Why It Wasn’t About Slavery
The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history.” Adams also notes,
Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical… The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes.
Charles Dickens writes, “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States.” Dickens goes on to say “…Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils… The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”
There is NO historical proof of an official act by Congress or Lincoln that the United
States waged a war to abolish slavery and until such an act is produced the war over slavery lie remains dishonest history and ignorant hate speech.
According to ALL official acts by Lincoln and the U.S. Congress, Lincoln’s Tax War was totally fought to collect a 40% Federal sales tax on imported products under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.
Abraham Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Speech on March 4, 1861:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 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.” (Paragraph 4)
“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.” (Paragraph 21)
Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:
“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”
On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:
“Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”
This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery. The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous. It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern industrialists.
Where is the logic?
IF slavery was the cause of the War For Southern Independence, and IF the North fought to free the slaves, why then:
1. Was a 13th amendment presented in the U.S. Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1861, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state? (Corwin Amendment, 2 March, 1861)
2. Was West Virginia allowed to accede to the union as a “Slave” state after 1863? (West Virginia was illegally and unconstitutionally formed)
3. Was slave labor used to build the Capitol building in Washington D.C.?
4. Was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, applicable only in areas not under the control of the Union? (The Emancipation Proclamation freed not one solitary person, but was a war measure meant to cause a slave uprising, which did not happen)
5.Was Union Gen. Fremont’s order emancipating slaves in Missouri countermanded by Lincoln and the slaves sent back to their masters?
6. Why did New Jersey uphold its “Lifetime apprentices” rule until 1866?
7. Why were there six slave states in the union (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska – 1860 Census) during the War For Southern Independence?
8. Was there a U.S. Resolution stating that the war had nothing to do with slavery? (July 22, 1861)
THE CORWIN AMENDMENT
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such state.”
If the war was over slavery, all the South had to do was to ratify the original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, and slavery would have forever been protected by the Constitution. Why did the South NOT accept this amendment? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery.
“The sole object of this war,” said Grant,
“…is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.” – Democratic Speaker’s Handbook, p. 33
“We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith…” ~ Abraham Lincoln
“Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate
“For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of Slavery is thrown to the winds. There was hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union…Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave! — The Wigan Examiner, an English newspaper
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect “the duties and imposts,” and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.
There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery. It was “defeated”, even though the Southern States were not in the union.
Following is a paragraph packing a dynamite punch. It is found in a fascinating article contained in The SOUTHERN CAVALRY REVIEW , A PUBLICATION OF THE STUART-MOSBY HISTORICAL SOCIETY. THE JOURNAL IS PRODUCED UNDER THE FINE HAND OF EDITOR VALERIE PROTOPAPAS, A GREAT FRIEND OF THE SOUTH AND OF SOUTHERN TRUTH!
“The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man although that was not the motive of the war as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.”
To read these words and know that they came from the pen of one of the Union’s most ardent abolitionists (Lysander Spooner) is to give one a totally realistic perspective of the Republicans’ false claim that they “warred” to “save” the slaves.
FACTS OF LINCOLN’S WAR
Lincoln provoked the firing on Ft. Sumter by sending the Star of the West, with supplies and troops, after stating that he would not supply the fort.
Lincoln had 35,000 Northern citizens imprisoned who disagreed with his war, and suspended habeas corpus and had the Supreme Court Justice arrested when he ruled against him.
Lincoln closed more than 300 newspapers who did not agree with him, censored all telegraph communications, waged war without Congressional consent, illegally created the state of West Virginia, deported an Ohio congressman, and arrested Maryland legislators and replaced them to keep them from voting for secession.
Because Lincoln was losing the war, he issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which he stated was a war measure to cause slave insurrections. Which did not happen.
This proclamation freed not one solitary person. Anyone who reads it can see it for themselves.
Lincoln’s war was a war against secession, not slavery. He could not bear to lose the excessive revenues paid by the Southern states. The South did not need the North, but the North needed the South’s money, cotton, and needed to control the Mississippi River.
