What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

National Review ^ | April 7 2018 | Daniel Gerelnter

[iowamark]

A friend recently posed this question: “If you had to recommend one book for a first-time visitor to the U.S. to read, to understand our country, what would it be and why?”...

If the goal is an education, we could recommend Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager’s Growth of the American Republic, a two-volume history that used to be required reading...

Huckleberry Finn may be the greatest American novel... But there is no single novel, no matter how great, that can do the job alone.

Consider instead the great American essayists who invented a new style of writing in the 1920s and founded The New Yorker. E. B. White’s One Man’s Meat is the finest such essay collection... Joseph Mitchell’s Up in the Old Hotel is nearly as great...

Teddy Roosevelt’s short book The Strenuous Life, which opens with his 1899 speech by that name, is an explanation of America’s view of itself — a view that greatly shaped the 20th century. It was the peculiar marriage of power and prosperity together with a sense of moral urgency. Roosevelt demands an active life, a life of struggling for personal and national virtue. He commends a triad of strength in body, intellect, and character — of which character is the most important. America must meet its moral obligations vigorously, he tells us: “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”...

The origin of that moral urgency was America’s most important spiritual crisis. It is best expressed in a single speech, rich in Biblical imagery and contemporary prophecy: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which is the greatest of all American writing. It is a tone-poem or photograph of the American soul. A complete understanding, in just 697 words.

[x]

We are a peculiar people, sir! We are an agricultural people; we are a primitive but a civilized people. We have no cities – we don’t want them. We have no literature – we don’t need any yet … We want no manufactures; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes … As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides.” -- Senator Louis B. Wigfall of Texas, 1861

[FLT-bird]

Your problem is that many — indeed the vast majority — did believe their own propaganda because, to them, it was true: “Ape” Lincoln and his “Black Republicans” threatened slavery enough to make secession “necessary”.

The fact that Lincoln did not really threaten slavery makes secessionist propaganda a Big Lie which converts the “necessity” into pure, unadulterated at pleasure secession.

It’s an important point in making the Confederacy illegitimate from Day One.

Firstly there is no way of knowing whether the majority were motivated by protection of slavery....doubtful since a large majority did not own any....or by the feeling that they were being consistently taken advantage of and bilked out of a lot of money every year. That I find more likely because the economics would have been felt by everybody in the South whether they owned any slaves or not.

Of course whenever there is a bitter longstanding dispute like this, people’s feelings of antipathy toward their opponents takes over and there’s no doubt many in the South simply wanted to no longer have to put up with New Englanders....I can’t say I blame them.

We agree that slavery was not threatened in the US. That said, the Northern states did go out of their way to avoid enforcing the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution and thus did break one of the terms of the deal they made with the Southern states when the Constitution was ratified. They thus provided a legitimate legal basis for the Southern states to say the Northern states had violated the compact.

Unilateral secession is the right of each state and this was entirely in keeping with the original intent of the States when they ratified the constitution.

[SoCal Pubbie]

More lies. The South secceeded. Their forces fired on federal warships attempting to resupply a federal installation. This used to be funny, but now it’s sad. You’re completely out of touch with reality.

[DiogenesLamp]

More lies.

Yes, but not from me.

Their forces fired on federal warships attempting to resupply a federal installation.

That's incorrect. Now if I was like you, I would accuse you of lying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply accuse you of being mistaken.

The Confederates never fired on those warships because those warships did not follow their printed orders. They never came near enough for Confederate shore batteries to fire at them. Instead, they waited at the rendezvous point for the arrival of their command ship the "Powhatan" which they expected to be commanded by Captain Mercer, who was to lead the expedition in force to complete it's mission.

But it never arrived, and was never going to arrive, because Lincoln, using hand carried secret orders that did not go through the Navy's chain of command, had relieved Captain Mercer of command, Installed Lieutenant David Porter in charge of the Ship, ordered it to be disguised, sailed far out into the Atlantic so there was much less likelihood of anyone seeing or recognizing it, and then had it sail to Florida under a British Flag. In this manner, Lincoln had deliberately prevented the Ships from completing their stated mission, without the Confederates being made aware that those ships weren't going to attack.

So no, the Confederates did not fire on Federal warships attempting to complete their mission. The Federal warships did not attempt to complete their mission as the Confederates believed they would. Had the Confederates known those ships were going to do nothing more than just sit there, they would have avoided firing on Sumter. It was the belief that they were about to be attacked by those warships that stirred them to action against the fort.

This used to be funny, but now it’s sad.

I can see why you would think it is sad. I would feel sad too if the evidence was going against my position. It would make me quite bothered that my every argument is getting beat to death by a gang of ruthless facts.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Buchanan decided that he would next send Anderson reinforcements and supplies. In January 1861, he dispatched the chartered and unarmed civilian steamer Star of the West with 200 Soldiers plus a cargo of food and medical supplies to Charleston Harbor. The South Carolinians opened fire on her on 9 January, the first shots being fired from a battery on Morris Island that was manned by cadets from The Citadel. They could easily have been the first shots of a civil war, but after several rounds flew past his ship and one caused minor damage, the Star of the West ’s civilian skipper turned back.”

Note that Southern forces indeed fired on a Union ships, and it was BEFORE Lincoln had been sworn into office.

Once he had become president, Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina that he intended to send a relief flotilla to bring supplies to Sumter. Despite the fact that the commander of the federal troops stated they would withdraw by April 15 unless resupplied, Beauregard ordered his command to open fire and they did so on April 12, BEFORE the relief ships had even arrived. It was the decision made by Jefferson Davis that began hostilies and led to a South to a ruinous self immolation.

Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs says that the attack “will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet’s nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.“

Your description of the intended relief force and the involvement of David Porter is both innacurate and incomplete, as usual. The Powhatten went south to Florida to defend another federal fort under threat in that state. Kind of an important detail you left out. There were conflicting orders for the ship because of machinations within Lincoln’s cabinet. It was finally decided that the Powhatten would go to Florida a week before the flotilla would arrive in South Carolina. Besides, the relief force included two warships, the Pawnee and the Pochantas.

