XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.war.civil.usa   
   From: rondean-noreply@gmail.com   
      
   Walter Duerson wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)