Well though we both know that saying the Southern States didnt succeed because Lincoln halted the expansion of slavery, and they didnt succeed from the union in order to keep their "pecular institution" around, is a huge fallacy
Actually, saying so is common sense, backed up by simple observation. Especially since Lincoln made it very clear, more than once, that he had no desire to oppose slavery.

I hope u understand ALL of what that flag u in ur sig represents.
And since slavery existed under the US flag for more than 70 years, I suppose that means you direct the same unreasoning hatred at the United States?

While slavery did indeed exist in many areas of the US, and conditions were little if any better for black people elsewhere in the nation, four references in a document of several pages does not a document about slavery make. Sorry, but the race-card has no sway here--especially considering the Civil War was an invasion ordered by a man made rich off of inherited slave-trading money and carried out by a slaveowner.

Also Shemans march was MORE than crucial in the Souths surrender, the cut off of supplies and the destruction, were absolutely critical.
And the rape? The theft? The grave desecration? Sherman's acts go far, far beyond acts of war.

Had he not done it, and done it so well, we could be saluting Redneck's flag, well i wouldnt, id probably be a slave.
Said saluting is far better than praising the rapine and slaughter of a bunch of yankee Huns, but slavery was on its way out for a variety of reasons--among them religious, cultural, and economic. Britain, France, Mexico--in fact most nations of the world--engaged in slavery and do so no longer, and in not one single one of these instances was a war necessary to achieve the end of this abominable institution. But somehow, the United States was unique here?

A luxury tax is completely unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts does not help the little guys because it basically gets handed from one rich person to another.
Actually, a luxury tax affects exactly that "handed from one rich person to another" theory you were espousing. And as I noted, it obviously does help the "little guys" because when that 'extra money' was reduced, thousands of people ended up without jobs. Moreover...
I'm saying that the extra money we are giving to the top 1% of earners through these cuts
Giving? Giving? Stealing less money from someone is not "giving" them anything, nor is money that someone earned "extra money".

He never said that. He said that if you make enough money you don't deserve a tax cut. Not "If you make enough money you don't have the right to any more" Those are two completely different statements and you completely twisted his words.
So if you make enough money you still deserve what you earn, except that government should take away more of it?

I disagree. We should reduce the robbery where it is doing the most damage. The rich may pay alot of taxes, but they will always be well off. Cutting taxes for the poor before cutting taxes for the rich is the morally right thing to do.
Actually, "the poor" pay 0 in taxes already, along with a significant chunk of the middle class. The poorer half of the nation pays something like 5% of government revenues--in other words, they're already recieving services paid for by the "eeeeevil rich", so the morally right thing to do is quit stealing from the persons being stolen from, not to give more of that money to the persons recieving it.