XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.war.civil.usa   
   From: liars@msnbc.com   
      
   It’s perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of the United   
   States — and, ironically, the one most Americans believe they fully   
   comprehend   
      
   The Civil War is perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of   
   the United States while ironically, appears to be the single historical   
   event most Americans believe they fully comprehend.   
      
   It’s likely difficult for many of us — and nearly impossible for younger   
   generations — to imagine a world without air conditioning, refrigeration,   
   and amply-filled grocery stores. Which is nothing to say of a life without   
   the Internet, smartphones, and Amazon.   
      
   Consider for a moment that just over a hundred years ago, many Americans   
   didn’t live to see their fiftieth birthday — and the most common cause of   
   death was dysentery.   
      
   Life in 1860 America, the year Abraham Lincoln was elected president, was   
   nothing like it is today.   
      
   The Southern states were mostly rural, and agriculture was the primary   
   industry while in the North, the industrial revolution was in its infancy.   
   Few Americans had more than a primary school education, and medicine was   
   one level above medieval.   
      
   And yet, too many of us mistakenly believe we can make value judgments   
   about a time of which we know little.   
      
   To truly understand any historical event, one must study it within the   
   proper context — what is commonly referred to as “contextualization.” But   
   as generation after generation pass, we internalize notions about why   
   people behaved the way they did in the past.   
      
   And often, we interpret stories of events through the lens of popular   
   culture — many of which are not entirely accurate.   
      
   The American Civil War is chief among these.   
      
   For most of us (including me), we attended public schools where we were   
   provided roughly the same instruction regarding the Civil War: Our country   
   was composed of the North, where people opposed slavery, and the South   
   where slavery was embraced. Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and   
   fought against the South to end slavery and saved the Union.   
      
   Like most of my high school peers, this story seemed plausible enough to   
   me and after all, it ended happily: Slaves were freed and the Union   
   remained intact.   
      
   Plausible enough until I read a couple of books by Charles Adams, a tax   
   historian and author from New England — hardly a Southern extremist with   
   an ax to grind.   
      
   In these fascinating books, Adams explores how taxation affected   
   historical events and how the popular interpretation of the Civil War   
   survives in the face of some obvious facts.   
      
   I had to revise my thinking.   
      
   Consider that throughout the presidential campaign of 1860, then-candidate   
   Abraham Lincoln had all but promised not to interfere with Southern   
   slavery, which he reiterated in his first presidential inaugural address.   
      
   “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the   
   institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right   
   to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”   
      
   This seems to run contrary to conventional thinking. Wasn’t he an   
   abolitionist?   
      
   Furthermore, Lincoln promised to enforce the fugitive slave laws as   
   president — laws passed by Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the   
   return of slaves who escaped from one state into another state or   
   territory.   
      
   Indeed, Southern secession would have made slavery more precarious without   
   the protection of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. From a slave   
   property standpoint, staying in the Union made more sense than leaving.   
      
   Adding further confusion are the numerous accounts from contemporary   
   newspapers from the North, South, and Europe — all of which tell the tale   
   of a “tariff war,” not the popularly-held notion that the Civil War was a   
   “war against slavery.”   
      
   But if the war wasn’t over slavery, what then?   
      
   Like most historical events, this too was complicated.   
   It’s too easy to assign blame for the Civil War on the South and slavery —   
   and intellectually lazy.   
      
   Like many other conflicts, the Civil War was decades in the making and the   
   culmination of unresolved issues between the Northern and Southern states.   
   And it finally came to a head during the 1860 presidential campaign and   
   election.   
      
   To fully understand the Civil War, it’s vital to recognize that we are   
   dealing with two separate issues: The cause for secession and the cause of   
   the war.   
      
   Let’s begin with secession.   
      
   In 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs — there   
   were no personal or corporate income taxes. And the Southern states were   
   paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an   
   impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation.   
      
   Adding insult to injury, much of the tax revenues collected from imports   
   in the South went to Northern industrial interests and had been for   
   decades. The 1860 Republican platform promised more of the same, which was   
   further eroding the trust of Southerners.   
      
   Remember that slave labor practices of the South contrasted greatly with   
   the industries of the North. Without slave labor, most Southern   
   plantations wouldn’t have survived; there simply weren’t enough workers.   
   Slavery was inextricably linked to the South.   
      
   While the issue of slavery was, in fact, a primary concern for the South,   
   the secessionist movement began decades before the Civil War.   
      
   In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to   
   nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect   
   Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively   
   increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing   
   capacity, relied heavily on imported goods.   
      
   At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to   
   the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for   
   Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of   
   1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”   
      
   The government of South Carolina declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832   
   unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, creating a precarious   
   situation between the state and the federal government. Of little   
   surprise, President Andrew Jackson refused to accept South Carolina’s   
   defiance. Without the Compromise Tariff of 1833, it’s likely that South   
   Carolina would have moved to secede from the Union.   
      
   While the crisis was averted, tensions between the North and the South   
   were just beginning to grow.   
      
   More tariffs in 1842 and 1857 along with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850   
   and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision worked to further divide the   
   country. In May of 1860, the House of Representatives passed the Morrill   
   Tariff Bill, the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the   
   incoming Republican Party — and a priority for the soon-to-be-elected new   
   president.   
      
   Charles Dickens, from his journal, All the Year Round, observed, “The last   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)