I feel like there are some misconceptions about the Federalist period in present-day political and popular culture, so this question is a little biased in that way, but my impression (admittedly from one higher-level college history course) was that democracy, as we think of it now, didn't have a foothold in America until Jackson took office with the landed gentry having full political control prior the Jacksonian Democrats taking office. My interpretation is that Washington et al sought to ensure that a strong national government was in place more so than to ensure that individual Americans had the right to do as they pleased. I always cite Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion as evidence to support my interpretation (i.e. Washington was as much about quashing rebellions led by the people as George III was), but my knowledge of the period is admittedly slim.

So, what was the historical reality? How much importance was placed on the individual vs. the state in this period by those in charge? Admittedly this is a bit of a loaded question, but I'm genuinely curious as to what the historical reality was and will gladly accept that my interpretation is inaccurate, if that is the case. Also, are there any good general histories of the period that can help me build my knowledge base?

My official ABA-certified Constitutional Law textbook contains a short quote in its discussion of Constitutional rights under Due Process that states: "During the early Middle Ages, both church and state openly tolerated same-sex practices between men." and cites "John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality"

Is this accurate? I can't find much with a cursory google search and I had never heard about this, if it is true. I was under the assumption - as I assume most of my peers are as well - that homosexuality was shunned (in Europe) basically from Constantine's conversion onwards, as soon as Christianity became the dominant religion.

If it is accurate - what changed? Why the shift from tolerance to intolerance and eventually to "homophobia?"

The Battle of Tsushima was a huge Japanese victory over one of the Great Powers of Europe and essentially destroyed the Russian Navy. The victory was instrumental in forcing Russia to negotiate peace with Japan. Did the legacy of this huge victory influence the Japanese to attempt a second victory of this kind over America, feeling that it would have a similar effect? Did they expect a similar response from America as Russia gave? Did they equate the depression in the United States as a similarly weak internal position faced by Russia in 1904 which could be taken advantage of? Is there any connection at all?

I've been searching throughout the internet for a while now but I haven't gotten the answer .So here goes.Can anyone tell me the names of the seven Maskims of Mesopotamia?

The red dragon of Wales is relatively well-known, but what about the other dragon banners in Britain? According to Wikipedia (sorry!), the Anglo-Saxons were represented by a white dragon in Welsh mythology. Things are further complicated by talk of a golden dragon-banner dragon having been used by the Kingdom of Wessex at the battle of Burford in AD 752 and again seen in the Bayeux Tapestry.

Could anyone please shed some light on the matter and, if possible, direct me to sources where I can read more about it? Books are very welcome.

Just curious as to what the teen culture was. Like, what would they listen to? What would they wear? What was their opinion on WWII?

Edit: In America, sorry that I didn't clarify this

I've put peaceful in apostrophes because I'm not sure it's the right word. But basically, in recent years most middle eastern countries have been on travel advisories, and you hear about car bombings, kidnappings and all that on the news. While I'm not going to generalise and say that that sort of thing is run-of-the-mill in the Middle East, I'm wondering if it was always dangerous, or if that's come about more recently with the rise of Islamist extremism after the end of the Cold War?

What were the factors that led to the feudal system in Europe? It seems like a very unnatural system to come about without being forced (although i could be wrong, of course) So was it Religion? Did the powerfull land owners just put it in place? necessity? Economic Factors?

What are the earliest examples of the Fuedel system we know of?

What led to the eventual collapse of this system?

I have heard many folks say that a contemporary Latin speaker would have little trouble understanding Classical Latin, and was wondering if it was the same for Greek. Also, how about a contemporary Greek reading Classical Greek?

I've just finished Maus (again) and in the part where Vladek Spiegelman is in Auschwitz, he tells he was able to communicate with his wife via a female prisoner who had privileges because she was the lover of an SS guard. The woman in fact was an Hungarian Jew.

This seems very odd to me. If you wanted to be a guard in a concentration camp, I would assume you have to be very or extreme antisemetic, and be able to kill or torture without any hesitation. Because if not, honestly what use do you have as a guard in an extermination camp? You are a part of the Aryan master race. For years you have learned to view the Jews as Untermenschen. Even less than humans. Less than animals.

I want to point out that I'm not antisemetic but I'm trying to get into the mind and thoughts of an SS guard at that place, at that time, but why in heaven's name would I, a proud Arian be willing to have sex with an Untermensch? Why would I degrade myself by having repeatedly having sex with somebody whose race is million times more inferior than mine? I would understand it if guards would put up with non-Jewish female prisoners, like political prisoners. I would "understand" it - but certainly not approve it, again just trying to get into their mind - if guards would rape and afterwards kill Jewish woman. But regular sexual contact with Jewish woman? It seems very strange to me? Besides that, what would the other guards think? And their officers?

How often did such relations occur between guards and Jewish woman? How were these guards viewed by their fellow guards? Were they branded as a race-traitor or wasn't it a big deal? How were these woman viewed by their inmates? And when the camps were liberated did these woman suffer retaliation? How did they deal with it after the war?

Researching info on my Gramps.

How did a nation deal with it's dead when they were fighting in another country. My aim is to know what happens to a dead U.S. soldier's body if he were to die on a Japanese island during World War II.

I am wanting to write a alternative history based around a Roman Empire that stopped expanding, and withdrew to a smaller land after the loss at Teutoburg and was wondering what land they controled in 9AD. And yes i do know about r/historicalwhatif, i just want to know what they controlled at that time so i can explore myself what would happen to those places if Rome up and left.

Like, you can find tons of examples online of Islamic or Christian websites that cobble together evidence that they purport proves the existence of God/their religion, and websites that attack the validity of other religions by dissecting or mocking their beliefs.

Was there anything ever comparable written by the Romans or Greeks?

Specifically, I was wondering about that since traditionally Crimea had been the zone of Greek and Byzantine economic interests and even control, and the Genoese were obviously their big competitors; however, for the Italians to get there, they must have passed the Bosporus, and not just once: with all the trade volume between the two province of the Genoese Republic, there must have been Italian ships passing Constantinople back and forth all the time...why did the Greeks allow that?

Also, just how firm with their grip of the peninsula (as in a simple trading outpost, or more of a colony)? What kind of challenges did they face and how beneficial was the whole affair for them?

During the 1905 revolution in Russia there was a diverse group of active forces within the country that wanted to see his rule end. Despite the massive unrest he remained monarch of the country and continued to hold on to most of his power, why was the revolt unsuccessfull in deposing of him? and what were some deliberate actions taken by the tsar to ensure he remained in power?

I'm reading Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky right now. And, while I am fascinated by how significant salt is in our history, I sometimes question how significant it was vs other factors. For instance, on the Whisky Rebellion he states:

"THE AMERICANS DID not forget the salt shortages of the Revolution. Several states, including Massachusetts, still paid bounties to salt producers. The new nation remained, in principle, determined to encourage salt production. In practice, this was not always the case. When the new government realized that there was an unregulated commerce in whiskey in western Pennsylvania, traded across the Allegheny for salt, it responded by taxing the whiskey in order to stop the trade. In 1791, the whiskey-producing farmers rebelled, and beloved President Washington shocked the public by calling out a militia to put down what has become known as the Whiskey Rebellion."

To my understanding, the Whisky Rebellion was far more about unregulated trade undermining the laws (and coffers) of federal commerce. Specifically, after Hamilton's assumption of state debt for the revolutionary war. Was it unregulated whisky/salt trade, or is the author salting his book with events of historical import?