So, it WAS the Southern forces who shot first. They DID fire at an attempt to relieve the fort. Union forces did NOT attempt to attack anywhere in South Carolina.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Buchanan decided that he would next send Anderson reinforcements and supplies. In January 1861, he dispatched the chartered and unarmed civilian steamer Star of the West with 200 Soldiers plus a cargo of food and medical supplies to Charleston Harbor. The South Carolinians opened fire on her on 9 January, the first shots being fired from a battery on Morris Island that was manned by cadets from The Citadel. They could easily have been the first shots of a civil war, but after several rounds flew past his ship and one caused minor damage, the Star of the West ’s civilian skipper turned back.”

Still wrong. Cadets at the Citadel fired at the Star of the West, and they did so without any instructions from the Confederate Military to do so. I believe they were also reprimanded for having done so.

Note that Southern forces indeed fired on a Union ships, and it was BEFORE Lincoln had been sworn into office.

If by "Southern Forces" you mean the college cadets who took it upon themselves to act out, sure.

Once he had become president, Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina that he intended to send a relief flotilla to bring supplies to Sumter.

Now see here, i'm going to present you a little bit of cognitive dissonance on your part. You have just finished telling me about the Star of the West incident, and it is the story of a single ship (and not a very big one) bringing relief supplies to Fort Sumter. You then tell me about a "relief flotilla", (consisting of 8 ships) to do the exact same task. One of the ships in the "relief flotilla" was "The Baltic", which was a large passenger ship, ant it was carrying at least 200 riflemen. The other ships were mostly warships. Even the tugboats were armed with cannons. I believe there were several thousands of men involved in this "relief expedition."

So we have a "relief flotilla" composed of mostly armed combatants, instead of a single ship like the "Star of the West", which was deemed sufficient to carry the supplies previously. Add to this, the orders from Winfield Scott tell them to reinforce the fort, (Which is why they brought the 200 riflemen) and fight if resisted in reinforcing the fort.

Yet you can tell me with a straight face that this "relief flotilla" was not meant to provoke armed conflict, and it was perfectly reasonable for there to be eight armed ships to deliver some supplies to Anderson at Fort Sumter?

Beauregard ordered his command to open fire and they did so on April 12, BEFORE the relief ships had even arrived.

This is incorrect. It was the arrival of the Warships that triggered the attack. You can read about it if you go through the confederate message exchanges for the incident.

—The Charleston Mercury of to-day announces war as declared. “Our authorities,” it says, “yesterday evening received notice from Lincoln’s Government, through a special messenger from Washington, that an effort will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions and that if this were permitted, no attempt would be made to reinforce it with men! This message comes simultaneously with a fleet, which we understand is now off our bar, waiting for daylight and tide to make the effort threatened.

April 9, 1861

.

.

.

United States vessels were reported off the bar. Major Anderson displayed signal lights during the night from the walls of Fort Sumter.—Times, April 10, 1861

.

.

.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, April 11, 1861.

Brigadier-General BEAUREGARD:

DEAR SIR: In corroboration of the information which I am told you have already received, Captain Davenport, of the pilot-boat Palmetto, reports that he saw the Harriet Lane this afternoon, making towards this city with speed, until within about fifteen miles of the bar, when she “hove to.” That then he was about two miles from her, when he distinctly recognized her. He says he has no doubt about her identity, as he knows her well.

I am, dear sir, respectfully yours,

D. F. JAMISON.

And there are several others. The point here is that the arrival of the Warships is what triggered the conflict. If you read other of the Confederate messages, they were estimating a landing force of about 2600 men to attack them, along with armed gunboats.

Your description of the intended relief force and the involvement of David Porter is both innacurate and incomplete, as usual.

No, they are not. I know you very much wish they were inaccurate, but I have if anything, understated what actually happened.

But let us focus on a specific, point. Why would a lieutenant (two ranks below Captain in the US Navy ranking system of 1860) be given control of the command ship on the very threshold of the most significant mission being launched, refuse to obey orders from the Secretary of the Navy, disguise the ship so that it would unrecognizable to people who knew it well, run up a British flag, and then sail it to Pensacola, when the entire mission outside of Charleston was expecting it to arrive and take command of the expedition?

There were conflicting orders for the ship because of machinations within Lincoln’s cabinet.

Porter's orders came directly from Lincoln, were written in Lincoln's own hand, and were specific regarding relieving Captain Mercer of control, and specific that Porter was to obey no orders from anyone else, and the orders were sealed and hand carried by Porter.

When the Naval Yard in New York informed the Secretary of the Navy, he immediately contacted Lincoln, who replied to him that there must be some sort of mistake, and he informed Gideon Wells that he could have the ship back for his Sumter expedition. But Porter refused to accede to the Secretary of the Navy's orders that were delivered to him, and instead did what Lincoln's secret orders instructed.

The Machinations were not in Lincoln's cabinet, but in Lincoln himself. (Lincoln was known for pulling underhanded stunts.)

Besides, the relief force included two warships, the Pawnee and the Pochantas.

And the USS Thomas Freeborn, Uncle Ben, USS Yankee, USS Baltic, USRC Harriet Lane, and the USS Powhatan. I believe that constitutes 8 ships.

[BroJoeK]

So let's start here:

FLT-bird: "THEN Lincoln chose to start a war.
THEN 4 and arguably 5 more states seceded.
Obviously they were not seceding over slavery but instead over the principle that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed as had been stated in the Declaration of Independence."

Obviously not over slavery, but following Virginia's lead and Virginia could only declare secession after its Constitution signing statement conditions were met:

"...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..."

Jefferson Davis well knew that Virginians believed they could not declare secession until that condition was met -- "injury and oppression" -- and in April, 1861, it had not been.
That's why Davis needed war at Fort Sumter -- it moved Virginia from Union to Confederate and along with Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas.
It might even bring in Kentucky, Missouri & Maryland, but regardless, the payoff for Davis from starting war at Fort Sumter was beyond huge, it was transformative.
It almost doubled the Confederacy's size & population, adding vital manufacturing capacities, and making Civil War a serious contest.

