In Chapter VII of Treasure Island young Jim Hawkins makes the journey from his home village to Bristol by mail-coach.

Can we make a reasonable estimate of distance from this and what is known of the speed of the mail in the mid-18th-century? The journey is made in early March. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the Postal Museum map, the distance between London and Bristol is approximately 100 miles. The average Stagecoach speed is about 8 miles per hour, which means the distance takes about 12 hours. This therefore agrees with what the text says the stagecoach departed at dusk and arrived at Bristol the next morning.

Source: https://www.postalmuseum.org/collections/mail-coaches/ Stanleykswong (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a few hours for the transfer of mail and passengers "stage after stage". Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira; the postalmuseum.org article linked above explains:

As the coach travelled through towns or villages where it was not due to stop, the guard would throw out the bags of letters to the Letter Receiver or Postmaster. At the same time, the guard would snatch from him the outgoing bags of mail... The mail coach travelled faster than the stage coach but whereas the stage stopped for meals where convenient for its passengers, the mail coach stopped only where necessary for postal business... The contractors [that operated the mail coaches] organised fresh horses at stages along the route, usually every 10 miles. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might know this already, but there's a detailed analysis of the early chapters of Treasure Island here which, taking into account the speed of mail coaches and the topographical features Stevenson mentions, concludes that Jim comes from within a few miles of Lynmouth, Devon. One dissenting voice there claims it was Lydford, also in Devon, but that seems very unconvincing to me. --Antiquary (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the story, Jim Hawkins' father, Leland Hawkins, owned the Admiral Benbow Inn. When Leland Hawkins died, he left the inn to Jim and his mother. Coincidentally, there is a traditional Cornish pub also called the Admiral Benbow in Penzance. The pub has been serving rum to pirates and smugglers since 1695. Is it possible that Robert Stevenson heard of this pub while visiting the South West and even got some ideas of pirates and smugglers from this visit. Stanleykswong (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a joke about Japanese attitudes about other countries during World War II:

A Swiss is captured by the Japanese. He protests that he is from Switzerland, a neutral country, not an enemy. The Japanese answers that the Swiss are "neutral enemies". The Swiss asks then about Germany and Italy. "They are allied enemies", the Japanese answer.

The joke is that the Japanese consider the rest of countries enemies. I am looking for a version of the joke that is more original/better than my dim recollection. Can you find it? -- Error (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the form of a joke, but read this review of Traveller From Tokyo by John Morris. "An acquaintance told Mr Morris that in Japanese eyes the world was divided into enemies, neutral enemies, and friendly enemies. Germany was in the latter category and would have been attacked by Japan were the united Nations defeated in Europe". I have also seen "To the Japanese, Portugal and Russia are neutral enemies, England and America are belligerent enemies, and Germany and her satellites are friendly enemies. They draw very fine distinctions." attributed on internet quote sites to Jerome Cady, but without any source being given. There appears to be a line "quite seriously that the Japanese army put the nations of the world into three classes; enemies, neutral enemies, and friendly enemies" in Chapter 10 of the book Race War by Gerald Horne, but I do not have access to verify and expand. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After asking at WP:RX I can confirm that Horne was quoting Morris. DuncanHill (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here is the original from John Morris "at the time I left Japan people were saying quite openly that if the Allies lost the European war, which at that time seemed not impossible, Germany would be Japan’s next objective. In fact, I once heard it said quite seriously that the Japanese army put the nations of the world into three classes; enemies, neutral enemies, and friendly enemies, Japan’s Axis partners making up the last class." Morris left Japan after Pearl Harbor, and his book was published in 1943 DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the earliest form I can find, apparently in the January 1941 number of a magazine called The Owl emanating from Santa Clara University, the joke goes like this:

Two Swiss businessmen, upon being interned in Japan, protested that they were citizens of a neutral nation. The Japanese official smiled ingratiatingly, and said, "Yes, but you are neutral enemies."

"What would you call the British and Americans?" asked the Swiss.

"They are belligerent enemies."

"And the Germans and Italians?"

"They," replied the Japanese statesman, "are friendly enemies."

Ho ho. --Antiquary (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And belatedly the point occurs to me that Americans could hardly have been called belligerents before Pearl Harbor. That dating must be wrong. --Antiquary (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find references to Pearl Harbor in that book, it must be later than January 1941! Don't trust Google books. DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a bound volume of The Owl containing several numbers with different dates. The difficulty is to date the one containing the joke. By the running head it's certainly January of some year. Further finessing of the snippet views also shows that the joke was attributed to Liu Chieh, a Chinese diplomat accredited to the US during the War. --Antiquary (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently January 1942, since it refers to "a small item in the newspapers of January 30",^[1] which is found in newspapers dated January 30, 1942.^[2]  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody. I cannot see the snippet from The Owl from some problem with Google Books, but I am satisfied with your quotation.

--Error (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several amendments specify that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation". But if amendments are "valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution" (Art. V), the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" (Art. VI), the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, Sec. 3), and Congress has "the power… to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution… all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof" (Art. I, Sec. 8), then shouldn't it go without saying that they have the power to enforce the substance of any new amendment? 71.126.56.24 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The federal government is one of enumerated powers. If a power isn't listed, the federal government doesn't have it, or at least that's the theory. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Necessary and Proper Clause, with its apparently open-ended enforcement remit, is itself one of the enumerated powers – which is what has me confused. The only other thing I can figure is that perhaps "the laws" that the President is tasked with executing are, by implication, merely "the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance [of this Constitution]" and don't strictly include the Constitution itself as a whole, which could break the syllogism I laid out above (but I don't know if this actually holds water at all). 71.126.56.24 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Necessary and Proper Clause says that it empowers the federal government to make laws that are necessary and proper to give force to its other powers. Presumably those are the enumerated ones.

As the article explains, the exact interpretation is somewhat disputed. I prefer a narrow reading, but I admit that part of my motivation is somewhat result-oriented; I want to limit the powers of the federal government (and indeed of all government). Others find a more expansive grant of authority.

In any case, the authors of amendments cannot necessarily know how the courts will come down on the question in the future, so they explicitly write an enumerated grant of power into the amendment itself. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are things in the U.S. Constitution other than powers of Congress. For example limitations on that power (like the Ex post facto clause or the First Amendment). The existence of explicit grants of legislative power make clear that those amendments can be enforced by legislation, and aren't just theoretical or judicially enforced limits. While plenty of people have argued for a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause similar to what you present above. Others have suggested it be read more narrowly to only imply to edge cases of the enumerated powers. See generally the discussion at Necessary and Proper Clause. My understanding is that narrower readings were more common from the 1830's to 1860's and from the 1870's to the 1930's, while broader readings were more common from Hamilton and the Federalists in the early republic, during the Civil War and Reconstruction, and since the New Deal. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about amendments 13, 14, 15, and 19, right? I think those are all the ones so structured, but I may be wrong. I was under the mpression that this was to signal to the states "we really mean it, just try us if you don't believe it". The first three listed were the slavery related ones and the last was women's suffrage. The threat of federal action was seen as necessary to overcome ligering resistance. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Thirteenth. Without the enabling clause, it could be read as meaning only that the law is blind to slavery; no authority exists to forcibly return a slave to an owner, slave sales cannot be litigated, the census takes no note of alleged slave status – but neither is there any Federal authority to prevent or punish enslavement. —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]