Replies

FLT-bird: "Sending a fleet of warships into another country’s territorial waters with hostile intent - that’s war."

But regardless of whose country it was, there was no "hostile intent", it was a resupply mission with specific orders: no first use of force.
Equivalent then to resupplying or reinforcing our base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba today.
It was not an act of war and was actually irrelevant to Jefferson Davis' demand for Fort Sumter's surrender, under threat of military assault, which certainly was an act of war.

FLT-bird: "The fort sat on sovereign Florida territory and was being illegally held by federal troops....and they are the ones who fired first."

The January 8 incident happened two days before Florida declared secession and it involved, as DiogenesLamp pointed out: "the would-be attackers, a small group of drunken and rowdy locals, left as soon as the warning shot sounded — if there ever was one."

In other words, it had nothing -- repeat nothing -- to do with Civil War.

FLT-bird: "Again false.
Federal troops illegally occupied installations on territory that belonged to the sovereign states."

There is no law on any book anywhere in the world which says that a government's property becomes not its property just because some local citizens declare secession.
The US Constitution gives Congress -- and nobody else -- authority to dispose of Federal property.

FLT-bird: "Nope. Unvarnished truth. You just can’t handle it."

No, your posts are total fantasy, not a word of truth in them, so nothing for me to "handle".
Nice try though.

FLT-bird: "No, its not that they believed they could not.
It is that they chose not to.
They could any time they wanted to."

Clearly, on April 4, 1861, when Virginians voted against secession, they believed the reasons for secession as expressed by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas and Rhett's address were not adequate to justify Virginia's secession.
But after Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter, most Virginians changed their minds... well, West Virginians did not.
Clearly civil war was the clincher for Virginians, where issues of slavery or tariffs, etc., had not been.

And one reason is that Virginia's Constitution signing statement requires "injury or oppression" before "withdrawing".

FLT-bird: "Lincoln deliberately provoked war and did so without the consent of Congress."

The only provocations for war came from Confederates' seizure of many Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. -- threatening of Union officials, firing at Union ships and forcing the surrender of Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird: "as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, 'Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war.' "

But there was no "maneuvering" by Lincoln.
From Day One Confederates threatened & provoked war.
Lincoln merely gave them an opportunity to, as some would say: put their money where their mouth is.
And there was no "maneuvering" in that, since Lincoln only did what he must do to support Union troops in Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird: "I didn’t say it had 'nothing to do with' slavery.
You said it was “all about” slavery.
That is false."

So here's the truth "you just can't handle": by the words of secessionists themselves, even Robert Rhett's address, it was more about slavery than about all other issues combined.
And that's a fact, but you will never confess it, right?

FLT-bird: "Rhett went on at length explaining how the Northern states saw fit to use their larger population and thus more representation in Washington DC to levy tariffs on the South that were very harmful to the Southern economy in order to serve their own interests AND that the Southern states did not have enough votes to prevent this exploitation."

But what people like Rhett refused to confess was: until Fire Eaters like himself broke apart the national Democrat party in 1860 over slavery, "the South" had many friends & allies in the North, East and West, allies they could count on to support the South in any matters of importance.
That's precisely why & how Democrats ruled over Washington, DC, from about 1800 until secession in 1861.

So the number one blame for what Rhett complained about was: Rhett himself.
Think about it.

FLT-bird: "He [Rhett] explained how this was exactly the same as the situation the 13 colonies found themselves in when they seceded from the British Empire in 1776."

Ah, but in fact there was no similarity whatsoever -- none, zero, nada similarities -- because in 1776 Americans had zero representation in Parliament, none, while in 1860 Southern Democrats still controlled the majority in the Senate, the President and Supreme Court (i.e., Dred Scott).
And they would have continued in substantial control if people like Rhett himself had not broken up the national Democrat party over slavery (yes, that was "all about slavery") in 1860, thus throwing the election to "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.

FLT-bird: "But of course you knew that and were trying to obfuscate."

Nothing to obfuscate, but a good many of your posts lead me to suspect that you truly don't know the real history and have been big-time victimized by pro-Confederate propaganda.

FLT-bird: "South Carolina laid out the legal case for saying the Northern states violated the compact.
That alone was sufficient."

