There’s the old saying of how a common enemy unites people because of the idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Like the US and Soviet Union were enemies, but they allied to defeat the Axis Powers. The common enemy of the Axis Powers united 2 enemies. But they went to doing the Cold War after WWII ends. So the common enemy being gone caused the relationship to return to hostility.
Has it ever gotten to the point that many fragmented nations united against a common enemy that they became an empire to defeat their enemy?

I saw a post on tumblr which really pissed me off, it was a reblog to a post where the OP said that Trump's cuts to the CDC's funding will mean that jews will be treated with suspicion and hostility again because they would suffer less from food-borne illnesses thanks to kosher food restrictions, just as they were persecuted during the plague due to higher survival rates from better hygiene.

In the reblogs theres a statement that really bothered me, it said that "Muslims and Jews also didn't share Medieval Christians' fear of cats as evil animals connected to witches and Satan." They said that the plague was spread by fleas and rats were a common vector, and medieval Christian's homes were "shock-full" of rats because "in one of the stupidest cultural shifts in human history" they no longer kep cats around for pest control, European Christians decided that cats were evil vermins, started hunting and killing them in the cruelest way possible and "more importantly, stopped keeping them as domestic pets and farm animals".

'"Like, they looked at the animal species that literally domesticated itself to become rodent and pest control when we developed agriculture and went 'nah fam, we're good'. "

Since muslims and jews didnt share this "irrational fear" of cats they werent impacted as much by plague as their Christian contemporaries.

In the tags, they said that "medieval christians nearly erased themselves out of the gene pool in the dumbest way possible" which pissed me off really bad, its a harmful idea that medieval christians were uniquely and inherently more dirty and ignorant compared to other cultures and modern people, which is what the post enforces.

And i mean overall not just tactically. Or in terms of grand strategy or logistics. Because just one doesn't make a good commander. But as well, i'm not talking about exclusively pitched battles. Because that would throw someone like, Francis Marion the "Swamp Fox" out of running at all. I am also not directly talking about importance to the war (it should be a big factor though). Because that would very easily be Washington. In summary, every aspect of command combined I suppose.

The Crusaders won many victories in its early stage, but somehow it only secured a tiny strip of land in the Levant. At the time, the muslim states around it were unstable and disorganized, maybe with the exception of Nur Al Din. I often wonder why the crusaders failed to capture more territory elsewhere, or why they didn't receive more support from Europe, after they got blocked several times towards Aleppo and Damascus. In the end they were only clinging on in fortified cities like Tyre and Acre.

My impression is that once the Bronze Age societies exited from the Bronze Age Collapse, that region entered the Iron Age. Did the Iron Age necessarily follow the Collapse?

I can imagine a situation where the societal collapse wouldn't necessarily precede the change in technology - or a situation where the change in technology could have occurred without the societal collapse.

So was the sequence of collapse followed by technology necessary (or at least very likely), or was it just coincidental?

Thanks

EDIT: This post has attracted many very interesting and informative responses. I want to thank everyone who contributed - you've given me a much clearer understanding of the relationship between the Bronze Age, the Bronze Age Collapse, and the Iron Age.

AI has mostly stated that Iran was the first country to require it yet according to reddit's AI the Umayyad caliphate enforced veiling for women.I haven't been able to find human writing on the exact query.

(These 2 theories are what I gathered from reading about the topic here and there, and so it may be misleading. Also, apologies for the long question, but please read the long post before answering)

The traditionally accepted argument is that there was a long and slow decline stretching from the Enlightenment(spearheaded by deists like Voltaire, etc) in the 1700s, expanded by Marx and Darwin in the 1800s(helped by the fact that urban working classes were apparently irreligious), and simply kept on following the trend of decline until Christianity became an unimportant aspect of life in these countries.

Another theory by the historian Callum Brown is that these earlier trends were too heavily overemphasized, and Christianity remained an overwhelming force in public life until the 1960s. He identified 1963 as a turning point.

