OK let's review.
Most Southerners who did not own slaves were FAR more concerned about tariffs than they were about slaves!!!!
BroJoeK: Lincoln's election was certainly the trigger, but the Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with it, for at least these reasons:
But it did.
BroJoeK: US tariff rates were historically 100% negotiable "politics as usual", with relatively minor adjustments having never caused threats of secession, nor did they in 1860.
This is just false. Yeah they were negotiable and were part of politics but one region had a significantly larger population and thus was able to push through tariff rates that even at their lowest were still much higher than the other region would have preferred they be at their very highest. The Tariff of Abominations had already caused massive economic harm in the Southern states and had provoked the Nullification Crisis - then the most serious internal power struggle in the nation's history. A generation later, the same northern corporate interests were on the verge of pushing through a tariff that would have reproduced the Tariff of Abominations.
Though Tariffs were part of normal politics, they had been the source of absolutely bitter political fights for over a generation by 1860.
BroJoeK: The original Morrill proposal was defeated in Congress in 1860 and could again be defeated, or watered down enough to become acceptable, even in 1861. The original Morrill proposal simply returned then record-low tariffs to levels previously approved by Southern Democrats in the 1846 Walker Tariff
The Morrill tariff would immediately DOUBLE tariff rates. So much for being "watered down". This passed the House in the May of 1860 and was certain to pass the Senate - as everybody well knew. All that was needed was the usual log rolling to pick off one or two senators and it would pass. Lincoln vigorously lobbied for the bill, telling a Pittsburgh, Pa. audience two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue — none — was more important. The "record low" Walker Tariff was 16%. In the Confederate Constitution the maximum tariff allowed was a revenue tariff which was universally understood to mean no more than 10%. So even this "record low" tariff was still significantly higher than the Southern states wanted.
BroJoeK: During the election campaign of 1860, no Southerner threatened secession if Morrill passed and, after the November election, no "Reasons for Secession" document named the Morrill Tariff as a cause of secession.
"Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance."
"On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South." Anti-tariff sentiments also appeared in Georgia's Secession Declaration of January 29, 1861:"
BroJoeK: However, during the campaign, many Southern Fire Eaters did threaten secession over slavery if Lincoln's "Black Republicans" were elected. After the November election, every "Reasons for Secession" document listed slavery as a major reason, some (i.e., Mississippi) as their only reason.
As we've gone over before, violation of the compact over slavery was something the Southern states COULD legitimately claim. The Northern states really had violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution. The Tariffs and federal expenditures - no matter how unfair they were and no matter how much Southerners hated them - were not unconstitutional.
Oh, lest we forget, here are the two largest newspapers in the then original 7 seceding states
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
BroJoeK: Noooo... there was no "offer" in December 1860, when it might have mattered, and so nothing could be "turned down".,/p>
Yessssssss. There was quite clearly an Offer. That was the whole point of the Corwin Amendment. We give you this and in exchange you don't leave. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.
BroJoeK: Crittenden's Compromise was presented to Congress on December 18, 1860 and was defeated by Republicans on December 31, 1860. Nine days later -- January 9, 1861 -- Sen. Davis's Mississippi declared secession, and why? Over the Morrill Tariff? No, that's foolish -- Mississippians were not in the least ashamed to explain their own reasons: So, any suggestions that Southerners' overwhelming concerns to protect slavery, even if that required secession, any suggestions these were merely a ruse and smokescreen to hide their true motives, which concerned very minor and 100% negotiable returns to previously approved 1846 Walker Tariff rates, such suggestions are pure 100% unadulterated anti-historical nonsense.
Firstly, Mississippi was the ONLY state which issued declarations of causes that only discussed slavery. Secondly, slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Lest anybody think it was, Lincoln assured one and all that it was not, that the federal government had no power to abolish it. Furthermore, there was extremely little support for abolishing it even in the Northern states. Abolitionists routinely got trounced whenever they ran for office being unable to muster more than single digit percentages of the vote.
As we have previously discussed, strife over the tariff was anything but minor, and for the minority section of the country was not negotiable since they no longer had sufficient votes in Congress to prevent ruinous tariffs from being imposed on them. Several people in the North saw what was really happening:
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation North American Review (Boston October 1862)
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
But they were not alone of course. This is from Rhett's address attached to and sent out along with South Carolina's Declaration of Causes:
"The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776."
"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
So as we can see, any claim that the Tariff was not a big deal, that it was negotiable, that the continuance of slavery was the "real" concern, that the tariff did not in fact concern vastly more Southerners than slavery did is just pure 100% antihistorical propaganda and lies.
BroJoeK: In fact, Civil War began with CSA Pres. Jefferson Davis ordering a military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, Davis's order coming precisely because he knew that would cause states of the Upper South to secede.