So first of all, just so we're clear on this: that "legal case" was indeed "all about slavery", nothing else.
Second, that "legal case" was itself ludicrous since every condition it described had been tolerated by South Carolina for decades without secession.
There was nothing new in November of 1860 -- no new laws, no new "oppression", not even a new Congress yet.
And that's what makes those declarations of secession at pleasure.
Literally, in November 1860 there was no new material cause, and no old cause which had been previously considered necessary for secession.

FLT-bird: "Even though it was not unconstitutional they attached Rhett’s Address in which he accurately laid out the economic exploitation of the Southern states by the Northern states via the tariff and via grossly unequal federal expenditures."

But there was nothing "accurate" about such analysis.
Federal spending in 1860 was roughly equal, North & South, and tariffs were then about as low as they had ever been.
So Rhett's rhetoric was all just stuff & nonsense.

FLT-bird: "Georgia laid out the legal case for accurately saying the Northern states violated the compact - namely, their refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution."

A false case after the Compromise of 1850 made enforcement of Fugitive Slave laws a Federal not state responsibility.
And Federal government was ruled by Southern Democrats who could enforce Fugitive Slave provisions to their hearts desire.
Further, Georgia even more than South Carolina, had no legal standing to complain about Fugitive slaves since few if any could make it across at least four slave-catching states before reaching any kind of sanctuary in the North.

So it was all bogus!!

FLT-bird: "This is an outright lie.
Rhett didn’t make slavery a wedge issue.
Northern politicians and business interests did in order to unite Northern votes for a sectional party which would favor ruinously high protective tariffs to be levied on goods owned by Southern importers."

But in 1860 Democrats were still a majority in many Northern states, enough to have prevented alleged "ruinously high protective tariffs" had they remained united with Southern Democrats.
It was Fire Eaters like Rhett, Yancey, Avery, Wigfall, etc., who insisted the Democrat party must split rather than compromise on slavery.

1856 Presidential election, note that Democrats still enjoyed majorities in several important Northern states:

FLT-bird: "and you conveniently left out the next part where it explains how Northern protectionists then started using the slavery issue as a wedge issue to try to build enough political support to jack the tariffs back up again."

And yet, from the time of the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 until secession in 1861 Tariffs went steadily downwards.

Tariffs did not seriously increase until after Democrats walked out of Congress and declared war on the United States.

As for Republicans wedging slavery to raise tariffs -- Whigs & Republicans always favored protective tariffs, but slavery only became their "wedge issue" when Southern Democrats gave it to them, by splitting their national Democrat party.

FLT-bird: "They voted as a block for a high protective tariff.
That was the central plank of the Republican party platform in 1860."

Hardly, the 1860 Republican platform had 17 planks.
Most complained about Democrat malfeasance, four talked about slavery directly, one, #12, mentions import duties.

As for "block voting" -- in 1852 virtually all Northerners were Democrats, whose party was ruled by Southern Democrats:

So if you claim Northerners were "block voters" then they were block Democrats.
They only reluctantly, gradually, became Republicans when Southern Democrats drove them away with such new legal theories as the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.

FLT-bird: "The northern states had been enriching themselves at the Southern states’ expense since the beginning.
The only debate was would they do so in a more modest way which had been the case after the Tariff of Abominations was repealed following the Nullification Crisis, or would they go for super high tariffs again and really dig their paws deeply into Southern wallets again.
They opted for the latter.
The Southern states had seen this before and had had enough."

So you keep saying, but Confederates in early 1860 all said otherwise.
They said protecting slavery was their chief, if not only, reason for secession.
Tariffs were not even mentioned by most.
And those who did mention it still spent far more time on slavery.

FLT-bird: "Nope! It was pushed by Northern Protectionists like Abe Lincoln."

Northerners cared far less about percentages of tariffs than they did about the threat of expanding slavery where they didn't want it.
And expanding slavery was what Democrats were pushing (i.e., Dred Scott) in 1860.
Sure, Republicans were the anti-slavery party, but not because they wanted higher tariffs (that's insane), but rather because they didn't want slavery in their states & territories.

