There were five former presidents alive during at least a part of the Civil War: Martin Van Buren (d. 1862), John Tyler (d. 1862), Millard Fillmore (d. 1874), Franklin Pierce (d. 1869), and James Buchanan (d. 1868). Did any of them express opinions about the war publicly or privately? Did any of them show support for the Confederacy over the Union? How did they react to Lincoln's assassination?

I understand the controversy involved with this topic (not my interest), but my question is far more basic. Assuming Madison was a flautist and this wasn't just a gift, was he okay, good or considered to be accomplished in the playing of the instrument?

Edit: re-reading the title several hours later, I see that it looks like I could be asking “Of those three, which would they have been?” To clarify, I mean “Would they have been considered any of these (respective to where they particularly were)?”

—-

It doesn't come up often, but from time to time, my brother makes a comment about how we are part-Russian/Polish/Austrian on mom's side because that's where our great-grandparents came from, but it's never been clear to me if that's technically correct. I feel like I'm more Jewish on my mom's side than I am any of those three (i.e., it feels like we 'inherited' an ethnic religion, more than geographic heritage)—though it's possible that some more localized customs slipped away after a few generations in America.

I don't really have any personal details about their lives to share, so I can't get too specific an answer, but generally speaking: how would Jews living in the Pale of Settlement identify with their national borders, and did that change if/when they emigrated? How did non-Jews identify them?

It makes sense that after WWII the need for housing led to several acts of Congress to fund public housing construction, but why did these acts also include funding for slum clearance that apparently replaced housing with businesses and tourist attractions (Hilfiker, "Urban Injustice," p. 7)? This seems counterintuitive, and furthermore why then? Was there an increased awareness of urban issues and slums? Or was all of this just a side effect of the need for new housing?

I was playing crusader kings 3 as Antso III of Gascony and I wondered what happened to his line in history thus I look on 1066 and watch the history of the title. I noticed that the brother of the duc of Aquitaine (the duc of Aquitaine is at this start Guilhèm III) :Ebles of Gascony was the son of Briska of Vasconia. I was wondering if that was true and if the house of Potier shared blood with the house of Vasconia pass 1066.

I know that humans tend to favour the breed of deer for hunting from a long time, but that would be direct use, and so not what I was thinking...

Also, sorry for my english, if the question is uninteligible I can delete it

When did the ancient Egyptian religion die out? Is there a date for this? Who were the last practitioners?

Was the Isis temple at Philae the last Egyptian temple to close down?

I hope you know what I’m trying to get at.

Did Dante expect for this text to be made famous, or was he only intending for people in Florence to know about it? My teacher told me he hid it in the walls as well, and that it was his sons who published it.

From what I understand the bulk of Spanish Jewish refugees escaped to North Africa, particularly Morocco, while others would settle across the North African coast and eventually establish major communities in Salonika and Constantinople. While the migration northward was smaller, other Sephardim established important communities in Genoa, Venice, Bordeaux, the young Dutch Republic, and even as far north as Hamburg and Altona.

Were Sephardi Jews in Danish Altona aware of their distant relatives living in Morocco, essentially the other side of the known world? What kind of contact, direct or indirect, existed between Sephardi Jews in Christian Europe with Sephardi Jews in the Islamic Mediterranean?

When this question is asked, the response from most people is typically something along the lines of...

​

Treaty of Versailles...Great Depression...etc.etc.etc...The Nazis promised to make things better.

​

I never understood this argument. People always say that Germans turned to the Nazis because "the economy was bad and the Nazis promised to make things better 🙂 ," but didn't every German party promise "to make things better"? Every political party in human history always "promises to make things better." Germany had a multiparty system with numerous parties. Why did people believe that the Nazis, a group of literal terrorists who tried to overthrow the government whose main leader was a failed artist, would be better able to fulfill those promises than other political parties who made the exact same promises?

sorry if my title isnt correct. im lookinh for any books on the history (also folklore and mythology if u know of any) of scotland before the english came. thank you in advance!