The fact is that the War for Southern Independence began with President Lincoln ordering a heavily armed fleet to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. War was the objective as his letter to his naval commander congratulating him on getting a war started amply demonstrates:
" , May 1st, 1861. Washington Capt. G.V. Fox: My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.
I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN."
BroJoeK: Here might be a good time to remember Pres. Jackson's response to the SCOTUS 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
So you're arguing then that the President is free to ignore Supreme Court rulings or that the Supreme Court does not have the power of Judicial Review?
Likewise, Crazy Roger's Dred Scott ravings caused huge outrage in the North, and some gloating in the South, but no actual laws were changed as a result. Crazy Roger Taney did not settle the issues with his Dred Scott ravings, but he did start the political processes working to impose them in US laws.
The fact is that your childish namecalling aside, the SCOTUS issued their ruling and the SCOTUS does have the power of Judicial Review. Their ruling was the law of the land - no matter how much you don't like it or anybody at the time didn't like it.
Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott rantings notwithstanding, an alleged slaveholder's "right of sojourn" with slaves into free states and territories was still the opposite of "settled law".
Your little childish temper tantrum aside, the ruling of the SCOTUS was settled law.
BroJoeK: In December 1860 their work resulted in the Crittenden Compromise proposals, which Senate Republicans defeated on December 31, 1861, causing Mississippi, Georgia and other Deep South states to immediately secede.
You've brought up the Crittenden Compromise several times. Here are the relevant facts:
"Crittenden had consulted with colleagues North and South before offering his broad scheme, and had received hopeful assurance of support. . . . (No, it was not just Davis and Toombs as you've been claiming)
"That Crittenden's scheme had wide and enthusiastic public support there could be no question. John A. Dix, Edward Everett, and Robert Winthrop no sooner saw it than they wrote approbatory [approving] letters. Martin Van Buren declared that the amendments [proposed in Crittenden's plan] would certainly be ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Senator received hundreds of assurances from all over the North and the border States that his policy had reached the popular heart. It took time to hold meetings and get memorials signed, but before long resolutions and petitions were pouring in upon Congress. In New York City, sixty-three thousand people signed an endorsement of the plan; another document bore the names of fourteen thousand women, scattered from North Carolina to Vermont. From St. Louis came nearly a hundred foolscap pages of names, wrapped in the American flag. Greeley [an influential New York newspaper editor and owner], who had as good opportunities for knowing public sentiment as any man in the country, later wrote that supporters of the Crittenden Compromise could claim with good reason that a large majority of people favored it. . . .
"The first committee vote on the Crittenden Compromise was taken in Seward's absence, and the proposal was defeated by the Republican majority. In a discussion of nearly seven hours, Douglas, Bigler, and Crittenden supported the plan. Hunter, Toombs, and Davis, speaking for Southern Democrats, declared they would accept it if the Republicans gave sincere assent, but not otherwise. On the vital point, the reestablishment of the Missouri Compromise line, [Republicans] Collamer, Doolittle, Grimes, and Wade all voted no. Thereupon Toombs and Davis cast negative votes, and the resolution failed six to six. Returning to the sessions on December 24, Seward [who was also a Republican] recorded a negative vote. Four days later, the committee reported to the Senate that it could reach no conclusion.
"In rejecting the Crittenden Compromise, the Republicans had taken what history later proved to have been a fearful responsibility. . . . Some Republicans, after war came, made an effort to divest themselves of the burden by contending that the true blame for the rejection fell upon Davis and Toombs, whose votes in the affirmative would have carried the compromise eight to four--or with Seward voting, eight to five. (Even then the measure would have died under the rule requiring a majority of both parties.) Edward Everett argued that the supposed willingness of Davis and Toombs to support the compromise was purely illusory, and that if the Republicans had come out for it, the two would have gone over to the opposition. But we have unimpeachable evidence that the pair were sincere, and much additional evidence that, as Breckinridge told the Senate, 'the leading statesmen of the lower Southern States were willing to accept the terms of settlement' proposed. . . .
It was the Republicans who were unwilling to compromise. What Davis and Toombs said was that they were perfectly willing to support reinstating the Missouri Compromise.
BroJoeK: So, you do agree that Corwin was a great idea from the Southern perspective and that's why Confederates copied and pasted it into their 1861 Montgomery CSA constitution?
I think they and Lincoln and everyone else thought abolishing slavery was not a power the federal government had, but spelling it out explicitly would be a good idea. The imposed the same explicit limit on the power of the Confederate Government.
BroJoeK: You may also agree that Corwin helped keep Border Slave States of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware in the Union, even after the Battle of Fort Sumter, right?
Possibly. How much is difficult to say and those states were divided. Missouri and Kentucky were claimed by some political leaders of each state to have seceded. The Confederate government accepted the secession of both. IMO, the case for Missouri is strong. They probably really did secede. The case for saying Kentucky seceded is dubious. Regardless, those states were very divided. The Federal government knew better than to actually use most of the troops raised from each state. They mostly were just asked to guard their own home states.
