Looking for sources that could demonstrate how Douglass created sympathy for the abolitionist cause in the United States, and whether or not this played any role in European neutrality during the Civil War.

Elements of Judaism like the synagogue and the Talmud are more recent developments in the religion. How different is Judaism as practiced today to the original religion of Israel, and can one draw a distinction between the two?

I'm looking for information on the anal sex practices of antiquity, including the use enemas to "clean out" before anal sex. Was there a difference in the practice between male-male and male-female couples? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks!

I'm not particularly versed in the history surrounding Alexander the Great, nor the politics of his empire. But I'm wondering, if Macedonia was ruled by a hereditary succession, why did his generals divide the empire apart rather than put Alexander IV on the throne?

P.S. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Here is the full text of a speech Lincoln gave to the Indiana legislature. I have bolded the paragraph I am trying to better understand.

ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, FEBRUARY 12, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:—I am here to thank you much for this magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support given by your State to that political cause which I think is the true and just cause of the whole country and the whole world.

Solomon says there is “a time to keep silence,” and when men wrangle by the mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using the same word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence.

The words “coercion” and “invasion” are much used in these days, and often with some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can, the meaning of those who use them. Let us get the exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of the words.

What, then, is coercion? What is invasion? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them, be invasion? I certainly think it would, and it would be coercion also, if the South Carolinians were forced to submit. But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all of these things be invasion or coercion? Do our professed lovers of the Union, who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these, on the part of the United States, would be coercion or invasion of a State? If so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be exceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the homoeopathist would be much too large for it to swallow. In their view, the Union, as a family relation, would seem to be no regular marriage, but rather a sort of “free-love” arrangement, to be maintained on passional attraction.

By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State? I speak not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution, for that is a bond we all recognize. That position, however, a State cannot carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case, should be equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange of name be an exchange of rights? Upon what principle, upon what rightful principle, may a State, being no more than one fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionably large subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by merely calling it a State? Fellow-citizens, I am not asserting anything. I am merely asking questions for you to consider. And now allow me to bid you farewell.

He says he is not asserting anything, but I doubt it. He seems to be suggesting that there is no inherent value in a political entity that is separate or superior to the value of the people themselves who make up that political entity. Or have I gotten this wrong?

Today we see fossil fuels arguing against solar, gas cars against electric ones, pain medication against marijuana legalization, and so on.

I am wondering if this is a newer thing brought about by our connected world or if entrenched businesses of old campaigned/fought against innovations that made them less important/obsolete?

Hi all, sorry if this is an inappropriate or unfitting question for this sub, but I must ask: where would one access Pravda archives from back on the 1930s and even in the late 1910s? I've looked everywhere and it is a complete dead-end, which is unfortunate as I need primary sources for an essay on the Soviet Union.

Again, apologies if this post is in appropriate, and many thanks in advance to any and all answers given!

I know the basics of the feudal system, but the Duke of Normandy was a Duke, and not even a very big one if compared to the Duchy of Aquitaine (generally, i know) yet this Duke managed to raise an army that challenged the King of the Anglo Saxons.

Was it that King Harold had lost a large number of men in the battle of Stamford(?) bridge against Hadrada?

TL;DR how did a Duke raise an army that could fight a King?

Clergy was one way for nobility to put their offspring in, let's take for example Bernhard de Clairvaux, (1090-1153), abbot of Cluny. During the blossom of the cluniacensic reform, lots of donations reached the monasteries of Cluny and Moissac. But how did this provide them with power and what kind of power was that over whom? What else were sources of power for monasteries?

Posted this twice with a cumulative 0 responses. Giving it one more shot, any "Wild West" historians out there?

Were there any particular stretches of track that were more susceptible to robberies than others? Were the robbers looking to rob passengers, or were they more interested in the cargo the train might be carrying? In movies, we often see robbers detach at least some of the cars from the main engine. Did this happen in real life and to what end? What would happen to any passengers stranded on a detached car?

Edit: WOW! Floored by the interest and the great responses. Thanks everyone.

I've read that people generally did not leave their houses at night because of how much more dangerous city streets were when lit only by dim candlelight. How dangerous are we talking? Were you truly risking your life if you simply had to leave your house in an emergency? Were the streets a free-for-all?

As an American, the way I was taught in school was that it basically came down to the desire to be independent, no taxation without representation, the standard American desire to have as many rights as humanly possible and control our destiny. But that all seems a little too idealistic and I'm a cynic and don't trust a nation's teaching of its own history in public schools. Would love to know about the rich, old, selfish men who actually started the Revolution.

I finally came into some free time and I love history and want to start by reading about each President. What book would you recommend for each one?

In other words, what motivated Britain to rule the seas? How have historians approached this topic?

Basic question. Yet if the historian wants to expand it with the context and popularization, it will be great.

Thanks again to everyone involved in AskHistorians. Best subreddit ever.

Edit1: Based on the clarifying answer r/erath_droid gave, I would like to reformulate the original question: When was synthetic plastic discovered, and how did the popularization process happened (considering that the vast majority of items in a XXI Century household are synthetic plastic-made)?

This question just come up to me while watching a documentary from medival ages. What were the usual duties such a person had to carry out? Was it a prestige position?

Thank you!

Movies like The Man from Laramie regularly depict Pueblo peoples as entirely pacifistic farmers who live in Western-style villages and tend to be Catholic. By contrast, Apache and Comanche are depicted as ruthless nomads with no livelihood except violence.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, were settled Southwestern peoples really so distinct from nomadic peoples in the same region? How do the Hopi, Zuni, Yuma, and Pima compare to the Apache, and Comanche? How did the very large Navajo people fit into the social dynamic of the Southwest?

[deleted]

Was there a clear geographical divide between the services based off of the proximity of the threat or was this not really a thing?

Dear AH'ers, In the battle of Friedland in the War of the Fourth Coalition, one of the definitive moments of the battle was a massive bombardment of the Russian center by French Artillery general Senartmont who pushed his cannons up and basically blew the center out of the Russian line with case/grapeshot, causing it to collapse.
My question is this, how did this happen? All the descriptions of this I've heard imply he advanced his guns up pretty far into the field to fire case shot at relatively close range, so they'd be quite vulnerable to cavalry attack, and then actually were attacked by cavalry, but fended it off. How did they do this? I was under the impression that due to the relative speed and loose formation of cavalry, they were excellent at cutting down unsupported artillery batteries, but I've seen Senartmont's batteries described as blasting the Russian cavalry offensive to bits. What happened here? Am I wrong in my description of the battle? Were Senarmont and his gunners just that good? Am I wrong about the relative effectiveness of cavalry charges on exposed artillery? Was this just luck? Please help, this always bothered me as this move of advancing a relatively unsupported mass of artillery always seemed insanely risky to me.