How did Lincoln’s views on slavery change? Did political and social forces push him towards emancipation? Did ethical and moral concerns influence Lincoln, or did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation only out of wartime expediency? Should the reasons motivating emancipation matter to how we evaluate Lincoln as a leader?

I read the 1st and 2nd inaugural and the proclamation, to me Lincoln personally favors abolition, but he freed the slaves as a military tactic so that slaves can fight for the Union army.

First of all, I know 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries are outdated terms, but it's the best way I could convey what I was trying to ask.

Ireland's rise to economic success (we'll just ignore the recent recession for now) just seems out of line with that of a former British colony. Especially given that it was a small island with few natural resources to speak of, a long history of oppression by the British, and even after independence, Britain was Ireland's main trading partner.

And when you factor in a population cut in half by the Great Famine and a long tradition of emigration even after independence, it just doesn't make sense - even though I've studied the history books on this topic.

Now, I'm well aware that Ireland didn't become truly prosperous until the 1990's, but the rate at which it climbed to the top tiers of GDP and economic success is still rather startling for a nation not even 100 years old.

Since Mandela died I've been occasionally looking up South African stuff from the 90's. I was born in 1992 so I don't have any memory of what was going on, but the videos are very confusing. The Kill The Boer song I know springs from colonialism, but its current use seems so contradictory. I see South African Flags, Communist Flags, people calling for white genocide wearing Mandela's face on a shirt, White people marching with black people while they all sing the song, people with large amounts of guns, and from the documentary I watched on PBS Mandela was arming people from the beginning for a violent revolution. Yet... the world heralds him as a man of peace and equality? I'm really very confused. Can someone explain the whole picture to me? I'm sure there is something getting lost between cultures, but I'm not sure what.

Does anyone know the names of the members of the house of reps who voted against US entry into World war one? If so, please list their names. Thanks :)

EDIT: Wow! This has exploded! Thanks for all the brilliant answers.

When did the use of paratroopers become common place? Are there any notable paratrooper battles or attacks? Please include countries besides the United States like France, Russia, Israel, Korea, or China. The reason I ask is I read briefly about of the Nazi paratrooper attack at Fort Eben-Emael[1] in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

Specifically around the time of the Punic Wars if possible.

or was it because of personality issues between Kruschev and JFK?

Basically I'm doing a presentation on this topic where I have to argue against this statement, any help or information would be much appreciated! Edit: Sorry I didn't elaborate further, basically I need someone to point me in some better directions, I need to argue against the statement but pretty much everything I have found so far seems to blame the US. I was not asking for people to do my homework for me, something that isn't possible as this work must be referenced and checked through a plagiarism filter. So once again, thank you very much if you can help in any small way!

The reason I ask this is because of some viewpoints of people looking at the ukraine violence see the nation potentially splitting to 'pro Russian / pro EU' nations.

Meanwhile looking back on Sudan which was a fairly peaceful split and Yugoslavia as a fairly violent split, has me wondering how 'successful' has the process of nations splitting been in the past?

Are there any big examples of large nations in the past (pre 1900's) splitting relatively peacefully or is it always achieved through bloodshed?

I seem to remember, in the aftermath of the Soviets invading Afghanistan, there was a lot of speculation by the talking-heads as to why? And the story that stuck in my mind was that the Soviets were trying to annex a corridor to the Indian Ocean because it was too easy to bottle up their fleet otherwise. I heard that theory again when the US aiding Pakistan was being discussed.

Was there ever really a serious plan by the USSR to invade all the way through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean? Or was that story just a plausible enough sounding talking point to rationalize US involvement? Or was it Soviet propaganda to rationalize their invasion really carried out for other purposes? Or was it just complete BS dreamed up by talking-heads?

What could they have done differently so the eastern front was successful?

To me it seems that chopsticks are much easier to make compared to a fork/spoon that needs to be carved out slowly (assuming wooden implements). So why did the Fork/Spoon become so prevalent while other methods didnt?