Talk:John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale. | |
His memoes to Gladstone swayed the British government to sympathy with the South, and only British distaste for slavery (which they had abolished decades before) kept them from active intervention.
- I don't think this is really true at all. Gladstone, in the first place, was the British cabinet member who was most sympathetic to intervention. A number of important cabinet members, including Argyll, Lewis, and Granville, were strongly opposed to intervention, and the first and last were sympathetic to the union. Russell, as far as I'm aware, seriously contemplated the idea of an offer of mediation. I've never seen any real evidence that he actually contemplated a war with the United States, much less that Palmerston, who was a lot cagier, and a lot less principled, did. The British government, as a whole, was sympathetic to the South, and probably many members of the government hoped that it won. Almost nobody was actually willing to fight a war with the United States to help the South win, not even Gladstone. All the serious thoughts of mediation came at a time when it looked like the south might win on its own. This sentence needs to be seriously changed. john k 13:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Lord Acton's dictum
In general use is Lord Acton's dictum, which states, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is this the exact original wording? Where and when was it first coined by Lord Acton? For instance, [1] cites 1887 as the date, but there isn't a reference. DFH 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikiquote - Lord Acton gives the full quotation and also cites, "Letter to Mandell Creighton (April [3? or 5?], 1887) - some normally reliable sources indicate April 3, and others indicate April 5". DFH 15:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not allowed into Cambridge because he was Catholic
"He had endeavoured to procure admission to Cambridge, but for a Roman Catholic this was then impossible", seems to conflict with the later statement, "appointed (him) to the Regius Professorship of Modern History at Cambridge". At that time, Britain had left that sort of bigotry to a past era.
-
- Roman Catholics were admitted to Oxford and Cambridge in 1871, so Acton's Roman Catholicism prevented him studying at Oxbridge as a young man but didn't prevent his later appointment. Norvo 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] [edit] Catholicism and Lord Acton
This is a superb piece of manipulation. How a habile selection of data can reverse completely the truth?. How the biography of a devote cristian catholic liberal can be used as a excuse for attacking the Catolic Church?. Read this biography.
This part is completely biased. It tries to represent that Lord Acton as a furibund anticatholic liberal. What about Acton religiosity, high appreciation of moral values as the only way to support liberty?. The article in general is just a antichristian libel.
Whith articles like this, who can trust Wikipedia?. You, the leftists. Sorry If this comment is erased. The left is patroling here. 84.120.140.134 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)agocorona
- Um, interesting interpretation you have there. Perhaps you should add Wikipedia to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, if it would stop you blathering. By the way, wasn't there a rule of the internet that said the more asinine a comment is, the more the writer is likely to paranoically add "I bet you'll delete my comment" to the end? 69.138.236.106 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quote discrepancy
- “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”[1]
- “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Either one of these is a misquote, or he said it twice, in two different ways. Solve. 69.138.236.106 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
