Civil war was not about slavery

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Tom

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]

Originally Posted by jimmyb

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]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

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]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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.