I believe that was the revolutionary war.

That one, too. The biggest lie ever told in the USA is that we fought the civil war over slavery. Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner and he guaranteed the protection/ continuation of slavery in his inaugural speech. Abolishing slavery was a tactical decision. The government invested heavily in the industrial revolution in that time as well, and most of those taxes were paid by southerners.

The war ended when the wealthy elites realized that the civil war was a bad investment lol.

War is always about money.

Yeah yeah yeah. The south was fighting the north and Abe a slave owner because of slavery.

It’s understandable to be fooled as a child fresh out of public education. To be passed 30 and still ignorant is on you.

Amen to that

What was being taxed of the common man or ordinary farmer enough to make him become a traitor and take up arms against the USA? What was the specific tax that affected the common man?

If you don't already know about this issue, it is easy to do the Google

I would argue that the South was over-represented. In fact from everything I've read in the history books, it seems the civil war was very much about slavery. But not because the northerners loved blacks or because the southerners hated blacks. Rather it was because of the 3/5 compromise. This gave the Southern States more power than the northern states. The northerners wanted to end that while the southerners wanted to retain/expand it.

Was he?

Presidents that owned slaves

I would suggest reading both his 1st and 2nd inaugural address. Go to the source instead of possibly repeating something you heard or saw.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp

Can anyone find where he guaranteed the protection/continuation of slavery?

I'm a little tired after a week of travel.

You're going to find information about the Morrill Tariff of 1861. That was a tax on imports into the USA. Go read about what the law and tariff actually did. Read the actual law. Maybe it contributed some along with a handful of other things to launch the civil war but the major issue was states rights. Simple minded people somehow have come up with the idea that taxes were the major reason for the civil war while trying to sidestep slavery. There was also plenty of spinning to be had at the time of which Lincoln was well versed.

Been trying to think about how to put this in a very simple explanation.

1. Giant agri-industrial economy existed in the South with a huge collective amount of wealth and power which basically used and depended on owned-humans as machinery (along with non-owned humans and horses, mules etc). The business model was dependent on these owned-humans. It could not operate in the same way without them.

2. Federal government was trending toward eliminating the right to own human beings directly and indirectly. Indirectly is where maybe the Morrill Tariff of 1861 might come into play by punishing the South, but it applied to the whole USA at the time. However the South may have been more negatively affected.

3. But the real threat was to the business model that relied on owned-humans for labor. Not the same but in today's terms it would be like the federal government banning tractors and farm machinery in the Midwest. There would certainly be an uproar.

4. Southern states and their power/wealth constituency believed the decisions on such were the responsibility of state government and state laws. Federal government believed it was their responsibility. That set the stage for secession and rebellion.

It was about economics including wealth and power. If you really get into the details, you may understand that it was very much a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

This is just a very basic synopsis. I'd suggest people visit their local library and read everything available, then utilize the interlibrary loan program. Don't rely on the internet, internet videos or just a few sources.

Well, you could say approximately 3 percent of whites owned slaves when the Civil War started. I have seen estimates as low as 1%, but also some higher. Higher percentages mostly reported by groups that have a keen interest in racism because it has made them rich. But that is not my point. My point is that when the Civil War kicked off, the overwhelming majority of white people in the south had never even met, probably never even seen, a person of color in their lifetimes. Most rural white people were impoverished by today’s standards.

Yet some of you want to believe that these people marched for hundreds of miles, some with no footwear of any kind, to protect slave owners and oppress black people.

The truth is that white southerners were literally paying 80% of all the federal taxes, and the government had plans to tax them more. This is what motivated them to fight. They were fed propaganda just like we are today. Most of these people lived at least a partially subsistence lifestyle and not by choice, and they could hardly afford to buy the bare necessities to live.

But I guess it was just so important to oppress black people and ensure they remained slaves, that they left their farms behind for the wives and kids to manage, and fought a war that they barely had enough financial backing to fight. And kept fighting when the salaries were unpaid.

Don’t be a fool.

1. Which white southerners? All of them? The wealthy landowner farmer? The ordinary common farmer?
2. What was this federal tax called? Can you reference the specific tax or taxes?
3. How were they taxed? On what?

For example in today's times we have an income tax and sales tax? (plus some other ones)

Agreed



I've not seen that in this thread. From my understanding, and personal family history, they didn't generally care too much for black people. I believe there were a few isolated exceptions.



Most definitely glory for the common man was promoted by the wealthy establishment at the beginning and then later on the motivation was defense of their homeland.

While I never discount history, the movie that started this thread is about a future civil war and there’s pretty much nothing so far here about the possibility of another one.

This is it. Plain and simple. This is what you are missing.

The war fighter did not go out and put it all on the line to oppress black slaves. It’s not what the war was about for them. The common man was not motivated by racism. It’s absurd.

My ancestors in Mississippi were slave owners. I’ve been to the old plantation house (mostly fallen down) and the family cemetery’s. It was a fairly modest dog run house. It was over 40 years ago. There are 2. One for family and the other for slaves. Most of them in each section are about the same. No remaining headstones.

My Uncle told me that it wasn’t unusual for some black family to ask if Grandpa could be buried there with family. The answer was yes.

All the racial bullcrap is propaganda driven. Then and now. Everybody knows better today so they play it the other way.

All I am saying is that if you feel guilty for something your ancestors did, that’s a you problem.

If you think all white people owe reparations, also a you problem and you can pay them.

We all descended from slaves.

War is imminent one way or the other because too many gullible people will fall for the propaganda, and all our world leaders depend on the military industrial complex to launder money.

It’s not if, it’s when. I hope it’s not a civil war.

Fun fact. General Lee never owned a slave. But Grant did.

Lee left the union to defend the south from invasion. Not because of slaves, but because the idea that the government would attack its own people bothered him greatly.

Just another perspective...

https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/robert-e-lee-and-slavery.htm

When are we gonna get reparations from the British for their oppression and taxation? Makes about as much sense as any other “reparations”, all the wronged and wrong doers are long dead.

That's a really weird response. How could I be missing it if I just wrote it, and you were in agreement?

Lincoln’s famous quote about “saving the union without freeing a single slave” is very important.

I’d read the 10th amendment real well before defending the north. The 10th hasn’t meant much since.

Read the whole letter for the complete context.

===============================================

August 22, 1862
EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Because i picked it from a post which, taken as a whole, sounds like the Civil War was fought over slavery. The rich slavers, of course they used their money and influence to protect their “investments”. But the majority of southerners did not GAF about that.

The rich slavers were not the war fighters. And the tax issue probably could have been resolved through diplomacy.

I would bet if they only applied the severe taxes to the slavers, they would not be able to find anybody to fight that war.

But that would never happen. The tax code to this day is vaguely written in legalese, by/for the wealthy elites, to extort the middle class.