Was the slave free at that point since the state didn't recognize slavery? I know Dred Scott ruled that slaves in free territories were still considered slaves. Also the fugitive slave act seems to imply that slaves were not freed by being in a free state.

Edit: the heart of my question is what prevented a white slave holder from moving to a free state with his slaves?

As popularized by modern media (ex: AC4, Pirates of the Caribbean), pirates, especially during the golden age of piracy (1650-1730), were adorned with tattoos. How accurate (if accurate, how common) is this?

Perhaps not the best place to ask this question, but I couldn't think of any other place to ask and my normal resources on peerage address have failed me.

How did ranks/titles given by military service interact with peerage titles, specifically in Great Britain? The person I have primarily used to try and help myself figure this out is Horatio Nelson, but I cannot determine whether addressing him as "Admiral Lord Nelson" is a standard form of address or simply a loose, common way of referring to him and his accomplishments and something that would make the peers cringe. I also am aware that Nelson was given his peerage because of his Naval successes - would there be a difference for someone who had titles not through military accomplishments? Or would there be a difference dependent on branch of service- Navy versus Army? Or did it all come down to what their peer title was - a baron versus a viscount, for example?

Also, looking beyond just Great Britain, did it vary in different countries. or over time, for example during wartime or not? That might be making it too broad, but I've been struggling with this question for a while. Thank you in advance.

I was reading a history of MI6 that I got from the library a few weeks ago and it was mentioned throughout the opening chapters that took place in the aftermath of WWII about British plans to ally themselves with the Germans to fight the Soviet Union.

I've also read various snippets over the years from US sources about how they wished they could have fought the Soviet Union after WWII. My question is was this a prevailing thought among western leaders (Namely FDR and Churchill)? Was it realistic from a practical standpoint (damage done to German military, infrastructure, and morale plus the extensive progress the Soviet Union had already made into Germany)? How close did this get to actually happening?

All else equal, was there a discernible difference in survival rates?

I'm wondering if the Roman Senate did anything during after the fall of the Republic. It seems that just sat there pretending to be important. Did anyone ever try to bring back the Republic?

Where did they come from? What are similar cultures?

I know that Massachusetts was home to socially progressive movements (abolitionism, women's rights, prohibition) in the 1800s. What changed between the Puritanical attitude of social conservatism of the 1600s and the liberalism of the 1800s?

What is the name like "poles of ....." invented from a german military to keep away enemy planes from airstrips?

Excuse the probably bad english

I normally picture revolutionary governments changing the national flag after victory but Castro kept Cuba's flag the same. Is there any reason he didn't create a new flag for a Communist Cuba?

Can anybody here offer suggestions on comprehensive works concerning the history of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which could give me an initial overview and get me started on the subject?

It would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Also, someone told me that America's involvement in the Boshin War solidified their presence in Japan? Is this true?

I'm pretty sure that he killed up to 20,000,000 through purges, failed agricultural experiments, etc. But I've never had sources to back that up.

Can someone explain this to me one way or the other and give me sources?