pierrem15: "Pretty bold statement, don't you think? "
Yes, but what Republicans meant by it was territories themselves on applying for statehood would decide to be slave-state or free.
I agree that's a new idea, but nothing could make it unconstitutional.
pierrem15: "And if such a party should prevent the introduction of slavery into any new territories, then the South would have found itself in a permanent minority in the Senate due to the entrance of more free states, and the House due to immigration to the North."
You mean "immigration from the North" to southern territories, like Kansas, turning them into Southern free states.
I agree that might prove a problem for people 100% devoted to their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
However, there's more to this story, and a key element is that from Day One Southerners dominated the Democrat party and Democrats dominated in Washington, DC -- not only in both Houses of Congress but also the Presidency, Supreme Court (i.e., Dred-Scott) and the US military.
So, as of 1860 there was no possible "long train of abuses" since Southerners ruled.
Their fears then were over what might happen someday under "Black Republican" administration.
pierrem15: "The Colonies prior to 1776 had used the original colonial charters to create governments largely free from British interference, and did not consent to the British re-interpretation of the colonial arrangement and so chose to secede and form and independent state."
Sir, I wish to congratulate you, commend you and recognize you for something I've never seen on these threads before: somebody who understands that the root cause of American extreme dissatisfaction with Britain was the British May of 1774 abrogation of the 1691 colonial charter of self-government and replacement of the old charter with new, less democratic rules.
Brits followed abrogation with open warfare and a July 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion.
So the "long train of abuses and usurpations" listed in the Declaration of Independence were not just fears and fantasies, but actual warfare of the British government on its own people.
It made our Founders' Declaration of Independence "necessary", a word that you'll see again in their future discussions.
pierrem15: "Some Southern states looked at the inexorable political domination of the free states and decided to secede before any "long train of abuses" was commenced.
Is that a fault, or simply poor political judgment?"
By definition, your word "before" makes it secession "at pleasure" which our Founders considered nothing more than treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc.
No Founder ever condoned secession "at pleasure".
pierrem15: "However, you can just call it an excise tax and then it's legal.
We now know very well how the Federal government can strangle the economic base of the political opponents of the governing party."
Excise taxes (i.e., on whiskey) were never significant and were eliminated entirely in the 1830s.
In 1860 there was no threat by any party to return excise taxes on domestic manufactures.
Rather the debates concerned tariffs on imports, which in 1860 were at historically low levels.
Republicans wanted to increase them to more normal levels, but making sure they also protected American producers from foreign competition.
Southern Democrats especially opposed higher tariffs on imports and were successful in blocking increases until early 1861, after Southerners seceded and walked out of Congress.
So tariffs are not mentioned in the earliest "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession... from the Federal Union."
pierrem15: "It's one thing to be an ephemeral minority, to rule and be ruled in turn.
It's quite another to face the prospect of becoming a permanent political minority."
Sure, I know, then you'd have to learn to win more friends and influence more people, and if you're a Snowflake Democrat, more accustomed to bossing people around than being nice, well... you know, it can be hard, and snowflakes melt easily, right?
Isn't that just what we still see today? </sarc> ;-)
Excellent point on the difference between the American rebellion and the Southern rebellion. There were no long train of abuses. They lost power and decided to destroy the union.
a) the cause of secession by the Southern states;
b) the legality of secession.
I think the proximate cause was not slavery but more precisely who was going to make the decision about slavery: the states (or people of a territory) individually; or, the Federal government. Seen in this light, the Republican denial that slavery could be extended to new territories was itself an assault on states rights or the rights of the people of a territory.
I don't necessarily agree with this argument, but I recognize its force at the time.
Regarding the legality of secession, that really depends on how you understand the Articles of Confederation and what was accomplished by the Constitution of 1789. I don't think the Southern argument about the Union being a confederation was correct. But I do find it reasonable; and I do see how many could believe it.
So I wouldn't call all the secessionists traitors: that's too facile a response for an issue that tore even particular families apart and sometimes set brother against brother, father against son.
Finally, viewed with hindsight, it appears to me that Jeff Davis was right (in the long run) about everything except slavery.