The brainwashed masses have been made to believe that the war was a “moral war” to end the injustices of slavery. Hogwash! It was all about power and money. The rich Northern bankers and industrialists needed the South. Slavery did not enter into the picture until halfway through the war as the North was losing. Then they tried to paint the picture of a moral crusade to end slavery.
Why did it take 22 million people of the North four years to defeat 5 million people of the South? The South was outnumbered the entire war. The South was fighting with heart, for a reason. The Southern soldier was fighting to defend his homeland from the illegal invasion of Lincoln. The Northern soldier was just following orders. The South fought with a purposed to escape the tyranny of the North and stick to the Constitution, and return to a limited government and get away from an all powerful centralized government, which our Founders had warned against.
Why did Lincoln pay for 300,000 European socialists (the same ones who had lost the socialist revolution of 1848) to join his army? He could not win without their help. These socialists saw the opportunity to succeed here where they had failed in Europe.
Lincoln’s army was experiencing massive desertions. Irish immigrants were told the lie
that the South had intentions of making slaves out of them, so they joined up to fight.
Lincoln waged a total war campaign against the citizens of the South, murdering, raping, looting, and burning were the norm for General William T. Sherman and his ilk.
The victors write the history, and during Reconstruction, Northern teachers were sent in to start the brainwashing procedure on Southern children. For 150 years, the Yankee lie of the war being about slavery has been fed to our youth, and they have been made to believe their ancestors were traitors and committed treason against the U.S. They have been taught to be ashamed of their heritage and history. They have been taught to say the socialist Pledge of Allegiance which rubs in the face of the defeated the victory of the socialist backed North.
Why is it not taught in the schools that the North offered “The Corwin Amendment” which would have forever protected slavery if the South would accept it and rejoin the union?
The South did not care about the preservation of slavery as it was on its way out, and slavery was not why the south seceded. Why is it not taught in the schools that the following U.S. resolution was written stating that the war was NOT about slavery?
Cultural genocide continues to be the order of the day as our Confederate symbols are slandered, ridiculed, and banned.
As Mark Twin said,
“It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”.
Remain in the Union to Perpetuate Slavery
“…It is almost universally assumed as a fact that the war was waged by the Federal Government for the overthrow of African slavery, and by the South for the maintenance of that institution. [I]t is easy to show that it did not make war to emancipate the slaves, but that it liberated the slaves to help it to make war.
For the proclamation came at a time when the Federal army that had besieged Richmond in the beginning of 1862 had barely saved Washington from the grasp of the half-starved, half-naked soldiers of the Confederacy. It was issued when those soldiers stood on the frontier of Virginia, challenging their adversaries to try again the issue left undetermined on the bloody field of Sharpsburg. It came at a time when the Federal plan of campaign in Virginia for 1862 had failed, shattered at Manassas, shattered at Sharpsburg, and if there be not about it a painful suggestion of servile war as a possible aid to the restoration of Federal authority over the South, it is clear in the announcement that if the South could escape the threatened emancipation of the slaves, and all the consequences of that measure, by returning to the Union. Emancipation, therefore, was used as a threat to the States that should continue to resist the Federal arms after the 1st day of January, 1863, and protection to slavery by the Federal Government was the reward promised to such States as should cease to resist.”
(The Oration of Colonel Charles Marshall, 3 November, 1870, Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XVII, R.A. Brock, editor, 1889, pp. 217-218)
U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” –Charles Dickens, 1862
Gen. Pat Cleburne said,
“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by northern teachers and will learn from northern books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”
“Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people desired to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox, no, sir, not by me. Had I seen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.” –– General Robert E. Lee, CSA, as told to Texas ex-governor F. W. Stockdale
Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, wrote to General Butler in New Orleans:
“President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise.”
As General Don Piatt said:
“Lincoln well knew that the North was not fighting to free slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery. In that awful conflict slavery went to pieces.”