In the 1700s, Thomas Jefferson largely wanted to uphold slavery because he feared what would happen if it were abolished: "But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." The founding fathers obviously kicked the can down the road, but even many of the slaveowners would have hoped that slavery might fade away with time.

By the mid-1800s, John Calhoun's started going on about how slavery is a "positive good".

So... what happened? Did the nature of American slavery actually change in some tangible way? Is this just a matter of building inertia, where half the justification is that slavery has existed for as long as anyone can remember? Or did the surge in abolitionist sentiment cause slaveowners to dig in?

Because German officials were tortured for confessions at Nuremburg, I've always wondered about the accuracy of the Polish false flag incident, as it seems to come from information obtained through Nuremburg confessions. What is the evidence for this incident? And is it possible that Poland actually may have been the spark on the powder keg? Admittedly, the Blitzkrieg was carefully planned and wouldn't have been an extemporaneous reaction - I think.

An entirely different question is about the Japanese Machurian bridge incident. I have no idea about the accuracy of this, but Japanese nationalist literature that they keep at some hotels in Tokyo blame a confession by Soviet intelligence for the incident. That is, the Machurian bridge incident was indeed a false flag, but one contrary to Japanese interests at the time, the Soviets orchestrated it to force Japan to get bogged down in China. Is there any validity to that idea?

My grandfather, now deceased, was held captive in a PoW camp somewhere in or around Italy, and I'd like to try and collate as much documented info on him as I can.

Did they use something similar to modern malt or distilled wine vinegar? I'm asking this because I've read into a lot of old cookery texts of the time and vinegar is frequently mentioned.

Is there a specific reason why Americans are so quick to forget about John Laurens' importance in the revolutionary war, and if so why?

At what point or series of years did we become so politically focused on one type of religion? Any background or events to explain what happened?

Considering homosexuality/sodomy was still considered criminal behaviour by the justice systems of the liberating Allied Powers, where gay/lesbian concentration camp survivors treated differently from other former prisoners by the authorities?

What major military/political events led to Spain losing it's power?

What economic problems caused Spain's decline?

Do historians commonly talk about social issues playing a role in Spain's decline?

Or to some extent was the Spanish Empire in pretty good shape but just outclassed by the British and French?

By the time of the Spanish-American war could Spain have defeated or held their own in a war another European power?

My understanding is that because of the lack of trade regulation on a federal level (and thus states were in control), farmers were unable to sell crops across state lines. This led to Shay's Rebellion and a call for a change against the Articles of Confederation.

Now looking at the two sides of the argument for the Constitution, I see that small farmers are the ones against it. They've become Antifederalists. Specifically in Massachusetts where Shay's Rebellion started, Antifederalists hoped to win that state because of the rural farmers.

So how is it that these farmers, who were against the Articles of Confederation, ended up becoming Antifederalists who were against the Constitution? I thought they would want a federal government to regulate trade?

Since most of the modern musical genres come from Folk, Blues and Soul, is correct to say that in modern societies music came from the lowest sectors of the society and was taken by the upper classes and modified and mixed with other genres to create the ones we know today? I was thinking specifically in the music of the 20th century in US.

PS. I Tried to explain myself as good as i could but english is not my main language, so sorry.

I mean, at this time, Ancient Indian kingdoms were trading with Ethiopia, the Mozambique Sultanate and kingdoms in the Levant; Sikhism was just starting and Babur had begun his invasion. Yet it seems like the Portuguese, even though European ships, I believe, weren't as powerful as they would be in two hundred years (I've read that the Canadian aboriginals had better ship making tech), were able to establish a violent foothold right away. How was this possible when India was right below China, the world's most technologically advanced civilization at the time and trading with everyone from Turkish pashas to the rulers of Malacca?

There is a ton of stuff happening all of the time. Do we only record the important stuff, or should we record Everything? Have past historians attempted to explicitly preserve information for us to study? Are there any current projects that collect information as it happens? Are these projects run by historians?

I'm looking for some reading material to educate me about the people, places, and cultures of the New Testament.

I would like something more scholarly than the typical mass market Christian-bookstore-type book, but a PhD-level grad student book would probably be beyond me.

Are there good materials based on historical scholarship that would be more of an undergrad-level read?

I was reading a genealogical document put together by my grandfather and in his commentary at the end, he mentions:

"Since all European countries were Church States, baptism in a state church conferred citizenship. Those who were not members of the state churches were also considered to be non-citizens and were not able to own their own land."

He's attempting to describe the context in which my Mennonite ancestors lived before they emigrated from The Palatinate in 1710 and 1763. I ask about the 16th and 17th centuries as well since I know that they contain most of the events of the Protestant Reformation and things might have changed by the 18th century.

Is my grandpa correct? I'm having trouble finding relevant information on Wikipedia, but I am confident that I simply don't know what to search for since I've never done historical research of any kind before.

Obviously, there's no logical reason to do it. Travelling to either state is a logistical hassle, and they both have small, ideologically polarized populations, but has anyone ever done it?

In a lot of movies there is the trope about some evil lord hunting / killing his peasant and/or abducting random girls to rape them for fun and sport without facing any consequences. To what extent is this cliche true? Could the king do really whatever he wanted to the lower classes or could he be punished for his crimes?

I'm reading the Story of the Middle Ages by Samuel Harding; in it the author always refers to 'Muslims' as 'Mohammedans'.

Is there any reason for this, or was it just a more common term used in 1901, when the book was published?