So, "Injury and oppression" is what Davis provoked at Fort Sumter, and it won him the entire Upper South.

FLT-bird: "Meanwhile of the 7 original seceding Southern states only 4 issued declarations of causes.
Of those 3 of them listed tariffs and unequal federal expenditures along with some added complaints about the failure to provide border security by Texas. "

No, ,none of those four mentioned either tariffs or taxes.

1. South Carolina went first, December 24, 1860, and mentions at slavery length, nothing else.

2. Mississippi came next in January 9, 1861, mentions only slavery, nothing else:
   
   "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.
   Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth..."

3. Third was Georgia, January 29, 1861, and it does complain briefly about matters other than slavery:
   "Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business...
   The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.
   This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States."

   First note here the word "mainly", it means that Southerners also received "bounties" to the degree they participated in those activities.
   And actual data clearly shows the South got its "fair share" & more of Federal spending.
   So, does anybody seriously suggest that after 70+ years, Georgia declared secession over "bounties" paid to fishing smacks or "protection" to manufacturers?

   Indeed, Georgia fully admits:

   "After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed.
   It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.
   The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy.
   There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all."
   
   Georgia admits that Southern concerns were satisfied in 1846!
   All the rest of Georgia's long statement is devoted to slavery.

4. Finally Texas, February 2, 1861, does complain that Robert E. Lee did a terrible job of protecting them against Indians and "banditti", so doubtless they were glad to see Lee move back to Virginia.
   Texas also complains that Northerners:
   "...have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."

   Of course that's bogus, data shows the South got its fair share & more of Federal spending.
   All the rest of Texas' long statement is devoted to slavery:

   Abolitionists "demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

So for most, slavery was the only reason and for all, slavery was the most important reason.
It was all about slavery.

FLT-bird: "This is a PC Revisionist lie.
The Lincoln administration and the Northern dominated Congress was only too happy to offer the Corwin Amendment which would have expressly enshrined protection of slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution."

No your Revisionist lie is to imply that slavery was not the single greatest reason, indeed the only reason for most, why the first seven states declared secession.
As for the proposed Corwin Amendment, Lincoln's opinion was that it only restated what the Constitution already, in effect, said.
Corwin changed nothing, in Lincoln's opinion, so he did not oppose it.

But by March of 1861 the secession states were uninterested in compromises to restore the Union.
What they wanted most was for the Upper South & Border states to join their Confederacy, and for that they needed Virginia, and Virginia would only secede in the event of war.

Hence Jefferson Davis' assault on Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Southerners very much did see by 1860-61 that industrialization was the way forward..."

FLT-bird quoting: "Secession, southerners argued, would ‘liberate’ the South and produce the kind of balanced economy that was proving so successful in the North and so unachievable in the South.” (John A. Garraty and Robert McCaughey...1987"

Your 1987 authors are fantasizing.
In fact, there is nothing in any of the quotes about producing a "balanced economy" in the South, far from it.
Southerners hated the North's industrialization and didn't want to support it.
None said they wanted more industry "in the South"

FLT-bird quoting Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861: "The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests...."

What's true here is that many Southerners wanted low tariffs, and so did many from other regions.
What's not true is the claim that Federal spending went disproportionately to the North.
It didn't.

But the biggest deceit here is the claim that Northerners somehow ran Washington, DC and could do what they wished.
The opposite is true: Southern Democrats were the power brokers in Washington, DC, from about 1800 until secession in 1861.
What Southerners wanted they got, what they didn't want didn't happen, period.

FLT-bird quoting Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861: "By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress..."

But they didn't, ever, until secession in 1861.
Sure, by 1860 for the first time there was a Republican majority in one house of Congress, but Southerners still controlled the other, and the President.

Of course, Democrats being Democrats naturally go nuts when out of political power, then as now.

FLT-bird quoting Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton: "Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....
Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures."

Both claims are false: those four states did not "defray" 3/4 of Federal expenses, nor was Federal spending focused outside the South.
Nor is the claim that Southerners were impoverished credible because, in fact, Southern planters and their white neighbors enjoyed the highest average standard of living of any country ever.

For example, in 1840, total US exports (including specie) were $132 million of which $61 million (46%) was cotton.
Everything else listed as "Southern products" was also produced outside the Confederate South and so continued with strong exports even after secession in 1861.

FLT-bird quoting John C Calhoun, 1850: "The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ...
The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

It was not true in 1840 or 1850 or 1860.
In fact, truly Southern exports represented about half the total and Federal dollars were spent correspondingly, about half in the South.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Firstly there is no way of knowing whether the majority were motivated by protection of slavery....doubtful since a large majority did not own any..."

Oh, but they did, in Deep South states like South Carolina and Mississippi, which were #1 and #2 to secede, and they clearly said in their Reasons for Secession documents that protecting slavery was not just their biggest reason, but their only real reason.
In those two states nearly 50% of families owned slaves meaning that virtually everybody was close family & friends to slave-holders and therefore very concerned about their interests.

FLT-bird: "or by the feeling that they were being consistently taken advantage of and bilked out of a lot of money every year.
That I find more likely because the economics would have been felt by everybody in the South whether they owned any slaves or not."

Claims that they were being somehow "bilked" are simply false, and hard to argue when Deep South planters and their white neighbors were then, on average, the most prosperous people ever on Earth.

FLT-bird: "That said, the Northern states did go out of their way to avoid enforcing the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution and thus did break one of the terms of the deal they made with the Southern states when the Constitution was ratified. "

Possibly, in some cases, but remember the Compromise of 1850 made the Federal government, not Northern states, responsible for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws.
Furthermore, the deeper South you traveled, the less of a "problem" were fugitive slaves, such that those who seemed to complain most about it had virtually zero "problem" with it.

FLT-bird: "Unilateral secession is the right of each state and this was entirely in keeping with the original intent of the States when they ratified the constitution."

