Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

Caveat: I'm not a trained Historian, just someone who's read a lot of history books over the years, and has learned this the hard way. First off, every writer has bias. Know that going in. So if you want to find your writer's bias, you have to learn a bit about them. Where did they grow up and go to school? Are they from an ethnic minority in their ...


4

There were electoral and administrative reasons for Lincoln to balance the ticket with a Democrat. He did legitimately fear that he might lose the election to McClellan, and Lincoln would do what it took to win. Lincoln did not much respect McClellan at this point. Furthermore, the Democrats had endorsed a peace plank at their convention. Thus Lincoln was ...


6

This is still a mystery. It was probably a combination of several factors, though. The government's focus shifted. Coincidentally or not, after 1433 the Oirat Mongols emerged as a serious threat. Their chieftain, To╬│an, united Mongolia under the figurehead Taisun Khan in 1434. Oirat power grew further under his son, Esen. He incorporated neighbouring ...


30

The Chinese situation was fundamentally different from the Western European colonial empires. In fact it's rather more like Russia, who also managed to keep her Eurasian empire, or the United States, who acquire vast territories West of the Mississippi. In the case of China, those lands you refer to are mostly Sinkiang and Tibet. Most notably there is the ...


0

@Tyler Durden is substantially correct i.e. the Wermier President (then the Great WW1 General Hindenburg) did have the constitutional authority to dismiss Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, at anytime of his choosing. What is missing from Druden's answer and all the other's to date is the acknowledgement that German democracy was doomed, one way or the ...


5

The election of March 5th 1933 was not a free and fair election anymore, unlike todays elections in the US and Europe. Opposition party members had gotten arrested and people intimidated, so the Reichstag opposition members, not all were present, were under intense pressure to do nothing about it.


2

The Jahangiris (1190-1520), a Tajik dynasty, were the original Sultans of Swat.* They ruled in parts of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan. From The Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab: A dynasty of Sultans who, according to Raverty, once ruled from Nangrahar to the Jhelum but, by the time the Kheshi Pathans overran Swat, their sway did ...


29

There was a mechanism called voting against Hitler. Unfortunately, Hitler's opponents failed to set aside their differences and unite against him. It is important to realise that Hitler did not gain dictatorial powers solely by virtue of winning a democratic election (though the Nazi electoral performance helped immensely). In fact, in the last generally ...


0

To answer your question: of course there were "legal" mechanisms to do anything. The President could have dismissed Hitler at any time. The Reichstag could have passed laws to do anything they wanted, including having BOTH Hindenberg and Hitler removed. The "legal" means are always there. The important thing however is the will of the people. To answer your ...


4

Yes. Under the Yuan Empire, Hainan Island was administered as part of the Huguang Province. The Mongolians took the island when they conquered the Song Dynasty. Partial Chinese rule stretches back to the Han Dynasty, though native revolts forced the imperial administration off the island. More permanent control was established during the Southern and ...


3

They way that was phrased should be ringing bells right off the bat. The USA has a long and proud history of having tall tales (iow: outrageous lies) made up about opposing politicians. As a man who split and refounded the Democratic Party, and the first President from a "western" state, Andrew Jackson had more than the typical share of political opponents. ...


3

I doubt native faiths were discussed much. The Founding Fathers would have considered American Indian's First Amendment rights to be a non-issue because Indians were not recognized as citizens unless they were of at least half European ancestry. In fact, judges could cite native religion as the reason why Indians were denied the rights and protections of ...


7

It seems to me that the Democratic Party was not named per se. Instead, it gradually settled upon its present name more or less between 1824 and 1844. As is well known, the original Republican Party largely collapsed into personality-centric factions after 1824. The resulting fledgling parties, however, continued to profess membership in the old Republican ...


6

Definitely by 1844, since their platform for that year speaks of "the Democratic party of this Union." (By comparison, the platform for 1840 makes no such reference, which may imply that in that year it wasn't yet the official name.) Actually, looking further, here are the proceedings from their national convention of 1840, labeled the "National Democratic ...



Top 50 recent answers are included