• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • Total voters
    72
Everyone since plantantion owners accounted for less then 10% of the population. They also held 90% of the slaves. Slave owners were all races, so don't try the whites were only slave owners card. Your average Confederate didn't own a single slave and fought against invasion of their homes by an out of control federal government.

lmao...what percentage of southern slaves were owned by blacks?
 
I already told you that the south seceded over the Morrell Tariff.
I must have missed where you said that. What post was that in? Link to southerners saying it was over the Morrell tariff?

Slavery was used as the language since it was an economic issue as well as a legislative issue. Slavery was NOT on the table in 1861 since Lincoln made it clear that he was fine with slavery and his support of the Corwin Amendment. He threatened war if the south didn't comply with the Morrell Tariff.
Source on that?

Picking and choosing what you want to use is not an option. You have to use the documents in their historical context and you haven't been. As an aside, slavery was legal in the United States for 79 years and protected by the Constitution of the United States. It was legal in the north during the entire war. A historical sidenote that when the Statute of Freedom was raised in 1863 over the US Capitol Building it was done by slaves. How ironic is that? :lol:

Except it was not legal in the north, all "Northern" states had state laws banning it. Some border states did, but not Northern states.
 
We are paying our taxes, but we are not getting what we pay for. Instead, it is being redistributed to those who pay very little or no taxes.

Damn that infernal democracy! How dare the elected officials do what people who elected them ask them to do!
 
How does plantation owners being less than 10% of the population equate to all free southerners being educated? Also, what do you consider educated? Basic reading skills, knowing a trade, some sort of arithmetic skills, something else?

You brought up plantation owners. I put them into historical context. The fact of the matter is that you have provided nothing but your words that the south was uneducated. Pony up on some facts to compare to mine.
 
You brought up plantation owners. I put them into historical context. The fact of the matter is that you have provided nothing but your words that the south was uneducated. Pony up on some facts to compare to mine.

you yourself said education was for the wealthy. which side are you arguing?
 
You brought up plantation owners. I put them into historical context. The fact of the matter is that you have provided nothing but your words that the south was uneducated. Pony up on some facts to compare to mine.

I never said the south was uneducated. I think you are thinking of someone else. I just wanted you to clarify your statement.
 
I must have missed where you said that. What post was that in? Link to southerners saying it was over the Morrell tariff?

Then I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote.

Source on that?

I give you Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

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.

Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. 17

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. 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.

Except it was not legal in the north, all "Northern" states had state laws banning it. Some border states did, but not Northern states.

It was perfectly legal in the north. Ulysses S. Grant had no problems owning slaves while he lived in Illinois.
 
you yourself said education was for the wealthy. which side are you arguing?

I'm arguing the side that the south wasn't filled with a bunch of uneducated slobs that modern education systems have made it out to be. We use literacy as a gauge of education and under such gauge the south was equally as educated as the north. Prove that they weren't.
 
Last edited:
Then I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote.
In which post?


I give you Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
[/quote]
Specifically, where did he threated war over tariffs.

It was perfectly legal in the north. Ulysses S. Grant had no problems owning slaves while he lived in Illinois.
Again, source, or should I assume you're making stuff up?




So, would you say that pre civil war slavery is comparable to taxes?
 
In which post?

Specifically, where did he threated war over tariffs.

Again, source, or should I assume you're making stuff up?

So, would you say that pre civil war slavery is comparable to taxes?

I have sourced my statements so I'm going to hold you to the same standard that you are holding me to. Source everything starting with your very first comment. When you are done then we will talk.

Here's the source that Grant owned slaves.

Grant acquired one of those slaves in 1858 (and manumitted him the next year, when the Grants returned to Illinois) and his wife owned four slaves. From 1858-1859, he was a bill collector in St. Louis.
 
Last edited:
I have sourced my statements so I'm going to hold you to the same standard that you are holding me to. Source everything starting with your very first comment. When you are done then we will talk.
I wasn't sure what thread you posted something on, and you've refused to tell me where, so I don't know if you're making it up or not. And Lincoln never said anything in this speech about forcing war over tariffs, so I'm going to assume you're making things up.

Here's the source that Grant owned slaves.

If you read, it states he manumitted them when he returned to Illinois, a northern state. So you are wrong.
 
I wasn't sure what thread you posted something on, and you've refused to tell me where, so I don't know if you're making it up or not. And Lincoln never said anything in this speech about forcing war over tariffs, so I'm going to assume you're making things up.

All of my statements are in this thread. I provided the evidence and you didn't read it carefully. Lincoln plainly states that he would go to war over taxes. It's not my fault that you didn't read it, but kneejerked. Here is where he threatened war.

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.

If you read, it states he manumitted them when he returned to Illinois, a northern state. So you are wrong.

If you knew anything about the times he lived in women were not allowed to own property by law. The part that states his wife owned four slaves while living in Illinois is a whitewash. She couldn't own slaves since she was a woman and the legal system was set up that way. The ownership of the slaves was still Grant's.

Since you have failed to source any of your statements I am going to assume that you are making things up and are only provoking an argument for the sake of it. You have no wish to debate honestly, which is your choice.
 
