Lincoln said the Civil War was about taxes, not slavery

Wrong. We do not exist in an economic vacuum. More money in private hands stimulates the economy. A rising tide raises all boats — from my dinghy to the Kennedy’s mega yachts.

 

Still running with that trickle down nonsense huh?

 

It makes perfect sense. Liberals have managed to convince themselves that it is nonsense. Kind of like convincing yourself the sky is green.

 

Trickle down economics has another name...coined by George Bush the first


Voodoo economics.

And it has a record of nearly 40 years of failure

 

Like every politician Lincoln tended to vacillate. At the time the Speech was given it still seemed there was a chance for reconciliation without full blown war, Your take on Sumpter is largely ahistorical claptrap for Sumpter was always occupied. Lincoln was always a died in the wool abolitionist and had already given several speeches regarding that fact and then there is the Lincoln Douglas debate. And please note by April the 8th most southern states had already seceded

 

Actually nether name is accurate. And it did not fail it has succeeded every time it has been tried. In fact today no politician is even talking about raising taxes beyond 40% because the Laffer curve fully demonstrates the point at which diminishing returns overcomes base rate.

 

The American Civil War was fought because of an attempt to split up the nation.

 

It "succeeded" at pushing the flow of money to the rich...for sure

 

Can we let the civil war rest in peace?

 

He was not a federalist, that is all; Excuses is what you get, from Other parties.

Slavery should have started to begin to end, after 1808.

Eminent Domain should have applied.

A simple, lack of Faith-fullness in the execution of the federal doctrine, that is all.

 

Yeah, and burning down your house will ultimately end your roach problem.

Not many would think of it as the optimal solution, though.

 

The main problem with the southern states regarding tariffs is the expenditure of the vast majority of the money collected on development in the north. In other words, the south was subsidizing the north.

 

If George Soros gets to keep another billion that he had earned, he can buy another mega yacht, another mansion, and another private jet.

If Bill Smith gets to keep another $10,000, he can buy a new flat screen for his man cave, another motorcycle for his collection, and a used car for his kid. Can you think of any reason why this is good for the economy?

 

1. Nowhere in that quote, or any other quote from Lincoln does he say that the civil war was caused by taxation.

2. At the time that the southern states seceded, the US was still under the Robert M.T. Hunter tariffs. Who was Robert M.T. Hunter? He was a senator from Virginia who would later serve as the secretary of state to the confederate states. The confederate states were not rebelling from the federal government's tariffs, they were the ones who wrote those tariffs, and new tariffs were not established until AFTER the southern states seceded.

3. Of all the states that wrote a declaration for seceding, none of them cited tariffs/taxes as their reason for seceding. In fact, the only state to even use the word "tax" or "tariff" was Georgia, and what they wrote was:

"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"

This is the one and only time any confederate state used the word "tax" in their self declared reasons for seceding, and their use of the word wasn't against any form of taxation, but rather they were citing a feature of the tax code to argue that slavery was a constitutional..

4. Of the states that wrote their own declaration for seceding, ALL of them cite slavery. Most blatantly was Mississippi, the state in which Jefferson Davis (the president of the confederate states) was a representative of, before the confederate states were established. This is what Mississippi opened their declaration of secession with:

"In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin"

5. The Civil War was fought to save the American union, but the reason why there was a fight to begin with was because the southern states had seceded, and they had declared their secession due to turmoil on the issue of slavery, not taxes. The southern states saw that the nation was growing, and that the newly added states to the union were a threat to the establishment of slavery, because there were more and more free states being given representation in the US federal government. They (the slaves states) wanted the newly added states to be slave state, so they could further maintain the institution of slavery.

6. I'm going to throw you a bone here, here is everything declaration of secession written by each of the original confederate states.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

If you can cite ANY line from ANY of the individual confederate state's self described reasons for seceding that indicates that their reasons for seceding was because of taxes/tariffs and not slavery, I will admit that I am wrong and you are right. However, if you cannot cite a single line from any of the confederate states secession to back your claim, then I do believe that each and every rational person who reads this discussion can conclude that you are absolutely wrong.

 

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation, since 1808.

States have no longer Any Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state.

 

Firstly, Lincoln did state why he would use force (to collect imports and duties i.e. taxes) in his Inaugural Address.

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

As to the other, (from South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States):

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated.

Now, slavery, or rather northern agitation over the institution, is mentioned equally in the same document:

No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution — –a limited free Government– — a Government limited to those matters only, which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.

It is not at all surprising, such being the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on the subject of slavery, are the natural results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility, follows power; and if the people of the North, have the power by Congress–“to promote the general welfare of the United States,” by any means they deem expedient–why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of slavery in the South? They are responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of slavery, under such circumstances, were so imperious, as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union–in other words, on any constitutional subject–for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

This document, in my opinion, best expresses the issues that prompted secession. As it states, the expenditure of tariffs largely for the benefit of the North and agitation towards slavery were the causes for secession.

 

It should be called, the Southern War with the Second Amendment instead of the First Amendment.

Eminent Domain applied.

 

No it did not. Taxes and regulations do that.

 

Racist Quote by Abe Lincoln (Happy Black History Month!)


Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
https://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

 

Well that voodoo economics has been the predominant economic philosophy of the GOP for 40 years...and it has resulted in the rich getting richer and everyone else getting left behind

 

No it has not increasing the cost of labor through burdensome regulation and having a corporate tax rate significantly higher than the rest of the world did that.

 

Your distorting the historicity of Lincoln's inauguration, the south didn't secede in response to Lincoln's inauguration speech, Lincoln's inauguration speech was written in response to the south seceding. The southern states began seceding BEFORE Lincoln took office, and the line in his inauguration speech was basically him saying that he would still acknowledge the southern states as being a part of the union, and collect tax revenue the same as he would the northern states.

As for the south seceding due to tariffs, we know that is not accurate because the southern states themselves were the one's who wrote our tariffs at the time that they seceded. If they were rebelling from tariffs, then that would mean they were rebelling from the very same tariffs which they themselves wrote. More than this, when the south seceded, they established their own tariffs, and the tariffs that they established were at a similar rate as the Robert M.T. Hunter that were active in the union. On top of this, the confederate states began applying their tariffs on good coming from the northern states, meaning upon seceding, the confederate states were actually applying heavier tariffs than what they were abiding by when they were in the union.

As for why South Carolina seceded, it just so happens that they published an official declaration of causes for seceding, and this is what they wrote:

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

 

I'm perfectly aware that 7 southern states seceded prior to Lincoln's inauguration. Your supposing what I might think changes nothing.

The line I quoted from his inaugural shows him stating why he would use force. It does not ''basically" say anything else. It says exactly for what reason he would use force.

As for the tariff issue, I was explicit in noting that it was the expenditure of the tariffs primarily in the North that so rankled southerners. They saw that they were, in effect, subsidizing the development of the North at the expense of their industries. Repeating your own mistaken notion regarding the South's position on tariffs, again, changes nothing.

 

The South resorted to Insurrection and had to be, not merely denied and disparaged but also Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; Only well regulated militias of the United States, may not be Infringed.

 

But Reagan dramatically CUT taxes...and money flowed upward and the middle class stagnated.

You'll have to find another rationalization for that failed policy