Is it just me or is this kind of writing extremely hard to comprehend? Reading such condensed texts on matters of political significance was what put me off on

Is it just me or is this kind of writing extremely hard to comprehend? Reading such condensed texts on matters of political significance was what put me off on learning history and politics as an undergrad. As I read the text, a lot of unanswered questions come up. "Fountain and Mills became leaders of the opposing factions." Why were there two opposing factions? Unanswered. "Fountain, leader of the Anti-Salt Ring, was elected to the Texas Senate in 1869 with the expectation of securing title to the deposits for the people of the El Paso area". Wait, he was "Anti-Salt" but still wanted to secure title? What did Anti-Salt mean, then? "The second stage of the trouble began in 1872, when Charles Howard, a Missouri lawyer, Democrat, and former Confederate officer, joined with Cardis to break the Republican machine." What does the fact that he was a "Confederate officer" have to do with all this? "Republican machine"? Does that mean the Republican faction? wait, both factions were Republican. I'm now confused. I'm not a native English speaker, so that might be the problem. Or more likely, I'm missing a lot of the historic background to understand this text. Am I just too ignorant to understand the text or is the writing bad?