It is a weird/bad question. Background: Since Elementary (I'm 29 now) I have been told by a close relative that before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Jefferson Davis freed all the slaves in the south. As to why it's not in history books it's explained to me that "winners are the writers of history" and that detail would be omitted because the North won the Civil War. It's come up every time I had a lesson in The Civil War. I have never come across this throughout my education and never really asked because it felt inaccurate (still does, over the years I've just kind of nodded and went along with the explanation). Over the summer it came up again and when I asked how they knew, they said they learned it when they were younger and couldn't remember. In my own research I've found nothing to support this, and even when I say that they're adamant that this is true. I've never believed it but it's always been in the back of my mind.

Is there anything that would support this claim? If not, what would lead someone to believe this as fact?

was there a time where he explicitly said that he had written it? i cannot find any information on this!

What was the process for becoming involved in the communist party? Could I go from working in a factory or shop to become an influential party member, or would I have to attend university and study politics?

I have read that horses were native to North America but went extinct over 10,000 years ago. The horse was reintroduced to North America, from what I can find, by the Spaniards. Were the Native Americans portrayed in the movie using horses that were reintroduced to North America by the Spaniards? Did the Natives think they were wild horses or did they benefit from something the white man brought and they didn't even know it? Horses are used quite a bit in the movie Dances with Wolves, and they look like they were a part of their lives for quite some time since they maintained a heard of them, used them to hunt and for transportation. Are the horses portrayed in the movie Dances with Wolves indigenous horses or are they horses that had made their way across the land unbeknownst to the Native Americans?

From my cursory knowledge of Spanish history I know it was only 500 years ago that the south of Spain was a different culture, religion, language and everything. So why is it not more autonomous/ why is there not more of a unique national identity like there is in, say, Catalonia or even Galicia?

EDIT: Bonus dadjoke - why do English tourists keep on going back to the south of Spain?

It's very Moorish.

For the longest time there were only the Frankish and later Holy Roman Emperors (excluding Roman Emperors in Constantinople, Trebizond, etc.).

Only starting in the 18th century, there were the Russian Tsars, and later along with Napoleon, the Austrian and German Empires. Why did no earlier Kings (like for example the French or English, especially in the wake of colonialism) for example declare themselves Emperor?

As the title says, say you wanted to go to a public library and read a copy of Das Capital or the Communist Manifesto, how hard/easy would it be to do so during the second Red Scare, or the Cold War as a whole?

I don't imagine it would be easy for the government to out and out ban an author's works when it played such a large role in history, but were there any extra requirements when reading Marx's works? Did you have to, say, explain your reasoning for reading them? Would you be put on any watch lists?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

My mother-in-law has a distant relative who was a sea captain, plying the sugar trade between Britain and the Caribbean. That made me wonder: What would these ships typically take back with them on the return journey? Manufactured goods? People?

I see this fact bandied about the internet occasionally, and it seems odd. For a country with such limited manufacturing capabilities, it seems a waste to give each soldier an espresso machine. If espresso was that popular, why were machines not shared? Or did soldiers buy/make their own?

I's say the bourgeoisie. What do you think?

They had a superb reputation, not just during WWI, but also at Tripoli. They were formed in 1798 yet it took over 140 years for them to reach their place as a well known fighting unit.

I am looking for a magnificent history questions about the First World War. The question will be the topic of an essay (estimated to be around 3000 words). Sadly, I have never had any interest in the First World War, thus, I am unable to come up with an interesting question which I can write a great deal about.

On the other hand, I have studied the Second World War, and the battle of Stalingrad in particular, interest me greatly. The reasons for it, is that it was a very bloody battle, the turning point of the war, and that the battle ranged from airstrikes to door-door fighting. Is there anything from the First World War, which is similar to Stalingrad? And what can the question be?

Forgive me if this seems too vague, but I'm looking for information on a specific presidential candidate from an American election. This current election reminded me of a presidential candidate I learned about in history class back in high school and despite my best efforts to find him on my own, I haven't found anything.

We were watching a documentary in class that documented the rise of an extremely charismatic candidate who, in the eyes of the historians featured in the video, had the potential to be a dictator. I would assume it was from the 30's or 40's, and there were a number of videos from this candidate's campaign rallies featured in the documentary so it was during a time where video technology was becoming prominent. I remember the candidate wearing a top hat and was fairly fat.

This candidate only comes to mind thanks to Donald Trump's campaign, and I was eager to learn more about this "would-be dictator." Again, I know it's a long shot but if anyone knows the name or era of this guy I would be very grateful. This has been driving me crazy so I hope someone out there knows what I'm talking about.

[deleted]

Would the average officer have a horse? A sword? A pistol? A musket? Did they suffer from a lack of shoes or coats like the rest of the army?