Civil war was not about slavery

[jimmyb]

Lincoln’s Tax War

Lincoln and Congress declared in all official acts and statements the United States invaded the Confederate States only to collect a 40% Federal import tax, by changing the U.S., from a voluntary Union into a compulsory Union (needed to collect this tax); and not to abolish slavery.

Under the Morrill Tariff, pioneer farmers buying essentials, such as, a plow, axe, shovel, skillet, stove, etc… paid 40% Federal sales tax on the item, if imported from Europe, or 40% more in price, if bought from Northern manufacturers. Southerners paid most of these taxes, yet represented only one-third (1/3) of the U.S. population.


Robert E. Lee was offered to be a commander of the union army by Lincoln himself. He refused because he did not believe in this TAXATION. People need to understand who this man truly was, and what they have done. You just destroyed a monument thinking he was all for slavery. But, in fact, he was one of the biggest proponents of the anti slavery movement. How's that for irony?

http://confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Tax-War.html

[FantasticDan]

Robert E. Lee was offered to be a commander of the union army by Lincoln himself. He refused because he did not believe in this TAXATION. People need to understand who this man truly was, and what they have done. You just destroyed a monument thinking he was all for slavery. But, in fact, he was one of the biggest proponents of the anti slavery movement. How's that for irony?

http://confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Tax-War.html



:bang:

The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

[Parkview_Pirate]

There were numerous reasons for the Civil War, including economic factors like taxes and slavery, and political factors like states' rights and expansion of slavery.

What's become more apparent to me over the last decade is that the wrong side won, and over 600,000 Americans died to "free the slaves", and yet put our Federal government on course to enslave all of us.

That's the real irony.

[jimmyb]

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in "rebellious states" and not the North.

[boxcar]

There were numerous reasons for the Civil War, including economic factors like taxes and slavery, and political factors like states' rights and expansion of slavery.

What's become more apparent to me over the last decade is that the wrong side won, and over 600,000 Americans died to "free the slaves", and yet put our Federal government on course to enslave all of us.

That's the real irony.

But Jimmy is 100% on the mark! The North did not enter the war with the South over slavery! Slavery became a secondary issue later. And for your info, the North was not above exploiting the slaves by "freeing" them only so they could don new chains from their new masters in the military.

But you are 100% correct in your last statement. The wrong side did win but procured the right result.

[delayjf]

The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...al-lee/529038/

Fake News

[Marshall Bennett]

People who protest and liberals in particular don't want to hear about history. They'll dispute anything that counters their liberal agenda.
If the war had been about slavery it wouldn't have made much sense. There were as many, if not more slave owners in the north as the south. Once war broke out, slave owners on both sides were largely thrown into combat. Those unable to serve were hardly able to enforce slavery.
Much of history goes hand in hand with common logic. Liberals don't care about real history, and refuse to use common sense in any argument regarding their position with about anything.

[MONEY]

"What caused the civil war?

There were many causes of the civil war, including differences between northern and southern states on the idea of slavery, as well as trade, tariffs, and states rights."

http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-facts

[Clocker]

The war was fought about secession. Slavery and taxes, and the South's fear of Lincoln's future action on those issues, were among the causes for secession.

[chadk66]

Fake Newssure it wasn't an op-ed:pound:

[mostpost]

There were as many, if not more slave owners in the north as the south.
That is just a ridiculous statement. According to the 1860 census, there were 3,951.946 slaves in the Southern states and 1,815 slaves in the northern states. I know you were talking about slave owners not slaves, but even if every one of those northern slaves had a single owner; each southern slave owner would have to own 2,178 slaves.

It is far more likely that each northern slave owner owned six or seven slaves. Which means each southern slave owner would have to own between 13,000 and 14,000 slaves to balance the numbers.

The 1860 census numbers reveal some more important numbers. Of the twenty non Confederate states, 17 had no slaves within their boundaries. Only Kansas with two; Nebraska with fifteen and Delaware with 1,798 had slaves.