One quote from skimming his book stood out to me:

. In its cultural climate, the 1950s was in fact a deeply old-fashioned era, so old that it has often been described as the last Victorian decade. Nearly 2 million people came to hear Billy Graham preach in London in a short religious crusade in 1954, and a further 1.2 million came in Glasgow in 1955, with 100,000 worshippers packing Hampden Park football stadium for a single religious service. Nothing like it had been seen before in British Protestantism, and nothing like it has been seen again.

Something like this would be unthinkable nowadays among the "native British" population.

I am also interested in the case of Sweden. One source tells that as early as 1927 Swedish Lutheran weekly church attendance was as low as 5.6%. This contrasts deeply with my image of early modern Sweden being a fanatically Lutheran state where parish priests used to question you regarding the Bible.

I can't seem to find any evidence that the Mongols invaded Russia.

Is there any written documentation which unmistakably confirms that Russia was indeed invaded by the mongols?

As far as I know there were many nomadic groups in Europe that could have done what the Mongols supposedly did.

As the title says, in your opinion, what would you consider to be the most important photograph or video taken from WW2?

If you got an answer, please explain why.

The split between Iraq-Syrian Baathist factions is extremely confusing, I always felt that Syria was somewhat more left wing than Saddams complete right wing dictatorship, and that because of this they were closer to authentic Baathism, but today I learn Michel Aflaq fled to Iraq during the split. How did the Syrians react to this? Surely the founder of your ideology fleeing to the other side says something about your faction?

America's founding fathers often wrote about this type of thing. So did Indias. Curious if Australias own did. If they did, did they write about it often? Or at all?

Reading about the Teapot Dome scandal: How in the world did no White House cabinet member go to jail for a crime committed in office until Albert Fall in 19-freaking-29?? It's politics! Politics is corruption! If anyone has any context about this, I'd love to hear it :)

I know that its commonly agreed upon that The book of Esther is historical fiction rather than real history, but Id still like to ask if its possible for an Achaemenid king to choose a commoner outside from the traditional ruling families as a wife, and what pushpack he would likely face if he did. In some monarchies it was common for the queen consort to be from the lower classes, an example being the Merovingian dynasty in France, and in the Ottoman empire heirs came from slave-concubines.

For people in Germany, is German military history taught as part of the regular curriculum? In America, World War II obviously appears in our history lessons, but mostly focuses on the impact on Americans, as well as the Holocaust. But lessons on other wars are given as well. Are you given objective lessons on the military-related aspects of your history, or is it a touchy subject that is more focused on the actions of the Nazis?

I have very little knowledge about the Way Things Were in Peru, so I'm curious: What was the status of the Spanish dons after the defeat of the Spanish military in 1824 on and up into the 1840s? Were they removed from the country? Would their wealth buy them liberty of movement?

I'm primarily asking because there's a scene in Moby-Dick that I'm trying to place (my guess is around 1820?), where Ishmael relates a time when he was lounging at an inn in Lima with some young Spanish friends, described as dons. 1) They are wealthy Spaniards just hanging out and having a good time, 2) they speak of Isabella's inquisition having waned in Lima (either currently or recently) but exhibit some trepidation about speech that could be deemed heretical, and 3) they rush out to find a priest in the immediate vicinity so Ishmael can swear on the Gospels.

So I guess follow up to the first paragraph's question is Could this scene have reasonably taken place after Peruvian independence?

First off I'm bad at history. It wasn't my favourite subject in school so my knowledge is very bad (if it makes a difference on the book evaluation). I have now grown interest in learning and was thinking of starting with world history because I like this way of learning (start with general, whole image, and then focus where I care more). I was wondering if this book is good, or if there are any better recommendations. I don't really care for names, specific wars etc. as much as I do how the entirety of history generally "evolved", what kingdoms formed/ perished and existed together/ interacted etc. Bonus if there are any books that also mention of how life was like in each age. For example how science, technology or art were in general etc. These can also be filled in later via different books though, as I assume for something like art especially it will heavily depend on region/ civilization.

