Who is John Wilkes Booth ?
I'm hoping someone could enlighten me as to who this character is. He appears in the slide show during the production of a mental alignment card. Emmet has to have a negative association in order to get the right card but I worked this out by trial and error, why should a player know who he is ? Have I missed something ?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
All right, that's fair, then. I'm guessing the Lincoln assassination isn't as big a deal in the UK as it is in the States.
But yes, Booth killed Lincoln, a tradition which would later be continued by Sam and Max.
I know who he is. He's Seeley Booth's ancestor.
People nowadays...
You're right but I managed to solve the puzzle with trial and error. It was just one of those nagging things.
Pretty much. US history isn't part of the Australian (well, NSW anyway) school syllabus beyond study within a broader world context. So in school I was taught about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but not the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Most of what I do know about US history is from books, TV, internet, and Day of the Tentacle.
Except that the Kite experiment and Constitutional writing sessions didn't take place on the same day. As far as you know.
I dunno. He (not John Wilkes Booth) could have been flying kites at the same time that that mouse was writing the Constitution.....
(Incidentally, I learned pretty much everything I know about baseball from "Peanuts". Joe Shlabotnik's not a very good player, right?)
He shots to death to Abraham Lincoln.
Sybil's husband.
Given, I'm Dutch, and we don't give a crap about American history. Most of us don't. Then again, we also don't give a crap about Dutch history.
Anyone who does call it that is an idiot.
On another note: Why, if you call the second war "World War II" do you call the first the "Great War" instead of saying "World War I"?
It was my understanding that people called WWI "The Great War" before WWII happened, but I've never heard anyone call it that in modern speech until now.
They actually decided to call it "The First World War" before WWII happened. There's optimism for you! I love QI so much.
You know that they're usually wrong on that programme? Nellie Bly was NOT the first real person to go round the world in eighty days, James Bond doesn't have to fit the MI5 definition of a secret agent because he works for MI6, and after criticising the panel for confusing the movies with the books, Stephen Fry referred to the protagonist of "Frankenstein" as 'Baron' Frankenstein.
Stephen Fry would never lie to me! Ok, "it was on QI, so it must be true" may be the new "it was on the internet, so it must be true", but I don't know if I'd say they're USUALLY wrong. At any rate, I love it for the banter as much as the "facts".
If you ever try to do research on the war, you'll find that google and online book stores tend to throw you sources about WWII, whenever you search for WWI. Even WW1 seems to be seen as a typo for WWII in search engines, and gets autocorrected in those searches to include WW2 topics! Search engines also seem to focus on just the term 'World War', so even clarifying it as 'First' and 'Second' isn't always enough to separate the two! I assume this partly has to do with the fact that WW2 at least in the US is more popular than WW1... That and in the US WW1 is almost a 'forgotten war' in comparison.
Go to Europe though, and WW1 is considered more important than WW2 in many eyes... Especially in the UK and its Commonwealth... Where Rememberance Day (November 11), I.E. Armistace Day in France and Belgium is a major national holiday. In the US it became Veterans day, but became more generic to honor veterans of all wars.
Doing a search for Great War is generally more focused and will lead to specifically WW1 topics.
Beyond that, the Great War, had in many ways a deeper and greater impact on the countryside (as well as the people) of Europe... All sides were developing bigger and bigger shells, mines, and other weapons to fire at the enemy... Many of these were left behind after the war... Many stil become exposed to the surface a century later, due to erosion, or farmers tilling them up, or during construction of new buildings... So in effect the Great War is ironically considered a war that's still killing people years after the battles themselves ended...
It had a large casuality list during the war (heavy loss to British and French troops), but if you added up the post-war accidental casualities that number would be even greater...
Still not as great as the total loss during WW2 both civilian and military... But in general Britain and France didn't lose as many as they did during WW1 (which is probably a big reason why the Great War has a bigger impact in their cultures). That is to say, most of the men and boys olde enough to fight of that generation were killed, they became known as the "Lost Generation".
The impact of WW2 on the British and French society was not nearly as great. The fighting style had changed. They were less likely to just 'charge blindly across a 'no man's land' and hope they could gain more ground.
WW2 probably had a greater impact, as far as civilian casualties than the military. But in different set of nations.
Its an interesting topic, and I'm sorry if I over-simplifed some things, or got too long-winded in others! It's a huge topic, and its difficult to be able to cover all aspects of it, and this isn't really the place for that!
Not anymore idiotic than the north calling it "the war to end slavery", or the 'war of southern agression'.
Or how north calls one battle 'Bull Run, and the south calls it 'Manassas'.
It's actually pretty complicated war, it was more than slavery...
