You only hear one side of the story and the winners write with their bias.

I once tried to reach out an indigenous tribe near me for their side of the story and they said because I'm not a member they can't share their history perspective with me.

I know Victoria Woodhull technically ran for president in 1872, but I'm more so talking about any woman who had enough political power/influence that they could run in an election and win?

After looking at him, he seems very indecisive, and he didn't do much about the South seceding.

If you could go on a tour of the United States to learn about its history, what would your stops be? Gettysburg, etc.

If you could get rid of one Constitutional amendment or alternate, what would it be?

When did we really start to move away from hagiography for US history for the common people? It seems to me as a child raised in the 90s that adults around me (myself as a young teenager included) started to be surprised when more accurate, or at least more controversial, stories of the founding fathers started coming out. I'm wondering if this was just me, or if most of the histories that the masses read or believed up until the mid-1990s were hagiographic. Any insights?

https://preview.redd.it/mgna95nb904e1.jpg?width=330&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=098a15d00c2311574a175a253b4566ba1f7bcbc3

The economy was quite poor through out the 70s but by 1976 it had actually started to recover under Ford which was the reason why the election became as close as it was, well that and Carter's campaign which was as poor as the economy under him.

All Americans say it. History people probably have the best idea. Why do you think it’s the best country in the world?

my boyfriends cousin got this from her teacher just wondering if anyone knows anything about it? the outside says “200th US constitution anniversary” , just curious 😊

I recently read that after Germany surrendered, German prisoners were designated as disarmed enemy forces, rather than prisoner of war status. Due to this, they were not entitled to the same quantities of food as U.S troops. There was often starvation in camps and the international redcross was prevented from involving itself and over 16,500 German prisoners died in French camps alone.

US soliders were also under orders not to share food with the German poulation. Women were not allowed to share any leftovers with German maids.

Here's information I found on the wiki -

"According to a U.S. intelligence survey a German university professor reportedly said: "Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour 20 liters [5 U.S. gallons] of leftover cocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy among my countrymen."

Why did the US donate food resources to occupied Japan, but withhold food from the Germans?

I don't live in the US so I am a total layman and outsider but the Confederate States of America was formed by Southern slave states to protect the institution of slavery as part of their speeches and documents.

However I am curious how was slavery as an in the South threatened by the Northern free states? From my research the Northern states outnumbered the South so theoretically they would have more power over the federal government but was not very fully abolitionist or interested in outlawing slavery in the South so how did the South feel that slavery was threatened?

PS: As an outsider I am not fully informed on how the US government works and want people to clarify

Taken during the Boston Busing Crisis of 1976. Joseph Rakes swang an American flag on a pole at Civil rights activist Tim Landsmark. Jim Kelly, Boston city Councilman who was anti busing is seen trying to pull Landsmark out of the way. Rakes was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and would be known as the "flag kid" from then on.

I heard a story about an englishman wanting to meet the president and so he just turned up at the white house and waited outside the oval office. This would have been in the distant past before security measures were brought in to stop this sort of thing. Does anyone know if this happened and if so, which president was it? and what was the name of the english guy? I have tried googling this but all of the results are about modern meetings with other heads of state.

Burr is one of (honestly THE) those historical figures who I feel like has never has been pinned down. Jackson, Jefferson, Adams, you name 'em, I feel like I understand where they were coming from. But not Burr. No matter what angle I come at him from, and I've read about the man in a variety of contexts (academically speaking), I just never feel like I understand his motives.

So what, fellow history buffs, do you make of the man?

I'm being told what my teacher said was wrong (from the South).

I was told the cause was Lincoln. Lincoln became president, South Carolina seceded and then other Southern states followed to form the Confederate States.

So Lincoln attacked with the North to show states they weren't allowed to secede. Then, he abolished slavery because he realized slaves fighting for him would turn the tide of the battle in the North's favor. But, he never wanted to abolish slavery until he saw he couldn't win without them.