FLT-bird: "It had passed the House in the Spring of the previous year.
All that was needed was a little log rolling to pick off a vote or two in the Senate. "

Morrill was blocked by Senate Democrats in 1860 and could not pass in 1861 until after secessionists walked out.
Had Southerners remained united with their Northern Democrat allies, they could have forced a compromise much more to their own liking.
Compromise... you remember that, right, "the art of the deal" etc., etc.??

FLT-bird: "Yawn.
A weak attempt to blame Lee due to your personal bitterness.
The Federal government simply did not provide enough troops or resources as they had agreed to do when Texas joined the US.
Texans understood the Northern states acting through the federal government were to blame and furthermore that they had failed to provide the promised border security out of spite,"

I have no "personal bitterness" towards RE Lee, none, zero.
"Personal bitterness" is you Lost Causers' stock in trade, we don't need it.

But... speaking of weak arguments, could any be weaker than yours?
Remember, in 1860 Federal government was ruled by Southerners, the army was commanded by Southerners, Federal revenues to be spent on the military were set by Southerners and had been for nearly all of the past 60 years.
So, if Southerners weren't happy with Federal government, they simply weren't happy with themselves.
It's not the fault of Northerners if RE Lee could not adequately protect Texans from Indians or "banditti".

That's plenty enough for one post.
Will work on the remainder when time permits.

But regardless of whose country it was, there was no “hostile intent”, it was a resupply mission with specific orders: no first use of force.
Equivalent then to resupplying or reinforcing our base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba today.
It was not an act of war and was actually irrelevant to Jefferson Davis’ demand for Fort Sumter’s surrender, under threat of military assault, which certainly was an act of war.

Uhh pure BS.

The steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, 181 officers and enlisted Armament: • 8 × 9 in guns, • 2 × 12-pounder guns

USS Powhatan, 289 officers and enlisted Armament: • 1 × 11 in (280 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore gun, 10 × 9 in (230 mm) Dahlgren smoothbore guns • 5 × 12-pounder guns, also transporting steam launches and about 300 sailors (besides the crew, these to be used to augment Army troops)

Armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, 150 officers and men (approx.)
4 × 32-pounder guns, 1 × 10-pounder gun, 1 × 20-pounder Parrot rifle

The Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, 95 officers and men Armament: 1 x 4in gun, 1 x 9in gun, 2 x 8in guns, 2 x 24 lb brass howitzers

The steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter (or some other point since it is inconceivable that they would be taking small arms fire from a union held fortification )
Totals

4 war ships
4 transports
38 heavy guns
1200 military personnel (at least 500 of whom were to be used as a landing party)

Does this sound like “provisions” to you????
No the Fox expedition was no attempt to “provision” a “starving” garrison. It was exactly what abe said it was, a flagrant and deliberate attempt to provoke war and it worked very well. If for what ever reason it hadn’t worked abe and gang would have certainly provoked war at Pensacola very soon afterward.

There is no law on any book anywhere in the world which says that a government’s property becomes not its property just because some local citizens declare secession.
The US Constitution gives Congress — and nobody else — authority to dispose of Federal property.

When a sovereign state secedes, all property within their sovereign territory can be claimed by them under Eminent Domain. The former owners are owed fair market value and that will be part of the negotiations for secession but they can no more lawfully refuse to hand over that property than any other property owner when the government exercises its power of eminent domain.

No, your posts are total fantasy, not a word of truth in them, so nothing for me to “handle”.
Nice try though.

Nah. I had it right. You just can’t deal with facts that are inconvenient for your dogma.

Clearly, on April 4, 1861, when Virginians voted against secession, they believed the reasons for secession as expressed by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas and Rhett’s address were not adequate to justify Virginia’s secession.
But after Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter, most Virginians changed their minds... well, West Virginians did not.
Clearly civil war was the clincher for Virginians, where issues of slavery or tariffs, etc., had not been.

And one reason is that Virginia’s Constitution signing statement requires “injury or oppression” before “withdrawing”.

Well to begin with this is more of your lying. Abe Lincoln started the war, not Jefferson Davis. Furthermore Virginia voting initially not to secede is not evidence that there was no injury or oppression - merely that they did not feel it sufficient to warrant secession until Lincoln chose to start a war to impose a government on people who did not consent to it.

