[jelem]

Originally Posted by Notmything

Oh go on, enlighten me

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

[Notmything]

Originally Posted by jelem

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

Yeah, I've no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing the war of independence and the civil war?

[brainboru1104]

Originally Posted by Notmything

Oh go on, enlighten me

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

So it sounds like it's about slavery*, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

* I mean a noble crusade to end slavery

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by patsman07

I've often read that Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation "from the steps of the GPO." This always bugged me as I've walked past the building many times and there are no steps there. Images from 1916 show the same.

That he signed or called himself "Padraig Pearse".

The Tans were supposed to be released jailbirds is another one.

[odyssey06]

Originally Posted by jelem

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

If you are talking about the American War of Independence I think most history books mention tax ... and no taxation without representation. The irony of slave owners rebelling in the name of freedom was remarked on at the time and subsequently.

[odyssey06]

Originally Posted by brainboru1104

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.
So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most wars it was just a power struggle.
There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war. Any other issue would have been resolved through the federal system ie tariffs, expansion, national bank, indian question.
It was not about power per se... it was about that power being deployed to protect, extend or contain slavery.

[brainboru1104]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.

It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.

[Finty Lemon]

1916 was a Sinn Fein rising.
They had no involvement and indeed were monarchists at that time.

[milehip]

Originally Posted by brainboru1104

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

What this guy wrote.

Plus slavery didn't end at the armistice, sharecropping which followed was an ersatz form of slavery.

Check out Lucy Worsley show on it Amercian History Biggest Fibs from bbc. She explains how slavery basically still exists in the US.

[odyssey06]

Originally Posted by brainboru1104

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.
It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.

It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

[brainboru1104]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.

[magicbastarder]

Originally Posted by brainboru1104

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.

but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.

[brainboru1104]

Originally Posted by magicbastarder

but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.

No, you're confusing two posters as one.

[odyssey06]

Originally Posted by brainboru1104

I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.

He wasnt under pressure on tariffs or railroads or banks or taxes ... he was under pressure because the South seceded on the election on Northern votes alone of a President committed to contain slavery. Not for any other political issue on which there were regional disagreements.

Slavery was the wedge between the North and South. No slavery in the South, no anti-slavery in the North... no war.
Without slavery political compromises would have been found, coalitions across regional lines - as had been the case for previous 50 years.

It was the ultimate cause of the war not a pretext or fig leaf for it.

[Bellejelles]

The winners write history