Utterly false, a lie from the time first uttered and not made any more true with its constant repetition.

In fact, our Founders recognized only true necessity (as in 1776) and mutual consent (as in 1788) as legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 & early 1861.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, meaning in the absence of absolute necessity.

And yet that's just what Confederates began to do in late 1860.

[BroJoeK]

SoCal Pubbie: " the relief force included two warships, the Pawnee and the Pochantas."

DiogenesLamp: "And the USS Thomas Freeborn, Uncle Ben, USS Yankee, USS Baltic, USRC Harriet Lane, and the USS Powhatan. I believe that constitutes 8 ships."

DiogenesLamp puts a lot of effort into drawing our attention away from Jefferson Davis' motives for starting war, "look at these bright shiny objects here", he says, Lincoln's battle fleet sailing to assail, subdue & oppress the Confederacy.
That's what really started the war, and it's all for money, money, money, Lincoln needed more money, money, money, claims DiogenesLamp!

Of course, that's all rubbish & nonsense, regardless of how often repeated.
Had Lincoln truly wished to start war at Fort Sumter, he would have ordered his ships to go in with guns ablasin', wouldn't he?
But he didn't.
Lincoln's orders were, in effect: no first use of force, resupply only, don't reinforce if not opposed.

Lincoln did not want war, certainly did not need war ("money, money, money" notwithstanding), but Jefferson Davis absolutely, positively did need war.
Davis needed war because without it Virginia would remain in the Union and along with Virginia the entire Upper South & Border States.

Only war would satisfy Virginia's Constitution signing statement condition of:

"...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 Davis was right -- within a week of Fort Sumter, Virginia's secession convention reversed it's previous pro-Union vote and declared for secession.
Clearly Fort Sumter was for the Confederacy the biggest gain in territory with the least expenditure of military effort in history of the world!

So in April 1861 Jefferson Davis was pure genius.
Abraham Lincoln? Well... not so much.

[FLT-bird]

That’s why Davis needed war at Fort Sumter — it moved Virginia from Union to Confederate and along with Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas.
It might even bring in Kentucky, Missouri & Maryland, but regardless, the payoff for Davis from starting war at Fort Sumter was beyond huge, it was transformative.
It almost doubled the Confederacy’s size & population, adding vital manufacturing capacities, and making Civil War a serious contest.

So, “Injury and oppression” is what Davis provoked at Fort Sumter, and it won him the entire Upper South.

Davis was not the one who sent a heavily armed flotilla to another country’s territorial waters. Davis is not the one who fired first at Pensacola. The original 7 seceding states would have been more than happy to go their own way without ever firing any shots. They tried to do just that. It was Lincoln who insisted on war. Virginia had voted to remain in. They could have voted to leave earlier but they chose to stay....in a union based on consent rather than force.

---

No, ,none of those four mentioned either tariffs or taxes.

South Carolina went first, December 24, 1860, and mentions at slavery length, nothing else.

Mississippi came next in January 9, 1861, mentions only slavery, nothing else:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth...”

Third was Georgia, January 29, 1861, and it does complain briefly about matters other than slavery:

“Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business...
The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors.
This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.”

First note here the word “mainly”, it means that Southerners also received “bounties” to the degree they participated in those activities.
And actual data clearly shows the South got its “fair share” & more of Federal spending.
So, does anybody seriously suggest that after 70+ years, Georgia declared secession over “bounties” paid to fishing smacks or “protection” to manufacturers?

Indeed, Georgia fully admits:

“After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed.
It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people.
The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy.
There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.”
Georgia admits that Southern concerns were satisfied in 1846!
All the rest of Georgia’s long statement is devoted to slavery.

Finally Texas, February 2, 1861, does complain that Robert E. Lee did a terrible job of protecting them against Indians and “banditti”, so doubtless they were glad to see Lee move back to Virginia.
Texas also complains that Northerners:

“...have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.”

Of course that’s bogus, data shows the South got its fair share & more of Federal spending.
All the rest of Texas’ long statement is devoted to slavery:

Abolitionists “demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

So for most, slavery was the only reason and for all, slavery was the most important reason.
It was all about slavery.

No.

I already outlined the EXTENSIVE LENGTHS to which the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration and which was sent out along with it, explained the economic grievances the Southern states had - namely that they were being economically exploited and no longer had the votes in Congress to protect themselves from being exploited even more than they already had been. They went on at length about this even though it was not unconstitutional.

Next you try to claim Georgia only talks “Briefly” about matters other than slavery? ROTFLMAO! They went on for quite some time about it laying out the specifics of various subsidies to Northern interests were paid by the appropriations laid on mostly Southern owned imports AND how this exploitative economic policy was tied to the slavery issue....namely that slavery was being used as what we would today call a wedge issue to unite Northerners to vote in a block to economically exploit the Southern states. (Rhett went on about this at considerable length as well).

Then you claim that Southern concerns were satisfied in 1846!....but then you claim the rest was “devoted to slavery”. No. It was devoted to the sectional dispute between the regions and how the slavery issue was used to try to unite the North against the South in order to vote as a block for its own enrichment at the South’s expense.

to wit:
“All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.”

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.”

Next you dishonestly try to claim that Texas somehow blamed Lee for the failure to provide adequate border security when of course it was the federal government that was required to do so and which consistently refused to provide adequate troops and resources as had been required by Texas’ accession treaty with the United States.

Then you dishonestly try to claim that the South got its “fair share” of federal appropriations. Even Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian admitted it had not gotten its fair share. 20% is hardly a fair share to a region that was paying the bulk of the tariff.

From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense.

In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession Charles Adams

“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)

Texas also complains that the Northern states did nothing about those who had openly financed John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry. Gosh....how did the US Govt regard and treat people who financed Al Qaeda in the wake of its attack on the US? How did it regard governments of other countries which harbored those who sponsored terrorists which had attacked it? You can claim that’s “about” slavery. Its really about if not state sponsored terrorism then at least state excused terrorism sponsored by their citizens.

