The eponymous girl is described as "the sweetest rose of color", and the speaker refers to himself as a darkie. Did Confederate leaders see this song as problematic?

I've done a bit of research on the subject (just a bit), but am at a loss as to what happened to Arianism and Arian followers after the Vandals were taken over by the Byzantines.

Here are some things I know/were led to believe:

-Many Germanic Kingdoms following the Roman Empire were Arian.

-Most Arian Kings had converted to something else by 700 AD

-The Vandals were rather Zealous, actively trying to spread Arianism in their own kingdom and abroad, and remained Arian (with some exceptions) pretty much up until 534

Thinking about it, I'm not certain what Christian beliefs were common in North Africa between 534 and, say, 734. The area went from Arian Vandal control, to Orthodox Byzantine (though I know the schism hadn't officially happened yet), and then to Sunni Caliphate. In my research, it seems that after the Muslim Conquest the majority of Christians in North Africa answered to The Pope. But even so, I haven't found much information about what happened, demographically, in those 200 years.

So, in short, how long did it take for Arianism in North Africa to truly die out, and where in that area were the final vestiges of the faith?

So as I'm sure everyone is aware there's a perpetual debate about the nature of ww2 allied war crimes and the big one that's usually brought up is strategic bombing of urban centers. A key question in the debate is just how effective the strategic bombing was. i.e. perhaps it significantly accelerated allied victory and therefore can be argued to be a necessary evil or on the other hand perhaps it made no significant contribution to victory and therefore hundreds of thousands of people were incinerated and ripped apart for no real reason.

I understand there is likely no consensus on this but what's the state of current research? What other targeting strategies might have the allies tried that was more effective but less lethal? What kind of information did they have at the time that might have led to a different, possibly better, course of action? What do we know about all the various dimensions of this question?

I know hemp was cultivated by the Phoenicians, and I've heard references to ancient peoples using marijuana. Is that true? If so, how was it ingested? The reaction of European explorers to tobacco smoking makes me think that if marijuana was ever smoked the method died out before Columbus. Any information would be great, sources for further reading would be even better!

Was there going to be any plans for annexation or invasion for these countries? What about Turkey and the middle east once Russia had submitted.

EDIT: I don't mean mythological figures like Loki. I mean actual people.

And did it have anything to do with (marijuana) smoking culture of the time? I'm not sure if I've seen this asked before so I apologize if it is a repeat question.

How much would a normal laborer earn in a year? How much would a wealthy senator?

I think that Hannibal's crossing of the Alps is one of the greatest military master-strokes in history, yet all we have is written sources. I know it is unlikely, but has there ever been the slightest shred of physical evidence for the crossing? I'm not expecting an ancient elephant skeleton, but a brooch pin or a punic sword or something!

because I didnt get an answer when I posted this yesterday and according to the rules I can try again in a day:

I'm reading selections from the stoics (e.g. cicero, on the gods book II) and there's the talk of the omnipotent god which is Nature. Were the Romans then monotheists or henotheists? Statements among the stoics seem to indicate that the Romans weren't exactly as polytheistic as commonly depicted (or at least among the educated?)

Everything I know pretty much comes from the Cartoon History of the Universe.

I was searching online for more information about the decline of The British Empire. The huge amount of men from Britain who died in the first world war surely had an impact as well as the amount of money needed to run the war. However after the Second World war most of Britain's colonies soon gained autonomy afterwards. My question is this, which war really set forth the motion of The British Empire beginning to decline? And if neither war happened could it possibly still exist? Thanks.

Its always seemed to me that the US had an overwhelming advantage over the Japanese throughout most of the war. I know that they took the islands in question in order to gain bases from which to bomb Japan, but I wonder why, especially considering the enormous casualties the US suffered in battles like Guadalcanal and Peleliu, they didn't just attempt to defeat the Japanese fleet in one blow and attack the home islands.

When I saw the movie 'Conquest of Paradise', which depicts Columbus arriving in America in 1492, I saw there were soldiers using hallberds and arquebuses and matchlock muskets. Some historians argue that this period can still be called the (late) middle ages, so I asked myself, how integrated were black powder based weapons by then? Had they already become standard or did many European armies still use bows and crossbows?

This is a topic that has interested me for a while: it seems to be taken as granted that a listener knows what is meant by a "strong" and a "weak" ruler, and while I understand the idea in generalities I'd be really interested in specifics (especially if there are any books that contrast the politics of the realm between strong and weak rulers).

The rule of King Matthias of Hungary especially interests me, because he is regarded as a very strong ruler but everything rapidly fell apart after he died.