Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Revmitchell, Jul 23, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    By Roger K. Broxton of Andalusia, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund

    Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

    "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

    "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

    There is no proof of Lincoln ever declaring the war was fought to abolish slavery, and without such an official statement, the war-over-slavery teaching remains a complete lie and offensive hate speech that divides Americans, as is being done now by the media and politicians regarding the Confederate flag in South Carolina.

    Slavery was NOT abolished; just the name was changed to sharecropper with over 5 million Southern whites and 3 million Southern blacks working on land stolen by Wall Street bankers.

    White, black, Indian, Hispanic, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish Confederates valiantly stood as one in thousands of battles on land and sea. Afterwards, they attended Confederate Veterans' reunions together and received pensions from Southern States.

    Photos of black Confederate veterans may be seen in Alabama's Archives in Scrapbook – 41st Reunion of United Confederate Veterans, Montgomery, June 2,3,4 and 5, 1931."

    Lincoln did not claim slavery was a reason even in his Emancipation Proclamations on Sept. 22, 1862, and Jan. 1, 1863. Moreover, Lincoln's proclamations exempted a million slaves under his control from being freed (including General U.S. Grant's four slaves) and offered the South three months to return to the Union (pay 40 percent sales tax) and keep their slaves. None did. Lincoln affirmed his only reason for issuing was: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said (tax) rebellion."

    Mrs. Grant wrote in her personal memoirs: "We rented our pretty little home (in St. Louis) and hired out our four servants to persons whom we knew and who promised to be kind to them. Eliza, Dan, Julia and John belonged to me. When I visited the General during the War, I nearly always had Julia with me as nurse."

    Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."

    On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "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 (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)." (Paragraphs 5-8)


    http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
     
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    Lincoln also said he would keep slavery to re-unite the Union
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    The Civil War was about what all wars are about. Money.

    The south was selling their cotton to Europe and buying European machinery and finished products from Europe instead of selling their cotton at a much lower price to the north and buying northern manufactured machinery and finished products at a much higher cost.

    To stop the south from doing so the north controlled congress passed several tariffs (taxes) that made it cost more to buy and sell from Europe than for the south to buy and sell from the north.

    The common people of the north (IE voters) did not support the war and refused to join the Union Army. Lincoln instituted a draft that caused draft riots in most major cities (the common people, the ones being drafted, refused to be drafted into the Army to line the pockets of the industrialists who were profiting from the war), the riot in New York being so bad a significant portion of the city was destroyed.

    Lincoln (illegally) declared Marital Law that did away with the constitutional protections of habeas corpus and substituted military tribunals for the civil and criminal court system.

    It was not until Lincoln's propaganda machine dreamed up the "It's all about slavery" lie that the people of the north began to support the war effort.

    And that, boys and girls, is how Abraham Lincoln destroyed the United States and started the descent of our once great Union (not country, a Union of separate, sovereign, self-governed states [state used to mean "independent country" - now we have changed the meaning of the word to be a political division under an all powerful federal machine]) and brought us to where we are today, with a President who ignores Congress, ignores the Supreme Court, and issues dictatorial "Executive Orders" which he claims to have the power and authority of law (they don't! An Executive Order can only legally apply to the administration of the Executive branch of government), and sends his federal henchman (IRS, NSA, ATF, DEA, etc.) to enforce those dictatorial edicts on the helpless, largely disarmed, populous. (It is only through the efforts of some state legislatures that the people of some states have, once again, been given the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, their loved ones, their communities, and their states against all enemies both foreign and domestic.)

    If this dictatorship of the federal Executive Branch is not curbed, and curbed quickly, this will not end well for the people of the United States. :(
     
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    611
    Oh really?

    From Lincoln's second inaugural address:

    "One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    Key word: SECOND inaugural...

    Since the war was not going well for the first two years or so... for the North - that is when slavery became the issue....
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    611
    Doesn't matter. OP claims Lincoln said the war was over taxes and I provide a direct quote from Lincoln saying, "the cause of the war was slavery."
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," ~ Lincoln
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    611
    I guess he changed his mind...
     