One of these things is not like the other. Slave ownership in the north is not like slave ownership in the south.

[mostpost]

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in "rebellious states" and not the North.
Irrelevant. 99.95% of slaves were in the South and by 1865 all slaves were free.

[Show Me the Wire]

That is just a ridiculous statement. According to the 1860 census, there were 3,951.946 slaves in the Southern states and 1,815 slaves in the northern states. I know you were talking about slave owners not slaves, but even if every one of those northern slaves had a single owner; each southern slave owner would have to own 2,178 slaves.

It is far more likely that each northern slave owner owned six or seven slaves. Which means each southern slave owner would have to own between 13,000 and 14,000 slaves to balance the numbers.

The 1860 census numbers reveal some more important numbers. Of the twenty non Confederate states, 17 had no slaves within their boundaries. Only Kansas with two; Nebraska with fifteen and Delaware with 1,798 had slaves.

One of these things is not like the other. Slave ownership in the north is not like slave ownership in the south.

From PBS:

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

B.S. on your no moral equivalency statement between North and South. Slavery is slavery.

[classhandicapper]

The states themselves made statements about why they seceded. It was primarily but not exclusively related to slavery and slavery issues. Texas was an interesting exception in that they also prominently mentioned that Texas was being overrun with immigrants and the Federal government was not helping. (some things never change) Texans felt the could do a better job on their own.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Something that people miss is that the north had waves of its own cheap labor coming in from Europe (from Ireland for example). People came off the boat and if they couldn't buy themselves out of it, they were sent to war. Others worked for almost nothing. It wasn't exactly slavery, but it's pretty bad when you come off the boat and immediately have to go to war for the new country.

[jimmyb]

Irrelevant. 99.95% of slaves were in the South and by 1865 all slaves were free.

Another thing not being taught in third grade social studies, and it would appear the same is true in secondary American History class, during the Revolutionary War many slaves ran away from their 'owners' and joined the British. Many were relocated to Nova Scotia, England and the Caribbean and given land.

Many profess being racially sensitive, but when looking at family photos, everyone is pearly white. Many pay it lip service, but how many have been intimate with an African American? How many have adopted someone of color? Yes, someone will say I have friends that are black or I work with people that are black, but your family photos reveal the truth ... That you indeed have trouble with people of a different race. Racism is alive in America, whether overt or covert.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Lincoln’s Tax War

Lincoln and Congress declared in all official acts and statements the United States invaded the Confederate States only to collect a 40% Federal import tax, by changing the U.S., from a voluntary Union into a compulsory Union (needed to collect this tax); and not to abolish slavery.

Under the Morrill Tariff, pioneer farmers buying essentials, such as, a plow, axe, shovel, skillet, stove, etc… paid 40% Federal sales tax on the item, if imported from Europe, or 40% more in price, if bought from Northern manufacturers. Southerners paid most of these taxes, yet represented only one-third (1/3) of the U.S. population.


Robert E. Lee was offered to be a commander of the union army by Lincoln himself. He refused because he did not believe in this TAXATION. People need to understand who this man truly was, and what they have done. You just destroyed a monument thinking he was all for slavery. But, in fact, he was one of the biggest proponents of the anti slavery movement. How's that for irony?

http://confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Tax-War.html



That is playing word games with the truth. The southern states seceded from the union to save their slave-based economy.

More simply put, it was ALL about slavery.

[ElKabong]

Jess, before you make that leap you may want to read each state's declaration of succession.

In Texas' declaration, slavery was certainly mentioned prominently, but so was the state's displeasure with DC to help with attacks by native Americans on towns and villages, as well as attacks from Mexican bandits (today they'd be openly called terrorists). Texas felt like it wasn't a part of the union at all in that regard.

Whoever mentioned that the wrong side won, but the right principles and morals came out on top of it all.... I agree with that view. Slavery needed to end in the south as well as the north.

