Why do people keep denying that the 'civil war' was fought over taxes?

It may as well have been fought over 'God" as a moral cause to rally troops in the north but Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist, read the Lincoln/Douglas debates, also and if the north did not try to impose tarriffs on the agricultural heavy south there might not have been a war between the states. Asked by Lychnobite 22 months ago Similar questions: people denying 'civil war' fought taxes Business > Taxes.

Similar questions: people denying 'civil war' fought taxes.

1 Well, people probably keep denying it because it's not true. The Civil War was fought over the doctrine of States Rights. Or, more to the point, over the extent of the power of the Federal Government.

The Southers States seceded because Lincoln ran of a platform that promised slavery would not be extended to new territories/states. The South saw this as a direct challenge to their economic/political power. They had been able to bully the North into a series of deals and compromises over the preceding decades in an attempt to avoid a conflict over slavery.

Lincoln promised them he would not interefere with slavery where it already existed. In fact he repeatedly stated that he had no constitutional power to do so. The South, however, saw in his policies a direct interference in their way of life (or, as they put it their "particular institution"), and decided to bolt.

They were also offended at his election because he was not even on the ballot in ten southern states, which they saw as a delegitimizing factor. As to whether Lincoln was a "white supremacist", I think that is a bit of political hyperbole that a lot of people use today to advance their particular revisionist history. It is true that Lincoln did not think the races could live together peacefully here in the US.

But his opinion was based on his belief that slavery had so poisoned relations between the races, that it would be better for everyone to separate. Lincoln was a Southerner, born in Kentucky. Thomas Lincoln was vehemently opposed to slavery on religious grounds.In fact, the Lincolns moved from Kentucky to Indiana (when Lincoln was about seven) at least partly because his father's farm could not compete with those which used slave labor.

Mary, was from a wealth, slave-holding Kentucky family. The point being, I think to look at Lincoln's attitudes and judge them in the context of today's standards is a mistake. The main point is that he thought slavery was morally wrong.

Whether he thought black and white people were equal is irrelevant to that point. On the other hand, he was not about to fight a war, nor violate the Constitution, to abolish it. Had the South not seceded he would not have moved against them.

Finally, Lincoln did not impose any tariffs on the South, nor did the government before his election. The tariffs you refer to are the Tariffs of 1828, which were imposed to protect Northern and Southern industry from lower priced goods imported from Europe. They had an unfortunate effect on the South for two reasons.

First, it created an economic situation whereby they had to pay more for manufactured goods that they (unlike the North) did not produce for themselves. Second, because it reduced the amount of good imported from Britain, it harmed that nation's ability to pay for southern cotton. These effects were unforeseen and unintended, and the tariff was aimed at protecting the national economy.

But, seeing as these tariffs were in effect for 32 years before the start of the Civil War, they can hardly be cited as a direct, proximate cause of the War. Also, these tariffs were replaced in 1832 by a more moderate tariff which had the support of both norther and souther Congressmen. Only South Carolina continued to agitate on this issue.

But they backed down when Congress (with both northern and southern support) authorized President Andrew Jackson (a Southerner, possibly from South Carolina, but known as a Tennesseean) to use military force against South Carolina if they pushed their resistance to the tariff. (I think S. Carolina also got a more lenient tariff bill out of the ordeal, but the details escape me.

) The upshot of all this is that the crisis over the tariff had passed decades before the start of the War.

Well, people probably keep denying it because it's not true. The Civil War was fought over the doctrine of States Rights. Or, more to the point, over the extent of the power of the Federal Government.

The Southers States seceded because Lincoln ran of a platform that promised slavery would not be extended to new territories/states. The South saw this as a direct challenge to their economic/political power. They had been able to bully the North into a series of deals and compromises over the preceding decades in an attempt to avoid a conflict over slavery.

Lincoln promised them he would not interefere with slavery where it already existed. In fact he repeatedly stated that he had no constitutional power to do so. The South, however, saw in his policies a direct interference in their way of life (or, as they put it their "particular institution"), and decided to bolt.

They were also offended at his election because he was not even on the ballot in ten southern states, which they saw as a delegitimizing factor. As to whether Lincoln was a "white supremacist", I think that is a bit of political hyperbole that a lot of people use today to advance their particular revisionist history. It is true that Lincoln did not think the races could live together peacefully here in the US.

But his opinion was based on his belief that slavery had so poisoned relations between the races, that it would be better for everyone to separate. Lincoln was a Southerner, born in Kentucky. Thomas Lincoln was vehemently opposed to slavery on religious grounds.In fact, the Lincolns moved from Kentucky to Indiana (when Lincoln was about seven) at least partly because his father's farm could not compete with those which used slave labor.

Mary, was from a wealth, slave-holding Kentucky family. The point being, I think to look at Lincoln's attitudes and judge them in the context of today's standards is a mistake. The main point is that he thought slavery was morally wrong.

