The Battle of the Little Bighorn, fought on June 25, 1876,
near the Little Bighorn River in Montana Territory, pitted federal
troops led by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer (1839-76)
against a band of Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. Tensions between
the two groups had been rising since the discovery of gold on Native
American lands. When a number of tribes missed a federal deadline to
move to reservations, the U.S. Army, including Custer and his 7th
Calvary, was dispatched to confront them. Custer was unaware of the
number of Indians fighting under the command of Sitting Bull (c.1831-90)
at Little Bighorn, and his forces were outnumbered and quickly
overwhelmed in what became known as Custer’s Last Stand.
For this table, the reference currency is the Euro.
- The reference currency means that the euro is the base unit, the table shows how much is one euro worth in the different currencies. This can be observed on the first row of the second column where it says (euro= 1)
The exchange rate of the euro to the US dollar and most other currencies is determined by supply and demand.
- Most countries have a flexible exchange rate. This means that the government does not have a fixed exchange rate. With a fixed exchange rate the government compromises to give a given amount of money in exchange for one unit of a specific currency. Whenever, there is a flexible exchange rate, the price of another currency is determined by the incoming and outgoing capital.
According to the chart, one euro would buy 1.2149 Swiss francs.
- This can be found in the fourth row and second column of the chart.
- 1 euro = 1.2149 Swiss francs
It would cost 1.28 US dollars to buy one euro.
- 1 euro = 1.28 US dollars
- This can be found in the last row and second column of the chart.
This debate isn't merely historical. As could be gleaned from the flaps surrounding statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Interior Secretary Gale Norton during their confirmation periods, issues stemming from the Civil War go to the heart of many current political debates: What is the proper role of the federal government? Is a strong national government the best guarantor of rights against local despots? Or do state governments stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny? And just what rights are these governments to protect? Those of the individual or those of society? Such matters are far from settled.
So why was the Civil War fought? That seems a simple enough question to answer: Just look at what those fighting the war had to say. If we do that, the lines are clear. Southern leaders said they were fighting to preserve slavery. Abraham Lincoln said the North fought to preserve the Union, and later, to end slavery.
Some can't accept such simple answers. Among them is Charles Adams. Given Adams' other books, which include For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization and Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America, it isn't surprising that he sees the Civil War as a fight about taxes, specifically tariffs.
In When in the Course of Human Events, he argues that the war had nothing to do with slavery or union. Rather, it was entirely about tariffs, which the South hated. The tariff not only drove up the price of the manufactured goods that agrarian Southerners bought, it invited other countries to enact their own levies on Southern cotton. In this telling, Lincoln, and the North, wanted more than anything to raise tariffs, both to support a public works agenda and to protect Northern goods from competition with imports.
Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland.
Thus, we hear of Lincoln's use of federal troops to make sure that Maryland didn't secede. We don't learn that Confederate troops occupied eastern Tennessee to keep it from splitting from the rest of the state. Adams tells us of Union Gen. William Sherman's actions against civilians, which he persuasively argues were war crimes. But he doesn't tell us of Confederate troops capturing free blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them south to slavery. Nor does he mention the Confederate policy of killing captured black Union soldiers. He tells us that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; he doesn't mention that the Confederacy did also.
Adams argues that Lincoln's call to maintain the Union was at root a call to keep tariff revenues coming in from Southern ports. Lincoln, he notes, had vowed repeatedly during the 1860 presidential campaign that he would act to limit the spread of slavery to the West, but he would not move to end it in the South. Lincoln was firmly committed to an economic program of internal improvements -- building infrastructure, in modern terms -- that would be paid for through higher tariffs. When the first Southern states seceded just after Lincoln's election, Adams argues, it was to escape these higher taxes. Indeed, even before Lincoln took office, Congress -- minus representatives from rebel Southern states -- raised tariffs to an average of almost 47 percent, more than doubling the levy on most goods.
The correct answer is option A. "the Soviet Union built them too". The nuclear arms race took place during Cold War, and was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union. Under this competition if the United States built hydrogen bombs, the Soviet Union would built them too in order to stay in line with his competitor.
