It’s my understanding that they did not count any votes from southern states in that election. Were any cast? Did they have to go to the Supreme Court to get their approval?

Considering they were both settled at pretty much the same time.

I know its colder but outside of the windsor-montreal corridor the country is empty. Why?

I’m in my last year of school and have to write an essay on an original topic of my choice. I’ve picked the White Rose resistance to write about, but will only have time to read one or two books on it this school year. Any recommendations on books that cover the movement from its inception to its end? I have my on eye one or two but would really like to get something that includes all of the leaflets they wrote, as well as anything else that may be relevant to the group.

Cheers so lads

Greetings Historians of Reddit, most if not all politicians are revered by some and hated by others, but why is this so exaggerated in the case of Margaret Thatcher? From my basic understanding, people believe she helped the economy greatly at a turbulent time of industrial unrest, but this came at the cost of many working class occupations. Would anyone be able to elaborate this and help me understand further? Of course the Falklands can come into this, but was it as big a deal as the impact she had in Britain?

Union General Ulysses S Grant is someone who I think has had his image tarnished, being painted as a very corrupt man unfit for the presidency, but I personally believe he is someone who should be praised more when it comes to American history.

I've heard arguments it wasn't Grant himself who was corrupt and that a lot of the scandals were just plain stupid, but I am not exactly sure.

What were some accomplishments under the Grant administration? Is Grant over hated or is him being known as one of our worst presidents fair?

I understand the idea of dropping nukes to prevent them from having to invade Japan. My thinking is why did tHE US not choose to bomb (not nuke) more strategic locations that would cripple the Japanese war machine? This would include their political leadership, how come they weren’t targeted instead?

To be clear, I'm asking about the idea of space travel being impossible. I'm not interested in asking about astral projection right now, though I'm sure the history of that concept is interesting in its own right.

The specific example, that was in my mind, is the retreat from the Romans out of Brittain.
I mean i get, that without the traderouts of the romans, many luxuries werent available afterwards.But why would everyone surrender the comfort of living in cities and even Stone Houses etc.?

It seems incredibly foolish to sit in firing lines in open cover and fire blankly at the enemy, standing and reloading. Why didn't they carry multiple weapons, or develop a smaller weapon that could fire without reloading? We see the gatling gun, so it's obvious that was an issue, why limit it to heavy support weaponry? What was the purpose of it all?

Edit: I should probably say I'm looking for why they chose the methods they did, rather than why they didn't do this specific example. It seems really inefficient and weird to do things that way but there must have been SOME reason.

I make whiskey professionally and am mostly interested in traditional alcoholic beverages. I know that corn whiskey was a big deal not just as a beverage but as a means as a currency in what counted as the “west” at the time, leading to why the Whiskey Rebellion was not just about boozing up but about commerce in regions where American currency was not widely available. There’s a great amount of romanticism about traditional American spirits being aged in oak but historically there isn’t A) an idea of corn whiskey being aged on charred oak until the the 19th century when it was an attempt to counterfeit French spirits, and B) oak would have been much more valuable in building ships.

So, is it reasonable to assume revolution era corn whiskey was more likely to be aged in clay or glass than wood?

For example: Boston needs to travel to St. Louis to play a series, and that's a long distance to travel in 1880. Do they just send letters back and forth over the winter discussing possible dates? Or does the league just schedule all the games like they do today? Does the home team make arrangements for accommodations for the visiting team or does the team on the road make their own arrangements with local hotels by mail prior to arriving?

Having taken several economics courses in college as well as being a fan of history, I got to thinking about how wealthy old kingdoms and empires would actually be.

I have heard that Japan offered the allies terms of conditional surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there are conflicting sources on what exactly was included in that offer. Some sources say Japan simply wanted to keep their emperor as the absolute ruler of Japan. Others say the offer was much more ridiculous, with Japan even asking to keep much of the territory gained by them during the war. Are either of these claims true, if not, what was Japan's offer of peace to the allies?

From my extremely shallow understanding of demography, the proportion of women to men tends to increase with age (in part due to war, crime, and men working more dangerous jobs). Looking at Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as examples, the reverse is true. There are other nearby countries such as Somalia, Iran, and Iraq whose pyramids look much more "normal".

What happened 60 years ago in the gulf to set this off?

Both were British colonies in North America, right? What difference caused the northern colonies to stay with the British?

This question is mostly prompted by the anime/manga series Vinland Saga (spoilers, FWIW, for roughly the first 50 chapters or so.) A series that takes place mostly around the North Sea world in the early 11th century and follows a fictional life of the real explorer Thorfinn Karlsefni as he has various adventures and meets historical figures like Lief Erikson and Canute the Great. I'm just a layperson but I'd generally characterize the historicity of the show as well researched but also totally willing to make people larger than life or go with the coolest possible version of the history that's vaguely supported by known facts or more legendary sources. One character struck me as unusually implausible though (outside of, like, people with superhuman combat prowess) and it made me wonder.

The character Askeladd is a half Danish, half Welsh Viking whose mother was taken as a slave by a viking and who believed herself to be a living descendant of Lucius Artorius Castus/King Arthur, and his true name is also revealed to be "Lucius Artorius Castus". Askeladd is unusually knowledgeable about Roman history. He knows about the ancient celtic peoples that preceded roman occupation, while sitting among Roman Ruins in Bath, England he knows who built them and that it was hundreds of years before the events of the story. When travelling through Wales, they meet a military officer or noble who wears armor and a robe that are vaguely roman looking, and has a latin name. They sail ships that look somewhat like Biremes, and are generally aware of themselves as the last Romano Britons. Most of the characters they meet look more "medieval" and have welsh names, but none of them are surprised by the quasi roman dude.

My question is, is any of this remotely plausible contemporaneous to the Danish conquest of England ~1010-1020? The Bireme looking ships strike me as especially fanciful, but would any Welsh people at this time or for the several hundred years before have had Latin names, Latin inspired dress or knowledge of Roman Britain? Would any people, even especially learned people, have been aware of a legendary figure like King Arthur and known them to have been a Roman general or leader?