Welcome @Kimberly Anne

I'm starting to question whether or not Lincoln violated state's rights by not allowing the Southern states to secede and chose war instead. It's one of those "do the ends justify the means?" things. If so, does that make it right? Obviously, the ending of slavery was vital - so, no question about that. But, were the rights of the Southern states violated in the process? I'm starting to look at that. Jim and I are getting ready to move to the South (to the gulf coast) and I've been trying to do some research on the culture there so I can understand it better when we move. One thing I've read over and over is that I need to understand that many Southerners do not trust the Federal government because of the violation of their state's rights during the Civil War. Their distrust didn't come from losing slavery (as it didn't affect the majority of them directly), it came from the Federal government trouncing their states' rights. It was something I hadn't even considered until recently. Of course, we all were taught that the Civil War happened because those horrible Southerners wanted to keep their slaves. The truth is a whole lot more nuanced than that when you consider that 75% of the population didn't even own slaves (some sources calculate it as a higher number than that). I think this is a great conversation, Mike, if the group can have it without getting too emotional. These issues touch on long taught ideas that may or may not be true. I'm not confident that I know very much about them at all. I'm just embarking on this journey into states' rights and it's both interesting and disturbing. Thank you for being brave enough to open up the conversation into a controversial topic.

@Mike Karabell Thanks for the explanation. I knew it was much more nuanced than what I was taught. I grew up in and went to school in Illinois (the "Land of Lincoln"), so I'm sure we were only taught the good parts (as is often the case) that reflected well on Lincoln. I didn't realize that the issue was the new states and territories being designated as non-slave states that was going to be the issue. I just feel like so much history that I learned about a lot of different issues was not accurate. I always try to look at it as who stood to gain by it being told *this* way. I also try to remember that history is always written by the victors - so they're telling it from their perspective, which might not be 100% accurate (or at least not reflecting ALL the perspectives from that time). Thanks again. I love learning about our American history.

I would like to see a VAT-type tax cover it all and income tax abolished. Those who consume more would pay more. No one could get around tax loopholes. We must remember, though, that the things the government pays for, it feels it has the right to control. I also have strong feelings about property tax. I would much rather see a higher sales tax and do away completely with property tax - at least for a primary residence. No one should lose their home over non-payment of property tax. I was in a group the other day and someone said they had to pay their retired parents' property tax because it was like $26,000 for the year. That's insane to me. If you buy your property, you own it. Why should anyone have to pay over $2,000 a month to the government for the privilege of living in their home that they paid for? Sorry, it's a passionate subject for me.

@Mike Karabell Or at the very minimum making seniors over 65 exempt for their primary residence.

Welcome @Mark Osborne and @Rudi Strahl. This should be a fun group!

@Mike Karabell the Brits kept very good records, I've found.

@Sandra James Yes, that's Mike's super power. 😊