Plainly it was not “about” slavery.

---

No your Revisionist lie is to imply that slavery was not the single greatest reason, indeed the only reason for most, why the first seven states declared secession.

No, it is your PC Revisionist lie to claim it is. Slavery could have been much better protected within the US as Lincoln and several others openly said. Slavery could have been enshrined in the constitution effectively forever had the Southern states simply agreed to return. They did not.

---

As for the proposed Corwin Amendment, Lincoln’s opinion was that it only restated what the Constitution already, in effect, said.
Corwin changed nothing, in Lincoln’s opinion, so he did not oppose it.

But by March of 1861 the secession states were uninterested in compromises to restore the Union.
What they wanted most was for the Upper South & Border states to join their Confederacy, and for that they needed Virginia, and Virginia would only secede in the event of war.

Hence Jefferson Davis’ assault on Fort Sumter.

This is a complete fantasy on your part. Not only did Lincoln “not oppose” the Corwin Amendment, he orchestrated it. Whether he personally thought it changed anything or not was irrelevant. It would have expressly enshrined slavery in the constitution and protected it. Considering 15 states at the time still had slavery it would have taken 45 more states voting in favor of another constitutional amendment to overturn it. That’s 60 states total. That’s 10 more than are even in the country today. Slavery would have been expressly protected and this protection would have been irrevocable without the consent of the slaveholding states.

Yet they turned that down. Why? Because it wasn’t “about” slavery. Not for them, and certainly not for the Northern states who were only too willing to offer up that bargaining chip right from the start.

[FLT-bird]

Your 1987 authors are fantasizing.
In fact, there is nothing in any of the quotes about producing a “balanced economy” in the South, far from it.
Southerners hated the North’s industrialization and didn’t want to support it.
None said they wanted more industry “in the South”

Laughable BS. Most people could see by then that industrialization was the way forward. All anyone needed to do was look at the world. Those countries that were industrialized were the most powerful and wealthiest. The South just wanted to industrialize on its own terms and not have to pay for somebody else’s industrialization.

---

What’s true here is that many Southerners wanted low tariffs, and so did many from other regions.
What’s not true is the claim that Federal spending went disproportionately to the North.
It didn’t.

Yes it did.

---

But the biggest deceit here is the claim that Northerners somehow ran Washington, DC and could do what they wished.
The opposite is true: Southern Democrats were the power brokers in Washington, DC, from about 1800 until secession in 1861.
What Southerners wanted they got, what they didn’t want didn’t happen, period.

This is patently absurd. The North had an equal number of states from the start and later had more - thus more Senators. The North always had more people - thus more Representatives. To say that Southerners got what they wanted and did not get what they did not want is simply absurd. From the early high protectionist tariffs to tariffs being on manufactured goods but not raw materials to unequal federal expenditures favoring the Northern states to the Tariff of Abominations to the Morrill Tariff, it was clear the reality was exactly the opposite of what you claim.

---

But they didn’t, ever, until secession in 1861.
Sure, by 1860 for the first time there was a Republican majority in one house of Congress, but Southerners still controlled the other, and the President.

Simply false as I laid out above. The North always had more congressmen and the balance shifted ever further in their favor as time went on.

---

Both claims are false: those four states did not “defray” 3/4 of Federal expenses, nor was Federal spending focused outside the South.
Nor is the claim that Southerners were impoverished credible because, in fact, Southern planters and their white neighbors enjoyed the highest average standard of living of any country ever.

For example, in 1840, total US exports (including specie) were $132 million of which $61 million (46%) was cotton.
Everything else listed as “Southern products” was also produced outside the Confederate South and so continued with strong exports even after secession in 1861.

False. The South provided the overwhelming bulk of the exports from 1791 right up until 1861. Only in the last few years did Midwestern grain become a significant export. The South also paid the vast majority of the tariffs since those cash crops financed the purchase of manufactured goods to fill the holds of ships on their return journeys across the Atlantic.

---

It was not true in 1840 or 1850 or 1860.
In fact, truly Southern exports represented about half the total and Federal dollars were spent correspondingly, about half in the South.

Total BS on both counts.

[FLT-bird]

Oh, but they did, in Deep South states like South Carolina and Mississippi, which were #1 and #2 to secede, and they clearly said in their Reasons for Secession documents that protecting slavery was not just their biggest reason, but their only real reason.
In those two states nearly 50% of families owned slaves meaning that virtually everybody was close family & friends to slave-holders and therefore very concerned about their interests.

Oh but they didn’t. South Carolina attached the Address of Robert Barnwell Rhett to their declaration of causes which went on at length about the grossly unequal tariffs and federal government expenditures even though this was not unconstitutional and refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional and provided the basis for saying the Northern states had violated the compact.

According to the 1860 US Census, South Carolina had 26,701 slave owners out of a total free population of 301,302 or 8.86% of all free people owned slaves. Mississippi had 30,943 slave owners out of a total free population of 354,674 or 8.72% of all free people owned slaves.

---

Claims that they were being somehow “bilked” are simply false, and hard to argue when Deep South planters and their white neighbors were then, on average, the most prosperous people ever on Earth.

Nope. Your denial is simply false. Yes the South was indeed prosperous. That’s not surprising given that it was the #1 supplier of Cotton which was a hugely important commodity in the early to mid 19th century. It was also a major supplier of Tobacco, Indigo, Rice, Sugar, and other valuable commodities. It would have been far more wealthy had it not been economically exploited by the Northern states to pay for their industrialization.

---

Possibly, in some cases, but remember the Compromise of 1850 made the Federal government, not Northern states, responsible for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws.
Furthermore, the deeper South you traveled, the less of a “problem” were fugitive slaves, such that those who seemed to complain most about it had virtually zero “problem” with it.