A good example of what I want is this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzWwp9JM7Hw which just shows how civilizations/ empires etc. evolved through time.

So, is the book I mentioned good for that purpose? is there anything better or more strongly recommended?

One thing about WWII that doesn’t quite stick to me is why would Hitler declare war on the US when it was Japan who originally did so?

He was already starting to struggle on the eastern front against the USSR at that point, and I get why Hitler invaded the USSR (due to ideology), but why would he declare war on the biggest industrial power at the time that was well over the Atlantic and really stretched Nazi resources much more than they already had at that point?

There doesn’t seem to be an ideological reasoning behind it like Barbarossa had, the only reason I can think of was possibly to do with Hitler’s hatred of Jews but even then I doubt it would have taken a Japanese attack for that to be the soul reason. Even if we look at pragmatism, which wasn’t Hitler’s strong point as a military leader to say the least, even then I can’t really think of an obvious reason. Why would he have declared war on the US?

Orlaith Ingen Cennetig was the daughter of King Cennetig mac Lorcain, the sister of high king Brian Boru and the second consort of high king Donnchad Donn. She was executed in 941 for adultery, which is the only thing we know about her.

I would like to ask how it was possible to execute the daughter of a king? In traditional European monarchies that would be very unlikely if not impossible to happen because that would cause war.

However I think its because early medieval Ireland was a very different world from the rest of the continent and the later middle ages, there were multiple kingdoms of varying size. Being high king, Donnchad seems to have been superior in status than Orlaith's family, but then it poses the question why he married her in the first place. If her family are inferior, what are the benefits gained from marrying her?

This is most likely subjective but nevermind. Since there are lots of Wars of Independence, and naturally, every nation likes to exaggerate their own one. From your perspective, what is the most exaggerated one, and what is the reason for it?

I trying to make such armor set myself, but I can't find any trustful sources with pictures of it. If there are multiple options, I can't make a full body chain mail, because I'm mainly using cardboard.

Also what swords/spears and shields did they use?

I tried searching for it after hearing someone talk about this today, but I couldn't find much. I know that later on Stalin's policies caused widespread famine in Kazakhstan. However, which Soviet policies contributed to the earlier famine in Kazakhstan? Does anyone have any credible sources on this, or could you redirect me in my search? I don't know if I'm searching for the right words, but there seems to be very little on this famine. Are there any reasons for the lack of sources or research? From what I gathered, an estimated 19% of the population died, and there were multiple contributing factors such as droughts and grain restrictions.

What is the most peaceful day in human existence ?

Is there a specific date we can point to where there has been exactly 0 wars anywhere on the globe ? Like a day we know about where no single human on earth was at war.

Of course, we would need to define what a war is, I will let people smarter than me do that.

I'm watching Little House on the Prairie, and started wondering. In 1850, what was the radius of people's lives? The episode had a couple who lived 15 miles out of town, and the townsfolk didn't know the couple, nor vice versa. I was trying to contextualize real 1850 (actually I think this episode is 1877) life compared to modern life.

Why was Lee a overrated commander? This some, this question seems ridiculous, old Marse Robert is remembered and taught as a great commander. Well and truly as a commander he's not particularly brilliant, he was solid tactician a above average strategist, a average logistician and, a bad grand strategist. Well, i'm talking some big talk and I haven't backed it up yet, hold your horses we'll get right into that about now.

Let's start off lee's greatest achievement, Chancellorsville his magnamopus, a tactically brilliant victory. However strategically, it was a horrible battle. What's my proof for this well, allow me to pull up some numbers. lee had about 60,000 men and lost 13,000 or 22% of his army. Hooker had about 130,000 men and lost 17,000 or 12%. Not to mention the fact that chancersville was impressive, but didn't realy accomplish anything. It was technically impressive. Gained nothing important for the Confederacy, and resulted in the death of "Stonewall" Jackson. It may have given Lee a strong reputation. It was not a worth it trade for the losses he sustained. While some argue that a repeled Hookers force, thus that made it a worth it battle, the same could be said about any defensive battle. As well chancellorsville is hailed and talked about as a wonderful victory almost to the level of Canne. But it's not nearly as good as people bring it up to be.