The only provocations for war came from Confederates’ seizure of many Federal properties — forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. — threatening of Union officials, firing at Union ships and forcing the surrender of Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

Incorrect. The provocations for war came from Lincoln when he chose to send a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina’s territorial waters to reinforce some squatters illegally occupying some of South Carolina’s sovereign territory.

But there was no “maneuvering” by Lincoln.
From Day One Confederates threatened & provoked war.
Lincoln merely gave them an opportunity to, as some would say: put their money where their mouth is.
And there was no “maneuvering” in that, since Lincoln only did what he must do to support Union troops in Fort Sumter.

Ah but there was. Lincoln knew what he was doing, knew it would start a war and that was what he wanted.

“Lincoln and the First Shot” (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor” by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that “This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South.” Lincoln’s personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter

So here’s the truth “you just can’t handle”: by the words of secessionists themselves, even Robert Rhett’s address, it was more about slavery than about all other issues combined.
And that’s a fact, but you will never confess it, right?

yet another lie on your part. Slavery provided the original 7 seceding states (well 4 really since only 4 issued declarations of causes) the legal basis for saying the Northern states had violated the compact - which they had. Rhett said he would support secession on the grounds of the tariff and unequal federal expenditures...but its inconvenient for you to admit that. Of course the Upper South only seceded when Lincoln chose to start a tyrannical war for money and empire seeking to impose a government on people who did not consent to it.

But what people like Rhett refused to confess was: until Fire Eaters like himself broke apart the national Democrat party in 1860 over slavery, “the South” had many friends & allies in the North, East and West, allies they could count on to support the South in any matters of importance.
That’s precisely why & how Democrats ruled over Washington, DC, from about 1800 until secession in 1861.

So the number one blame for what Rhett complained about was: Rhett himself.
Think about it.

This is a complete pile of BS. Obviously the South who were in the minority did not control things in Washington DC or the tariff would have been way way lower all along and there would not have been much by way of federal expenditures for internal improvements and corporate subsidies. The Walker Tariff which was claimed to be “advantageous” to the South was 17%. The Confederate Constitution set a maximum tariff rate of 10%....the very highest to be allowed was about half of what the supposed “advantageous” tariff rate was while in the US. That fact alone should disprove any ridiculous claims that the South somehow controlled everything in Washington all along.

Ah, but in fact there was no similarity whatsoever — none, zero, nada similarities — because in 1776 Americans had zero representation in Parliament, none, while in 1860 Southern Democrats still controlled the majority in the Senate, the President and Supreme Court (i.e., Dred Scott).
And they would have continued in substantial control if people like Rhett himself had not broken up the national Democrat party over slavery (yes, that was “all about slavery”) in 1860, thus throwing the election to “Ape” Lincoln and his Black Republicans.

Ah but there was. The similarity was striking. The British offered the colonies seats in the British parliament. Its just that it would not have been enough for them to be able to protect themselves from rapacious economic policies designed to bleed them dry while enriching others....exactly the situation the Southern states found themselves in in 1860.

How you think anybody is going to but this BS you spew is beyond me. Southern Democrats did not control the President. Buchanan was a Pennsylvanian.

“The House of Representatives, whose membership was based on the census returns for each state, reflected this growing disparity. Even counting three-fifths of the slave population (as the federal Constitution provided), free states increased their majority from twenty-three seats in 1830 to twenty-nine seats by 1840. The disparity expressed in total seats was 149 representatives from the free states to 88 from the slave states.” (John Niven, The Coming of the Civil War: 1837-1861, Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1990, p. 21)

“. . . the Democrats in 1854 suffered grave reversals. Perhaps most stunning was the plurality the Republicans achieved in the new House of Representatives, where they were to hold 108 seats to 83 for the Democrats and 43 for the Know-Nothings. Indeed that new House, after two months of debate, would elect a Republican Speaker. . . .” (Catton, The National Experience, pp. 322-323)

“The election of 1858. . . . Southern Democrats . . . were no longer able to shape public policy. . . .” (Catton, editor, The National Experience, pp. 328-329)

Nothing to obfuscate, but a good many of your posts lead me to suspect that you truly don’t know the real history and have been big-time victimized by pro-Confederate propaganda.

