This is kind of a multiple part question

I've seen some claims that Texas v. White was technically an illegal case due to the fact that Texas was not a state in 1869, and the evidence used is that Texas did not have representation in Congress and was barred from voting in the 1868 election.

Also, why did Salmon P. Chase change his mind about the Constitutionality of secession? In Texas v. White he states:

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may not be unreasonably said, that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution, as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all it's provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

Then in 1867 he stated:

If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.

And in Lane County v. Oregon (1868) he states:

The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme. On the other hand, the people of each state compose a State, having it's own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to seperate and independent existence. The States disunited might continue to exist. Without the states in union there could be no such political body as the United States.

It seems as though he believed here that the states could exist "indestructibly" outside of the Union.

Did Chase change his mind about the Constitutionality of secession? Or am I misinterpreting these cases and his opinions?

I apologize if this has been answered before, but I tried looking and wasn't able to find anything regarding specifically these points.

It has come to the attention of the governments of the Great Powers in 1914 that the general public has clamoured for a great deal of time, and with considerable effort, for more “transparency” from the foreign chancelleries of those nations entrusted with the maintenance of peace and stability in Europe. In light of these requests, the Powers have sent their respective statesmen to this conference in London, chaired by myself - Sir Edward Grey - to be available before the press agencies of the continent. They will all be present from 10:30 GMT until 20:00 to answer queries regarding their actions and decisions whilst in office. In no particular order, the full list of representatives is as follows:

• Gottlieb von Jagow - State Secretary of the German Foreign Office,
• Sergei Dmitryevich Sazonov - Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire,
• Leopold Anton Johann Sigismund Josef Korsinius Ferdinand Graf Berchtold von und zu Ungarschitz, Frättling und Püllütz - Imperial Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary,
• Raymond Nicolas Landry Poincaré - President of France, and
• Sir Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon - Foreign Secretary of Great Britain.

As ever, there are boundaries of national interest which must be respected when it comes to divulging information on foreign or diplomatic affairs, and it is therefore within the remit of any of the representatives to decline answering a question if they feel it infringes on the privacy of their governments. We are gathered here today in the spirit of goodwill and peace for the European continent, and hope that the conference will be a symbol of faith in the security and stability which the Great Powers have collectively safeguarded for decades.

Without further ado then, Ask Us Anything!

I don't know if this is the right place to ask (if there is a better place just let me know)

I have some primary sources to use that have pointed out what happened and who were the important historical figures and I read stuff on lots of different encyclopedias but my professor wants peer reviewed sources as well as the primary sources. I feel that I'm out of my ball park here because I can't seem to understand how to reliably check if a source is peer reviewed and I just keep running into sources that seem super biased.

I just need some sources that talk about both sides of the conflict, so the British opinion on the matter and the Rebel's opinion on the matter.

I’ve always heard a thing that really helped Mussolini and his blackshirts seize power in Italy was the support of Italy’s business class who were afraid of the working class rising up in a socialist revolution. That makes sense that a class collaborationist ideology could be used as a means to prevent a working class revolt.

But Mussolini‘s specific form of class collaborationism entailed tripartism, where employers associations and labor unions collectively bargain under the state as the neutral judge. Was the employer class SO scared of a Marxist revolution that they were willing to give up a little bit of their control rather than lose all of it and potentially their lives?

I’m trying to learn more about Italian Fascism as I find it a really fascinating lesser known and unexplored aspect of World War II history.

It doesn’t make sense why all of his brothers (Ivarr “The Boneless”, Sigurd “Snake-in-the-Eye”, Björn “Ironside”, and Halfdan “White-Shirt”) all have distinct nickname yet Ubba doesn’t as far as I know. Wasn’t Ubba a very skilled warrior and strategist, and a commander of the Great Heathen Army? Surely something would’ve warranted even the most basic nickname, such as “The Great”.

Hi everyone!

As is tradition, for April Fools we let our hair down a bit and allow some frivolity to infest the subreddit. This year we are doing r/HistoricalAMA, inviting historical figures from throughout the centuries to answer questions from their legions of fans.

