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.
Based on history, Spain and Portugal were the first one to colonize the nearby country making the country expand on its territory. Meanwhile, Portugal mainly focusing on the trades and economy of its country. In contrary to this, Spain got an idea to find spices from nearby country since it was at that time has a greater value.But, It is the Spain send missionaries and friars to nearby country to Christianize those native people.
I would strongly suggest indaba. It allows each country to be heard and they can come to a conclusion quickly. They can only voice their opinion in a certain way. A country gives their Red Line in a diplomatic way and the other can respond with their hard limits.
Correct answer: The Executive Office of the President
The Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP) is what we call the various agencies that assist the President in carrying out his role as Chief Executive of the nation. The White House Office (the staff that works at the White House) is part of the Executive Office of the President (EOP), but so also are agencies such as the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The White House staff and National Security Council are very much people the president will rely on in the day to day operation of presidential business.
As the state of the economy and the issues surrounding gaps in income inequality continue to absorb the national spotlight, some may wonder what exactly any of the numbers that are thrown around in the media actually say about, well, anything. What does it mean when the unemployment rate drops? Does that mean people are finding jobs and the economy is improving? What do any of the numbers surrounding unemployment really say about the state of the economy?
Recently you may have heard that the unemployment rate has dropped. While that is true, it does not necessarily indicate a positive occurrence. According the jobs report of December, 74,000 jobs have been added to the economy, and the jobless rate is down to 6.7%. Adding jobs and seeing a decrease in the jobless rate, both sound like really good things on the surface. Upon further examination of what exactly these numbers mean, the poor state of employment across the country begins to reveal itself.