I read in a biography of George Washington that a newspaper was published in Philadelphia during the Continental Congress. The editor was reputed to attack George Washington unremittingly. What was the name of the paper? Was it opposed to Washington? Where can I find archived copies? Thanks for any help.

I am curious what the reaction to the Beatles, especially in the "mop-top"/Beatlemania era, was by high-school age guys in the 60's. I know that the older generations were pretty opposed to them, and obviously young girls loved them in general. I just wonder if young adult men despised them in the way that people of my generation despised groups like One Direction. Did young men find them pukey or annoying?

I’m basing all my knowledge on cowboy western and I’m sure they’re not exactly accurate but I’ve always wondered when was the correct time to draw their gun. What were the etiquettes and rules of duels and what were the consequences of declining a duel.

Was it more convenient, or simply a matter of pocket watches falling out of fashion?

Would the Franco Prussian war feature line battles akin to the ACW, or was it closer to WW1 in its conduct? I've heard von Moltke never cared much about the ACW as he saw it as using obsolete tactics and lacking any innovation

My six-year-old and I were listening to the Story of the World, a history book for kids, and it was talking about the Black Death. It was pretty clear that it spread easily because people did not know where it was coming from or how to protect themselves from it. And then the book mentioned that the plague lasted for years, and then went right into describing how life was different after the Black Death.

But my six-year-old asked me- and I have no idea the answer- how did the Black Death end? Did people figure out what was happening? Did the infected fleas and rats migrate away or something?

Why was there continued peace between Britain and the United States after the war of 1812? Where there no border conflicts with Canada to figure out, or was the US just becoming to powerful for Britain to deal with? What was the main reason why there wasn’t another war between the global empire and the ascending superpower?

In *Chernobyl*, a couple days after the meltdown, a physicist is arguing with the deputy secretary of the Communist Party of Belarus and tells him, "I'm a nuclear physicist. Before you were deputy secretary, you worked in a shoe factory." I couldn't find biographical details of the real-life counterpart to the government official in this scene, but would it have been common for workers in shoe factories, or similar non-elite jobs, to be offered high-ranking government positions?

I heard that the Maya didn't know the wheel, so I am assuming that it was invented by different peoples at different points through history. Are we able to tell how often it was invented by different people over time?

Edit: he was in the USN!

Lets say I was taking my family to start a log cabin out in the wilderness. If I came upon Native Americans would they immediately attack me? Would I them? Was there a general fear of running into a tribe?

By downfall I don't mean death, but fall into poverty, he was one of the main figures in the Hispanic-American war but died in very poor conditions, not even having his own shirt during the funeral. There are other examples of famous figures entering humility, such as Giuseppe Garibaldi (he had money but when he retired he brought very little back with him to his small island), but that was for their own choices and mistakes. So I was wondering if either an accident or many unfortunate events caused his descent into poverty

Seeing as they were so close to the Polynesians, had at a minimum canoe technology, and had sailing peoples such as the Taino in the East, is there anything even suggesting that these peoples had crossed the oceans surrounding them? If so, for how long had they had the capability of doing that? Would it be possible that natives of the Americas formed the "Sea people" of the bronze age collapse?

Hitler conflated Jews with Communists, were communists the true target of his and were Jews targeted because of this rather than for actually their blood and religion?

I understand this topic is a bit touchy but this a legitimate question I've recently been asking myself given the context of my affinity for history and recent political dialogue. And if there is truth to this why is the narrative of our history so hyper focused on the Jewishness of the victims rather than their real or imagined political leanings?

Given that the war machine was in motion and the pieces would all have been in place for overwhelming superiority why was a Fascist stronghold allowed to continue existing?

To be clear, this isn't a request for an assessment on the current state of affairs; this is an inquiry into the specific actions and steps which led to the dissolution of union strength in the United States. Was it engineered legislatively, through corporate action, through the force, or a combination of all three and additional factors?

I am curious, why did the use of gunpowder get through its early stages? We know today how valuable gunpowder is to military success, but in both East and West my understanding is that it got off to a pretty rocky start. They weren't efficient in terms of accuracy or rate of fire, where regular bow-armed infantry could shoot multiple times (and more accurately) while arquebusiers reloaded. While they could punch through armor, it wasn't anything that a good crossbow bolt or ballista-type piece couldn't do. The guns made smoke and noise which broke up sight lines and disrupted command and control, and in the case of both hand-held and artillery pieces, guns would explode and hurt/kill their users, as well as injuring other infantrymen/artillerymen nearby.

A common explanation that I've heard is that it was easier to train conscripts to use firearms than, say, a longbow, which I agree with. But early on, it would be much simpler to give a peasant a crossbow or shortbow, weapons they would be familiar with, would be easier to manufacture, and would (at the time) be cheaper to produce. Add that to the fact that these weapons were new and (in the case of artillery) expensive, and I wonder why gunpowder ever got through its early stages. I'm clearly missing something; why did gunpowder get a start when other tools did the job better?

The Ottomans were an Empire that had existed for 600 years. The Balkans, North Africa, the Middle East and several Mediterranean islands were under their rule for centuries.

However Turkish language and culture never spread in these places which kept their distinct languages and culture. Compare this to say British India which was only for around a century yet many Indians speak english and even see it as valuable, or in Mexico where Spanish language and names are everywhere

Was there anyone actually calling for that, or did everyone in and around British government accepted that North American holdings were lost?