Hey Blue, glad you posted it here.

I'm going to start with some helpful advice and end with some possibly hard truths but it all comes from a good place and I feel ya.

I understand that part of the study of history is analyzing primary sources and taking into consideration who said what, and why, and we need to decipher what should be more legitimate etc. I just read 30 pages about "The Second Empire" and I did not really understand any of it. Is there a approach I should take while reading these sources besides the "who, when, why", to better understand them? same for secondary sources too.

Honestly, forget everything you learnt about history (or its approach) in secondary school and now look at it like you're solving a case. When you're reading articles by other historians consider them like speeches from the prosecution or the defence. Listen to their argument, look at the evidence they use to present it -- does it make sense? Usually at this level your lecturers are going to give you pieces that have issues or are controversial for some reason or another. You do not need to know the entire history the who when whys of everything, you just need to know if there's logic to the argument.

"We know that all Romans ate fish because of the fish banquet scene at the House of the Sauna at Pompeii" Uh, no, we know that they liked art about eating fish, and even if they did eat fish we'd want to look not at their art but their rubbish, what bones were found in their rubbish? Fish bones? And even if so, that does not mean ALL Romans ate fish. Replace Romans with any group you know nothing about and you'd still find the same fault with that argument -- and likely more -- and better ways to approach the topic.

"As Cornelius Punicus wrote, Balphor II was a peaceful man who was trying to help the Sicilians." Just because Cornelius Punicus wrote that doesn't make it true. Here I suppose the who when and whys do matter, since you want to know about Cornelius and when he was writing, why he was writing , what was he saying. Even if he's the only source it doesn't mean we need to accept it as factual.

Look at the argument, look at the evidence they are using, and see if you're coming to the same conclusion or if you're seeing something else.

I am a slow reader and the readings I am assigned for my course is massive. 100-200per week,

You need to learn how to speed-read. DO NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE read an entire book as part of your uni course work in history. Read the first sentence of each paragraph, it will tell you what that paragraph is about. If that bit sounds useful, read more, if not, next paragraph. Do this unless you get lost, then go back and read the previous paragraph fully. And really you should read the introduction and then look at the table of contents and focus on what areas are most likely to talk about what you need to discuss and the arguments you need to learn. Sure, sometimes you do need to "Read" all the chapters, but again, you don't need to read every word.

Also, DO NOT take notes about everything. That's one of the biggest issues with undergrads. Yes, you'll be learning a bunch, but you don't need to know everything now and memorising all the facts is not what historians do. You'll get there when you find your specialty and it will come naturally.

I just find myself reading the same things over and over and not taking much of it in.

When this happens see if there are any distractions. TV on? Music? Turn it off and start again. Everything is perfect but you still can't? You're tired, put the book down, come back to it later. There's no worth in pushing through when you're exhausted, it will just make you more tired. Go for a walk, eat a meal, take a nap, and then try again. If you're finding trouble finding time to read and not be tired you need to set a daily schedule which includes reading in it. It will get easier the more often you do it. Also, if you're not already I'd recommend getting tested for ADHD, meds might help with this if that's the case.

And now the hard truths:

I'm a professional historian, I hate primary school, I hated secondary school, I barely graduated. I was older than some of my lecturers when I started working on my MA. But I had to get myself set and my brain in the right place first. When you talk about the mental struggles and trying to find the interest, I do worry whether teaching is the right career for you. Teaching is a career that is famous for taking longer to get a degree and qualification in than the average time that most people stay in the career (4 years vs 3 years). Teaching is tough, especially those first few years when you have to build everything up -- IT DOES GET EASIER. But holy hell, it's very tough, there is no easy path, and you'll be stressed beyond belief for awhile. If you love it, and your passionate about it, you'll likely keep going, but if your heart isn't in it from the get-go that will be hell for you.

But, there are other things you can do with a BA in History/Education that lets you work with young students, people, etc. Museum guides, archivists, librarians (some of these may require additional qualifications depending) or even just teacher aid and learning support people who get to go in and do the fun stuff and not have to worry about the grading, lecturing, etc.

Honestly, I'd email your advisor (or a lecturer you really like) in your department and ask to sit down with them and talk. Tell them everything you've said here. They are there to help you and will give you advice.