Features (3)
1) active balancing was kept to a minimum, it just kinda died down for a while
2) consultation is on the rise, lots of random congresses held to see what other people think
3) Conflict resolution actually happened (mediation, not war)
-arbitration was actually used. woah.
Explanation (4)
1) memory of war is a huge deterrent
2) powers are satisfied with the status quo, no more wars of expansion are really needed
3) anti-revolutionary period
-monarchs were starting to see that war became a threat to them
-war -> revolution -> overthrowal of monarchs
4) Europe is effectively isolated as a subsystem
-it's isolated enough so that wars don't start on the periphery
Breakdown (2)
reasons for the breakdown of the concert of europe
liberalism vs monarchy
uneven growth of the periphery means that europe can't sustain subsystem isolation, so war breaks out

II Evolution: Breakdown
Industrialism
Industrial revolution leads to breakdown of old European order
-IR changes the 'strong' VI to 'intense' VI
-this forces change
Nationalism
There was no longer a europe-wide elite (no more real aristocracy)
-the NATION becomes the dominant form
Ideology
Ideology becomes a controlling factor in state policy, now you get communism v capitalism, etc
Unification of Germany
now that Germany is actually unified, there's a big problem
-before Germany unites, there's this huge no-man's land in the center of germany that acts as a buffer
-now there's the largest nation state sitting there.... problem for BoP!

III Evolution: Globalization
Distinct System
Europe was at first basically the entire system
Subsystem Dominant
Then it became just a part of the system, but the US and Russia are expanding hugely
-europe is still dominant
-example: 1812
-British burn DC to the ground, French burn Moscow to the ground
-europeans declining, though
Subsystem Dominated
US, Russia own europe
-europe essentially becomes the proxy of the 'flanking powers'
-the fragmentation of Europe becomes a liability
-it's no longer a viable option, because the VI has intensified
-they also get dominated by outside, unified powers
-now, the Europeans are essentially working out how to unify themselves
2 ways to unify
-empire
-3rd Reich
-confederacy/union
-EU?

IV Alternative: Collective Security (CS)
Critics of BoP (4)
essentially, the theories move from realist to liberalist
1) war is way too violent now
-too much killing!!
2) small states are getting raped! not cool!
-poland is the classic example
3) nationality gets violated
4) there's a class basis to the system still
-trading with a region > conquering a region
-the bourguoise > feudal power
Agenda of Reform (3)
1) AC + disarmament
2) international law + courts
3) CS league of nations/UN
Logic of CS (2)
CS agreement- agreement of ALL to protect ANY from aggression of ANY
problem- defection
-the nations might just pussy out when push comes to shove
UN as CS System
to what degree is the UN a CS agreement?
-there are still 5 great powers with vetoes on the security council
-this means that the UN does NOTHING if any of the vetoes doesn't want to
-this SIGNIFICANTLY diminishes the power of the UN as a CS
-small states need patronage of huge states
there are some significant successes of the UN
-Korea (1950) (only really works because Russia didn't show up that day
-Iraq War 1- everybody loved eachother after the cold war so yaaay
the UN was DESIGNED not to work too well... needs exceptional circumstances

IP NOTES 10/24

II Balancing Failures
Collective Action
when you get more people together, you can't coordinate as well-
-it's harder to get 20 people to agree with you than it is 3
you also have the problem of freeriding, people just ride on the coattails of others

Buckpassing
problem with balance of power as well
-good example, WWII when britain, US, USSR just basically let the smaller states fight the war and lose

Barriers to Emulation
generally, if something's good, people will copy it
there are barriers, however
-french revolution was great for the french people, with mass popular armies
-other states didn't adopt this system, because they would have had to reorganize == bad for them (they thought)
-Japan doesn't industrialize for a long while, but when it does it goes insane
-china, however, is too set in its tradition to really reorganize for a long while

Enduring Rivalries and Ideologies
states just hate each other. thats pretty much it
-also works with ideologies (communism vs capitalism)
this means that when an external threat comes into the picture, they're slow to balance the threat

Shifting System Borders
oops. missed this one

III Origins
Universal Monarchy vs Republic
universal monarchy failed in europe (European Anomaly)
europe became a REPUBLIC- not as we know it, though
-a plural system with some restraints
-lots of different countries fucking with eachother
Features- Material
1) division - physical division, topographic
2) rough equality- there were at least a few orders which were roughly equal in power
3) mixture- land and sea power mixed