[delayjf]

sure it wasn't an op-ed

The story regarding Lee personally beating slave originated in a abolitionist newspaper and was never verified.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Simply put, I don't believe many of those statements of why this or that. To me the evidence is crystal clear.

Just like I believe that Lincoln wrote The Emancipation Proclamation when he did -- so that he could increase the size of the Union Army. Not because he chose that moment to the right thing for the slaves.

It was always about the money. The southern economy was off the charts amazing because they did not have to pay for labor. There was no way they were going to give up that incredible advantage without a fight.

The south attacked Fort Sumter when they did because they believed Congress was about to "free the slaves" and destroy that advantaged economy that they had. Turns out they were wrong. There was still great opposition in Congress to ending slavery when the attack occurred.

Seems that Texas seized upon the opportunity to make their own points known.

[Tom]

I agree with that view. Slavery needed to end in the south as well as the north.

They went to war, lost and slavery was ended.
However, let us not forget it was the DEMOCRATS who tried to stop that by forming the KKK, a subsidery of the DNC.
And when that failed, they relied on Congress to block the Civil Rights Bill. Losing that battle (gee, all the dems do is LOSE) the tried to pack congress with KKK racist like Robert Byrd. And to this day the glorify his KKK racist ass by naming roads, building, bridges, you name it after him.

When do they wake up and end their racist ways by renaming everything named after the worthless POS???

[Show Me the Wire]

They went to war, lost and slavery was ended.
However, let us not forget it was the DEMOCRATS who tried to stop that by forming the KKK, a subsidery of the DNC.
And when that failed, they relied on Congress to block the Civil Rights Bill. Losing that battle (gee, all the dems do is LOSE) the tried to pack congress with KKK racist like Robert Byrd. And to this day the glorify his KKK racist ass by naming roads, building, bridges, you name it after him.

When do they wake up and end their racist ways by renaming everything named after the worthless POS???


Don't forget to mention the Jim Crow laws enacted, starting in 1887, by democrat legislators. The dems have a well established and entrenched tradition of denying Constitutional rights to people who disagree with the dems agenda.

[JustRalph]

Another thing not being taught in third grade social studies, and it would appear the same is true in secondary American History class, during the Revolutionary War many slaves ran away from their 'owners' and joined the British. Many were relocated to Nova Scotia, England and the Caribbean and given land.

Many profess being racially sensitive, but when looking at family photos, everyone is pearly white. Many pay it lip service, but how many have been intimate with an African American? How many have adopted someone of color? Yes, someone will say I have friends that are black or I work with people that are black, but your family photos reveal the truth ... That you indeed have trouble with people of a different race. Racism is alive in America, whether overt or covert.

How convincing, .....Makes me want to run straight out the door and screw a black girl........see ya later

[elysiantraveller]

How convincing, .....Makes me want to run straight out the door and screw a black girl........see ya later

Odd post.

If I can check off some of those what do I win?

[Show Me the Wire]

I guess Thomas Jefferson no longer should be considered a racist.

[Robert Fischer]

Among the contents of Lincoln's wallet, was a $5 Confederate bill.

[ElKabong]

Simply put, I don't believe many of those statements of why this or that.

Just like I believe that Lincoln wrote The Emancipation Proclamation when he did -- so that he could increase the size of the Union Army. ....

Seems that Texas seized upon the opportunity to make their own points known.

Ok, to your second paragraph... There was a documentary on cable recently named Brothers Divided, the civil war (or some such). Good points made. After Lincoln came out with the emancipation proclamation, many union troops actually left their posts soon thereafter. They felt a bait and switch had been pulled on them. Iow, the reason for going to war was suddenly changed. Not all Union troops were all in on the slavery issue by any stretch of the imagination.

Your third paragraph.... Like I mentioned, you may want to actually *read* each state's declarations to secede before jumping to conclusions. Those documents weren't produced on a whim.

