So I have been looking at this topic and its given me a bit of confusion, the question itself is referring to the early 19th century with the emergence of many independent nations in the Americas (spanish/latin america). My main theories at the current time as to why independence came about is mostly looking at the influence of Englightment, the impact of the American/French revolutions, and the failure of the bourbon reforms.

Thank you for anyone that could spare some time to help me get a better understanding of this!

Was it similar today in that we have hundreds of different cuts of meat and many different brands or would they have to go to a butcher to get a specific cut of meat?

I am more versed in music, so if we take Mahler as an example - were there any specific, tangible, criteria by which his music was deemed to be Degenerate?

I see frequent questions here in /r/AskHistorians that clearly either come from a someone who wholeheartedly subscribes to varying degrees of Holocaust denial, or who has been exposed to it and is (at least) intrigued.

So, staying clear of the 20-year-rule of course, how has Holocaust denial waxed and/or waned over time? By the mid-90s, was it more or less prevalent than it had been 10 years prior, 20 years prior?

Is it more prevalent in certain nations than others? If so, what about those nations has made them fertile grounds for this?

Was there free passage? Would you realize it when you had crossed it? For that matter, what was the border between Christian kingdoms like?

I'm in the middle of The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez and it talks about the development of monastic traditions growing out of people in the Egyptian desert. Was this a new innovation, or were there also hermits and monasteries in pagan traditions? I know a bit about Buddhist monks, but nothing about the West.

[deleted]

In my high school history class I was taught that we shouldn't judge long dead individuals by the standards of our modern moral compass, as they would often fail such a judgement and it is unfair to them.

However, there has lately been a backlash against Christopher Columbus due to him being essentially a racist (as far as I understand at least).

Is this backlash because he was significantly worse than his peers, or is the backlash not historically well founded - or do I incorrectly understand the idea of not judging those in the past from our moral lens?

Did he want to kill Hitler to end the war, did he kill Hitler because he didn't want the Jews and other victim-groups to suffer or did he do it because he seeked power for himself? I haven't found anything here on reddit, nor on other sites.

Also, why did they decide to form one confederacy among all of them?

I've read that the CIA was very much involved in putting Saddam in power (even giving him the lists of left-wing activists to target) after the assassination of Prime Minister Qassim. However, on wikipedia the author they cite speculates that it was Nasser and the United Arab Republic intelligence that helped set Saddam up to rule.

What is the story behind this?

I'm looking for information about the constitution of Rhodesia between the UDI in 1965 and the adoption of the republican Constitution in 1969.

The Declaration of Independence refers to a Constitution included as an annex. My assumption is that this was the Constitution of 1961, as amended by the Constitution of Rhodesia (Amendment) Act, 1965 - however, I have not been able to ascertain whether this is the case. Neither have I been able to find the text of the 1965 Act or the Constitution as amended by the Act.

I'm particularly interested in how the powers of the Crown were exercised in a country which the Crown itself did not recognise. I have found one reference to 'The Queen of Rhodesia', and several to an 'Officer Administering the Government' (presumably a stand-in for a Governor-General who was never appointed), but I'd like to get more clarity on how this actually worked.

Above all, I'd like to read the constitutions of Rhodesia for myself. I have not been able to find the texts either of the Constitution of Rhodesia 1961 (Southern Rhodesia (Constitution) Order in Council, of 1961 (S.I.1961, No. 2314)), or of the Constitution of Rhodesia Amendment Act 1965. It is beyond the period I'm focusing on, but I'd also like to get the full text of the 1969 Constitution, by way of comparison. Any help locating these documents would be appreciated.

Note: I'm not looking for the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Order of 1965. That was the British Government's response to the UDI, which was the de jure constitution, in the eyes of the UK, during this period. I'm looking for the documents that were recognised as being constitutionally authoritative from the Rhodesian side.

Sorry for such a narrow and specific question. Really it's just help with finding sources that I need. I hope someone out there is an expert in the legal history of southern Africa!

I've just finished my third year of a history degree, and in a few months will begin my final year. This means dissertation time! I'm trying to prepare in advance, and have a rough idea of the period of history I'd like to research - but how do you guys figure out what to research? Do you have a natural instinct/interest to find previously unknown areas to research?