I would disagree. I actually study the civil war quite deeply (I'm studying for a history degree, and I am a civil war reenactor), and I think that there's been something of a whitewash job (pardon the pun) on that. Yes, it was about state rights, but that state right they were rebelling over specifically was slavery. If you read SC's document of secession, the only issue they mention is slavery. If you look at the run up, it's almost all about slavery. Only a few states mention anything other than slavery in their documents of secession, and I doubt any state would secede over canal tariffs. To say it wasn't about slavery is to ignore most of the factors that led to the war.

Of course, as a symbol, it can stand for whatever the 'waver' of the flag wishes it to stand for. Perhaps slavery was part of the idea of states' rights in the past - I would argue that very few 'wavers' still believe that today - maybe the really back woods rednecks. But at least not the educated ones. They wave it to promote the rights of the states to secede from the union, to make the laws they want to make so long as they don't butt heads with the constitution (which of course, slavery clearly does).
 
All of my statements are in this thread. I provided the evidence and you didn't read it carefully. Lincoln plainly states that he would go to war over taxes. It's not my fault that you didn't read it, but kneejerked. Here is where he threatened war.

How is the federal government saying that it would collect tariffs and protect federal property a declaration of war? That is the job of the federal government. The federal government had been doing that for decades, I'm not sure if that counts at "going to war over". Morever, you are completely discounting the rhetoric and reason given for the South's act of treason. You sir have no grasp of history, and you are defending slave owners and vile human beings to back up your own sick twisted view of reality.




If you knew anything about the times he lived in women were not allowed to own property by law. The part that states his wife owned four slaves while living in Illinois is a whitewash. She couldn't own slaves since she was a woman and the legal system was set up that way. The ownership of the slaves was still Grant's.
At best a legal loophole, not "the north allowed slavery" like you stated.

Since you have failed to source any of your statements I am going to assume that you are making things up and are only provoking an argument for the sake of it. You have no wish to debate honestly, which is your choice.

I haven't stated anything that needs to be sourced. If there is any statement you'd like me to source, feel free.
 
How is the federal government saying that it would collect tariffs and protect federal property a declaration of war? That is the job of the federal government. The federal government had been doing that for decades, I'm not sure if that counts at "going to war over". Morever, you are completely discounting the rhetoric and reason given for the South's act of treason. You sir have no grasp of history, and you are defending slave owners and vile human beings to back up your own sick twisted view of reality.





At best a legal loophole, not "the north allowed slavery" like you stated.



I haven't stated anything that needs to be sourced. If there is any statement you'd like me to source, feel free.

well, you could probably use HIS sources, i did.
 
In and of themselves, no.

When coupled with the revenue generated by said taxation going to provide other people the means to exercise their rgihts, then taxation becomes involuntary servitude, as, thru the taxes you are forced to pay, you are forced to work for the direct benefit of others.
 
In and of themselves, no.

When coupled with the revenue generated by said taxation going to provide other people the means to exercise their rgihts, then taxation becomes involuntary servitude, as, thru the taxes you are forced to pay, you are forced to work for the direct benefit of others.

I am absolutely astounded by posts like these. They almost seem anti-American and anti-democratic, because what they're saying is "If other people vote to do things I disagree with, then they are enslaving me."

Seriously, folks? Do you not understand that in a democracy, you don't always get your way? Is this that hard of a concept?
 
Damn that infernal democracy! How dare the elected officials do what people who elected them ask them to do!

On the contrary, America hosted town hall meetings all over the country, where American citizens voiced their concerns over the health care bill and urged their representatives to oppose this bill. Very few democrat law makers did as their constituents asked. The Health Care bill is going to redistribute the wealth. What American citizens asked their congressmen and senators to redistribute their wealth? I suppose you were one of that minority. I hope you have done your part to redistribute your wealth by volunteering to pay extra taxes.
 
Last edited:
I am absolutely astounded by posts like these. They almost seem anti-American and anti-democratic, because what they're saying is "If other people vote to do things I disagree with, then they are enslaving me."

Seriously, folks? Do you not understand that in a democracy, you don't always get your way? Is this that hard of a concept?

I hope you understand this "hard concept" after November when the Republicans have taken back the House and later on the Senate, and you and Obama don't get your way anymore.
 
Last edited:
I hope you understand the same thing after November when the Republicans have taken back the House and later on the Senate, and you and Obama don't get your way anymore.

Are you kidding? I lived through the Reagan years and the Bush years and never once claimed that I was a slave.

That mindset is just, well, silly.
 
Is Taxation Slavery?

No. Paying taxes is voluntary....as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of not paying. Or, you don't have to work and thus wouldn't be liable for any taxes. Or, you could leave the country and try to find a country that doesn't tax its citizens. Good luck with that last one.
 
No. Paying taxes is voluntary....as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of not paying. Or, you don't have to work and thus wouldn't be liable for any taxes. Or, you could leave the country and try to find a country that doesn't tax its citizens. Good luck with that last one.

That's a load of ****ing bull****, that's like saying that if I stick a gun in your face and tell me to give me all of your cash that you are giving me that money voluntarily. The state takes taxes by force that is the exact opposite of voluntary.
 
This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.

And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.

It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.

Ya because voluntary contractual agreements for goods and services doesn't happen every single day. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom