For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
He has erected a multitude of New offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Are you absolutely sure that money has never been the reason for war?
Your post #207 referred to people who "believe the north was fighting to 'free the slaves' while they were grabbing money with both hands and adding a slave state into the empire."
"Grabbing money with both hands" would refer to war profiteers, certainly not to your average farm boys enlisted for three years to defend their home, preserve the Union or free the slaves.
"War profiteers" would include a certain Confederate, Wilmer McLean, in whose house Lee surrendered to Grant.
So, did Wilmer McLean start Civil War? No.
Did Wilmer McLean lobby to keep the war going? No.
Did Wilmer McLean prevent peace from breaking out? No.
Did any Confederate or Union army march to war singing "let's fight so Wilmer McLean can make more money!". No.
Did Wilmer McLean's war profiteering delay the Lee-Grant signing ceremony in any direct way? No.
So, my too obvious point is: there were war profiteers in every war on both sides, but they neither started wars nor kept them going beyond what otherwise would have been.
Your insinuations regarding war profiteers are bogus.
jeffersondem quoting the Declaration of Independence grievances: "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
He has erected a multitude of New offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
Once again, none of those grievances have anything to do with war profiteers, but rather with the overall economy and average citizens' welfare.
That is a very different matter.
So anybody with half an ounce of honesty in their bones will admit the central role of slavery/economics in motivating Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession and push for war against the United States.
Then naturally, pro-Confederates wish to turn the tables and also claim a central role for Union economics in Lincoln's decision to accept the war Jefferson Davis started at Fort Sumter.
After all, didn't lots of Unionists make lots of money off the war? So their argument goes.
The difference is that Deep South secessionists provided us a clear record of their reasons and motivations, focused almost exclusively on protecting slavery, meaning economics.
And so did Unionists, but their records say almost nothing of economics but focus on preserving the Union, defending the constitution and freeing slaves.
Now the oddest of odd arguments from our pro-Confederates is their claim that both Confederates and Unionists were lying when they told us why they did what they did.
You people claim the Confederates were lying when they said it was all about slavery and Unionists were lying when they said it was all about preserving the Union.
I prefer to think the real liars here are the ones hoping to conjure a whole revisionist mythology out of thin air.