I've got a few in mind but need help making a decision.

The Balkans: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers, 1804-1999, Misha Glenny

The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878, Mark Biondich

A History of the Balkans 1804-1945, Stevan Pavlowitch's

The Balkans Since 1453, L.S. Stavrianos

The Balkans: A Short History, Mark Mazower

Any input at all would be a great help.

When looking at the list of countries with nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan jumped out at me the most. Every other country makes some sense to me. The US and Russia during the Cold War, Israel is surrounded by enemies, North Korea is crazy, and China is also a big superpower that wants protection, but India and Pakistan never made sense to me.

From the reforms of Cleisthenes to the occupation by the Macedonians in 322 BC, ancient Athens had a system of direct democracy in which all male citizens were allowed to participate in decision making, but women had no way to get citizenship. Was there ever an "Ancient feminist wave" to change this? If not, why?

It seems like a pretty important event: Extremists take over the holiest site in Islam because they are angry with an "un-Islamic" Saudi government. But most history of Islamic terrorist studies I've read don't focus on it and turn instead to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Why is this? Was the siege unimportant in the history of Islamic terrorism?

Vote for what you like. Submit ones you liked and don't see here. Even if it is your own!

The nature of surviving sources combined with the way we usually tell history mean that the cheerful moments often fall away. Tell me happy stories about the people of your era!

Next week: Weird Food

If there was such a thing I would give it a try. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? You can even get drunk with people from all over the world simultaneously while at your computer.

You sometimes see reports on modern states' political polarization which claim that we must be very polarized now because fewer and fewer states have changed what party they voted for in presidential elections since 1960.

But LBJ's actions at the time pursuing civil rights flipped the Dixiecrat south to switch from Democrats to Republicans. Republicans which had been the progressive party of the North not 100 years earlier. It seems hardly surprising that these studies should "discover" that was a period of radical change in party affiliation starting in 1960 and stabilizing as time moved forward.

What I'm curious about is what party affiliation by state looked like prior to LBJ's presidential tenure. Was it more fluid, more changing, more evenly divided? With a few notable exceptions (the Bull Moose party and the Progressives come to mind), America was mostly still a two-party system for the previous hundred years, but I'm curious how the distribution of its voters changed over time.

20 years ago, OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil case for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and the battery of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson.

I have found a few articles talking about some of the differences between the civil case and the criminal trial, but not a comprehensive assessment or any explanation of what the key differences were. I’m aware that Mark Furhman was not called to testify, but conversely OJ Simpson was subpoenaed and had to testify. Couldn’t OJ’s team have called Furhman? Or referred to his evidence in the criminal case?

The “prosecution” in the civil case had more time to prepare their case and fix the problems in the criminal prosecution, and there is also a lower burden of proof in civil cases. Are these differences enough to explain the different verdict? Or were other factors in play? Did any of the differences work to OJ’s advantage or did they all work to the prosecution’s advantage?

The civil case was not televised - did that mean that the case had a much lower profile than the earlier criminal trial? What did people know about the civil case?

Finally, was the civil liability verdict expected? Or did everyone think that because OJ had been acquitted on the criminal charges that he would escape civil liability?

Any information on the civil case would be much appreciated.

Many thanks.

EDIT: I realise the title says 20 years ago today. I messed up the dates - the civil verdict was on 5 February 1997 and not on 2 May 1997. Blame US/UK date formats!

Edit 1: Thanks for the responses everyone wasn't expecting such great and in-depth answers, really glad I posted here.

On 23 August 1864, facing the upcoming presidential election, President Lincoln wrote and signed a secret pledge in the following terms:

“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterward.”

I have a few questions about this:

Were Lincoln’s re-election chances in August 1864 really so low?

Presumably Lincoln believed that the Democratic candidate, McClellan, was going to win. Why did Lincoln believe that McClellan would have “secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save” the Union? As far as I’m aware, McClellan’s policy was the “peace” candidate.

Do we know what Lincoln’s plans were in the event that he lost the election? Was he going to launch an all-out military effort to try and defeat the Confederacy before handing over to a new President? How would that be consistent with the election of the “peace” candidate?

Thanks very much.