Until 23:59, we are allowing AMA style submissions to be made by the approved alt accounts of the Flaired Users of the subreddit, but are relaxing the rules for commenting (especially asking questions) in all threads with the 'April Fools' Flair for all users. Please, ask the historical figures anything!

The only rules in effect are those concerning civility, and as long as it is done in a joking manner towards the flaired alts, we even have some leeway there. Please just avoid racial, misogynistic, and other bigoted slurs, and please keep the questions relatively tasteful.

You are welcome to make your own alts to comment with, although we won't be flairing them, but please only use them in April Fools threads. We will ban novelty accounts if they post in character elsewhere.

Particularly for this event, we highly recommend saving threads that you find interesting and checking on them later after asking a question- all of our posters will be on their own schedules so they may not answer your questions right away, but they will do their best!

Have fun!

Just watched LEMMiNO's video about early human predictions about our neighbourly planets and I was reminded of the peculiar trend of the Soviets going for Venus missions and the Americans for Mars.

Just a couple of coincidences or is there a nationwide obsession I am not aware of?

After hearing about the bloody wars of the collapse of Yugoslavia, I’m wondering if the Czechoslovak break up was so peaceful, why did it happen at all? Did neither side just care enough to keep it going, what were the issues both had after the end of communism?

In 609 BC Josiah tired to stop Egyptian army from helping Assyrian remains. He did failed and Judah got controlled by Egytpians. Did it get into Nebuchadneccar hands after final defeat of Assyrians in his campaign in 605BC, or only after he sieged the city in 598?

I ask about the land in total, not only the capital.

Any readings recommended?

Thanks in advance!

I am currently writing a story in which the archbishop (of Nashville) is exiled (from Nashville), and must move to the town where the main character lives. He is exiled because the ruling class (of Nashville) take issue with the Catholic Church. What would happen in this circumstance? Would he be forced to move his archdiocese? Who would come with him, in this circumstance? I will apologize, I’m not very well versed in these things.

Genuine question. When you study ancient civilizations whose entire history was built on genocide and slavery. And slavery was kinda progressive, because less developed civilizations couldn't afford managing slaves, so they put everyone to the sword. Medieval plagues that killed millions. World wars, where one German city lost 25k of civilians over a couple of days. And this was done by the good guys, don't make me mention what the bad guys did.

I remember being very emotional when I was like 17 and realized that all my childish understanding of Roman history with nice cool legionaries, roads and chariot racing was a whitewashed piece of junk.

Did it ever make you less sympathetic? Cuz this is how I feel. Can you relate to that?

I’ve heard Amazon means “without-breast” and that Hippocrates described that they would cut off their right breast in childhood to shoot bows better. Obviously, this is just legend and doesn’t seem very practical in reality, but if the Greeks and Romans believed in it, why does it appear that no art of them depicts this detail?

Is it just the easiest free pics to use? The mummies no longer available to study and tucked away somewhere? Or is it just that those pics were made when the mummies were first unwrapped and thus are the best pictures available? I just noticed that most are black and white pics from around 1880s-1920s.

I was wondering this while reading about the early literary movements in Europe.

For example, you have Medieval Literature dating back to the year 1100. Going further in time you also find the Baroque era, Romanticism, etc.

I read a particular statement that sparked my curiosity:

The "Letter of Pero Vaz de Caminha" was the first written document of the land which would be called Brazil."

Now, this letter was written in 1500 and, as I mentioned, literature dates back to 1100 in Europe. So, did the native people of Brazil (and the other parts of the American continent) have no form of written documents by the time the Europeans got there?

By "vikings" I mean norse/scandinavian, etc. warriors who went on raids during the viking age.

I know that spears were used by these people quite a lot. Did they primarily use one handed spears + shields or two handed ones?

I can't think of any other cellist who is a household name in the US. Really, I can't think of any string players who have that level of fame in the US. How did Yo-Yo Ma achieve such fame that he became a household name?

It's been in the back of my mind for quite some time. It seems almost absurd as to how they both switched sides.