Yes you obfuscate - a product no doubt of swallowing the PC Revisionist propaganda you want so badly to believe.

So first of all, just so we’re clear on this: that “legal case” was indeed “all about slavery”, nothing else.
Second, that “legal case” was itself ludicrous since every condition it described had been tolerated by South Carolina for decades without secession.
There was nothing new in November of 1860 — no new laws, no new “oppression”, not even a new Congress yet.
And that’s what makes those declarations of secession at pleasure.
Literally, in November 1860 there was no new material cause, and no old cause which had been previously considered necessary for secession.

Yes the legal case was that the Northern states had violated the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.

Second, your claim here is false. The northern states had been agitating against the fugitive slave clause and its enforcement more and more as time went on and had passed state laws forbidding cooperating with the feds - kinda like Commiefornia’s “Sanctuary state” laws. It is up to each state to determine when its injury or oppression rises to a level sufficient to warrant secession. That is what it is to be sovereign. They hold power in their own right and can decide what to do on their own without requiring some kind of permission slip from others. They felt it necessary in 1860-61 and that’s enough. They had nothing to prove to anybody else when it came to choosing to exercise their sovereign rights.

Of course we all know what changed was the certainty that the Morill Tariff would pass which it did and was signed by Buchanan 2 days before Lincoln took office.

But there was nothing “accurate” about such analysis.
Federal spending in 1860 was roughly equal, North & South, and tariffs were then about as low as they had ever been.
So Rhett’s rhetoric was all just stuff & nonsense.

Oh it was completely accurate. The supposedly “advantageous” 17% Walker Tariff was going to be replaced by the Morrill Tariff which would double tariff rates (they were eventually tripled). Federal expenditures had long favored the Northern states as admitted by Buchanan and numerous Northern newspapers and as complained about bitterly for many years by Southerners. So Rhett’s statement was spot on.

A false case after the Compromise of 1850 made enforcement of Fugitive Slave laws a Federal not state responsibility.
And Federal government was ruled by Southern Democrats who could enforce Fugitive Slave provisions to their hearts desire.
Further, Georgia even more than South Carolina, had no legal standing to complain about Fugitive slaves since few if any could make it across at least four slave-catching states before reaching any kind of sanctuary in the North.

So it was all bogus!!

Are you trying to deny that various Northern states passed legislation forbidding cooperation with federal authorities as they tried to recapture escaped slaves and that Northerners engaged multiple times in mob violence to impede federal agents - which state authorities did nothing to stop? The evidence for this is quite clear. Its been bragged about by Northerners for a long time.

And your claims that the minority Southerners controlled the Federal government is nothing but pure fantasy.

Georgia’s case like South Carolina’s did not depend on how many slaves the Northern states prevented the feds from capturing and returning - but that they had willfully and repeatedly done so in violation of the Constitution.

There is no question that happened multiple times.

But in 1860 Democrats were still a majority in many Northern states, enough to have prevented alleged “ruinously high protective tariffs” had they remained united with Southern Democrats.
It was Fire Eaters like Rhett, Yancey, Avery, Wigfall, etc., who insisted the Democrat party must split rather than compromise on slavery.

You just ASSUME Northern Democrats would automatically kowtow to Southern Democrats and do whatever they were told. That is patently absurd. Some Northern Democrats were influenced by the same special interest groups in the North that the Republicans were and wanted ruinously high tariffs for the same reasons - and voted for them.

And yet, from the time of the Tariff of Abominations in 1828 until secession in 1861 Tariffs went steadily downwards.

Tariffs did not seriously increase until after Democrats walked out of Congress and declared war on the United States.

As for Republicans wedging slavery to raise tariffs — Whigs & Republicans always favored protective tariffs, but slavery only became their “wedge issue” when Southern Democrats gave it to them, by splitting their national Democrat party.

The Walker Tariff did reduce rates after the Tariff of Abominations. It was part of the compromise that ended the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s. That was about to end as the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House in May of 1860 and was sure to pass the Senate...and Buchanan the Pennsylvanian supported it as did Lincoln. Everybody could see a doubling of the rates at least was right around the corner. Southerners understood all too well what that would mean for their economy having seen how damaging the Tariff of Abominations had been a generation earlier.

