I'm helping a friend who is in highschool with an assignment and I'm trying to find good sources for his topic question. We're not from the US so I don't know any good or reputable sources to show to him.

The question is "Address the following hypothesis: That slavery was a well organised and highly legislated feature of the southern way of life prior to the civil war."

The few sources on American history I have personally read don't directly address the question. So if you could link me some relevant material that I could show to him that would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not trying to ask for direct help in him answering his question just some good sources that he can use.

I was wondering because it doesn't seem to be the right tool for the job.

And if he did mention it where did he?

I am asking as the conventional idea is that he didn't and I just wanted to know if it was true

During a distillery tour in Pittsburgh, a tour guide mentioned that President Washington dispatched 13-14K troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion at a time when the area only held maybe 400 or so families. Are those numbers correct? If so, was there a larger message being sent by the sheer crush of troops?

I've just starting reading 'A Brief History of The Wars of the Roses' by Desmond Seward, so I only have a brief outline of what happened in the Wars, but Richard III has been in the news lately and everyone seems to be praising him, and some people talk about the injustices he faced.

Since I'm not that educated on the matter, the most I know is that after his brother died, he took the crown, and claimed that his brother's marriage was illegitimate, so that Edward IV's sons couldn't claim the crown. He has also been accused of killing the princes in the Tower of London.

From that, it seems as though he wasn't really a fair king, even for those times, but again, since I barely know anything about him apart from the bad things that he did, what did he do that makes people love him and praise him so much now?

My question is pretty simple. What exactly happened to the Aryan civilization in India? I haven't read anything to suggest they were wiped out by another civilization or natural causes, so are they the same ethnic group as modern-day Indians?

At what time of day did he sleep, how long for and did he nap?

A kid in my class claimed that it is 'well established' that the UK lost money in India, and the whole thing was just a prestige project. The prof did not contradict him. Is that at all accurate?

As the question above states, I realize that there are diplomatic reasons behind why the USA would have chosen not to apply this doctrine with regards to intervention within South America, but did the USA have a justifiable reason to ignore the conflict over the Falkland Islands or was it more conveniently ignoring the Monroe Doctrine?

I know its a trope to suggest that Vietnam was a counter-insurgency; it clearly was not, the NVA was a motivated, conventional force.

However, that being said, the Vietnam War as waged by the USA did have elements of counter insurgency operations, and I've often heard its lack of success contrasted with the Malayan Emergency's results as waged by the Commonwealth and Thailand.

Some points made and questions:

• Obviously the scale of the conflicts were vastly different
• Britain never approached the Malayan emergency as a conventional conflict (is this true? If so, why?)
• Key-in to point two, Britain successfully waged a PR campaign; key to COIN. Is this true? Given the small-scale of the Malayan insurgency, was hearts and minds necessary? Was the Malayan insurgency ever at serious risk of expansion?

Finally, is it even proper to compare these two conflicts? I'm leaning towards a no, but I'd like some more informed input. Are there any lessons for how to successfully wage a COIN to be drawn from the Malayan Emergency?