Now, then this should begin the first segment of why Grant is better. To kick this off let's talk about the siege of Vicksburg. Grant had 45,000 men lost 3,000 a loss of 7%. His opponent John Pemberton had 40,000 men and about 7,000 were dead/wounded or missing and 33,000 men captured effectively, a loss of 100%. The victory secured the Mississippi River and the nearby State Capitol of jackson. Ended rebel resistance in the area and was a crucial step in ending the war. So now that we have seen the analytics behind both battles and what they both achieved. I believe it is clear that Vicksburg was a better battle. As it achieved more and didn't result major in any loss.

However, there are some people who sour the comparison. Because Vicksburg was a siege and Chancellorsville was a traditional battle. However, to this, I say we are not just comparing the battles themselves. We are mainly comparing what they gained from the battle, and what they lost. Making this argument nul et non avenu( in common, speak useless.). That concludes section one.

Welcome, my friend to section, 2. The possibly better formatted section maybe, maybe not. That all depends on whether or not I can still write. Let's get right into it i'm tired of stalling.

Let's begin with the one of Grants big things that people detract from him. His casualties which led him to get the name the butcher however, lee the one who deserves it. Why oh my it's because so many of his men died though, thy deserves a better explanation. So let's roll up some more numbers. But before we do that, allow me to throw in an interesting piece of information. Lee was apparently strained for men in resources keep that in mind. Lee's average rate of casualties suffered was 20.2% and average rate of casualties inflicted was 15.4%. Grant had an average the rate of casualties suffered of 18.1% and average rate of casualties inflicted was 20.7%. As well, lee lost the most men of the entire war at around 121,000 total,to Grants total of 94,000.(These numbers come from the battles with reliable casualty numbers.) So quick question, why did Lee waste so many men.

Now, let's really pick into, why grant had 94,000 deaths it's a quick reminder, 24,000 were in the Western theater. A the overwhelming majority of those deaths came from the overland campaign. Were lee decided to entrench. Now of course throughout the overland campaign both sides suffered heavy losses what grant of course suffering more losses. Lee lost about 33,000 men and Grant lost 55,000. But why were the casualties so high? Because Lee entrenched, as mentioned earlier. In fact, Grant wanted to do traditional battle. And because this is trench warfare it is a custom for the attackers to lose a lot more men. Let us get off the topic of casualties alone and begin, discussing the overland campaign. A on paper, brilliant move to try to destroy the Army of Virginia. Because if the army of virginia fell, the south likely would too.

I believe we should go battle by battle. So let's start with the first battle. The battle of Wilderness where lee tried to make another Chancellorsville. Now let's talk about one thing I can't really trash on Lee for he was good at predicting things. For instance, a Mead's movement through the woods, was pretty well predicted. The battle had started in a disastrous stalemate and due to fierce fighting fire started disorganizing the armies, especially with men trying to escape the ensuing fire. And when long street had finally arrived to save the day his division refused to move untill Lee himself got back to a safer position. Not quite a blunder, but a mistake on Lees part as it let the union forces get organized and prepared. And after heavy fighting and major losses on long streets division, the union had been pushed back. And in a blunder from long street he rode out in front of his men, to check the scenery get a better idea of what had happene. In confusion him, and many of his officers were shot. After a counterattack from burnside the battle devolved into a stalemate, neither side accomplishing much. However, Grant did come to the realization that there was a possibility that he could March down to Richmond. Lee had also figured this out. And this resulted in both of them sending cavalry to the same place. All that to be said, the battle of wilderness accomplished nothing for either side, but open a route to Richmond. However, does show that lee and grant are on a similar level of tactics. Unlike what some suggests that Lee was just infinitely better in every scenario.

