I see this term a lot and I haven't been able to find a very good explanation of what it actually means. Was this standard practice for most any band of soldiers or was it associated mostly with only highly organized units such the Romans? When did it fall out of practice?

Was the American populace against it or did it see it as a way to end the war quickly? How about other countries?

So, I recently read Devil in the White City. One of the big points was that the Columbian Exposition in Chicago was a response to a World's Fair in Paris a few years prior. Then on the radio today, I heard a story about the 1964 World's Fair in New York. But it occurred to me that I hadn't even known that one occurred, and that I had no idea when the last World's Fair or great exposition occurred.

So, why did these go away? Were they just not needed as advertising for industry anymore? Is it the change in industry that drove it? Are we just less patriotic/civic-minded?

E.g. "The United States IS a democratic republic" as opposed to "The United States ARE a democratic republic."

Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri remained in the Union, despite being slaveholding states. Growing up in Maryland, we learned about pro-Confederate rioting in Baltimore, and about Lincoln suspending habeus corpus to imprison state legislators so they couldn't vote to secede. How much of a danger of secession was there, not just in Maryland, but in the other three states as well?

Thanks!

It seems like the Greeks knew of Buddha but that there wasn't significant flow of culture westward into Greece/Europe.

I don't know anyone who doesn't enjoy meals like omelettes or waffles for dinner, even if it's not something most people do on a regular basis. I'm sure there are wildly different answers for different cultures, so I'm mainly asking about where this practice comes from for Americans, but I'm also interested in hearing about how this practice has (or hasn't) developed around the world.

What became of them? Were they relegated to certain jobs?

The Cristero War (La Cristiada, 1926–29)

What was the involvement of the Ku Klux Klan & the Knights of Columbus?

Was Calles, the President of Mexico, an adherent to Freemasonry?

Was the history of La Cristiada subverted ?

In movies both sides often seem to look alike. With no military uniforms, was friendly "fire" very common?

Alot of people now a days see the Cuban Missile crisis as one of(or maybe the most) dangerous incident(s) of the Cold War, but to which extent was it viewed that way by politicians involved at both sides at the time of the crisis?

I am fascinated by little details in history. I remember I was reading a book on Byzantine history by Warren Treadgold in University and he mentioned how much water, hay, arrows and bread a 15,000 man army needed and it was daunting I think something like a few ton's a day. And that led on to the more mudane details. I was wondering in European medieval history what sort of shoes/clothes did they wear? I imagine Europe would be too cold for sandals(?) but would the shoes be carved wooden clogs like the dutch used or stitched leather pairs? Would they even have soles? Did they wear trousers at this period?

For clarification purposes the most interesting periods ( I think) would be the time of William the Conqueror, Richard the Lionheart, the period of Joan of Arc and Henry the Fifth. Was there a progression or was it generally the same.

It's impossible that that simply didn't happen, right? Did they use an equivalent to tipp-ex?

Hey,

I am representing Mississippi in a Model United Nations conference at Yale, and I am looking to get further information on the feelings and viewpoints of Mississippi during that time period.

The Topics we are covering are:

Beginning in 1820, the Congress of the United States began to deal with increasingly difficult challenges in balancing both the number and influence of slaveholding and non-slaveholding states. During the period between 1820 and 1860, Congress saw many of its greatest compromisers – including Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun – as it moved to pass compromise after compromise in order to balance the power of the nation, respond to national crises, and eventually attempt to avert the Civil War.

In the Antebellum Congress Committee, delegates will begin in 1819/1820 as Missouri applies for statehood and will continue up to 1860 as they attempt to handle the many challenges facing Congress during this 40-year period.

Topic A: Creating a System for Accepting New States to the Union

These challenges will include (1) Initially establishing a system to equalize the number of slaveholding and non-slaveholding states and, perhaps more importantly, to (2) Allow for the future admittance of states to the Union. These challenges fundamentally influence the way in which the entire controversy is framed and the mindset with which citizens, activists, the Congress, and eventual historians will evaluate the time period. Considering that this issue arose repeatedly during the Antebellum period, delegates should expect to focus a large amount of debate around the acceptance of new States to the nation in varying situations and conditions.

Topic B: Adaptation based on Popular Movements and Other Internal Affairs

Of course, as the Committee moves forward in time, delegates should expect the compromises and resolutions they pass to affect the course of history. At the same time, they should expect to handle many of the well-known issues facing Congress at this time, including the battles over State sovereignty, conflict erupting from inconsistent “property” laws, and Abolitionist and Anti-Abolitionist propaganda and rallying efforts throughout the nation, among many other issues – all while attempting to avoid the dissolution of the Union and the eruption of civil war.

In this Committee, delegates will be dealing with particularly weighty issues relating to freedom and civil rights, States’ rights, and the fate of an entire nation. Above all else, delegates will need to bring a strong sense for compromise and negotiation in order to successfully navigate this particularly divisive chapter of American history.

More specifically, I am looking into these questions:

1 - I would like to find out the Mississippi viewpoints about the system to equalize the number of slaveholding and non-slaveholding states.

2- Why was the Mississippi viewpoint so pro-slavery?

Any help and resources would be so greatly appreciated,

Regards,

I found some articles on this topic, but nothing specific about the economic reconstruction of the south.

Did the end of the slavery realy hit the south hard? What happend to the economy in the south? What did the government about the economic reconstruction?