We are discussing the Billion Dollar Congress in my history class right now. I wrote a paper a few years ago about the history of federal debt, and my research said that the federal government has maintained some level of debt since the War of 1812. I got my data from the Congressional budget office. If the government was in debt, how could it also have a surplus? Were they using revenue from the McKinley Tariff to fund spending while leaving debt outstanding? If so, was this due to a discrepancy in the maturity of the bonds that made up the debt? My professor and I are endeavoring to reconcile our conflicting conclusions. Thoughts?

Additionally, how did major highlights of the Cold War during this time period affect these procedures.

I know there’s a lot to unpack in a question like this, so I would greatly appreciate any direction towards further reading. I’ve done some research on my own, but I feel as though most of the content I’ve read doesn’t quite hit on what I’m looking for.

(This is my first post here. While I did read the rules, please let me know if I should adjust or re-direct this question. Thanks much.)

Sorry if this is an obviously stupid question, but it just struck me that the entire framework for what the traditional D&D character is doesn't seem to make any sense. This guy/girl goes from town to town, offering people (usually local leaders, acting on rumors from gossip mills like inns) to solve whatever violence-related problems they may have in exchange for coin. That... doesn't strike me as a profession that would actually exist in Europe between 480 and 1500. Am I wrong?

Looking for overviews of various aspects of 19th century history, specifically:

1. The conventions and practice of international diplomacy
2. Economics -- both economic thinking at the time and the state of the world economy during the century
3. The many burgeoning political movements and how the existing power structures handled them (or failed to handle them)

Thanks in advance

I know languages can be very old, so I realize this might not be restricted to the modern-day country France.

I'd like to combat some of the /r/badhistory on Constantine I have to endure from a zealous coworker of the Seventh Day Adventist variety. Can anyone recommend anything good, reliable, and reputable to read about him?

Is this the right place or should a ask at the linguistics? How much can we expect to know about the old accents? I found the talks about Shakespeare OP very interesting, but I'm still pretty skeptic that we ever actuallly will know how he sounded like. You may learn alot about the the structure, and deduce intonation and infliction and so on, but overall isn't that meraly hints and glimpses? It is a at times a big gap between how we speak and how we write. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that difference where also present in historic times? So are we any way at all gonna figure out how the historic persons sounded like?

I'm aware that when there are events hosted/dedicated to the princes and princesses that the King and Queen sit to the right. What I can't find a clear answer for is where the Royalty sit when they attend a nobleman's feast. Would they take over the lord's seat or sit to the side? Is it different for the King, Queen, or their children?

People who lived in Rome (or the people who worshipped the Roman gods) called theirselves Romans. Even tough know the religion is dead is there still a Roman ethnicity? I am asking this because even tough the old Greek religion is now dead there is still a greek ethnicity but I don't see anyone calling themselves romans.

In his new book, Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism, Mark Levin says this:

The end of the nineteenth century saw the rise of a movement thoroughly hostile to the underlying principles of the nation’s founding — the “Progressive Movement.…

Progressivism was imported from Europe and would result in a radical break from America’s heritage. In fact it is best described as an elitist-driven counterrevolution to the American Revolution, in which the sovereignty of the individual, natural law, natural rights, and the civil society — built on a foundation of thousands of years of enlightened thinking and human experience — would be drastically altered and even abandoned for an ideological agenda broadly characterized as “historical progress.”

Progressivism is the idea of the inevitability of historical progress and the perfectibility of man — and his self-realization — through the national community or collective… progressivism’s emphasis on material egalitarianism and societal engineering, and its insistence on concentrated, centralized administrative rule, lead inescapably to varying degrees of autocratic governance.

Is this a widely accepted historical fact?

I was reading a few different websites that her family was one of the few families that passed as being white.

I have seen various clips of D Day. Most of which show nothing compared to the horrific display showcased is Saving Private Ryan.

There are some clips that show unbelievable shots of hundreds of soldiers attacking the beach ( looked like first wave on Omaha) but my question is why are they just 1-3 second clips?

I mean some of them really do look like SPR and you see it and think "My god what a shot" they really show what it was like. Unfortunately you have to pause the clips to view them because they are so short.

I don't understand why the photographer would not just keep recording as the first wave advanced. Instead you get a 2 second clip which is really more like a picture because you have to pause it to really take it in. Then another 2 second clip again.

I saw one where something like 20-50 men are in the water and you can see the mg42 bullets hitting inches away from them (again looked like 1st or 2nd wave) but instead of continuing to film them push up the beach it just cuts off even before you could take a breath.

This irks me so much because if the videos lasted say 5-10 minutes we would see the real opening of SPR and not have to rely on 2 second clips and a Hollywood adaptation.

( I understand there were not many photographers there and they were in battle) but some clips are SO GOOD and it looks like they were just cut off.

Really long post to ask why they are so short, but I love history and it bothers me so much I wish I could go back in time and film it.

If anyone has seen proper footage of what I'm describing can you please include it in your comment.

Thank you!

Hello fellow historians . Homosexuality has ancient sources, same for cases of anorexia. However, are there reliable past accounts and sources of people suffering from gender dysmorphia ? And if so how were such people treated ?

If so, do we have any records of what effects these drugs caused? Did they have any uses in society apart from recreational enjoyment?

I thought that wooden shields were mostly used by those who were less fortunate than others. What advantages do a wooden shields have over iron shields that made soldiers use them?

I understand that keeping cattle through the winter in temperate climates generally involves feeding them hay. Indeed this is the whole point of hay; it's why hay technology was developed.

So how did early Texas cattle ranches, with their enormous herds, get all that hay?

Before the railroad came through, I imagine it would have been impractical to ship the hay in. That means they had to grow it themselves. But huge hay-growing operations are conspicuously absent from accounts of Texas history.

And then there is the issue of keeping the cattle from eating all their winter feed in the summer. That would have required fencing off the hay fields. But ranchers fought hard to keep the area from being partitioned with barbed-wire fences; this fight doesn't make sense if they were already fencing off their own hay fields in this manner.

Something doesn't add up here. What am I missing?

What made the urban lower classes of Paris so opposed to the Church, especially when most of France was Catholic? I know a lot of the bourgeoisie were atheists/skeptics due to Enlightenment principles, but how and why did the lower classes shed their religious affiliations?