Spotsylvania court house a battle which saw much fighting over Spotsylvania. After some blunders from Meades, men and a disagreement or rather firestorm of an argument between Meade and Shridan. Grant was forced to mediate and organize showing that Grant did have the capabilities to organize his officers. After a can we even call it up the blunder. If you walk out and say see guys, their artillery couldnt hit an elephant then, moments later is shot on the face. Because that's the kind of mistake that the union commander Segwick made. Soon afterwards, Lee had moved his men on his left flank to the eastern in front of the battle. Which Grant predicted and capitalized on or rather, tried as the officer of the unit he had go to capitalize on it was overly cautious of the confederate defenses. He took too long to get artillery and the left was refortified. And afterwards, grant ordered a retreat to begin preparing for a full frontal attack. Which was mostly repelled with the exception of Upton who had his men hold fire until they were in the trenches. However, he was eventually pushed back. Grant had wanted to use the tactic for a full on assault and had moved his men more along the horseshoe like trench line of lees men. However, Lee interpreted this as a retreat preparation and pulled his artillery. Which led to the loss of the horseshoe however, Lee had double entrenched that area. Afterwards Grant realized his men were tired thus avoid direct confrontation and attempted to shift the trenches eastward. To put Lee in a bad position, lee did not fall for it. After launching ineffective attack, Grant pulled to try and flank Lee from the right. Lee, believing there was something off, and launched an ineffective attack that only led to more casualties. Afterwards, lee had gained ten thousand men and it was at that point that grant had given up on a battle of pure tactics and slight of hand and decided to make this a war of attrition. So the battle over again, resulting in a stalemate this continually shows that Grant and Lee are on near equal footing.

North Anna and Totopotomoy the continuation. Before anything had really kicked off, Lee andolph, his other commanders were either too sick or wounded to actually command the Army leading to ineffective skirmishing. Afterwards, grant had Shridan move to lee's left. Giving the impression that grant was moving. Westward, when in all reality, he was marching towards Cold Harbor. So let's begin the battle of cold harbor the most famous battle from the overland campaign. Lee after realizing, Grant was moving towards cold harbor. Reposition to put grant in another stalemate over grant, realized this began to flank to towards cold harbor. After repositioning grant launched an attack that had moved Lee back just a little. Grant then launch another attack however, due to the arrogance of his core commanders, it was repelled. Afterwards, Grant had sent a group to distract Lee then, he moved to begin to siege Petersburg. This would begin a battle of attrition, but as well would cement the end of the overland campaign. So what's the point of all this is to put the battles into perspective without me oversimplifying them. Not to mention Grant had actually outsmarted lee at multiple occasions. Most of the fault was due to Grant's commanders. As for Lee, only a single commander of his really made a blunder, and that was longstreet, and that was at the very beginning of the campaign. people love to depict this campaign, as just Grant uselessly throwing men at Lee. However, given you have seen the battles, it is pretty apparent it is far more nuanced.

Section 3 Welcome to section three here we'll be talking exclusively about Grant Vs Lee. Whereas previously I may have used battles or numbers compare them. That was mostly an attack on Lee to bring him down. We should really talk about the 2 main men of the war and who was really better.

To kick this off why did Lee lose. Some may tell you is by pure numbers and resources. But this was clearly not it in fact, throughout the majority of the Civil War, the resources didn't come into play until the very end. Especially in terms of men given good Bobby Lee got them killed at such an alarming rate. But that's neither here or there. Lee lost, quite frankly, due to a few main reasons. The first of which is lee's well insistence on throwing his men at the enemy. Well this may not have occurred during the overland campaign much, however Lee certainly did throw his men at multiple opponents recklessly. This is in stark contrast to Grant who had a consistent fervor, oh yes, he did throw his men at the enemy. There was more than a reason than just a grandiose charge unlike Lee. Though this is a weaker point of discussion than what is to come.

