An interesting quote came out of the 9th circuit court case today. The lawyer against the travel ban executive order claimed:

[The founding fathers were worried about travel bans as a mechanism for creating a state religion] "that's what happened in colonial Virginia!"

Assuming the lawyer is correct, what is he referring to?

I've been doing some reading about the Crusades and about Venice's rivalry with Genoa, and it seems like the way they thought about Saints seems like polytheistic worship, and how city states in ancient Greece or Mesopotamia would have a patron deity. The most striking to me was how Venice would raise its banner for Saint Mark, and Genoa for Saint George, and going to war as if they were representing different gods.

How "polytheistic" is medieval Catholicism in the Mediterranean compared to today or the early Church?

I was walking my dog the other day in the Murray Hill neighborhood of Manhattan, NYC. Came across an abandoned 3-story house, totally boarded up, sandwiched between sky scrapers and became instantly fascinated. Went home and started looking up the address on Google, found some interesting information but it was pretty all over the place. I've decide to write about the history of the place and how it changed over the years, as the city and the neighborhood changed around it.

From what I've dug up about this building, it may have been, at various times over the century: part of a German pre-prohibition brewery, an aerospace engineering facility where the paraglide may have been invented, a telecommunications office where operators connected calls with wires, and perhaps most surprisingly, the headquarters of the short-lived American Nazi Party, founded in 1954 by DeWest Hooker. It's now incongruously sandwiched between a high rise condo building and a fancy glass NYU Hospital wing.

This information referenced above all comes from online sources such as Wikipedia, genealogy forums, Google Books, the online archives of The NY Times and Ancestry.com. I now have a lot of detective work to do to piece together these titillating fragments of fact that I may have found.

While not a historian by trade, I did get my BA in History about a decade ago so I retain a decent understanding of how to classify various sources I might come across. I feel that the majority of my current sources are all very weak and want to build this story starting with factual data and contemporary sources, and only then coloring in with tertiary sources like Wikipedia and forum entries.

My question is - where do you think I should start with finding factual and contemporary data? Can I find the historical deeds over the years at the NY Public Library, or somewhere else? I know I can view the current deed but not sure about those dating back to the early 20th century. What other sources do you recommend I look at?

Okay, so vital to the Holy Roman Empire was the idea that they were the true successors to Rome, and they styled themselves as emperor to legitimize that. Other rulers mostly styled themselves as kings, and those who did style themselves as successors to Rome, such as the ottoman sultans, specifically refused to refer to the Holy Roman Emperor as being an emperor. However, at some point the idea that there can only be one emperor very clearly stopped, with multiple rulers styling themselves as emperors, and everyone being OK with that. What caused this change?

Everyone,

First, I apologize if this is the wrong thread.

Second, I'm an attorney in my fourth year of legal practice seriously considering going for my PhD in history. I love history and went to law school when I panicked after undergrad. I'm almost done paying my loans and will have them finished in any case before enrollment in 2018.

Third, history is really my passion and I do not see myself practicing law much longer. Even if I do not pursue my PhD I find it unrealistic to consider a full career in law practice. My concern, however, is debt and retirement planning.

My question for everyone is really how is the financial planning side of pursuing a history PhD? I had a successful undergraduate career and maintained a reasonable GPA in law school with some notable awards. I know how to study and believe I can score well on the GRE. I also speak a second language, but my competency is unpracticed at the moment.

So my specific questions are:

What does funding look like? What additional loans are likely incurred? How much money can you make in a program? How much money do you make on the side? Are you able to plan for retirement? When do you start to stop incurring debt and making money? How much debt, if any, should be planned for?

And finally, what is a good resource for judging schools by prestige/placement/recognition in the industry?

Thanks!

I know stock tickers were all finally decommissioned in the 1970s in favor of teletype machines (and subsequently, computers)

Who or what had the honor of being the last-ever parade to be festooned with the tape streamers?

Some translations and books of/about Roman times seem to use these two terms interchangeably. But they aren't the same thing, right? What is the difference exactly?

In similar situations elsewhere, powerless dynasties tend to be removed from the scene, e.g. Cao Cao/Cao Pi replacing the moribund Han dynasty with their own or Odoacer abolishing the office of Western Emperor. What made the situation in Japan different?

Ben Franklin has this infamous quote regarding German immigrants not being able to assimilate to US culture. I guess the Italians and Spaniards part makes sense but I thought Swedes and Germans are some of the whitest people on the planet at that time. Is he talking about a "cultural swarthiness"?

[W]hy should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Hello! I am going to give a presentation in my school about the Norman conquest of England for my English classes and I want to give accurate information to my listeners as they will probably take me for granted. I am especially interested in the changes that would happen in English law etc. that would have an impact on the lives of regular people. Thanks!

[deleted]

I know people liked soccer in the 70's from USA, What was a major sporting event that USA enjoyed?

I recently watched an Anime movie that tackled with victims of the atomic bombings. It dealt with the obvious health problems but also dealt with discrimnation against them, even in Japan. The flim was set in the 1960s. Did victims really have to face any sort of discrimnation during this time period?

Wikipedia is pretty hazy on what they actually believe a lot of vague statements can anyone shed more light on the specifics? Also how related are their beliefs to the Alevis in Turkey?

Say for instance, a rich 40 year old noble in the 12th century wanted to have a castle built... How long would it take to build? Would he ever be able to see the finished product, or would it be something that his family got to see after he was long gone?

So I've been watching some commie youtube videos on the history of Korea and the way it's portrayed in those is that Kim Il-Sung and friends fought to kick out the japanese, and when Japan surrendered at the end of WW2, the People's Republic of Korea was established and Kim Il-Sung was elected. A few months later the United States invaded and established the United States Army Military Government in Korea in the south, and the USSR sent troops to the north.

I tried to find more info on this but after a quick google search, most websites I find completely ignore the existance of the People's Republic of Korea and act as if the split between North and South came immediately after Japan surrendered.

Is the first portayal of events any accurate? If not, what does it get wrong?

Also, to what degree was Kim Il-Sung elected, and did he have any popular support in Korea? Or was he just a puppet chosen by Stalin?

Was it true universal healthcare? Was it a single payer system or something with private industry? Why was it politically stopped?

I know that there are various issues that are often overlooked by switching from piston to jet-engine in WW2 and postwar. From logistical aspects, to production challenges (error margins, materials, etc.). Yet, I haven't found a proper article/chapter/book on this issue that gives some clear examples, e.g., gives values on the error margins needed for piston engines, the number of maintenance hours, the need for paved runways, etc.

In short, I want some "hands-on" data. Ideally WW2, but post-war is also fine.

I'm reading Richter's book 'Trade, Land, Power' and in one chapter he talks about the seven years war and states that during the war between the French and English the Indians were constantly divided about who they were to support. The Iroquois after being neutral sided with the British who they "played" to gain payments for lands they believed they had won in wars of conquest during the previous century. While the Delawares (who hated Pennsylvanians and the Iroquois), Shawnees and other tribes were forced to settle west in Ohio and sided with the French who allowed them to raid British encroachments west. Once the French are defeated the book quickly summarizes that:

"Race war became the norm in Susquehanna and Ohio countries. When colonial resistance to British imperial authority turned the corner to revolution, the hatreds burst into the open again. This time the ally that Ohio country Indians reluctantly embraced was not the French but the British."

My question is why did the natives side with the British over the colonials knowing the British equally (along with the colonials) had defined them as savages constantly during the seven years war? Were the British promising them an area of land to be independent on that they so desired? Or was it again like in the sevens years war not so black and white a statement that they simply sided with the British?

Thanks.

[deleted]