Northern special interests had used slavery as a wedge issue to convince the Midwest to go along with their huge tariff hike. They also promised lavish subsidies for railroad construction and other internal improvements in the Midwest that would help defray the damage that would be done to Midwestern grain exporters.

Hardly, the 1860 Republican platform had 17 planks.
Most complained about Democrat malfeasance, four talked about slavery directly, one, #12, mentions import duties.

As for “block voting” — in 1852 virtually all Northerners were Democrats, whose party was ruled by Southern Democrats:

Lincoln had vigorously lobbied for the Morrill Tariff, telling a Pittsburgh, Pa. audience two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue, none, was more important.

Your notion that Southerners could just snap their fingers and control what Northern Democrats did and how they voted is simply comical and bears no relation to reality.

3 of the 4 talked about it. None of the original 7 seceding states would return even when offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. That alone should demonstrate that Slavery protected + Massively high tariff was not acceptable to them. Refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was merely the legal means for saying the Northern states violated the compact - it was not what the real motivation of Southerners was. That they spent any time at all complaining about the tariff and unequal federal expenditures in their declarations of causes was remarkable considering that no matter how much they hated it, this was NOT unconstitutional. It was unfair. It was infuriating. It was oppressive and exploitative, but it was not unconstitutional.

Northerners cared far less about percentages of tariffs than they did about the threat of expanding slavery where they didn’t want it.
And expanding slavery was what Democrats were pushing (i.e., Dred Scott) in 1860.
Sure, Republicans were the anti-slavery party, but not because they wanted higher tariffs (that’s insane), but rather because they didn’t want slavery in their states & territories.

The reason the Republicans wanted to bar slavery from new territories was that they were locked in a power struggle with the Southern states over federal economic policy and over the relationship between the federal and the state governments. They wanted to stack the deck in their favor so that they could get more votes and then ram through everything they wanted over Southern objections. Jefferson Davis said it openly as did many others.

“Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,”…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power.” Jefferson Davis 1848

“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860

Oh and let’s not “whitewash” things here.....Republicans not only did not want slaves entering the territories...they also did not want free Blacks either. Just read the original state constitutions for Kansas, Oregon, etc etc.

Morrill was blocked by Senate Democrats in 1860 and could not pass in 1861 until after secessionists walked out.
Had Southerners remained united with their Northern Democrat allies, they could have forced a compromise much more to their own liking.
Compromise... you remember that, right, “the art of the deal” etc., etc.??

The Senate was the South’s last line of defense and they had just barely managed to block the Morrill Tarrif in 1860 but all it was going to take was a little log rolling to flip a Senator or two. It was sure to pass and everyone knew it. Northern corporate fatcats and Lincoln were not about to be thwarted in imposing their huge tariff and corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects. There wasn’t going to be a compromise. They were just going to throw a bone to a Senator or two with adding something to the tariff schedule and/or a subsidy for some infrastructure project in somebody’s state there, it was going to happen. Remember how Nebraska got to opt out of Obamacare so the Democrats could get another vote to shove Obamacare down everybody’s throats? Same thing.

I have no “personal bitterness” towards RE Lee, none, zero.
“Personal bitterness” is you Lost Causers’ stock in trade, we don’t need it.

You clearly do since you tried to take all kinds of lame shots at Lee.

But... speaking of weak arguments, could any be weaker than yours?
Remember, in 1860 Federal government was ruled by Southerners, the army was commanded by Southerners, Federal revenues to be spent on the military were set by Southerners and had been for nearly all of the past 60 years.
So, if Southerners weren’t happy with Federal government, they simply weren’t happy with themselves.
It’s not the fault of Northerners if RE Lee could not adequately protect Texans from Indians or “banditti”.

LOL! Yours is the weakest because its based on multiple giant steaming piles of BS like your claim that SOutherners ruled the federal government somehow.....even though they were in the minority and even though they had long bitterly complained about tariffs and unequal federal expenditures. Texans understood full well that the fault lay with the federal government in refusing to supply enough troops or resources to adequately defend the border as had been promised them when they joined the US. They weren’t stupid enough to blame Lee who was sent there for a relatively short time with nowhere near enough resources to guard the border.