Features- Societal
1) alliances- alliances formed to keep a hegemon from popping up
2) sovereignty- the key notion was that there was EQUALITY among sovereigns
3) there is a constitution of sorts, it's not a stark anarchy.
-constitution = the great settlements (westphalia, etc)

IV OPERATION: Counter-Hegemonic Alliances (6)
1) Charles V
2) Phillip II
3) Louis XIV
4) Napoleon
5) William II
6) Hitler

there were the guys who tried to be hegemons, got owned

V Britain as Balancer
Tradition view
britain has been the one with the great coalitions in the past

NeoR Criticism
not possible for there to be a hegemonic balancer
-if there's a power in the system that can be a balancer, then it'd become a hegemon itself

Insular vs Seapower
Seapower- YOU CANT CONQUER TERRITORY
-this makes them an extremely potent balancer, but bad hegemon

Peripheral Strategy (5)
the british actually did sustain the "republic of europe"
here's how
1) naval power up up up
-the naval power of britain just rapes the shit out of any hegemonic aspirer
2) naval power allows for massive blockades of any aspirers, dominate commerce
3) fund allies
-they can just pay people off to fight your wars for you
4) steal colonies
-hahaha shank the rest of europe
5) invade extremities
-they'd just invade random tiny random outlying territories with small numbers of troops, chip away at the aspirers

VI Settlements (5)
1)peace of WESTPHALIA (1648)
-crystallizes european state system to be the dominant political order
-separates religious and material orders (for the FIRST TIME)
2) treaty of Utrecht (1713)
-some king was gonna unite the kingdoms of Spain and France through marriage (would have been the unchecked hegemon)
-british fought a war to ensure that this didnt happen
-they explicitly mention that it's to maintain the balance of power
3) Vienna (1815)
-interesting because they bring France back into power, don't exclude it from the world scene
-ended the quarter century of war of french rev. and napoleon
4) Versailles (1919)
-establishes a "League of Nations" (interestingly progressive here)
-very regressive as well- huge reparations demanded of Germany
-this is a PROBLEM
-germans establish the Weimar Republic (one of the most liberal democracies in europe)
-didnt end up working BECAUSE of the treaty of Versailles and rising nationalism
-HITLER
5) Yalta/Potsdam (1945)
-ends WWII
-makes the world essentially bipolar
-the settlement essentially splits Europe in two, half going to Soviet Union, other half to US
-US starts the Marshall Plan, rebuilds Europe, etc
-soviet union goes yaayyyy communism

VII Balance of Power in North America
United States vs State System
the regions in america are potentially nation-states after the European model
-there are sufficient cultural differences that they could have been national
-they're large enough that they could have been militarily powerful
5 Historical Junctures
1)1754-1763
-7 years war in Europe, we call it the French and Indian war
-Britain beats out France
-up until then, all of the nations of europe have colonies in America, but now Britain gets French colonies
-now North America is British, basically
2)1776-1783
-why do 13 states break away? and not ALL north america?
-only ~4 million people total in the 13 colonies
-the US is able to ally itself with France, allows them to beat out Britain
-why only the 13 states? didnt answer...
3) 1781-1789
-the 13 states were sovereign up until 1789
-they banded around because they were scared of European power
-this also happened because the dominant strata of society was LAWYERS, not monarchs, so no random wars, but deliberation
-the borders were fixed by people in London, so they were semi-fixed
-in an anarchic system, the small states would have been gobbled up, so they become the main movers and shakers in the formation of govt

Raamin Mostaghimi
10/23/06
Occ Civ Section 8

Fontenelle's Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds

Fontenelle's Conversations was, I thought, one of the most interesting works we've read all semester. Fontenelle does something which isn't really strange right now in modern scientific thinking, but must have been incredible in his time- apply the principle of mediocrity. Science is the only place where I've seen this done, but it makes sense that it would be applicable in philosophy as well. The idea of this principle is that no single human (or, by extension, humanity) is unique in its position- so if you're in a field and you happen upon a daisy on your first downward glance, the rational thing to assume is that the field is filled with daisies, not that you've found the only daisy in the entire field just by happenstance.
This same principle applies to life, according to Fontenelle, which is incredibly interesting. He does make some concessions to religion in one of the opening conversations, but aside from determining simply that the inhabitants of other worlds are not men (and so need not be sons of Adam), he basically sets the role of religion to one side- with one notable exception (which I'll talk about a bit later). Here's the huge thing- he assumes that humans aren't unique! To my knowledge, this has never really been done before. There was a reason that the geocentric model of the universe prevailed up until Galileo, Brahe, and Copernicus- because Men believed that they were unique in the universe, and thus special. What Fontenelle is suggesting is that humans are just one of millions of groups of intelligent life, one of millions of groups who build cities and live and die and admire the stars- and this had never been done before. But what makes this even more shocking is that he still acknowledges the existence of God while he does so.
And here's where I come back to Fontenelle's acknowledgment of God. He constantly brings up that each planet was made "by Nature." For Jupiter, there were four moons "made" to compensate its inhabitants for its long night (p.55), and this sort of language continues throughout the text. To me, this means that Fontenelle takes mediocrity one step farther than it had been taken before. Not only is he saying that humans aren't alone in the universe, he's saying that God put other creatures there as well. This is a hard deduction to make at the time- another leading Catholic scholar and philosopher came to the conclusion that extraterrestrials could not exist, because if they did they wouldn't be men, and if they weren't men (sons of Adam), then they would require salvation (because God is merciful). If they required salvation, they would need an 'alien Jesus Christ,' and this would violate the uniqueness of Christ, something that just couldn't be done. So you see, Fontenelle was a bit of a revolutionary.

Questions:

Did Fontenelle really intend to challenge humanity's uniqueness the way he did?

What sort of beliefs did Fontenelle have on the necessity of salvation of the aliens he had posited?

CONLAW REVIEW SESSION 10/23

~1914 was when state cases that raised federal questions could come to the supreme court- before that most of the time they didnt
-now most state cases have to have a federal question to even be considered
congress CAN control the supreme court's jurisdiction
-article 3 says this (but is misinterpreted?)
writ of error and writ of appeal
-writ of error disappeared in 19th century
-writ of appeal disappeared much much more recently

know about hamdi, hamdan, marbury, martins vs hunter-laisee
a long paragraph is more than sufficient

fundamental law = higher law = constitution (supreme law of the land?)

you dont need to know about the justice biographies. goddammit. and the only ones i read! dammit!

departmental theory of judicial review-
-each branch of government had the power to protect itself by not exercising unconstitutional powers
-this has evolved into exclusive judicial review

judiciary act of 1789
-still exists, basis of title 28 of the US judicial code
-marbury overturned section 13

Occ Civ Notes 10/20

Fontenelle is part of scientific revolution, overthrows Aristotelian physics, etc
-body in motion doesn't stay in motion, etc
-Aristotelian physics doesnt really work too well, so newton needs to show up
universe was full of spheres. oh fuck i dunno. god i'm tired

RACHEL YOU OWE ME

i dont understand why he's talking about pre-newtonian physics so much. it makes no sense.
ok then.

the CHURCH supported the Aristotelian form of physical analysis, especially the idea that God places Earth at the center of the universe
the system explains observable phenomenon quite nicely
people fought against copernican, galillean schemes of physical thought, made competing theories to discredit them

scientific revolution
-our senses ARENT GOOD ENOUGH, we need to find bigger and better tools
-moves away from perfect motion, perfection, etc
-no more perfect spheres, but he retained the idea that materials had the desire to become spheres
-kepler actually develops a real theory
-there's science being done!

Fontenelle's conversations are about if there can possibly be more than one world supporting life

CONLAW NOTES 10/23

Martins vs Hunters-Laisee
-did i miss this? wtf

Articles of Confederation- states are sovereign explicitly
Constitution- no explicit mention of sovereignty, more sovereignty to the federal govt

virginia and kentucky resolutions were interesting as well... not exactly sure how...
-federal govt was created BY THE STATES, states hold the power
-comes pretty close to saying that states have a right to secede
CURRENTLY there really isnt any right to secede at all... the civil war NEVER HAPPENED...

Jefferson and Madison were arguing for Nullification and Interposition
-nullification- the states have the right to ignore federal laws if they dont agree with them
-interposition- an effort by a state to protect its citizens from the federal government
-under articles of confederation, taxes, laws, etc were all managed by the state
-under constitution, federal law is supreme
-best recent example of interposition recently was during Vietnam War
-1972, Massachusetts decided that men from their state would not be sent to vietnam until the Congress declares war on N. Vietnam
martins vs hunters-laisee REJECTS nullification and interposition outright

interpreting the constitution is essentially just determining the meaning of words
-interpretation is different across time, meanings change over the years... hokie dokie
-constitution has become a developing one, original intent is not really the overarching principle
-there are whole lots of broad phrases requiring interpretation
Constitution was a skeletal document
-some things were unambiguous, others were silent, and still others were intentionally vague

two real interpretations of the constitution
-original intent
-living document