Hi, I love history and have since I found out I was born on Abraham Lincoln's birthday. Sadly I also live in an area where many people still claim the Civil War was mainly about State rights. While I know that was apart of it from my readings and from documents I have seen I also know a large part of it dealt with slavery either directly or indirectly byway of economy. I was wondering if y'all could suggest some sources or good ways of explaining that time period and getting high school age students to understand the time period and the world at that time. Thank you!!!

Reading a book on James Garfield and wondering what happened to the slaves as Union forces took over a place. Did some join the Union army? Were they free to just go? Also, side question, were there slaves in rural Eastern Kentucky where Garfield was during the Big Sandy Valley campaign?

Places like Brazil and Cuba had to continuously bring people over from Africa, whereas America by 1850 had about 2x more slaves than Brazil. I think the Bahamas was the only other place that also had natural growth, is that true?

It's often stated that during the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre was unpopular for pursuing dictatorial powers over the country, and it ultimately led to his death. It seems that Napoleon Bonaparte went on to do the same thing, but with great success and popularity?

How could Maximilien Robespierre have been so unpopular for trying to pursue dictatorial powers, when Napoleon followed and succeeded with great popularity?

Heroes often have named horses that are really important to them in semi-historical heroic epics (e.g. Alexander and Bucephalos), myth (e.g. Llamrei and Arthur) or fantasy literature. But did real fighting horsemen actually connect with their horses emotionally, given that they are prone to die on campaign? Question is about medieval europe, but answers about any other time/place are also appreciated.

Edit:Grammar

Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui ruled roughly 1438–1471/1472. Moteuczomatzin Ilhuicamina ruled 1440-1469. Basically I'm wondering if during their reigns, did they at least know of each others existence and how much interaction did the two empires have?

I'm a student in Turkey and we learn about Ottoman history in class. Now, I know the Ottoman Empire was around for quite a while, so there may not be one single answer to this, but how were black people treated in empire? Were they used as slaves, like in many other (European?) nations, or seen as citizens? We're taught that the Ottoman Empire was very welcoming and tolerent of nations it had conquered, letting them keep their religion etc. but I've noticed some revisionist history from my teachers (we do, after all, still deny the Armenian genocide). So how were black people percieved back then?

I understand why the English crown passed through Elizabeth Stuart after the Charles I line ended - Anne had no children, they wanted to exclude the Jacobites, etc - but why did Parliament pick Sophia of Hanover specifically? She was the 10th child of Elizabeth Stuart; wouldn’t her older brothers (and sisters) be more senior?

I am currently researching one of my relatives via Ancestry. I don't have access to Fold3 yet, but I will be upgrading to that service in the coming months. I am not sure if that will illuminate my relatives history any further, based off he search results I get at present (one record indicating being on that service, but not entirely sure if it is for my relative).

Per his census records, he was a "cavalry corporal". In 1891, he was living in Aldershot ("Aldershot Division", 1st and 2nd Divs, and 2nd Cav Bde were apparently all active during this period) . Either that year or the next, he shipped out to India (based off birth of child there that year). He was potentially based around Bangalore in 1894, based off the birth of another child. By 1897, he was back in the UK and based in Canterbury (I know there was a depot for the cav at Sturry Road), and then left the colours between then and 1901.

Based off that info, is it possible to figure out what regiment he would have been part of? Or, could someone point in me in the right direction?

Just a little background, I am of caribbean decent and ive been studying South American history and such and one thing that stuck out to me is the demographics of SA. The mix seems to be African, European and Native American but I noticed this massive difference in the demographic of the countries these two liberated. So in Simon case Colombia, Venezuela, Panama,Ecuador and Bolivia. The population with direct African heritage is much higher especially in Colombia (which was also the biggest port for Spain in the Caribbean at those times) so I can see how other factors play in to population demographic. but it’s the same in Panama and Venezuela and Bolivia which is the least amount but still notable. Let me also note that I’m not mentioning the countless people who don’t know there heritage but claim to have African or European heritage mulattos and mestizos.

Now compare that to San Martin’s Argentina, Peru and Chile. Those counties African- heritage population is almost nonexistent. Argentina and Uruguay tried to remove the African/darker population. (Look up Tango) you’ll see that in Argentina and I’ll go as far to say all of South America deep seated beliefs, behaviors and culture stems from Africa even more so than Europe. Especially when it comes to music, dance, food. I can’t find significant info on Chile but I give them the benefit of doubt considering how far the country is from the Atlantic coast.

So basically I’d like to stem the discussion of what drove the mentality of these colonies at the time to have completely different demographics and was it forged by the mentality of their liberators? Maybe one was looking for a more European nationalistic mentality even though they were independent. While the other was trying get away from that mentality.

Some fantasized accounts of the liberation of slaves show that some slaves chose to stay with their former owners. I did some preliminary research and could not find any historical proof of this. I was wondering if there were any texts that talked about this. Thanks.

I often hear the question "why did Roman senators tolerate the emperor", but wouldn't it be more questionable the other way around?

It seems that starting around the time of Julius Caesar, real authority and power was held by generals commanding military forces, rather than the Senate. When Caesar took over Rome, he made the mistake of keeping the Senate, which led to his death. Augustus went on to subvert the senate during his rule, but why did he not just execute/exile them?

While it's understood that being perceived a king was something the Emperors feared, who would rebel besides the Senate if they decided to pursue an autocratic government? The common people?

It seems that throughout history there was a hostile back and forth between the Roman Senate and the Emperor. The Roman Senate didn't seem to have control over the commoners or the army, so why did Emperors put up with them?

I am referring to long ago when slavery was very common. Was it just a normal part of life or did many people find it off? What did slaves think of it? Did slave owners think they were good people?

I'm a Highschool student who is looking for sources in the Six Day War, if anyone knows any reliable sources on the events that took place, book website, newspaper articles anything would be of help. I dont mind if information such as Newspapers at the time are unreliable die to possibly being biased it would actually be more helpful as it gives me a chance to boost my marks by pointing such things out

Would a regular soldier be ransomed right away? If so would I have to take some kind of oath to not take up arms again?

The title says it all, the steppe is a harsh and vast place, a difficult place for sedentary armies to travel through and transport supplies through. Horseback nomad armies were often content to just keep retreating from the slower sedentary armies, letting attrition do their work for them. How were the Qing able to overcome this paradigm? Did the fact that they were sort of half-horde half-sedentary help them at all?

Was Norse mythology a story they told each other or was it what they actually believed? Many cultures have their own beliefs and myths but since there aren’t many accounts of Norse beliefs, I’m wondering if we even know how much of that they actually believed in and wasn’t just a thing they told people. Like if we didn’t have many accounts of our culture, people in the future could think we legitimately believed Santa exists or maybe even Superman or Batman. Thoughts?

Due to the rotation of the Earth, the irradiated zone from nuclear explosions stretched far to the west of ground zero. Was the US aware of this before they dropped the bombs, and did they take advantage of that knowledge to maximize damage? Additionally, are there accounts of communities in mainland Asia that were affected by radiation?