Lincoln said the Civil War was about taxes, not slavery

That's not actually true. Slavery was the main reason for secession but not every secession document specifically mentioned it.

 

Once again, the notion that the states seceded from the union due to tariffs is a preposterous notion, the southern states themselves are the ones who wrote the US's tariff rates, it wasn't until AFTER they seceded that they yielded this position.. In fact, the man who wrote the US's tariff rates at the point of secession was Robert M. T. Hunter, who was the secretary of state to the confederate states. Second, when the confederate states were founded they applied new tariffs that applied to goods coming from the northern states (goods coming from the north were made more expensive due to secession)

People often cite the Morril tariffs as being the reason for the southern states seceding from the union.. these people are idiots, the Morril tariffs were passed AFTER the southern states seceded from the union.. furthermore, had the southern states not yielded their congressional seats, they would have easily had enough votes to block the Morril tariffs

and finally, none of the southern states that seceded named tariffs as being their reason for secession.. and why would they? they were ultimately the states that decided the tariff rates of the US (that is until they seceded)

 

In 1860, tariffs were lower than they had been in decades and the south had enough votes in the senate to stop Lincoln from raising them. The south seceded because of slavery, not tariffs.

Blacks were explicitly forbidden from serving in the Confederate Army until the very last days of the war.

The border states were allowed to keep their slaves, but they only had about 314,000 slaves between them.

Grant only owned one slave in his life and he was freed in 1859.

Taxes are never mentioned in their Declaration of Secession, but slavery is.

You can't occupy something that you already own. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that federal forts are under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the state governments.

 

Regardless of how you spin it, the South got their butts whooped, slaves were freed, and the South should never have been allowed to vote in the United States, as they were as big of traitors as it gets. To this day the South still brings America down to its level of mediocrity and sadness.

 

Only because the Southern states blocked any serious attempts at abolition slavery previously. Once the war was over and the South were no longer at the table they immediately passed amendments which among other things abolished slavery nationwide. At that point the South had no say and couldn't stop it anymore. They had to settle for playing their banjos and picking their 5 remaining teeth with some straw while they fondles their grandmammies titties until their wife/cousin got home.

 

lmao. You guys are so angry! It was a long time ago boys and it had nothing to do with you. Let it go.

 

wrong and incorrect

 

The revision of history by the lying establishment is a sad note and proof that America has become a totalitarian state populated by domesticated farm animals. Forums such as this are simply propaganda outlets for minimum wage trolls spinning lies and yelling "conspiracy" at any mention of the truth.

What a pathetic sh*t pile the United States has evolved into.

 

still, you are incorrect

 

The Civil War is over. The South won. We get more federal welfare money than them blue states (allegedly). #TigerBlood

 

Real life is not like the simplistic story arcs and characters you'll find in books, where the heroes do things because they are the right thing and the bad guys do bad things because they like doing bad things.

Freeing the slaves may not have been Lincoln's goal or motivation but it was the outcome. And he played a major role in the war ultimately led to that outcome. So while maybe we don't celebrate Lincoln as the white knight who crusaded and triumphed over slavery, we can still recognize that without him, slavery would likely have continued on for longer than it did.

It's sort of like the arguments people make about taxes and charity and assistance programs. Yeah, charity is voluntary and it's not truly altruistic if you're being forced to do it, but at the end of the day, an empty belly that has food in it doesn't get more nourishment because that food was freely donated than it does because that food was provided by a program funded by taxes.

 

Your refusal to accept Lincoln's own statement, and historical facts, only exposes your inability to deal with reality.

 

just like your posts.

 

Spin the civil war however you wish. It was over slavery, it wasn't over slavery, etc etc etc.

Truth is, it was a rich man's war. Rich northern industrialist won, and rich southern slave holders lost.

 

Internet roid rage.

 

Yawn. More breathless and, frankly, rather transparent attempt at revisionism.

This West Point Colonel makes it crystal clear: it was about slavery. Full stop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

 

Lincoln was not the one who decided to secede from the union, the collective leaders of the confederate states were, and each and every one of the confederate states cited slavery as their reason for secession, none of them cited tariffs. That is the fact of the matter

Now getting into why the union declared war on the confederate states, that is a different story. They were not concerned about doing away with slavery so much as they were maintaining the union. Was the loss in tax revenue a reason for them wanting to maintain the union? of course..

however, to say the south seceded over tariffs is historically inaccurate, the southern states themselves are the ones who wrote the US's tariffs rates at the point of secession, and again not a single one of the the confederate states cited tariffs as a reason for secession, all of them cited slavery

 

This is the view I've come to as well. I oppose Lincoln's war, but I also sincerely believe that secession might have part to do with taxes, but also was mostly about slavery. South Carolina cited nullification of the fugitive slave laws as justification for leaving the Union.

I recognize a people's right to withdraw their consent from the government-- the Declaration of Independence states clearly this is a people's right and indeed is integral to the very founding of the nation. But if you secede so that you can own people? You kind of lose my sympathies there.

Ironically, the reason people should be free to secede is because individuals own their bodies-- the antithesis to slavery.

The question is-- would slavery have ended if the South were successful in its secession?

 

The first state to secede from the union was South Carolina, this is their official statement upon secession. The words slaveholding, slave or slavery are mentioned a total of 18 times, the words "tariff" is mentioned a total of 0 times


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Adopted December 24, 1860


As you can see, they make multiple complaints about the non-slave states not doing enough to abide by the fugitive slave act (that is a law which established that escaped slaves in non-slave states must be returned to the slave state they escaped from). In short, the only states rights they were concerned about was the states' right to practice slavery, they were for states rights only where slavery was protected. When it came to federal law that protected slavery, they were not for states rights

 

And it has even more food in its belly if the government doesn't spend 40% of the nation's wealth.

 

Here's my theory:

If we're exclusively discussing slavery, allow the South to secede. They keep slaves. The North can then vote to abolish fugitive slave laws. Without being able to externalize the costs of slavery on other people, slaves flee to the North and are freed and slowly slavery becomes economically unsustainable.

Another question-- is there something unique to the United States that ending slavery required a war? Were attempts made to purchase the slaves and free them, does anyone know?

 

No, the federal government was not looking to buy, and the states were not looking to sell. That would have been the practical solution, as that's how slavery was abolished in Britain

 

That's what this whole question hinges on for me-- would it have been possible to abolish slavery without a Civil War?

 

We'll never truly know, as it was never attempted

 

Which is bogus of course, because the homeless and the hungry aren't homeless and hungry because they paid too much in income tax.