Nor did the colonies revolt when the Stamp tax was the only issue. Seldom are such drastic means taken to redress a single grievance, and Secession is no exeption. Slavery was the last straw, but far from the full load. Tarrifs, railroad bridges designed to impede river traffic (and prevent larger vessels from hauling the freight the railroads would), and a host of other issues were involved.
In Border States (Delaware, Maryland, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri), where slaves constituted 10% to 20%, slavery was not strong enough to cause those states to vote for secession
Maryland waited for Virginia's legislature to vote on secession. (envision being surrounded, had Virginia failed to seceede and seceeding). By the time that was done, the Legislature had been placed under arrest and was sequestered at Fort McKinley, and it was never allowed to vote on secession.
Keep in mind, that even in a hundred years, Marylanders had not shed the fervor for independant governance which led them to burn two tea ships to the waterline before Boston ever had a Tea Party.
As tobacco was a primary crop (labor intensive), there is a very good chance Maryland would have followed Virginia had the opportunity come before the invasion of the state by more northern Militias, an invasion protested after the confiscation of arms in the Maryland Militia armories by the burning of bridges and the riots, most particularly in Baltimore, in which citizens pelted invading troops with rocks, bricks, and bottles.
Numerous Marylanders headed South to sign up in the Virginia regiments and the First Maryland Volunteers.
The State Song was written by an expatriate Marylander in Louisiana during the war and the lines "Avenge the patriotic gore/That flecked the streets of Baltimore" referred to the riots there. I have trouble believing those lines would have remained in the State Song were sentiment in the state, even after the war, not heavily pro-secessionist.
As for slavery in the Northern States, the percentage of slaves had dwindled in the face of waves of immigrants, who worked more cheaply and did not have to be provided for. That is the very dynamic which would have eventually made slavery defunct in the south as well.
There was no "Northern Aggression" involved -- unless you want to consider the matter of fugitive slaves "Northern Aggression."
When one considers that until Lee's foray north, every battle fought was on Southern soil, and with the exception of Sumpter, was the result of an invasion by northern troops, I'd say there was indeed significant Northern Aggression.
When one considers the politics in places like Missouri, where successful businessmen were either required to swear an oath to the Union or were forcibly divested of all their resources by Union troops and sent from their property with the clothes on their backs, their goods and buildings either siezed or destroyed, I'd say there was plenty of aggression there, too. Even Custer got in on it, hanging civillian men and boys in the Carolinas while claiming they were spies with an aggression which embarassed even Union troops.(Why'd you think they sent him out west? As a reward?? Hint: There was no base at Thule to assign him to.)
Southern Secessionists just didn't like Lincoln's looks, and that's all that really mattered to them.
I'd say it was more than just looks, and if you look at the map of the 1860 election, the battle lines were drawn at the ballot box.
As for:Slavery's popularity and eventual legality was almost entirely a function of the size of a state's slave population. In Northern states, where slaves never exceeded 1% of the population, slavery was relatively quickly and easily abolished.
, that is as fine a piece of circular reasoning as I have ever seen. Because they are fewer, the institution is less popular? Or are there fewer because the institution is less popular? Of course, either way, it is easiest to divest a smaller number of people of their property, whatever form that property takes, if there are fewer of them than those who want to take it. We're seeing that now, with a large welfare and entitlement class voting for a larger chunk of people's paychecks, only the numbers are still somewhat balanced.
With that balance comes conflict, and we hear mumblings from many quarters of schism, even today, just on different issues.
The difference in philosophy was simple. Mr Lincoln supported the notion that the Union was to be preserved at any cost. Southerners saw that as a voluntary arrangement, presenting the thought that 'government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed', and they withdrew that consent.
The Union (Lincoln) waged war to impose that government in the absence of the consent of the Southern population.
Wrong.
Slavery was the only issue which truly mattered to the South.
Neither tariffs nor railroad bridges were ever mentioned in any "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States".
And here is the complete list of "Ordinances of Secession of 13 Confederate States of America".
Go ahead, search if for mention of railroads or tariffs. Not there.
Nor were "a host of other issues," listed.
Slavery, only slavery, it was all about slavery.
Nothing else mattered enough to secede.
Smokin' Joe: "Maryland waited for Virginia's legislature to vote on secession. (envision being surrounded, had Virginia failed to seceede and seceeding). By the time that was done, the Legislature had been placed under arrest and was sequestered at Fort McKinley, and it was never allowed to vote on secession."
Your memory of history is very selective here.
Yes, agreed -- no doubt you are correct that many Marylanders favored secession. However, many others did not.
So here is the actual sequence of events relating to Maryland and other Border States:
So, up to this point, only the Deep South has seceded. All other Slave-owning States are still in the Union.
Now comes the Battle of Fort Sumter, on April 12, followed by Lincoln's declaration of insurrection.
This list could go on & on.
By war's end, Confederate forces had invaded Union states and territories of Maryland, Pennsylvania, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Yes, some of these were relatively minor operations, but that was not for lack of intention, only of means.
Had Southern forces been physically able to do more damage to the Union, they would have.
So, especially in the beginning, it was almost entirely a War of Southern Aggression against the Union.
Smokin' Joe: "As for slavery in the Northern States, the percentage of slaves had dwindled in the face of waves of immigrants, who worked more cheaply and did not have to be provided for. That is the very dynamic which would have eventually made slavery defunct in the south as well."
Wrong again.
Slave populations in Northern States were never significant -- not ever.
Less than one percent, possibly a bit more in certain places such as New York City or Philadelphia.
That's the reason, when Pennsylvania (1780) & New York (1799) abolished slavery it was done gradually, over a period of decades -- no new slaves allowed, existing slaves to remain indentured until they died.
All original Northern states abolished slavery before 1800.
All new northern states abolished slavery as a condition of their entry to the Union.
I've seen no record of Northern slave owners ever being compensated for their "loss of property."
No slave owning state abolished slavery after New York in 1799.
Smokin' Joe: "that is as fine a piece of circular reasoning as I have ever seen. Because they are fewer, the institution is less popular? Or are there fewer because the institution is less popular? Of course, either way, it is easiest to divest a smaller number of people of their property, whatever form that property takes, if there are fewer of them than those who want to take it. "
Nothing circular about it -- it's a simple hisorical fact: in Northern states where slave populations were small, slavery was relatively quickly and easily abolished.
But in Deep South States, where slave populations approached 50% and more, slavery was a non-negotiable condition.
So, any perceived threat against slavery in those states was cause for secession and war.
Those are the facts of history.