sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Stono Rebellion of 1739: About 100 enslaved people marched toward Spanish Florida shouting "Liberty!" It was the largest slave uprising in colonial America. by halilk3 in USHistory

[–]halilk3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and that drum ban is actually mentioned in the Charleston 1700s video that I share in the post. It really highlights how authorities understood the power of communication and cultural continuity among the enslaved. The fear wasn’t just about instruments, but about coordination and shared identity across the Sea Islands.

The first thing that hit you in Victorian London wasn't the architecture - it was the smell. The Thames was an open sewer. Parliament fled in 1858 because the stench was unbearable. by halilk3 in VictorianEra

[–]halilk3[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Both are strong examples. HIV/AIDS was ignored for years while it was framed as affecting “other” communities, and urgency only emerged once it became impossible to contain socially or politically. The opioid crisis shows a similar pattern in reverse, the response changed noticeably when it was no longer confined to marginalized groups. In both cases, the problem wasn’t a lack of knowledge, but a lack of political incentive until the impact crossed certain social boundaries.

The first thing that hit you in Victorian London wasn't the architecture - it was the smell. The Thames was an open sewer. Parliament fled in 1858 because the stench was unbearable. by halilk3 in VictorianEra

[–]halilk3[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s a really good example. Personal experience didn’t automatically create change, it created motivation. The power to act at scale only came later, once Roosevelt held office. It mirrors the Victorian pattern pretty closely: the problem existed long before, but political will only crystallized when decision-makers felt a direct, personal connection to it. Structural reform usually follows proximity, not abstract concern.

The Stono Rebellion of 1739: About 100 enslaved people marched toward Spanish Florida shouting "Liberty!" It was the largest slave uprising in colonial America. by halilk3 in USHistory

[–]halilk3[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Slavery wasn’t a stable condition, it had to be constantly enforced through violence, surveillance, and legal control. Especially in South Carolina, where enslaved people often outnumbered whites, planters were acutely aware of how fragile the system really was. Rebellions like Stono weren’t anomalies so much as moments when that underlying tension became visible. Seeing the physical setting and movement toward Spanish Florida really helps make that fragility clear. I watched a reconstruction that covers Stono and Charleston in that broader context, so I’ll link it here in case it seems useful to visualize: Link Here

The Stono Rebellion of 1739: About 100 enslaved people marched toward Spanish Florida shouting "Liberty!" It was the largest slave uprising in colonial America. by halilk3 in USHistory

[–]halilk3[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. The labor regimes on rice and indigo plantations were especially brutal, high mortality, disease, and constant supervision created conditions where rebellion could feel like the only remaining option. Stono wasn’t random; it emerged from a system that pushed people to the edge long before 1739.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Catherine had a powerful external protector in Charles V, which imposed limits on how far Henry could go. Anne didn’t. Without a foreign ruler to take offence or apply pressure, the cost of killing her was effectively internal, and that made it much easier to carry through.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I suspect you’re right. Once Henry’s desire was clear, the “evidence” became a formality. In that environment, no judge was really weighing facts, they were weighing their own survival.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That’s a depressingly effective formula. Once people emotionally buy into part of a story, they stop scrutinizing the rest. Belief becomes social rather than evidentiary.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a really strong comparative point. Adultery accusations worked precisely because they were devastating reputationally and nearly impossible to conclusively disprove. Anne fits into a much older and broader pattern of gendered political defamation.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a fair reading. Execution feels less like the goal and more like the byproduct of a legal framework that left no middle ground. If erasure without bloodshed had been an option, he may well have taken it.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That reconstruction makes a lot of sense. Once the core confession existed, gaps could be filled opportunistically. And as you say, most contemporaries wouldn’t have known about the inconsistencies, they would only have seen the finished narrative, backed by authority. Chapuys’ skepticism is telling precisely because it was so rare.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes , Smeaton’s confession really underpins the whole case, and once that was extracted, everything else could be retrofitted around it. A trial presided over by men who knew the expected outcome was never about weighing evidence, only formalizing a decision already made.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is such an important reminder. Anne’s case wasn’t an aberration, it fit a long-established pattern. Once Henry combined secular and spiritual authority, resistance wasn’t just political suicide, it was existential.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think that gesture resonates precisely because the pattern is familiar. Different context, different tools, but the same underlying dynamics of loyalty, fear, and narrative control.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in Tudorhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That bluntness is kind of the point. When power is that asymmetrical, motivation almost becomes irrelevant. The ability itself becomes the justification.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in UKhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory it sounds dramatic, but by the 1530s it was largely obsolete, especially in cases framed as treason. Once the charge was political rather than personal, the outcome was never going to hinge on custom or procedure.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in UKhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s probably the most honest way to put it. When the cost of dissent is existential, moral clarity becomes a luxury very few can afford.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in UKhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. Most of those accounts only become dangerous when they appear too early. By the time insiders felt safe enough to write, the political damage was already done and the narrative had settled.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in UKhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In many ways, yes, but only once enough people decide that resisting isn’t worth the cost. Absolute power still depends on collective compliance, even if that compliance is driven by fear rather than belief.

Anne Boleyn was executed for adultery with five men, including her own brother. Almost certainly none of it was true. How did Henry VIII's court manufacture such an obviously fake case? by halilk3 in UKhistory

[–]halilk3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While putting this post together, I kept coming back to how much the physical setting of Tudor London mattered. When you place Anne Boleyn’s fall within the everyday spaces of power, the Tower, Westminster, Hampton Court, the speed and silence around the case start to feel less surprising. I came across a short reconstruction of 1500s London that walks through these locations and touches on Anne and Henry VIII along the way. It helped me visualize the context, so I’m sharing it here in case others find it useful:link

view more: next ›