While I believe the secession justifications of southern and border states are morally reprehensible, I do not understand what made the act itself necessarily illegal, or why unionists feared disunion so much. Why did Lincoln chose war over simply letting the states go, or even only embargoing their commerce and trade?

I hope this doesn't violate the rules, but I'm not sure who to ask about this. It is a question directed at historians.

I'm planning to close a web forum I made ten years ago. Am I supposed to preserve it somehow as part of internet history? I'm not saying I consider it super important to historians, but I wanted to check before deleting 300k posts about an obscure hobby.

The Soviet Navy has been focused more on submarine warfare to counter US aircraft carriers. What will there strategy be when a conventional, no nuke war occured? Will the Soviets use the subs purely defensively, drstroying any vessel that comes close their coasts and naval bases? Or, will they break out and hunt the CSGs in the Atlantic and Pacific, if so how will this strategy play out?

The main reason everyone gives for Hitler going through Russia is for oil fields for the war. But obviously that resulted in his loss of the war with the extreme death toll and use of resources lost against the Russians. Why didn’t Hitler go through the Middle East for oil and other natural resources. He wouldn’t have faced the cost of war with Russia and the two fronts. Even if it was slower or longer distance he losses against the Russians in terms of men and supplies were far greater than any potential cost of an attack through the Middle East.He already had troops in Northern Africa with Rommel. It was before the Americans came into the war and their first focus was on northern Africa io to Italy and D day from France . There was tons of resentment from the native people due to the Sykes Picot agreement so inciting revolt wouldn’t be as difficult. And any defense of the region would’ve required British resources moved from elsewhere And it would cut off Britain from India as well as provide a possible route to India the crown jewel of the British Empire. The Quit India movement in 1942 showed Indian leadership who was against the war and Britain’s imprisoning of 60,000 Indian National Congress leaders could’ve been used to incite revolt on top of the massive bengal famine that the British created in 1940. Without Russia in the east when the U.S.A joined they would’ve had to put more troops in Europe as the focus was Germany and Japan would’ve been more free for a potential two front attack in India if needed. The troops on the eastern front could be used elsewhere.

I was reading the biographies of several of the revolutionary - era Bolsheviks and was surprised by how many came from families that would be classified as "bourgeois" by the Bolsheviks themselves: business - owning families, landowning families, families of educated professionals, etc. I have no idea if this was an actual pattern or just biased by the sample that I chose. If it was a pattern, I'd like to know why so many people from this background were attracted to Marxism - Leninism, which is by definition opposed to their own class.

The Russian Tsar empire was nearing the end of its eastern expansion (would end in 1867 after the final expansion into what is now Alaska) when Napoleon invaded Russia. Either way Russia was massive at the time.

Was napoleons goal to just take Moscow and end there, or eventually push forward? If it was the latter was he aware of how much of a tremendous leap to take all that land would be.

During World War I, Imperial Japan more or less adhered to the same standards regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners as the other nations involved. They were, if not exactly nice to them, at least humane, and in the end allowed them to live.

Come World War II, however, all of those standards were flushed down the proverbial toilet. Being in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp during World War II was, to put it bluntly, a death sentence. So my question is, what happened? What caused Japan to pivot so dramatically on its treatment of enemy prisoners over the space of 20 years?

If so, why would she take such a dangerous and obvious risk? Did she simply think she'd never be caught? Or that her title would protect her?

I play a lot of roleplaying games, and the shared iconic creatures in them usually have pretty well-understood origins, but I've never understood where the slimes (a.k.a. 'blobs', 'jellies', or 'oozes') come from. They seem ubiquitous, from the cute, smiley JRPG blobs to the featureless and terrifying carnivorous cubes of DND. I'm not sure if this is the correct subreddit to ask this question (please redirect me if not) but I'd love some informed opinions or educated guesses as to where this fantasy archetype originates.

Obviously the extent of damage will be a big factor in the length of time to repair a ship but after a battle using cannons (providing the ships not been sunk) but let's say it was a typical battle. The ships been left with a reasonable amount of damage and has a few holes from the cannon fire.

A few related questions:

Following a naval battle would all the ships that were damaged go into dry dock for repair straight away?

Were crews trained/able to make on the move repairs?

Would they often be required to continue onto the other tasks while still damaged?

Is there a similiar concept to Jihad in history of chrisitanity?

It seems when talking about the first world war I usually hear huge numbers such hundreds of thousands or even millions thrown around on multiple fronts with nations gather huge sums of population of soldiers to fight the war. There is books talking about how marching column of German soldiers took almost days to walk through one village with logistical carriages going for miles upon miles as well right behind the army. Why was this war able to support such large numbers and huge scale fronts compared to the era of Napoleon barley 100 years prior? He seemed to have just as much territory and population size for recruitment not to mention the coalitions but neither not able to achieve anywhere close to the army sizes of WW1.

They tend to be very chopped up, sometimes just putting a letter instead of a name, etc. So, is there a "formula" for this chopping up of the text that can allow one to read inscriptions at first sight?

Religions such as Christianity claim that homosexuality is a sin, why was that written into the Bible? Certain things in the Bible that Western Culture generally doesn’t accept anymore can be put into historical context, such as the oppression of women and the patriarchy. What is the history of the rejection of same sex relationships?

I'm working on a project for my art major about comparing Greek, Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology to Haitian mythology in terms of cosmogony and theogony. I only need to compare one of these mythologies to Haitian mythology, and I'm struggling to find comparisons in those areas. I already know most about the history and arts, I need help in finding comparisons in Cosmogony and Theogony. If anyone could help me point out a few factors or have any suggestions I would be so grateful!

Recently finished Ravenna: Capital of Empire, Crucible of Europe and don't quite undestand the arguments they were having in late antiquity on the subject.

In the US: New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers, New England Patriots

In Europe: Manchester City, Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund

What is the origin of this difference?