Various Northern states enacted various laws to prevent compliance with federal agents attempt’s to recapture escaped slaves. You are right that it was less of a real problem for the states in the Deep South. It was more a means of saying that the Northern states had broken the deal (which they did). Their real grievance was not over escaped slaves, it was over tariffs that were very harmful to their economic interests and unequal federal government expenditures favoring Northern states with the money from tariffs paid overwhelmingly by Southerners. But no matter how much they hated that, it was not unconstitutional. Refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause was.

---

Utterly false, a lie from the time first uttered and not made any more true with its constant repetition.

Nope. A lie on your part to deny it.

---

In fact, our Founders recognized only true necessity (as in 1776) and mutual consent (as in 1788) as legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 & early 1861.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, meaning in the absence of absolute necessity.

And yet that’s just what Confederates began to do in late 1860.

It is for each state to determine necessity and not for anybody else. Also it is completely false to say no Founder ever supported unilateral secession. I have provided numerous quotes showing this to be false already.

[DiogenesLamp]

Had Lincoln truly wished to start war at Fort Sumter, he would have ordered his ships to go in with guns ablasin', wouldn't he?

He in fact did, albeit with a catch. They were to be led by the Powhatan, which he deliberately detached without telling them, so as to render them incapable of fulfilling the attack portion of their orders. It left them poised menacingly in a staging position, but with no actual possibility of them engaging in the attack which their orders would have required had the Powhatan showed up.

Lincoln was not a stupid man. He had already been told that it would take far more force than this to effectively succor Sumter, and various experts predicted those ships would have been cut to pieces by the Confederate battalions arrayed against them.

The Fleet's orders would have been suicide had they actually followed them. Every ship would have been sunk, and most of the men on them killed, and Lincoln and his Generals knew this, because Anderson had sent them as much information as he could about the Confederate gun emplacements around the harbor.

Lincoln's actions in deliberately sending the Powhatan elsewhere is the only thing that saved the lives of those men on board those ships.

One can only believe he never intended for those men to be killed. They were only intended to create a provocation for which he could initiate a war.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Still wrong.”

Really? The Citadel is not in South Carolina? You do know there was no CSA at that time, right. So no Confederate military. These were the only men trained in artillery available to South Carolina at the time, so yeah, they count. Hell, sesech across the South took it upon themselves to act out.

“Yet you can tell me with a straight face that this “relief flotilla” was not meant to provoke armed conflict, and it was perfectly reasonable for there to be eight armed ships to deliver some supplies to Anderson at Fort Sumter?”

You can tell me with a straight face that surrounding a federal fort with artillery and troops demanding the surrender of the installation was not meant to provoke armed conflict? You’re going to tell me that declaring secession wasn’t meant to provoke armed conflict?

“It was the arrival of the Warships that triggered the attack.”

Except that Jefferson Davis had already ordered that the fort be attacked BEFORE the flotilla arrived. He could have ordered the resupply to go forward, or attacked the flotilla as had been done with the earlier ship. Instead he chose war.

“The Machinations were not in Lincoln’s cabinet, but in Lincoln himself.”

Not so. The secretary of the Navy and secretary of State issued conflicting orders. One for Powhatten to sail to Sumter, the other to Fort Pickens. Since Lincoln was commander in chief, his secret orders took precedence. Seward never resolved matters with Navy chief Welles as promised and Porter trumped Mercer.

“It was finally agreed that my plan should be carried out. I wrote the necessary orders, which were copied by Captain Meigs and signed by the President, who merely said as he did so, “Seward, see that I don’t burn my fingers.”

David Porter

[DiogenesLamp]

You can tell me with a straight face that surrounding a federal fort with artillery and troops demanding the surrender of the installation was not meant to provoke armed conflict?

It didn't. But you are changing the current point from the sending of the fleet to "But what about the other side?" I prefer to discuss one point at a time, and your appeals to "the other guy did it too!" is a logical fallacy that does not justify the behavior of the first party.

Except that Jefferson Davis had already ordered that the fort be attacked BEFORE the flotilla arrived.

Are you reading what I am posting? I already showed you that they had sighted some of the ships on April 9th, and on April 10th, and on April 11th. Also, Jefferson Davis didn't order the attack on Sumter, LP Walker did, and it was conditional on the hostile nature of those ships.

(I've noticed you have completely ran away from the economic argument I made about who was paying what, and who was getting what.)

He could have ordered the resupply to go forward,

And Lincoln could have ordered the evacuation of Sumter, which in fact Union officials had repeatedly said would happen.

Since Lincoln was commander in chief, his secret orders took precedence.

Why would there be a need for secret orders if it was just a mistake? Why would the orders require a Captain to be relieved of Command by a Lieutenant, (two ranks lower) and include a requirement that the Lieutenant (quickly made into a Vice Admiral) disobey any orders that did not come directly from Lincoln?

Why would the secret orders require the Lieutenant to disguise the ship and fly a British flag?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Davis was not the one who sent a heavily armed flotilla to another country’s territorial waters."

Lincoln was not the one who threatened & launched war over a resupply mission to Union troops in a Union fort:

1. Confederate demands for Union surrender: that's war.
2. Confederate firing on Union ships (i.e., Harriet Lane): that's war.
3. Confederate firing on Fort Sumter: that's war.
4. Union resupplying Union troops in a Union fort: not war.

FLT-bird: "Davis is not the one who fired first at Pensacola."

The only Union firing at Fort Barrancas came in response to secessionists' unlawful attempts to seize the fort by force.
Union troops there attacked no one.

FLT-bird: "The original 7 seceding states would have been more than happy to go their own way without ever firing any shots.
They tried to do just that."

No they didn't, far from it, from Day One Confederates continuously provoked war by seizing Union property, threatening Union officials, firing on Union ships and demanding Union surrenders.
In short, Confederates were cruisin' for a bruisin'.

FLT-bird: "It was Lincoln who insisted on war."

Total rubbish.

FLT-bird: "Virginia had voted to remain in.
They could have voted to leave earlier but they chose to stay....in a union based on consent rather than force."

Exactly right, Virginians believed they could not secede until their condition of "injury or oppression" was met.
That's why Davis needed war at Fort Sumter, to convert Virginia and with it the entire Upper South.