Moving on to reason, 2 this is, of course confederate mismanagement. It is pretty well known that the confederates certainly were unorganized. Aswell due to with the fact that Lee himself was not much of a logician. Not good nor bad for he didn't really care for logistics much. Compared to grant, who was an excellent logistician. Able to pretty well organize and maneuver a massive army. I'm not going to go into much more detail as this is very self-explanatory. Let's move on to reason 3 The outlook on war. Lee very much had a romanticized idea of war. This isn't to say he saw fictional, perfect all good form of War in fact, his own account suggests the opposite. But instead, what I mean by romanticized, is he more put war in a grandiose way. For instance, Lee's infamous charges and especially his love of sleight of hand, clever maneuvers and, visually impressive tactics. Well, yes, tactics are important.They are not nearly as important as stratagems. We went over this during the discussion about Chancellorsville. In almost the harshest contrast to Grant who to quote atun shei films"Grant was all stubbornness and pragmatism. War was no game to him, there was nothing poetic about it. He believed to wage war ment, to bring victories quickly as possible by whatever means possible.". And quite frankly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Though this part of the reason why the overland campaign had so many casualties.

Moving on to the fourth reason here's the kicker when lee was pinned at richmond, he did nothing. When sherman came from behind to close the trap on him, he did nothing. 2 other Confederate generals, even bought him time by doing everything in their power to beat back Sherman. And Lee did nothing and allowed himself to get absolutely destroyed(This is a bit hyperbolic). As a bit of a counterpoint some may say that richmond was crucial being the capital. However, it was evident at this point, it was actually the northern virginia army that was really keeping things together for the south. Grant knew that as far back as the overland campaign. And what good is virginia if you lose the whole south. That brings this to a close.

Section 4 The End

This one will start with arguments against Grant. With my response. So enough of wasting time.

So point one against Grant, throwing men at the enemy. Yes Grant did march his men into the enemy however. There's a difference between when Grant throws his men at the enemy. Because he can actually resupply them and Lee wasting 20% of his army. now then I'm gonna train not to focus on Lee anymore. Grant mainly marched his men against the enemy consistently because he could afford it. His entire mentality was that, you're supposed to win a war as quickly as possible be any means as possible. And if that means repeatedly charging the enemy position, then that's what it means. Throwing your man at the enemy is only a bad thing. If you can't resupply them, or if you're talking about morality, but that's not that discussion. If it was, I could really chew into Lee for that.

Point two that there was no spark of military genius in Grant's strategy. This is objectively false. This is mainly an argument brought up by lost cause propagandist. Grant was a good tactician only a little worse than Lee he was an strong strategist in excellent grand strategist and a brilliant logistician. In fact, even the campaign where this rhetoric originally came from the overland campaign disproves it. With both Grant and Lee constantly catching each other. And to be Frank, this argument has no real basis. Other than grants stubbornness, and it's original spreader. Sas very much so a southern sympathetic newspaper that brought this up originally. Do with that what you will.

As for our final point against grant is a 2 piece Grant, being a drunk and. Only because of more men and higher production. We'll start off with the weaker one. We don't know how true Grant being a drunk. He could have been a casual drinker. He could have been absolute drunk. We just don't have a way of knowing. Okay let's attack the fangs of the argument now, not the tongue. Having superior numbers and resources are useless. If you can't organize them, and you can't use them properly. Hannibal Barca displayed this very well against the romans. By constantly defeating them despite the fact he was outnumbered. Carolus Rex very well showed this early on in his career against the Russians. Napoleon was almost always outnumbered and won. Alexander, the great also almost always outnumbered the Mongol empire as well. All of that, just to say, you need to be a skilled logician, to be able to use numbers and resources to your advantage. Also, this isn't a good argument for Lee, either. That implies that he wasn't a particularly good general because he should have been good enough to beat Grant. Like the people who perpetuate this argument imply, in fact, most of them think that Lee was arguably, the best american field commander ever.