And I think we can agree that Corwin was not a strong enough incentive to keep Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesse and Arkansas in the Union after Fort Sumter, right?
No, it wasn't. Those states left because they believed every state had the right to unilaterally secede - as Virginia had stated explicitly at the time that it ratified the US Constitution:
"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."
And that to try to impose the rule of the federal government over sovereign states which did not consent to that rule was tyranny plain and simple. When ordered to assist in attacking the original 7 seceding states, they then seceded. They were obviously seceding over the constitutional issue.
BroJoeK: Plus, obviously, Corwin had no effect on proceedings in Montgomery, Alabama in February and March of 1861, other than likely encouraging the CSA's Constitutional Convention to add their version of Corwin, plus additional protections for slavery that Republicans had rejected in December 1860, when it might have mattered, do we agree?
I'll agree with that. The drafters of the Confederate Constitution as well as the Confederate government as well as the original 7 seceding states were set on Independence. Protection of slavery was obviously not their main concern - as indeed slavery had not been threatened in the US anyway.
So, what exactly do we disagree on here?
Nothing that I can see. Just that neither the original 7 seceding states nor the Upper South States were motivated by any offers for the protection of slavery (which was not threatened anyway).
BroJoeK: No, and we've covered this already, because: So, by the time of Lincoln's alleged "offer" to seceded states of Corwin, beginning with his letter of transmittal on March 16, Corwin-like language was already firmly installed in the brand-new CSA Montgomery constitution. So there was no action Confederate states needed to take regarding Corwin.
There was no action the original 7 seceding states needed to take regarding Lincoln's very clear offer of express constitutional protection of slavery effectively forever in his inaugural address because as we have already discussed, slavery was not the real reason the states of the Deep South seceded, and slavery was not threatened in the US in any event. Indeed the ONLY threat to the continued existence of slavery would come from war. The 7 original seceding states could have protected slavery by staying in the US or by accepting the Corwin amendment. They chose the only course of action that could result in its ending.
Of course that's right, once the slavery issued was firmly dealt with, via Corwin-like language in their new CSA constitution, then everything else normal to governing a country became more immediate and pressing.
Of course, it could have been dealt with by simply remaining in the Union OR by accepting the Corwin Amendment and giving up their Independence.
BroJoeK: But, first and foremost, as spelled out in their earliest "Reasons for Secession" documents, Confederates had to deal with the "Black Republicans" threats against slavery.
Nah. That was just the excuse they were looking for to get out. This provided them with the convenient pretext they were looking for. Once out of the US, they would be free to set their own economic policy and they knew they would have a LOT more money as a result.
Here are all of those original "Reasons for Secession" documents analyzed for what was most important:
pre·text /ˈprēˌtekst/ noun a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.
BroJoeK: Sadly, there's a lot of fantasy in your own words here:
Nope. My interpretation is accurate. Nowhere did the SCOTUS rule that a slave owner can take his slave into a state did not allow slavery and permanently reside there, engage in business enterprises with his slaves there, etc. Dred Scott and his backers should have sued when he was still a resident in Illinois or Wisconsin.
"Opinion" or "decision" refers to the entire document, in Dred Scott's case it ran to some 248 pages which included: "Ruling" or "holding" refers to the court's decisions and outcome of the case, which set precedents lower courts must follow. "Judicial Dicta" and "Obiter Dicta" refer to judicial explanations which may also have the force of precedent, depending on circumstances. In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion -- rulings and dicta -- took 48 pages. "Concurrences" -- five of the six Democrat concurrences also wrote their own opinions on how they arrived at the same rulings as Chief Justice Taney. "Dissents" -- both Republican dissenters wrote their own opinions. All told, the Dred Scott concurrences and dissents ran to roughly 200 pages. Crazy Roger's majority opinion rulings included: blah blah blah I'd say, if this is not stark raving Democrat insanity, then there is no such thing.
So we have determined that I was right and Taney did not rule all by himself. This was in fact that majority opinion of the SCOTUS.
At the time Blacks were not considered to be citizens. Nor were Indians. That was the overwhelming majority opinion North and South at that time no matter how much we may disagree with it today. So no, it was not "stark raving Democrat insanity". It was the overwhelming majority view - and among Republicans too.
Look what this guy said:
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln
"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ..." Abraham Lincoln
Again, these were OVERWHELMING MAJORITY views at the time - and not just American either. Welcome to the mid 19th century.
BroJoeK: Obviously, living six years in the free state of Illinois made Dred Scott an Illinois resident, not Missouri. Then four more years in the free territory of Wisconsin made Scott a Wisconsin resident, not Missouri. However, the issue of Scott's residency is bogus, and a red herring anyway, since it had nothing to do with Crazy Roger's insane Dred Scott rulings. Crazy Roger didn't give a d*mn about Dred Scott's state of residency, Crazy only cared about one thing -- Scott was an African slave and therefore could only ever be "property", never a full US citizen.