For that exact reason Lincoln didn't want war, but simply could not abandon Union troops in Fort Sumter without some attempt to resupply them.

FLT-bird: "I already outlined the EXTENSIVE LENGTHS to which the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration and which was sent out along with it, explained the economic grievances the Southern states had..."

Right: Rhett's "Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States"
And you pretend it had nothing to do with slavery?

1. Rhett used the word "tariff" exactly twice, both times in passing, i.e., "There was then no tariff -- no negro fanaticism."

2. Rhett does use the word "tax" 23 times, nearly all in relation to the Founders' "no taxation without representation".
   He claims that even though Southern Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, since 1800, now they would be in the minority, thus suddenly deprived of representation, and everybody knows that when Democrats lose political power they go berserk, smash things & hurt people.
   It's in the nature of being a Democrat.

   In Rhett's mind it was: rule or ruin, my way or F.U. USA.

3. By contrast, Rhett used words like slave, abolition & institution some 45 times, explicitly explaining the threat to them represented by Northern States.

Important to remember that South Carolina's secession produced three principle documents:

1. Ordnance or Secession, which provides no reasons or "wherefores".
2. Reasons for Secession, which explains the threat to slavery as perceived by South Carolinians.
3. Rhett's address to other Slave-holding states, which expands the reasons to include taxes as well as slavery.
   Taxes Rhett claims were paid by Southerners to benefit the North.
   Rhett's claim is false.

Despite Rhett's address, Upper South states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas) refused to secede when the reasons were only about slavery or taxes.
For them secession needed a war of "oppression or injury", so that is what Jefferson Davis gave them at Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird: "Next you try to claim Georgia only talks “Briefly” about matters other than slavery?
ROTFLMAO!
They went on for quite some time about it laying out the specifics of various subsidies to Northern interests were paid by the appropriations laid on mostly Southern owned imports AND how this exploitative economic policy was tied to the slavery issue"

Right, slavery, which Georgia mentioned or referred to 40 times in their 3,300 word document -- in all but three of the 14 paragraphs.
Complaints about "bounties" for "fishing smacks" are restricted just one paragraph.
The Georgia Reasons for Secession document does not mention tariffs or taxes.

FLT-bird: "slavery was being used as what we would today call a wedge issue to unite Northerners to vote in a block to economically exploit the Southern states.
(Rhett went on about this at considerable length as well)."

But slavery was not a "wedge issue" until people like Rhett made it one by supporting slavery where it wasn't wanted and then splitting apart their national Democrat party over the issue of slavery.
So many Northern Democrats normally sympathetic to slavery in the South came to believe that voting Democrat would re-impose slavery in their own states.

FLT-bird: "Then you claim that Southern concerns were satisfied in 1846!"

No I simply quoted what they said:

"the act of 1846 was passed.
It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people..."

FLT-bird: "It was devoted to the sectional dispute between the regions and how the slavery issue was used to try to unite the North against the South in order to vote as a block for its own enrichment at the South’s expense."

But the North never "voted as a block" until Southern Fire Eaters like Rhett split apart their national Democrat party, making a vote for Northern Democrat Douglas a wasted vote.
Even Northern Republicans didn't vote against slavery in the South, but only in territories which didn't want it.
As for "enrichment at the South's expense", that is pure unadulterated nonsense.

FLT-bird quoting: "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."

Right, the questions forced on them by aggressive slave-power promoters like Rhett.

FLT-bird: "On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the 'infamous Morrill bill.' "

Which had been defeated by Democrats in 1860 and would be again in 1861 had Dems remained united in the November elections.
But Fire Eaters like Rhett & Toombs made certain that didn't happen.

FLT-bird: "Next you dishonestly try to claim that Texas somehow blamed Lee for the failure to provide adequate border security when of course it was the federal government that was required to do so and which consistently refused to provide adequate troops and resources as had been required by Texas’ accession treaty with the United States."

Of course Texans would blame Lee, since Lee was the finest officer the Union army had, in command of the largest contingent of Union troops anywhere -- Texas.
And Lee failed in Texas.
Just as he later failed in West Virginia, in North Carolina and in Virginia.
A truly remarkable record!

FLT-bird: "Then you dishonestly try to claim that the South got its 'fair share' of federal appropriations.
Even Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian admitted it had not gotten its fair share.
20% is hardly a fair share to a region that was paying the bulk of the tariff."

Of course the South got its fair share and we know this for certain because Southerners ruled in Washington, DC, and made certain their interests were addressed.
How could that not be when Southern Democrats ruled the majority party the vast majority of time between 1800 and 1861??
So claims otherwise are just stuff & nonsense.

For actual Federal spending by region, see this link which summarizes data from John van Deusen’s 1928 book, "Economic bases of Disunion in South Carolina".
If you exclude pensions, the numbers are almost exactly 50% each to slave & non-slave states.
And this despite non-slave states outnumbering slave-states in white population about two-to-one.

FLT-bird: "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)"

Sure, it was a propaganda campaign to make old Joseph Goebbels proud, but it was all a Big Lie.
The true numbers show that by 1860 any previous imbalances had been long since corrected.

FLT-bird: "Texas also complains that the Northern states did nothing about those who had openly financed John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry...
You can claim that’s 'about' slavery.
Its really about if not state sponsored terrorism then at least state excused terrorism sponsored by their citizens."

More false propaganda.
In fact, the Federal government sent its best officers (RE Lee, T Jackson) to command the troops which put down Brown's rebellion, captured Brown & company, then tried & hanged them for treason.
As for the "secret six" who backed Brown, most fled the country, one was arrested, one checked himself into an insane asylum and only one, Higginson, remained free.
During the Civil War, Higginson commanded a black regiment of Union soldiers.

FLT-bird: "Plainly it was not “about” slavery."

In what way were any of Brown's actions "not about slavery"??

FLT-bird: "No, it is your PC Revisionist lie to claim it is.
Slavery could have been much better protected within the US as Lincoln and several others openly said.
Slavery could have been enshrined in the constitution effectively forever had the Southern states simply agreed to return.
They did not."