  9. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    While Lincoln may have personally been opposed to the institution of slavery, he knew better than to claim that the abolition of slavery was the sole reason for a "civil" war against slave-holding states.

    One needs to remember that there were other states whose citizens held slaves than just the ones who seceded.

    There were plenty of "border states" in which a percentage of their citizens held slaves.

    What made Lincoln hesitant in insisting that each and every state immediately abolish slavery within their respective borders was that, if they did, the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal government, would be cut off from the rest of the US because a number of citizens of Maryland held slaves.

    IOW, you'd wind up having all the office buildings such as the Capitol, the White House, various Cabinet buildings, etc., cut off from the rest of the US.

    Say what you want about Lincoln, he wasn't that stupid.

    Moreover, Lincoln wanted to see if his Union army would ever be in a reasonable position to eventually be successful in overcoming its poor showing vis-a-vis the Confederate forces.

    It took until mid- to the latter part of 1863 to overcome the poor showing of the Union forces against the Confederates. Eventual victories at Gettysburg, the siege of Vicksburg [which shut off much of the upper Mississippi River areas from being re-supplied either by the Confederates themselves or by foreign "allies" such as England and/or France and/or Spain---all of whose textile industries were dependent on the importation of cotton from the South.], plus the beginnings of what eventually would become "Sherman's March to the Sea" made an eventual Union victory within reach.

    Added to that, the Union naval forces were finally becoming relatively successful in blockading shipping to and from the Confederacy.

    You also had the fact that most of the raw materials for waging war were in Union areas--industry, food-producing farms, and a much larger population to fill the ranks of the military were advantages that the Confederacy couldn't match.

    When you take into consideration all these factors, it should come to no surprise that the Union would finally be victorious over the Confederacy.

    The only thing that surprises me is that it took as long as it did for the Union to defeat the Confederates.

    Yes, slavery might have been one factor that brought on the conflict in the 1860's, but it was not the only factor.

    Then, when the overt military conflict was over, you still had the so-called "victorious Radical Republicans" practically in charge of most all of the federal government.

    Most of them--especially their leadership--wished to punish the South for seceding, and thus you had a vengeance-filled government who wanted to impose their own wills on a war-torn South by means of Carpetbaggers and other hangers-on during the Reconstruction Era.

    While the so-called Reconstruction Era supposedly ended in 1877, its long-term effects remained for many decades to follow.

    Not only did the individual Southern states impose various "Jim Crow" laws against the now-"emancipated" African-Americans, but also several vigilante groups were created to mete out their own forms of vengeance against not only the Blacks, but any Whites whom they deemed were sympathetic to their Black neighbors.

    Lynchings, burnings of not only crosses, but of homes and barns and other privately owned buildings were commonplace during that time period.

    The SCOTUS ruling in the Plessey v. Furgueson decision made the concept of "separate but equal" law throughout the land for at least another six or more decades.

    The "Solid (i.e., Democrat) South" ensured that practically no Republican candidate--especially for POTUS--would ever receive a majority of votes up until the post-WW2 era.

    And even today, after some 50 years of federal civil rights legislation, you still have a lot of resentment, and not just in the South.

    I'm no "Lincoln lover," but I doubt that even Lincoln could ever foresee how the land over which he presided for only a few years would ever turn out the way that it did.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Are you really that ignorant or are you trolling?

    Lincoln's second inaugural was March 4th, 1865. Duh!
     
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yes, which means by that time he's certain of the causes of the war. Meanwhile, you don't rip Revmitchell for quoting his first inaugural address, which was given before the war even started!
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    So, your answer is "Yes, I am that ignorant?"

    Lincoln said, in his first inaugural address, March 4th, 1861, "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    So, it has been amply demonstrated for anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size that the war was not about slavery and Lincoln even said so in his first inaugural address, and repeated that position several times until it became obvious the people were not behind his war for profit and the draft riots were threatening to drive the nation into anarchy. So he changed horses in mid stream and now claimed the war was not about taxes, or profits, but about slavery.

    Case closed.
     

Share This Page

Loading...