[jimmyb]

The point I tried to make but obviously failed, is many claim to be racially inclusive but their inner circle show otherwise. Many do indeed pay lip service to racial sensitivity but fail in real time. Family get togethers, functions attended, out with friends, and never a dark face.

I was directing the post to demonstrating whites, that are marching for racial equality and are clearly not practicing what they preach. Doesn't take sleeping with someone of color and there are different types of intimacy.

Having been personally accused of racism while married to a black women (Brazillian) doesn't sit well with me. People doing the pointing ought to take a look at how inclusive they really are.

When white equality warriors and the 'I stand against racism' crowd I run into on social media, and they are many, upon examining the photos they post, (some post 100's) I run into all pearly white faces.

Hypocrisy at it's damndest. I am weary of it.

[zico20]

"What caused the civil war?

There were many causes of the civil war, including differences between northern and southern states on the idea of slavery, as well as trade, tariffs, and states rights."

http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-facts

The cause of the Civil War was the south firing the shots on Fort Sumter. If this does not happen the Civil War may have never came to fruition. The south should have waited til the north ended slavery before attacking.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Beyond laughable how people want to believe the American Civil War WASN'T about Slavery, and yet want to tear down statues of Southerners leading the South because of...., yep, you guessed it.... Slavery.

The Mason-Dixon line runs deep. Still to this day.

[sandpit]

That is just a ridiculous statement. According to the 1860 census, there were 3,951.946 slaves in the Southern states and 1,815 slaves in the northern states. I know you were talking about slave owners not slaves, but even if every one of those northern slaves had a single owner; each southern slave owner would have to own 2,178 slaves.

It is far more likely that each northern slave owner owned six or seven slaves. Which means each southern slave owner would have to own between 13,000 and 14,000 slaves to balance the numbers.

The 1860 census numbers reveal some more important numbers. Of the twenty non Confederate states, 17 had no slaves within their boundaries. Only Kansas with two; Nebraska with fifteen and Delaware with 1,798 had slaves.

One of these things is not like the other. Slave ownership in the north is not like slave ownership in the south.

There's no disputing there were more slaves in the South than the North, but what's ridiculous is your census numbers. Being a lifelong Kentuckian who knows the history of my state, I know there were plenty of slaves in my non-Confederate state. So here are some numbers for you from civilwar.net:

Kentucky: 225,483 slaves
and a few more non-Southern states...
Maryland: 87,189
Missouri: 114,931
Nebraska: 15

Congrats, you got Delaware and Kansas correct.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

There's no disputing there were more slaves in the South than the North, but what's ridiculous is your census numbers. Being a lifelong Kentuckian who knows the history of my state, I know there were plenty of slaves in my non-Confederate state. So here are some numbers for you from civilwar.net:

Kentucky: 225,483 slaves
and a few more non-Southern states...
Maryland: 87,189
Missouri: 114,931
Nebraska: 15

Congrats, you got Delaware and Kansas correct.

And to make sure, my family had NOTHING to do with that 15.

[Mulerider]

Simply put, I don't believe many of those statements of why this or that. To me the evidence is crystal clear.

Just like I believe that Lincoln wrote The Emancipation Proclamation when he did -- so that he could increase the size of the Union Army. Not because he chose that moment to the right thing for the slaves.

It was always about the money. The southern economy was off the charts amazing because they did not have to pay for labor. There was no way they were going to give up that incredible advantage without a fight.

The south attacked Fort Sumter when they did because they believed Congress was about to "free the slaves" and destroy that advantaged economy that they had. Turns out they were wrong. There was still great opposition in Congress to ending slavery when the attack occurred.

Seems that Texas seized upon the opportunity to make their own points known.

Lincoln had strategic and tactical reasons for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but not "so that he could increase the size of the Union Army," which was merely a side benefit. It freed no slaves in Unionist border states, nor in Southern states that were under U.S. military control. It affected only those states in which he had no power at the time to enforce it.