We've already reviewed the first four "Reasons for secession" documents and established they are almost exclusively about slavery.
So you trotted out a fifth document by Rhett, which does mention taxes and compares the US to Britain in 1776.
But even Rhett devoted twice the attention to slavery (45 mentions) that he did to taxes (23 mentions).
And Rhett says nothing about the Morrill Tariff.

So even when all gussied up with a lot of hokum talk about "despotism" and "plunder and oppression", Rhett's number one concern, by a factor of two to one, was still slavery.

FLT-bird: "a complete fantasy on your part.
Not only did Lincoln 'not oppose' the Corwin Amendment, he orchestrated it."

That fantasy is all yours.
Lincoln "orchestrated" nothing regarding Corwin's amendment.

FLT-bird: "Whether he personally thought it changed anything or not was irrelevant.
It would have expressly enshrined slavery in the constitution and protected it."

In Lincoln's mind, as he said, slavery was already protected in the Constitution, so Corwin changed nothing.

FLT-bird: "Slavery would have been expressly protected and this protection would have been irrevocable without the consent of the slaveholding states."

Just as it was in 1860.

FLT-bird: "Yet they turned that down.
Why?
Because it wasn’t “about” slavery.
Not for them..."

Sure, I "get" your argument that slavery was "just the excuse, not the real reason" for declarations of secession.
But you have problems with that argument, including:

1. If slavery was "just the excuse" that makes all the "Reasons for Secession" documents a Big Lie, because they said slavery was the main, if not the only, reason.

2. No doubt some Southerners also had other reasons, but those "other reasons" were not felt strongly enough by anything close to a majority needed to pass declarations of secession.
   Only perceived threats against slavery were strong enough motivators to convince majorities to support secession.

3. Once secession was a fait accompli Confederate leadership had no interest in reconciliation, slavery or no slavery.
   At that point it became an question of their survival, pure & simple.
   They were not going to reunite short of military defeat and Unconditional Surrender.

FLT-bird: "and certainly not for the Northern states who were only too willing to offer up that bargaining chip right from the start."

All Northerners understood that slavery was the price of Union in 1787.
Without slavery there could have been no United States in 1788 or 1860.
So Northerners gave up nothing in 1861 by offering to make slavery more explicit.
But once Jefferson Davis launched & declared his Civil War against the United States, the military advantages of emancipation became clear, and with them the moral imperative for abolition became, for the first time, doable.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Laughable BS.
Most people could see by then that industrialization was the way forward.
All anyone needed to do was look at the world. Those countries that were industrialized were the most powerful and wealthiest.
The South just wanted to industrialize on its own terms and not have to pay for somebody else’s industrialization."

Sure, and I'll believe that as soon as you produce a quote from the time of any recognized Southern leader who said as much.
Until then, what you say here is total fantasy, or, dare I say it, "Laughable BS".

FLT-bird: "Yes it did."

Only in the propaganda from certain Southern sympathizers.

FLT-bird: "This is patently absurd.
The North had an equal number of states from the start and later had more - thus more Senators.
The North always had more people - thus more Representatives."

Totally irrelevant.
What matters is that Southern Democrats ruled the national Democrat party which ruled over Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1800 to secession in 1861.
Throughout those years Southern Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and Military.
And Southerners had a name for those Northern Democrat allies who made their rule in DC possible -- they called them "Doughfaced", and not with affection.

FLT-bird: "To say that Southerners got what they wanted and did not get what they did not want is simply absurd.
From the early high protectionist tariffs to tariffs being on manufactured goods but not raw materials to unequal federal expenditures favoring the Northern states to the Tariff of Abominations to the Morrill Tariff, it was clear the reality was exactly the opposite of what you claim."

Never happened.
The 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" was originally supported by Southerners like John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson, while opposed by many New Englanders.
When it passed, then Calhoun announced he'd somehow been tricked and really didn't want it.
But President Jackson kept most of it because he wanted to pay off the national debt -- the only US president to ever do so.
Regardless, over the following years Southern Democrats steadily reduced the Tariff of Abominations until by 1860 tariffs were about as low as they had ever been.

As for alleged "unequal Federal expenditures", the facts say otherwise.
So Southerners always got what they truly wanted, even if it wasn't always instant gratification.

FLT-bird: "Simply false as I laid out above.
The North always had more congressmen and the balance shifted ever further in their favor as time went on."

But what you refuse to "get" is that Congress was not divided by strictly "Northerners" vs. "Southerners".
Rather it was Democrats controlled by Southerners but with many Northern Doughfaced Democrat allies versus mostly Northern Federalists / Whigs / Republicans with very few Southern allies.
That's why Southern Democrats ruled Washington, DC.

FLT-bird: "False.
The South provided the overwhelming bulk of the exports from 1791 right up until 1861.
Only in the last few years did Midwestern grain become a significant export."

False, and the absolute proof of it came in 1861 when all products from the Confederate South were deleted from Union exports, especially cotton, whose exports fell 80% that year.
But overall exports fell only 35% and some alleged "Southern products" (i.e., clover seed & hops)actually increased significantly in 1861.
Typical was the second largest export crop -- tobacco.
With Confederate products deleted, tobacco exports fell only 14%.

It tells us all that yammering about "Southern products paying for Federal government" was just propaganda stuff & nonsense.

FLT-bird: "Total BS on both counts."

Referring to your own arguments, of course.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course the whole debate is absurd. These economic excuses arose after the war was over so that Southerners wouldn’t feel so bad about fighting to preserve slavery.

The claim that they fought to free the black man arose during the war (about half way through it) so that the Northerners wouldn't feel so bad about invading and murdering people who had done them no harm, and who only wanted to be left alone.

Also to assuage their consciences and expand their political power ever since. It's a lot easier to feel good about destroying people's lives if you portray them as evil. It's an old technique that still works today.

Hitler did it too.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Again I never contended that the North was fighting to free blacks in 1861. However, the South was fighting to keep them enslaved.