Again you make statements that shows how blind you are to this subject...Lets start with you saying "They didn't have slaves in the North for the most part, so freeing them didn't mean jack crap to the Northerners". How incorrect you are they did have slavery in the North in fact New Egland was one of the biggest slave trade hubs in the colonies, but with the American Revolution that changed in the North.The argument based on the Enlightenment doctrine of “natural rights,” immediately ran into the hypocrisy of a slave-owning people crying out for freedom. Emancipation in the North also involved a religious component called the Quackers (Society of Friends).but again the biggest hit to Northern slavery was the Revolutionary War. Northern colonies, began to offer their slaves manumission or freedom in exchange for military service whilst the Brits offered freedom for any slave who joined them. The result of these convergence of forces was that, between 1777 and 1804, the Northern colonies and states, one by one, gave up on slavery. By the time of the 1790 census, 94 percent of the 698,000 U.S. slaves lived below the Mason-Dixon Line. I suggest you read a book or two on the American Revolution or Slavery in the North
Now far as taxes I only want to return to the pre-bush years of taxes...It would not include people who scan items at WalMart that make under 250,000 a year. I find it funny how people complain about the government, but when a "natural act" happens like a flood or tornado or hurricanes they are the first to ask government to help them out...
To suggest slavery was ever at the same level in the north as the south is about as silly as it gets.
"Colonial slavery had a slow start, particularly in the North. The proportion there never got much above 5 percent of the total population. Scholars have speculated as to why, without coming to a definite conclusion. Some surmise that indentured servants were fundamentally better suited to the Northern climate, crops, and tasks at hand; some claim that anti-slavery sentiment provided the explanation. At the time of the American Revolution, fewer than 10 percent of the half million slaves in the thirteen colonies resided in the North, working primarily in agriculture. New York had the greatest number, with just over 20,000. New Jersey had close to 12,000 slaves. Vermont was the first Northern region to abolish slavery when it became an independent republic in 1777. Most of the original Northern colonies implemented a process of gradual emancipation in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, requiring the children of slave mothers to remain in servitude for a set period, typically 28 years. Other regions above the Mason-Dixon line ended slavery upon statehood early in the nineteenth century -- Ohio in 1803 and Indiana in 1816, for instance."
There are your numbers. 10 percent or 50k slaves in all of the north. Slavery also continued in the north until Indiana got rid of it in 1816. So - not only were you absolutely wrong about slavery in the north to begin with, you were also incorrect on the dates.
The entire premise of your response just imploded. Slavery was never really big in the North. It's like saying apples are huge growers in Florida because I have a apple tree in my front yard.
1790 it was 94% in the South. In 1777 it was 90% in the South. Do you see a recurring theme with your attempts at rebuttal for my statements on history? You are always wrong - PROVEN WRONG BY FACTS.
You can make things up or say them in vague ways to defend your indefensible position if you want. I am not promoting slavery, or saying it was right. What I am saying is that slavery was a secondary thought of the war, and not the root cause. Slavery wasn't even at risk until they went to war - so how could that possibly be the main cause? It would of been 30-40 years before slavery went away in the normal course of things in the South.
I don't want the government to bail me out, I didn't make stupid decisions to buy a house on a river that floods every year, have 5 kids and drop out of highschool, or buy a 500k house because they would loan me 500k then it only be worth 150k the next year. I saw what was happening and I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself. I don't need a babysitter. The fact that you feel that you do is a severe problem with your mentality. I don't need a government hand out if a hurricane hits my house. Do you know why? I HAVE INSURANCE - Just like every other person who has a loan in the states where hurricanes hit. Oh, and sink hole and tree falling and ect ect. I also have health insurance, because I know if I get hurt, it will cost more than it would to pay my health insurance premiums. Oh, and a retirement fund, because I know Ill get old some day and have to take care of myself. Car insurance, health insurance, retirement fund, savings, conservative spending, living within my means. Is any of this sinking into you?