The war never started out to end slavery... The main issue was 'states rights to seccession'. For the south it was not only over 'slavery' as defined in their constution, but also over trade/industrial rights, and other things. I.E. the north had control of the factories and industrial complex. They were preventing them from being built in the south. South was forced to sell 'resources' (such as cotten) at a loss to the north, and then the North would send back the finished products marked up, and taxed. So it was making it difficult for everyone.
Lincoln never focused on the slavery issue until 1862... Much to the chagrin of many northern abolitionists...
Also not every southerner was a 'slave owner'. Many were just poor farmers, share-croppers, etc. Even a few white indentured servants or regular servants. Although some soldiers may have been lower-class 'task masters' for other slave owners.
Interestingly enough, even some slaves were offtered the chance to enlist into confederate army via General Orders 14, with possible belief that they might earn emancipation for their families through their valor! Not unlike the Blacks who volunteered to fight in WW1 in hopes that it would bring them improved civil rights!
http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/csenlist.htm
Although only a few thousand at the most enlisted freely.
Also realize that there were free blacks in the south as well, and some of them kept slaves themselves!
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2821/before-the-civil-war-were-some-slave-owners-black Many of these families supported the Confederates as well.
Although many states in the south has slavery, not every state had slavery or slavery was already limited in those states. Most confederates as mentioned above were not slave owners. Though slavery still was a major backbone to supporting the war efforts.
Note: At the same time two Union states kept their slaves during and after the war! Maryland kept its slaves into 1864. New Jersey kept its slaves as late as 1867 after the war, but were forced to end it, when slavery was banned through federal laws. Although slavery was rare in New Jersey at the time anyways.
The Emancipation Proclamation, was at first not legally binding... Lincoln made it hopes that it would convince slaves to escape, rebel, and sabatoge confederate forces, and others join the Union. After the war, it was enforced, ending slavery in the 'rebel states', but not New Jersey (that came later)!
It's also interesting to look at Britain's role in the war. They didn't side with the south, because they 'supported slavery', indeed they had already ended slavery in England already. But rather because the South was an important trade ally. Once Lincoln made his proclamation, Britain backed out of the war. Although they had successfully been prevented from sending supplies via the north's blockade of the eastern coast!
I've read some interesting articles that discuss that an almost 'civil war' was occuring in Britain at the time. There was a split among people who thought it was wrong to support the south (partially due to the slave issue), while others felt it was the right thing, due to so-called 'northern agression' (broken trade agreements/industrial issues), and because they were a important trade ally.
But ya it was truly complicated time period!
A war such as this would never happen today. Americans can make fun of our army and such, but it would never happen. No country could invade Canada without either USA, Russia or England stepping in. So really, why should we spend the money? Directly in the middle of two superpowers. No one's screwing with Canada. We know this. Yeah, defense-wise we're a joke, but it saves money. I guess we just don't have the pride :P ...and so there's countless comedians pitching out "Canada should just invade some country..NO ONE would see it coming".
Our pride level is pretty low, but we still like it here....but hey, if the USA gets healthcare, gun control and less suing....I'd grab a plane ticket lol That's about all I like better here(though I guess that's what defines us...along with our "attitudes"). :P
This... :rolleyes:
Yes, USA tends to focus on the first half of the war + The Battle of New Orleans. The latter was the last major battle of the war, but it technically occured after the war had ended, after the Treaty of Ghent was signed...
The 'battle' gets conflated and inflated into, "USA Kicks Britain's ASS"/"Lost battles, but won the war"/"USA had the final laugh". Although technically it won some, lost some when it came to the actual 'treaty', and finalized geography being drawn up.
I discovered in Britain, they kinda claim they 'won' the war. Because Canada pushed out the USA, which lead to the Treaty of Ghent, and since was part of the British Commonwealth, its their victory! Since "Battle of New Orleans" was after the treaty signed, it doesn't count!
In Canada, they won the war, since they 'single-handedly' kicked the USA out (mythically suggesting that 'brits' were ineffective), gained quite a bit of land in the war when they retaliated and crossed the US borders (though they gave back most in the treaty), and had proven themselves as a nation...
(Also, it can be argued that the UK won this war! Seeing as how Union and Confederate sailors from rival ships landed in Southampton after pursuing each other through the English Channel; they started a fist-fight in the street and were all arrested for breach of the peace. So, the UK police defeated both sides!)
One aspect of the Civil War are the battles between both sides and indian territories.
There were battles between the Union and some of the native americans in the northern Indian territories (IIRC, who were receiving suppliesa from the Confederates, in hopes they would hassle the Union war efforts)...
...and likewise Confederates were forced to fight with other native-american tribes on the southern edges of the CSA territory. Probably also receiving supplies from Union forces, so that they would hassle and sabotage the Confederacy's war efforts!
If you've heard of Fidel Castro or Winston Churchill then you should've heard of John Wilkes Booth as well, unless you skipped grades 6-12 and then avoided college.