[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "You mentioned Jackson and Calhoun.
Perhaps you don't understand their objectives concerning the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. "

Oh, but I do.
I also understand there were a lot of mixed feelings and political cross-dressers, so to speak, on this issue.
Both Calhoun & Jackson supported the bill, though seemingly for too-clever political reasons.
And a majority of New Englanders opposed it, because of it's high tariffs on their raw materials, especially wool.
After passage, and Jackson's election as President, he took no immediate action to rescind it, launching the nullification crisis with South Carolina.

Again, the Tariff of Abominations illustrates that there were people for, and others against, in every region of the country.
It was not strictly "North vs. South", far from it.

rustbucket: "In 1833, after South Carolina had voted for nullification over the tariff issue, a bill was passed in 1833, the so called 'Compromise Tariff of 1833' that gradually reduced tariffs over a period of ten years."

Sure, and simultaneously, President Jackson signed a "Force Bill" "...explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff."

"In response to South Carolina's nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the laws.
In December 1832, he issued a resounding proclamation against the 'nullifiers', stating that he considered 'the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed'.
South Carolina, the President declared, stood on 'the brink of insurrection and treason', and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought.
Jackson also denied the right of secession: 'The Constitution ... forms a government not a league ...
To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.'[96] "

Note that term, "at pleasure" again.

rustbucket referring to the 1860 Morrill tariff House vote: "To get a no vote that exceeds the yes vote, you would have to assume all abstaining Democrats and Southern Oppositionists and Americans would vote 'no' and about 13 of the 15 abstaining Republicans would vote no.
The 13 of 15 is approximate because the source's vote breakdowns don't match the final 105 to 64 total exactly. "

Possibly they taught math a little different when I went to school?
My numbers show something different:

1. Morrill passed the house in May 1860 by a vote of 105 to 64.
   That's a margin of 41 votes, and a tie vote defeats the motion.

2. 55 members abstained, which is 14 more than needed to defeat it.

3. Nine of those 55 we know for certain supported Morrill, because they were "paired" with absent members who opposed it.
   That still leaves 46, enough to defeat Morrill, had they been more aggressively pursued.

4. Of those 46 needed votes, 33 were Democrats or Southern opposition, seemingly a light lift for more determined anti-Morrill people.
   That leaves just eight more required.

5. There were 13 Republican abstentions, which must mean that, in fact, they opposed the bill but feared bucking their party.
   Since two Republicans did vote against, those others could likely be flipped.

   There were 7 Northern Democrats and 5 Southern Opposition party who voted for Morrill, who might also have seen the light, had they felt more political heat.

So, eight more required from a pool of 25 seems to me not necessarily impossible to do, if the anti-Morrill people had been more determined to do it.
Or, just as important: had the vote looked closer, they could have negotiated for better terms.

Finally, it's important to note that in 1859 (18%) and 1860 (10%) the US ran huge balance of trade deficits, meaning we imported $86 million more in those years than exported.
Remember, it's imports, not exports, which paid US duties and so provided most of Federal revenues.
So, huge balance of trade deficits meant Federal revenues were actually coming from money borrowed to pay for imports, and that was, in turn, eventually paid for by large specie transfers.

My point is: in the end, Europeans' massive purchases of US Southern cotton were paid-for by US purchases of European manufactured goods.
If the US reduced its imports of European goods, we could expect them to purchase less US cotton.
Trade is a two-way street and must, ultimately, balance out.

rustbucket: "This should put an end to your claim that "only passed the House (but not the Senate) because 55 Democrats & others friendly to the South abstained.
You are assuming that the 15 abstaining Republicans were "friendly" to the South."

In fact, two Republicans did vote against Morrill, and we have to assume the 15 who abstained did so rather than join their two colleagues, for fear of party discipline.
So flipping some of those votes was just a matter of addressing their concerns, which a more determined anti-Morrill group would have done.

Point is: in a matter of allegedly "deep concern" to the Deep South, it does not appear to me they tried all that hard for victory in the House.
Possibly they understood the Senate would block it anyway, and therefore defeat in the House was not so important after all?

Regardless, those who later touted Morrill as the great "reason for secession" a la the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", are just reading back into that time emotions which were not then actually felt.

[rustbucket]

5.There were 13 Republican abstentions, which must mean that, in fact, they opposed the bill but feared bucking their party.
Since two Republicans did vote against, those others could likely be flipped.

So, 97.8% of Republicans who voted voted for the Morrill Tariff. A high protectionist tariff was a key element of the Republican platform in 1860. Yet you feel that 86.7% of the 15 abstaining Republicans would vote no if they had to vote.

Let's look at the abstainers.
- George Pendleton (D-OH, no) paired with Boteler (D-VA, yes)
- Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) paired with Craig (D-MO)
- Kilgore (R-IN) paired with Maynard (Opp-TN)
- Curtis (R-IA) paired with Barrett (D-MO)
- Dunn (R-IN, for) paired with Vance (D-NC)
- Longnecker (R-PA for) paired with Harris (D-VA, no)
- Perry (R-ME, for) didn't name who he was paired with
- Porter (R-IN) paired with Hill (D-GA)
- Theaker (R-OH, for) paired with Davidson (D-LA)
- Wilson (R-IN) paired with Pryor (D-VA)
- Harris (D-MD, for) paired with Rust (D-AR)

The 11 pairings above were reported in the Congressional Globe. That means that if they had voted, each side's total would go up by 11. That would bring the total vote to 116 to 75 with 33 remaining abstainers. If all 33 remaining abstainers voted no including the six remaining Republican abstainers, that would make the total vote 116 yes to 108 no. The Morrill Tariff bill passed the House.

I'm sorry, BJK, but you attributed very unlikely vote intentions to the abstainers in order to support your argument. Easily disproven by looking at the Congressional Globe. I suggest you be more careful in future posts.

Given the population growth of the North, by 1819 the North had 105 votes in the House compared to 81 for the South. With further immigration to the North after that, the North's regional advantage in the House grew even larger. They didn't always have the complete support of Northern Democrats as this tariff vote showed.