The Scottish Highlanders in North Carolina mustered a strong Loyalist military presence in the American Revolutionary War. Why would they want to do this, especially after the brutal English response to the Jacobite uprising of 1745?

I’m just wondering what that statement as a whole means, especially the “self-evident” part.

In my perspective, it simply states that every person is equal, but how could this be true if Jefferson himself owned slaves? Wouldn’t this make the statement not self-evident whatsoever to see the lack of equality right in his home?

Are there other examples that either criticise or support this “self-evident” claim? I’m trying to see just why he wrote that and get a greater depth for the foundation and whole idea of American history.

20 year rule: I know Comrade Duche (Kang Kek Lew) does only today and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010 but the actions of the Khmer Rouge were concentrated from 1975-79 and on in to the 80s/90s so hopefully this is allowed!

So - following the announcement that Comrade Duche died today while serving a life sentence, I did a little research in to him and the Khmer Rouge generally. According to the Guardian, Comrade Duche was the first Khmer Rouge official to be held accountable by a court, and that was in 2010, nearly 30 years after he committed many of his atrocities.

Comrade Duche claimed to be responsible directly for the loss of at least 12,380 lives as head of Tuol Seng prison, where only 12 prisoners ever survived.

From my understanding he is one of only three Khmer Rouge figures to be sentenced for crimes against humanity, and an additional two were sentenced for Genocide.

Why were so few of the Khmer Rouge leadership ever indicted, I know that some will have died, but it appears to me that some have also had cases thrown out and some continue to live in relative peace despite standing arrest warrants. Is this due to ongoing support within Cambodia, a typical outcome of crimes against humanity proceedings, a reluctance to punish those responsible or is it something else related to the historical role the Khmer Rouge played?

Apologies for the poor formatting and phrasing, I’m writing the question at work on my mobile!

TL;DR: Why did so few of the Khmer Rouge ever face trial for crimes against humanity, despite killing a quarter of the population?

Edit: I forgot to mention, Khmer Rouge numbers are estimated to have been around 40,000 - 60,000 which is why I was so shocked only 5 have been imprisoned!

I recently finished watching the shows Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, and in the shows only a few characters have last names and it's usually because they're from a wealthy family. It got me thinking about last names in the real world. When did having a last name become the norm and why? I know some last names are based on professions or who your father was but what are some other conventions for last names? Any recommendations for books on the subject? Thanks!

I'm reading The Boer War by Thomas Packenham, and in nearly every battle, he describes how the soldiers spent so many hours on the firing line without water, and that this frequently led to a loss of will to fight, particularly on the British side. Why on earth wasn't it standard practice for soldiers during the conflict to carry some sort of canteen and rations with them into battle?

I know this is a mildly common question. Likewise for the Berbers? in North Africa

I’m interested in learning more about the bands (and their members) but I’m having trouble finding authoritative sources!

There's a few things I remember. Most of it was based around footage of the german people going to concentration camps and freaking out. it was pretty short, I think less than an hour?

But the big thing was it was in German I think and it had a thing at the beginning that very firmly started not for Americans.

I believe the post stated that it was only made for Germans to watch so that they realized the scope of what they had done, and so it was notable for the "you did this" vibe.

I don't know why I can't find it but if anyone knows where it could be, much appreciated. Thanks!

Wikipedia says he originally did not reveal its intentions.

Did listeners just think they had to sit through a bad piece for twenty minutes?

Did they enjoy the way it sounded?

If they enjoyed how it sounded, did this piss off snobby musicians who did things by the book?

Was it a kind of showboaty, "Because I'm Mozart, I can make all these 'mistakes' and still make it sound good" type deal? Did people recognize it as such?

Hello,

I was just curious on what actually started the events of all crusades and who actually instigated who first crusade.

First I imagine this isn’t a particularly complicated question, but I’m curious.

For meetings such as the Yalta conference, The Potsdam Conference, the signing of the Atlantic charter, etc., how did world leaders travel globally during an active war? Was it by air, sea? Always by military escort?

Relatedly, how public was the travel of world leaders at the time? For instance, would an average American citizen know Winston Churchill was visiting Washington in advance? Would a Soviet citizen be aware of the events at the Yalta conference?

Finally what was security like both during transit, but also while visiting the various destinations?

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Hi there - I'm a non-historian looking to improve my knowledge of pre-Columbian North American Indigenous history. I'd love some recommendations, especially if there are any books that focus on sociocultural systems and political history. In addition to something that offers breadth, I'd appreciate a couple more specific reccos as well - anything about Poverty Point, the Haudenosaunee, or LGBTQ history.

I know a bit more about Central and South American Native history so am only looking for texts that focus on North America. Recommendations welcome.

Thanks!

This is so awkward but me and my roommate/classmate are so confused about this.

Thank you to anyone who answers this in advance.

This question is in context to Trans-Atlantic Slavery and the sale of people in the Americas, particularly it's beginnings and endings.

What do we know of the 'first' ship we can reasonably say was a slavers ship? Do we have copies of it's manifests? What led them trafficking people? What was their mindset toward their captives?

Eventually this practice became widespread and highly profitable, before it's eventual decline and in many countries was outlawed; what then do we know of the 'last' ship to legally carry and sell humans in the Americas? Do we have their manifests etc? Do we know when and where this was?

While Norse settlers were beginning to move to the British Isles in larger numbers, were there any religious differences between native Celtic or British (I don’t know the proper terminology to distinguish native Britons that weren’t Catholic and the Catholic Anglo-Saxon) pagans and Norse pagans? Did this enmity rival the Anglo-Saxon Catholic and Norse pagan tensions? Did these tensions, if they existed, stem from differences in their religion or something else?

We usually get this portrayal of Napoleon as a military dictator and genius strategos who was a towering figure in the battlefield but I was wondering if he had softer, more intellectual pursuits. Did he write any books or treatises? Was the famous Napoleonic Code written by him? Or did he paint or play any musical instrument? I heard he wrote a few short pieces on different subjects but that's all I know pretty much about the less talked about side of Napoleon.

Historians of Reddit, can you tell us more about this?