The Revenue Act of was passed as an emergency and temporary war-time tax. It copied a relatively new British system of income taxation, instead of trade and property taxation. The first income tax was passed in
Underlying the problem was the fact that America in the early 19th century had been a country, not a nation. The major functions of government—those relating to education, transportation, health, and public order—were performed on the state or local level, and little more than a loose allegiance to the government in Washington, D.
Within this loosely structured society every section, every state, every locality, every group could pretty much go its own way. Gradually, however, changes in technology and in the economy were bringing all the elements of the country into steady and close contact.
Improvements in transportation—first canals, then toll roads, and especially railroads—broke down isolation and encouraged the boy from the country to wander to the city, the farmer from New Hampshire to migrate to Iowa.
Improvements in the printing presswhich permitted the publication of penny newspapers, and the development of the telegraph system broke through the barriers of intellectual provincialism and made everybody almost instantaneously aware of what was going on throughout the country.
For many Americans the wrench from a largely rural, slow-moving, fragmented society in the early s to a bustling, integratednational social order in the mid-century was an abrupt and painful one, and they often resisted it.
Sometimes resentment against change manifested itself in harsh attacks upon those who appeared to be the agents of change—especially immigrants, who seemed to personify the forces that were altering the older America. Vigorous nativist movements appeared in most cities during the s; but not until the s, when the huge numbers of Irish and German immigrants of the previous decade became eligible to vote, did the antiforeign fever reach its peak.
Directed both against immigrants and against the Roman Catholic church, to which so many of them belonged, the so-called Know-Nothings emerged as a powerful political force in and increased the resistance to change. Sectionalism and slavery A more enduring manifestation of hostility toward the nationalizing tendencies in American life was the reassertion of strong feelings of sectional loyalty.
New Englanders felt threatened by the West, which drained off the ablest and most vigorous members of the labour force and also, once the railroad network was complete, produced wool and grain that undersold the products of the poor New England hill country.
The West, too, developed a strong sectional feeling, blending its sense of its uniqueness, its feeling of being looked down upon as raw and uncultured, and its awareness that it was being exploited by the businessmen of the East. The most conspicuous and distinctive section, however, was the South —an area set apart by climate, by a plantation system designed for the production of such staple crops as cottontobacco, and sugar, and, especially, by the persistence of slaverywhich had been abolished or prohibited in all other parts of the United States.
Half of these owned four slaves or fewer and could not be considered planters. In the entire South there were fewer than 1, persons who owned more than slaves. A typical commercial street in the American South during the midth century. The store in the centre sold furnishings and slaves.
Photograph by George N. Library of Congress, Washington, D. If the large planters were few, they were also wealthy, prestigious, and powerful; often they were the political as well as the economic leaders of their section; and their values pervaded every stratum of Southern society.
Far from opposing slavery, small farmers thought only of the possibility that they too might, with hard work and good fortune, some day join the ranks of the planter class—to which they were closely connected by ties of blood, marriage, and friendship.
Behind this virtually unanimous support of slavery lay the universal belief —shared by many whites in the North and West as well—that blacks were an innately inferior people who had risen only to a state of barbarism in their native Africa and who could live in a civilized society only if disciplined through slavery.
Though by there were in fact aboutfree blacks in the South, most Southern whites resolutely refused to believe that the slaves, if freed, could ever coexist peacefully with their former masters.
With shuddering horror, they pointed to an insurrection of blacks that had occurred in Santo Domingoto a brief slave rebellion led by the African American Gabriel in Virginia into a plot of CharlestonSouth Carolinablacks headed by Denmark Vesey inand, especially, to a bloody and determined Virginia insurrection led by Nat Turner in as evidence that African Americans had to be kept under iron control.
Facing increasing opposition to slavery outside their section, Southerners developed an elaborate proslavery argument, defending the institution on biblical, economic, and sociological grounds. A decade of political crises In the early years of the republic, sectional differences had existed, but it had been possible to reconcile or ignore them because distances were great, communication was difficult, and the powerless national government had almost nothing to do.
The revolution in transportation and communication, however, eliminated much of the isolation, and the victory of the United States in its brief war with Mexico left the national government with problems that required action.
Popular sovereignty The Compromise of was an uneasy patchwork of concessions to all sides that began to fall apart as soon as it was enacted.
In the long run the principle of popular sovereignty proved to be most unsatisfactory of all, making each territory a battleground where the supporters of the South contended with the defenders of the North and West.
The seriousness of those conflicts became clear inwhen Stephen A. Douglas introduced his Kansas bill in Congress, establishing a territorial government for the vast region that lay between the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains.Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?
Mines concluded that the United States faces a sixty-per-cent chance of civil war over the next ten to fifteen years. except with the prior. The War on Poverty [This is a huge and controversial topic that may be too large and complex for a History & Timeline torosgazete.com the mids, Freedom Movement activists hold a wide range of views on LBJ's War on Poverty program (WoP): Some Movement activists, particular at the local level, see it as a sincere effort to alleviate poverty and an opportunity for them to significantly better.
May 30, · The Civil War in the United States began in , after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights and westward expansion.
American Imperialism: A term that refers to the economic, military, The war gave both sides a common enemy for the first time since the end of the Civil War in , and many friendships were formed between soldiers of Northern and Southern states during their tours of duty.
In the United States, prior to World War I, the Social Gospel. Philip Leigh contributed twenty-four articles to The New York Times Disunion blog, which commemorated the Civil War Sesquicentennial.
Westholme Publishing released three of Phil’s three Civil War books to date: Lee’s Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies () Trading With the Enemy () Co. Aytch: Illustrated and Annotated (). Phil has lectured a various Civil War forums.
If one of the intervening states was a superpower, a civil war is a further 72% longer; a conflict such as the Angolan Civil War, in which there is two-sided foreign intervention, including by a superpower (actually, two superpowers in the case of Angola), would be % longer on average than a civil war without any international intervention.