Since I've ever studied and glanced over the civil war, a question popped into my head that has never been adequately or been explicitly answered or revolved, that is Why didn't the Union adopt the usage of slavery into manufacturing/heavy industry? We know that heavy industrialization and manufacturing was extremely labor intensive prior to the creation of machines, so why is it that the Union or factory companies have tried adopting slavery into working the factories rather than paying workers to do the labor prior to the civil war? It's true that slavery could have costed employers much in care, but wasn't manufacturing/factory-maintaining more profitable that agriculture with slavery in the deep south?

What social or military innovations allowed the Russians, who were long vassals of the Golden Horde, to eventually free themselves of the "Tartar yoke" or could steppe rule of Russia be characterized as oppressive? At one point did Russia eventually gain the advantage over the Mongols and conquer their successor states? Was this simply a matter of Tartar weakness and disunity or did the Russians possess social or military developments that allowed them to surpass the people of the steppe?

If I understand correctly, Stalin gained power by being appointed in an seemingly innocuous role in government largely like an HR manager, and filling powerful roles with his allies. When Stalin passed, it seemed likely that his successor would be Beria who headed the NKVD. What caused Khrushchev to succeed Stalin instead?

I'm assuming the reason why this "loophole" in the 13th amendment didn't work is due to the massive amount of black people elected into office directly after the civil war.

Basically wondering if it would effect people's lives if they were allergic to the animal everyone worshipped.

The reactions to accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima make sense to me, because while there's debate over the extent of the negative effects, there unambiguously were large negative effects. In both cases, containment was breached and large areas of land (including towns) were radioactively contaminated rendered uninhabitable.

By comparison, Three Mile Island's containment held, and while some short-lived radioactive gases may have exposed nearby citizens to elevated amounts of radiation, most estimates place it below the yearly background dose.

Why then, did Three Mile Island cause a response on roughly the same level as Chernobyl and Fukushima even though the latter accidents were far more impactful?

Hi Historians! Quick thank you in advance. I’m a writer working on an alternate history work ( I know, ugh) and was wondering about how ranking would work if an heir apparent was female. So for example, an English Princess Royal meets the heir apparent of the Russian empire, who in this universe is a “ Tsesarevna” not a Tsaerevitch. Is the Tsesarevna treated like a normal Grand Duchess ( in which case precedence would come down to where they are meeting and would generally be ranked the same) Or does she take precedence over the Princess Royal as an Imperial heir? ( Assuming this meeting takes place in England, circa 1860s)

Thank you!

( Quick note to the mods, I love you guys you do a great job. Please remove this if it’s an inappropriate ask for this subreddit, I wasn’t sure where else to ask.)

I've been discovering that the American History I was taught growing up is not all necessarily accurate. I homeschool my daughter and have been putting off NA History for quite some time as I want to teach her accurately, but am so overwhelmed with information and where to start and I want to be comfortable and confident in what I am teaching her.

Would someone from Greece have been in Egypt around the time of the unification of upper and lower egypt?

The Aubrey-Maturin and Hornblower series feature many mentions of spherical trigonometry, as well as captains' understandings of how to calculate the physical forces at work on their ships.

Was there a standard navigational math/physics curriculum put forth by various countries' navies? Or was it more of a de facto curriculum based on pretty universal needs at sea? Either way, what was the required knowledge?

Thinking back to a visit to Pompeii a couple years ago I learned that the pavements and crossings were raised off the road so pedestrians could walk without having to tread in mud and poo and whatnot, and the “stepping stones” for the crossings were placed to allow for the wheels of carriages to pass through unhindered. My question is; does this mean there would have been a widely accepted and used standard for the making of carriages to pass through the crossings in Roman cities? I can’t imagine it’d be a particularly good way of making crossings if any cart outside of that specific city was built to have a wheel base and wheel size that didn’t comply with the local crossings. If so how would such a standard be managed when the only ways to communicate were by letter or by travelling yourself.

What, if any, are the historiographical ramifications of this process? Eg, if one technology is the more durable?

I've found books about the "Age of Sail" as a historical/cultural/societal phenomenon, or about particular warships, commanders, or battles, or even about sailing in general; but what I'd like to know is stuff like:

• different types of... rigging, do you call it? e.g. square-rigged vs. lateen-rigged vs. whatever else, advantages and disadvantages, etc.

• naval tactics with these sort of ships

• first-rate, second-rate, frigate, what's the difference?!

• Spanish vs. French vs. English vessels, differences and similarities

• and maybe even a few details about how the devil one might sail against the wind in a sailing ship, what all the different sails are called, etc.

• and maybe even, also, details regarding life on board these ships, all the types of officer and crewman one might encounter, victualling and supply, and other slightly-less-technical details

I've been Googling around but can't seem to find quite the right combination of words, and I've also had great luck with the fine people of /r/AskHistorians steering me away from apparently-decent sources that are actually out-of-date or of poor quality... so thank you in advance for any recommendations!

Throughout the 1840’s and 1850’s, many white Americans genuinely believed that slavery would eventually (and inevitably) die. Even Abraham Lincoln, the man who signed the institution’s death warrant, firmly believe throughout his career that slavery would ultimately die if it was just prevented from expanding.

Now, to me, this seems more like a convenient lie repeated rather than an actual truth. Given the abject horror of the institution, I imagine that the belief it would one day go away naturally would be helpful for the “anti-slavery but not abolitionist” type white Americans.

But was there any evidence that it would end? Were there any “signs of slavery dying” that people noticed, such as it becoming less profitable, or more enslaved people were becoming free? Even if such data was false or misleading, was there anything Americans would have used to back up the assertion that “slavery will inevitably die off”?

Like stated above why did Roman dynasties last less than a century while later European dynasties like the Capetians of France or the Habsburgs which have lasted over 1000 years? Were Romans just unfertile or something because Augustus only ever had one kid and other great emperors had the same problem. People say that it's because Rome was originally a republic but why bother to continue larping as a republic when you were already calling the emperor your lord and master?

Beside the egyptian's and the jewish religions what other religions where practice in country that Alexsander the great Conquered?

All of the Americas were colonized by European powers. From what I understand, interracial couples weren't really a thing in the US. Most mixed race people were the product of rape. As we all know, the US had many laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Blacks and whites and indigenous people were heavily segregated.

I notice that this changes as you go fur south. In the Caribbean, many people have mixed race ancestry. Black people from the Caribbean look distinctly different than Africans. The European population in these islands reigned "Supreme", but there were lots of instances of organic interracial relationships. It wasn't as taboo as in the US. Large numbers of Indian, Arabic and East Asian migrants joined the population as well.

In Central and South America the population is heavily mixed in a lot of areas. "mestizos" are people with mixed European and Indigenous ancestry. Many European men freely married into indigenous populations and vice versa. The catholic churches would have no problem marrying mixed race people. This is the case for most of South America. As you go further south, large segments of the population have African ancestry like in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador.

By no means am I saying that society was perfect in these places. However it's interesting how these former European colonies have/had a more lax attitude towards interracial marriage compared to the United States

Also, is it just a weird coincidence that Santa wears the same Red and White as Coca-Cola's branding?

What exactly were the circumstances that made it possible for the imperial family to endure when other cultures in the region like China had the same violent shifts in power and fallen dynasties that we tend to see elsewhere?