Today's Paper Obits Digital FAQ Newsletters Coronavirus 🔴 Cancellations 🔴NWA Screening Sites Virus Interactive Map Coronavirus FAQ Crime Razorback Sports Today's Photos Puzzles

Civil War wasn't about slavery, but taxation

The author of a Oct. 29 letter regarding our heritage seems to ignore or is unaware of certain facts. As the article stated "Slavery was constitutional as of 1860." He then said we needed a "war to allow a change in the Constitution outlawing slavery."

Our Constitution has a mechanism for change. It is called an amendment, not war.

One should note that slavery was abolished in France in 1794, England 1833, Spain 1834, Germany 1848, Brazil 1851 and Portugal 1858. None of these countries had a war over slavery. Maybe our civil war was about something else?

When sections of a country secede, they are simply saying "we do not want to be associated with you anymore. We wish to form our own country and laws." When people/governments say they are going to stop the secession, they are saying "Tough luck. We do not care whether you want to be associated with us or nor not. We are going to use force to prevent you from going your own way. We will kill and destroy you until you change your mind."

In Lincoln's First Inaugural address he stated he had no lawful right to interfere with slavery. Then there was the Corwin Amendment stating Congress could not interfere with slavery. How could the Civil War be about slavery when it was constitutional and both Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment said it was lawful. All the Southern states had to do was come back into the Union. They did not. The question is, why not?

If one looks at taxes/tariffs being levied, one would discover the South was paying the lion's share, yet the money was being spent in the North. There were numerous editorials in Northern newspapers stating the North would be ruined if the South were allowed to secede. One month before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, The New York Evening Post, March 12, 1861 stated "What shall be done for a revenue? That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importation from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of the public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop."

The war should be called the War of Northern Aggression. The South wanted to leave peacefully. Lincoln was a totally unconstitutional president and a tyrant -- a cruel and oppressive ruler! Read the book The Real Lincoln. Lincoln killed more Americans than were killed in World War I, World War II and Vietnam combined, yet somehow our history books make him out to be wonderful president.

How sad. The war was fought over taxes, just like our Revolutionary War.

Mike Clifford


Restoration of power deserves 'thank you'

I got my best birthday gift ever, and I've gotten 78 of them. Oct. 23 was my 78th birthday and I want to say a huge thank you to Carroll Electric and all the wonderful people who managed to help restore power that day to us out here in the "boonies."

We spent three days and nights in the dark and cold without all the comforts of home when -- BINGO! -- lights (and coffee).

Thank you so much.

Judith Duguid


Commentary on 11/09/2019

Print Headline: NWA Letters to the Editor

Sponsor Content


COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with our commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. Our commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.