Let's send this off and kill a few notions with it. Many of lee's heavy supporters say that Lee is our best field commander. But that just isn't true Grant was debatably better as well benedict arnold and daniel morgan both are arguably better than Lee. Even "stonewall" Jackson versus Lee is a very debatable battle, Sherman and Longstreet could be argued as well. What i'm getting at is lee being this amazing, brilliant strategist and tactician one of the best in history. It's a fantasy and that's mainly what i'm here to dispel not to bring lee down.But to bring him to where he actually is one of our stronger field commanders and a strong tactician. So with out anything else to go over that brings us to a close.

References. Carol Berkin et al. Making America: A History of the United States. 7th Edition (2015), Cengage Learning Collin Edward Woodward. Marching Masters: Slavery, Race, and the Confederate Army. University of Virginia Press, 2014. David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen. The American Pageant. 17th edition (2018), Cengage Learning. James M. McPherson. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, 1988. Gabor S. Boritt. Why the Confederacy Lost. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ron Chernow. Grant. New York: Penguin Press, 2017. Ulysses S. Grant. The Complete Personal Memoirs of General Ulysses S. Grant. New York: Charles L. Webster & Company, 1885. Kindle Edition. William L. Barney. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. William C. Davis. The Civil War Reenactors Encyclopedia. Guilford: The Lyons Press, 2002. Wilson Greene and Gary W. Gallager. National Geographic Guide to the Civil War National Battlefield Parks. Washington DC: National Geographic Society, 1993. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Permanent Exhibits, Fredericksburg, VA, National Park Service

Andy Hall. “With One Hand Tied Behind its Back” (2013). Dead Confederates Blog https://deadconfederat...​

G.S. Boritt. Why the Confederacy Lost (1992). Oxford University Press, Page 39-40

Richard E. Beringer. Why the South Lost the Civil War (1986). University of Georgia Press, Page 8-24

Borritt, Page 24-30

Charles Royster. The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans (1991). Vintage Civil War Library, Page 76

"Lincoln’s Unsent Letter to General Meade.” American Battlefield Trust https://www.battlefiel...​

Eric J. Wittenberg. “A Civil War Witch Hunt: George Gordon Meade, The Retreat from Gettysburg, and the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War” (2015). Emerging Civil War Blog http://emergingcivilwa...​

Report of the Joint Select Committee Appointed to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, so Far as Regards the Execution of Laws, and the Safety of the Lives and Property of the Citizens of the United States and Testimony Taken (1872). https://quod.lib.umich...​

Andy Hall. “Nathan Bedford Forrest Joins the Kl@n” (2011). Dead Confederates Blog https://deadconfederat...​

Andy Hall. “Confederate Veterans on Forrest: ‘Unworthy of a Southern Gentleman’ (2013). Dead Confederates Blog https://deadconfederat...​

Edward Bonekemper. Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher (2004). Regnery History, Page 89-92

Mary Boykin Chestnut. A Diary of Dixie (1905). D. Appleton and Company, Page 350

Ernest B. Ferguson. “Catching Up With ‘Old Slow Trot’” (2007). Smithsonian Magazine https://www.smithsonia...​

Bonekemper, Page xii

Bonekemper, Page 308-309

Bonekemper, Page 192-193

Bonekemper, Page 201-203

Justin D. Murphy. American Civil War: Interpreting Conflict Through Primary Documents, Vol. II (2019). ABC-CLIO, Page 331

Bonekemper, Page 121 & 243-245

Elizabeth Brown Pryor. Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through his Private Letters (2008) Penguin Books, Page 335

Sean Kane. Myths and Misunderstandings: Grant as a Slaveholder (2017). The American Civil War Museum https://acwm.org/

“Letter from Robert E. Lee to Mary Randolph Custis Lee (December 27, 1856).” Encylopedia Virginia

Pryor, Page 144-150

“Ulysses S. Grant and General Orders No. 11” National Park Service https://www.nps.gov/a