Currently doing some work for my American Civil War class at the moment and I came across a section in my textbook discussing the ideology of the South leading up to secession, specifically discussing the influence of John C. Calhoun on states such as South Carolina. It mentions outright that South Carolina was the only state in the Union to disallow its citizens from partaking in national elections, as the electors were chosen by the legislature rather than by a vote. For how long prior to 1860 had this system been in place?

Why wouldn't the popes take this opportunity to declare a crusade against the Ottomans? Isn't this a prime opportunity to reunite the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches? Was there any political or logistical reasons why this couldn't happen?

What are other historical inaccurate claims in the abrahamic religions? The most popular one is the Exodus out of Egypt. There is no evidence it ever happened except in the old testament.

What are other historical inaccurate claims or at least historical claims where these it no evidence?

Thanks in advance

I want to gain a broad understanding of the development of pop music and/or pop culture in general since the first half of the last century and I was wondering if you could point me to some good books about that topic?

Page 19 of the History Book (published by Penguin Random House) states:

The hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which can reasonably be described as "natural" to human beings, appears to have had much to recommend it. Examination of human remains from early hunter-gatherer societies has suggested that our ancestors usually enjoyed abundant food, obtainable without excessive effort, and suffered very few diseases. If this is true, it is not clear what then motivated so many human beings all over the world to settle in permanent villages and develop agriculture, growing crops and domesticating animals: cultivating fields was grindingly hard work, and it was in farming villages that epidemic diseases first took root.

I understand that the divide was not analogous to modern ideological politics - in the main the distinction was a stylistic one, with populares Senators relying on the plebeians for political supply and optimates preferring to appeal to established interests, but neither signifying any commitment to a broader paradigmatic worldview. Neither were the two factions parties in a modern sense, with men like Pompey floating from one camp to the other over the course of their lives.

Still, the divide was real enough to lie at the heart of Caesar's Civil War. Caesar's victory might be regarded as a victory by the forces of moderate popularism, to the extent that Caesar himself was one.

How long after Octavian ascended to the purple did this distinction remain relevant politically? Was the Empire understood in an 'ideological' sense as some kind of populares political project? Did these pre-Imperial factions continue to exist in the same way?

I am currently watching War and Peace and am constantly noticing everyone being called Prince/Princess. However it is clear that they are arisocrats and not actual Prince and Princess. So my question is, who was actually called Prince/Princess and why?

The 19th century radical left had a fierce undercurrent of anti-clericalism. What changes led the modern radical left to be comparatively positive about Islam?

1. Is the Holocaust well defined? ie. are we sure which camps were death camps and which were not, how many etc.

2. Is the number of Holocaust survivors possible? ie. taking the number of Holocaust survivors alive today, then using actuarial tables, calculating the number alive at the end of the war, would we arrive at a sensible answer?

3. Did the allies, who broke the Enigma code, know about the Holocaust? Were death camp tallies recorded and decoded by the allies?

4. Were photographs ever taken of funeral pyres? If 10,000 bodies were burnt per day in a camp, as per testimony, how large would the smoke plume be and would this be photographed by allied reconnaissance planes?

5. What percentage of Holocaust claims, whether made by survivors or tortured Nazis, are supported by Physical evidence?

6. Compared to the Armenian genocide, does the Holocaust have more or less physical evidence?

Did they return to Morocco? Were they allowed to practice their religion? Did they face any discrimination?

'Literature' in the form of lyrics, themes, narrative, poetic devices etc.

eg. the use of folklore in an opera to convey nationalism.

(Sorry if this doesn't make much sense)

So I'm a big fan of Chomsky for his analysis of us politics and his idea's about pragmatic anarchism but I often hear his critics call him a liar who doesn't know his history. For the most part everything I've checked that he's said has been correct so I was wondering if anyone has checked his sources or general memory of history. I know his views on history can be controversial and don't want to discuss them I'm just wondering if he uses Correct info

Basically I'm curious whether these societies have any oral or written history of how they reacted to the first European settlers and how it may have affected things in their societies such a power structures or religion.

Or would it have just been business as usual in the fields/at the bar?

Please and thank you in advance!

If the enemy wasn't knocked out (or killed) instantly it would be awkward to say the least. Also I'm not sure if impale would be the correct word, but english is not my main language so I just went with the vocabulary I have.

If thousands of American Indians died at the hands of the Europeans and an estimated20-70 MILLION died due to disease, would it still be fair to say that the Europeans are responsible for their genocide?

It is the Europeans who brought over the disease that led to this genocide, yes. But it seems though that even if the Europeans came in peace the diseases that they carried would still have been deadly enough to wipe out the majority of the American Indian population.

So technically speaking, the discovery of The New World by the Europeans would have led to the disease based genocide of the American Indians regardless of whether they came in peace or not... Right? Or maybe not?

If someone could shed some light on this subject it would be greatly appreciated (Also, I apologize if the term "American Indian" is politically incorrect).