No, the state of his residency at the time was directly relevant. Oh, and it was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS, not just Taney. Oh, and these were the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY VIEWS of the time. You don't have to like it but the fact that the overwhelming majority felt that way is something anybody who seeks to actually understand history must recognize.
BroJoeK: Truly, my term "Crazy Roger" is far too mild and respectful for such an obvious raving lunatic. And people who defend such lunacies are beyond the reach of words to describe.
Lincoln expressed views that were right there alongside Taneys. So did everybody else who had any kind of public influence at the time.
BroJoeK: Sorry, but that is just fact-free Lost Cause propaganda, because Crazy Roger's ruling had nothing to do with Dred Scott's residency or lack of residency. Rather, Crazy's ruling was 100% based on Dred Scott's race and origin as an African slave.
sorry but that is fact free PC Revisionist propaganda. Its also obvious you have no legal education. Taney's clearly racist views were the views of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY at the time. "the past is a foreign country".
BroJoeK: I'm sorry, but again, you've been reading Lost Cause propaganda and it has rotted your brain, you must stop that. Here is the truth of it, in a brief nutshell: "In essence, Taney’s opinion was that the status of slavery followed a person, regardless of their location, and that living in a free state or territory did not grant a slave freedom." This is also the "logic" behind Crazy Roger's voiding the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
I'm sorry but you're engaging in Presentism which anybody who is remotely serious about history learns right from the start is the thing he should not do. People who lived back then do not share our views. Their morality was quite different from ours. They would disapprove of much of our views today every bit as much as we disapprove of theirs. The undeniable fact is that the overwhelming majority of the people who lived back then thought Blacks were inferior, and that they could not be citizens.
Oh, and you're just wrong about your legal interpretation as your are about everything else. That was not the essence of the ruling. The ruling was that a slave owner could transit with his slaves, not that he could keep slaves in non slave states indefinitely. As I said, its obvious you don't have a JD.
BroJoeK: Obviously, you are here looking in a mirror and pointing at yourself, since your understanding of Dred Scott is totally distorted to meet the needs of pro-Confederate Lost Cause propaganda.
Obviously not. Look around and see if legal experts say the essence of the Dred Scott Ruling was that slave owners could bring their slaves anywhere - including non slave owning states - and permanently reside there. Try reading something somewhere other than PC Revisionist dogma - for once.
BroJoeK: This is it!! This is your problem -- you've been reading a pack of lies and so totally misunderstand what Dred Scott was all about. FRiend, there is just no way to help you understand until you give up on those G.D. lies.
LOL! You've really lost all touch with reality haven't you? Do try to get some kind of legal education somewhere so you can hopefully stop embarrassing yourself here.
BroJoeK: Not one mentioned the proposed Morrill Tariff, which at that time simply returned rates to their levels of the 1846 Walker Tariffs approved under a Southern Democrat Congress and signed by Southern Democrat Pres. Polk. In 1860 tariffs were a political annoyance, invisible to over 90% of Southern citizens, and to be hammered out and compromised on in Congress, as always.
this is simply lies and BS.
Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
Robert Barnwell Rhett, who served in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, said in 1850: "The great object of free governments is liberty. The great test of liberty in modern times, is to be free in the imposition of taxes, and the expenditure of taxes.... For a people to be free in the imposition and payment of taxes, they must lay them through their representatives." Consequently, because they were being taxed without corresponding representation, the Southern States had been reduced to the condition of colonies of the North and thus were no longer free. The solution was determined by John Cunningham to exist only in independence.
"The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city."
James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, "I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy."
"Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett's and Hammond's much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests." (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 332)
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the "infamous Morrill bill." The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which "the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists." Toombs described this coalition as "the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South." Anti-tariff sentiments also appeared in Georgia's Secession Declaration of January 29, 1861:
BroJoeK: In 1860 slavery was the vital issue that every Southern Fire Eater and many normal Southern citizens believed was worth secession and war to defend.
FRiend, I can't help you if you are going to continue to cling to the GD Leftist Lies like this. The vast vast vast majority of White Southerners did not own so much as a single slave. The Tariffs, the loss of sales abroad and the higher prices for manufactured goods touched all their pockets.
BroJoeK: "Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came." A. Lincoln, March 4, 1865
Typical pack of Lincoln lies. The nation would have survived just fine without the original 7 seceding states. It would have simply been smaller. Wisconsin was free to associate with Vermont or any other state just as it pleased. So were all the other states. What Lincoln means is that if states were allowed to leave in peace, the centralized rapacious federal Leviathan he wanted to erect in Washington would not be able to control everything.