His strategic reason for the Proclamation was to influence British public opinion and keep England from recognizing the Confederate States of America (and entering the war). It took him two years into the war to issue it, out of fear that his own troops would rebel and desert the Union Army if he made it a war to end slavery. (As Lincoln told Sen. Charles Sumner, who was pressing him on emancipation early on, "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise.") After early Confederate victories in major battles, Lincoln heeded the advice of his Secretary of State to wait until a significant Union victory to issue it, which he did, immediately following the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam). His first draft of it, by the way, called for gradual emancipation and compensation to slave owners.

His tactical reason for the Proclamation was to deprive the South of the manpower necessary to sustain the war effort, in both domestic food production and on the military front, where the Confederate armies used slaves for manual labor building fortifications, roads, etc, in order to free white soldiers to fight.

You are correct that there was opposition in Congress to abolishing slavery. Even after all the seceding states' delegations had departed D.C., the Corwin Amendment (ironically, it would have been the 13th) easily passed both houses of a now exclusively-Northern Congress -- with Lincoln's approval. It would have permanently prohibited Congress from interfering with the institution of slavery where it then existed. The outbreak of war rendered it moot before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

Mule

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Lincoln had strategic and tactical reasons for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but not "so that he could increase the size of the Union Army," which was merely a side benefit. It freed no slaves in Unionist border states, nor in Southern states that were under U.S. military control. It affected only those states in which he had no power at the time to enforce it.

His strategic reason for the Proclamation was to influence British public opinion and keep England from recognizing the Confederate States of America (and entering the war). It took him two years into the war to issue it, out of fear that his own troops would rebel and desert the Union Army if he made it a war to end slavery. (As Lincoln told Sen. Charles Sumner, who was pressing him on emancipation early on, "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise.") After early Confederate victories in major battles, Lincoln heeded the advice of his Secretary of State to wait until a significant Union victory to issue it, which he did, immediately following the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam). His first draft of it, by the way, called for gradual emancipation and compensation to slave owners.

His tactical reason for the Proclamation was to deprive the South of the manpower necessary to sustain the war effort, in both domestic food production and on the military front, where the Confederate armies used slaves for manual labor building fortifications, roads, etc, in order to free white soldiers to fight.

You are correct that there was opposition in Congress to abolishing slavery. Even after all the seceding states' delegations had departed D.C., the Corwin Amendment (ironically, it would have been the 13th) easily passed both houses of a now exclusively-Northern Congress -- with Lincoln's approval. It would have permanently prohibited Congress from interfering with the institution of slavery where it then existed. The outbreak of war rendered it moot before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

Mule


I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.

Fantastic stuff.

[Clocker]

I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.



What part of it was wrong? Without checking the details, nothing stood out to me as a major error.

[Mulerider]

I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.

Fantastic stuff.

It is what it is. Civil War history is fascinating because it is the first "modern" war, and well documented both politically and militarily. Thus, I'm always amazed by some Southerners' argument that the war was about states' rights, not slavery. I'm a card-carrying member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, but there is no doubt what the war was about, and that is slavery. Without the perceived threat to slavery, secession wouldn't have occurred.

That said, I'm equally amazed at the tone of moral superiority used against Southerners regarding slavery and racism. The North had the luxury of the moral high ground only because it could never quite make slavery profitable. As in most things, money talks. If cotton was a cold-weather crop (you know, like turnips), then the roles of the two sides could easily have been reversed.

Mule

[JustRalph]

What part of it was wrong? Without checking the details, nothing stood out to me as a major error.

Beat me to it. I looked around a little, seems in line with what I learned in the 8th grade (we did a whole semester on the civil war) and matched a few things I found doing a google search.

I had relatives on both sides. A couple were brothers. I had one relative that fought the first half of the war on the North side and the 2nd half on the South. I can imagine attitudes and opinions may have swung wildly for a few years.