It is because you are not paying attention. BTW, the word is spelled "understand" not "unserstand." Go and look at your post 28, and maybe you will catch on. I was agreeing with you, in that I doubted most northerners were fighting to free slaves. The riots in NY and other places attest to that. I also think there were economic reasons for the riots, as well as the unfairness of some dirt bag being able to get out of it, by paying $300. If I could have figured out a way to get out of the draft, I would have myself, but I still had to go to Nam, which is about the most worthless conflict we have ever been in, all for your buddy, LBJ's political reasons. It is a sad day when I am forced to admit that I agree with you, but that is only one point. Most of the time, even when I agree with you, I disagree, because it is fun to disagree with you. Now, go back to your own post 28, and you may see the connection.
BTW, the south also had a system of paid substitutes that allowed the well-to-do to avoid conscription, along with deferrments for those who owned more than a certain number of slaves.
There was a reason the federal draft bill allowed “money payment in lieu of personal military service” – it allowed the supporters of the draft to characterize the legislation as “akin to a tax.” Why was such legal ‘mumbo-jumbo’ necessary? Because (in the words of Dr. Amar, the Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale University) a federal draft is unconstitutional:
“Article I clearly gives Congress authority in actual emergencies to federalize the militia instead of raising an army but only under a system of cooperative federalism designed to maintain the integrity of the [state] militia. Clause 16 painstakingly prescribed the precise role that state governments had to play in training and organizing the militia and in appointing its officers. These carefully wrought limitations in clause 16 were widely seen in 1789 as indispensable bulwarks against any congressional attempt to misuse its power over citizen militiamen. Yet these bulwarks would become trivial – a constitutional Maginot Line – if Congress could outflank them by relabeling militiamen as army ‘soldiers’ conscriptable at will, in time of war or peace, under the plenary power of the army clause...During the War of 1812, ...[Daniel Webster] argued that any federal draft under the army clause impermissibly evaded the constitutional limitations on federal use of the militia. The plan was an illegitimate attempt to raise ‘a standing army out of the militia by draft'...Only in the twentieth century did the Supreme Court uphold a federal draft, in the Selective Draft Law cases decided during World War I. The arguments of the Court can be charitably described as unpersuasive. Less charitably, the Court's opinion can be said to resemble its contemporaneous First Amendment jurisprudence, epitomized by such now malodorous cases as Debs and Abrams...”
Hence the draft-as-a-tax ‘window dressing’...