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.
Right.
If you read a history of railroad development, you will find this was an issue as early as the 1820s. Incidentally, Calhoun was raising a rukus in the South Carolina Legislature about tarrifs at about the same time. The entire situation, the degree of emnity which would pit the South and North against each other, did not develop overnight, it took decades to build.
As for Hicks, >spit!<, Maryland's traitorous governor was the one who told the State Militia to place their arms in the armory and wait for the call. He not only never issued the call, he had the arms confiscated, which was why there were street riots and what might be considered guerilla actions instead of militia action to repulse the invaders.
My family was in MD in the 1600s, and yes, my rembrance of MD history is a mite 'selective'--somee of it was handed down by sources not in the Union history books.
I would remind you that the MD Legislature could seceede even without Hicks' signature, had they been allowed to vote. The State Legislature was not going to seceede until Virginia did, and by your own timeline, Virginia was still voting on secession 3 months later than the MD vote you cite.
By then, the Legislature was under house arrest.
As for "invasions" of West(ern) Virginia, it wasn't--it was all just Virginia at the time. What were the Union Forces doing there, if not an invasion?
Pennsylvania regulars skirmishing with Confederate (Maryland confederates?) at Point of Rocks (MD) at the fall line of the Potomac? What were the PA soldiers doing in Maryland? (Hint--they invaded!)
Skirmishes do not necessarily indicate that one side or the other invaded anywhere, but if you will recall, "border" states were, to at least a significant portion of their populace, "occupied". Entire regiments of their citizenry fought for the South. When the locals engaged in defending their farms and homes against Northern Regiments (especially from another State), I would not call that 'southern' aggression, but self-defense.
Certainly, it pales in comparison to the rampant destruction the Union Forces did in the Shenandoah Valley and to Tennessee and points East on the march to Georgia.