Whether he thought black and white people were equal is irrelevant to that point. On the other hand, he was not about to fight a war, nor violate the Constitution, to abolish it. Had the South not seceded he would not have moved against them.

Finally, Lincoln did not impose any tariffs on the South, nor did the government before his election. The tariffs you refer to are the Tariffs of 1828, which were imposed to protect Northern and Southern industry from lower priced goods imported from Europe. They had an unfortunate effect on the South for two reasons.

First, it created an economic situation whereby they had to pay more for manufactured goods that they (unlike the North) did not produce for themselves. Second, because it reduced the amount of good imported from Britain, it harmed that nation's ability to pay for southern cotton. These effects were unforeseen and unintended, and the tariff was aimed at protecting the national economy.

But, seeing as these tariffs were in effect for 32 years before the start of the Civil War, they can hardly be cited as a direct, proximate cause of the War. Also, these tariffs were replaced in 1832 by a more moderate tariff which had the support of both norther and souther Congressmen. Only South Carolina continued to agitate on this issue.

But they backed down when Congress (with both northern and southern support) authorized President Andrew Jackson (a Southerner, possibly from South Carolina, but known as a Tennesseean) to use military force against South Carolina if they pushed their resistance to the tariff. (I think S. Carolina also got a more lenient tariff bill out of the ordeal, but the details escape me.

) The upshot of all this is that the crisis over the tariff had passed decades before the start of the War.

2 PoorRichard, What a well-thought out and well-expressed answer. Most people don't know much at all about the Civil War. I only know a little because my daughter is a history major in college and has filled me in on a lot of things.

You should copy and paste this as an answer; it is without doubt five star material.

PoorRichard, What a well-thought out and well-expressed answer. Most people don't know much at all about the Civil War. I only know a little because my daughter is a history major in college and has filled me in on a lot of things.

You should copy and paste this as an answer; it is without doubt five star material.

Lychnobite replied to post #2: 3 It's a 10 star answer but alas the voting is limited to 5 star. That is true about states rights being the main cause of the 'civil war'. I had accepted that slavery was the reason for fighting it until I started reading on the internet that taxation was a contributing factor, which sounds more believable.

This user has been banned from Askville.

Lychnobite replied to post #2: 3 It's a 10 star answer but alas the voting is limited to 5 star. That is true about states rights being the main cause of the 'civil war'. I had accepted that slavery was the reason for fighting it until I started reading on the internet that taxation was a contributing factor, which sounds more believable.

It's a 10 star answer but alas the voting is limited to 5 star. That is true about states rights being the main cause of the 'civil war'. I had accepted that slavery was the reason for fighting it until I started reading on the internet that taxation was a contributing factor, which sounds more believable.

PoorRichard replied to post #3: 4 It is true the slavery itself is overstated as "the" cause of the War. But, as I said, this idea of taxation would fall below evern slavery as a casus belli for the War. And, I appreciate the kinds words, but I'm less interested in having an answer "rated" than in having a good discussion on the issues.

It is true the slavery itself is overstated as "the" cause of the War. But, as I said, this idea of taxation would fall below evern slavery as a casus belli for the War. And, I appreciate the kinds words, but I'm less interested in having an answer "rated" than in having a good discussion on the issues.

5 >>>The point being, I think to look at Lincoln's attitudes and judge them in the context of today's standards is a mistake. Usually, a proper way of considering history. But with respect to the war itself, I think that it must be judged by today's standards.

That time is not so far removed from our current ideology for us to forgive him for a war that killed over 600,000 Americans. There were other solutions. I enjoyed reading your comments.

They protrayed history as I know it. Usually people get bogged down over the slavery issue when studying the reasons for that war. Thank you.

The point being, I think to look at Lincoln's attitudes and judge them in the context of today's standards is a mistake. Usually, a proper way of considering history. But with respect to the war itself, I think that it must be judged by today's standards.

That time is not so far removed from our current ideology for us to forgive him for a war that killed over 600,000 Americans. There were other solutions. I enjoyed reading your comments.

They protrayed history as I know it. Usually people get bogged down over the slavery issue when studying the reasons for that war. Thank you.

" "I filed my taxes at H&R Block online. Can I file my taxes on TurboTax also? " "immigration and taxes" "When people say, I pay $500 per week for my housekeeper or nanny, is that usually before or after taxes (gross or net?

)" "Do people in Amish communities pay property taxes?" "How come the IRS will let some people wash away the back taxes they owe. " "Why not raise taxes only on liberals who believe we should raise taxes? " (12 answers) "how much do you have to make for them to take taxes out" "Anyone doing their taxes right now?

I filed my taxes at H&R Block online. Can I file my taxes on TurboTax also?

How come the IRS will let some people wash away the back taxes they owe.

How much do you have to make for them to take taxes out.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.