Replies

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.

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.

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.

FLT-bird: "Uhh pure BS.
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."

Actually, "abe" said it was a resupply mission only, and since he gave the appropriate orders, I see no reason to doubt that.
Of course I fully "get" that you must, must, must have "abe" as the villain, but the only way you can get there is to lie about him.

But for Lost Cause mythologizers, that's no problem, right?

FLT-bird: "When a sovereign state secedes, all property within their sovereign territory can be claimed by them under Eminent Domain."

An argument you've posted before, but it was ridiculous then and still is.
Here's why: no such legal process as "eminent domain" was ever followed, or said to be necessary by secessionists themselves.
So you are merely making excuses for people who didn't think such excuses needed.

The fact remains there's no law on any book anywhere in the world which says a government's property suddenly becomes not it's property just because some locals declare their secession.
Most specifically, the US Constitution gives Congress and nobody else authority to dispose of US government property.

So challenging such authority is, by definition, law breaking and, in the case of 1861 secessionists they were acts of war against the United States.

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

But you have no argument because you have no facts, none.

FLT-bird: "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..."

Exactly, you said it:insufficient to warrant secession.
Only war itself was sufficient for Virginians, and that's why Davis took his first opportunity to give it to them.

FLT-bird: "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."

Constitutionally, no Federal property could be "sovereign territory" until Congress approved, which it did not.
As for "provocations" Confederate seizures of Federal properties were all provocations.
But when Jefferson Davis assaulted Fort Sumter militarily, that was not a "provocation", it was an act of war, pure & simple.

FLT-bird: "Ah but there was.
Lincoln knew what he was doing, knew it would start a war and that was what he wanted."

No, the facts say otherwise.
Lincoln believed that Capt. Fox's plan had a reasonable chance of success, meaning he could resupply Fort Sumter and leave without further incident.
Lincoln did not believe that war over Sumter was inevitable.

FLT-bird: "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."

Assuming your quote is legit, it's still pure speculation.
Serious historians of the time do not attribute such motives to Lincoln, but portray him as trying to find a way to resupply Fort Sumter without starting war.
Capt. Fox's plan was the best he could do.

FLT-bird: "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"

Sure, long after the fact, memories fade and are overlapped with subsequent events.
The fact is there was no "duping" involved, that's why Lincoln informed Governor Pickens in advance.
It made Jefferson Davis' decision to launch a military assault on Fort Sumter a fully informed decision, for which Davis and Davis alone bears full responsibility.

FLT-bird: "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 "

Sorry, FRiend, but all the lies are coming from our Lost Cause mythologizers.
We're just here to present the facts.

The fact is those four "Reasons for Secession" documents listed far more than just fugitive slave laws, they listed every issue related to slavery, whether constitutional or not.
The fact that fugitive slaves are covered in the Constitution was coincidental to the Reasons for Secession.
Consider, this section of South Carolina's "Reasons for Secession":

"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and
have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution;
they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;
they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government."

Point is: South Carolina and other "Reasons for Secession" documents did not limit themselves to the Constitutional matter of Fugitive Slaves, but rather, in the manner of a highly agitated spouse, threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at her former partner.

FLT-bird: "Rhett said he would support secession on the grounds of the tariff and unequal federal expenditures...but its inconvenient for you to admit that. "

No, not at all.
First of all, so far as I can tell, Rhett's address was not a legal document, but more along the lines of an editorial or advertising brochure -- it represented his opinions but not necessarily official Confederate positions.
Regardless, it does indeed mention issues other than slavery, and even puts them chronologically ahead of slavery.
But when it came right down to it, even for Rhett, the major focus was still (by two to one) issues relating to slavery.

Nothing at all "inconvenient" about that.

FLT-bird: "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."

Sorry, but regardless of how often you repeat it, it's still a total lie, always was.
Here's the real truth of this matter: politically speaking, there is no such thing as "the South", never was.
"The South" always was a multitude of different regions and interests -- and not just Deep South, Upper South & Border South, but also Eastern Seaboard, Appalachian Mountains, Cotton South, Mississippi River valley, East Texas lowlands, Louisiana bayou, Ozark Mountains, etc., etc...
Each region elects representatives with somewhat different attitudes, even over such vital matters in 1860 as slavery.
You yourself quoted (or mis-quoted, I don't know which) Missouri Senator Benton who was, of all things, a Southern Democrat abolitionist!
And if Southerners could disagree on slavery, then they could certainly disagree on such questions as the best tariff rates.
And the best example of that, I'll repeat, is the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which was originally supported by both future President Jackson and Vice President Calhoun (and opposed by New Englanders).
Yes, later Calhoun strongly objected, but the fact is that without his initial support, it could not have passed.

So the tariff was greatly increased by some Southerners and then slowly lowered back down by others.
It only proves the Southerners ruled Washington, DC, even when they disagreed with each other.

FLT-bird: "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 "

But no such offer was ever made.
At most it was discussed informally by some Brits sympathetic to American colonists, but the idea was certainly never approved in Parliament or voted on by any Americans.
It is therefore nothing more than somebody's historical wet-dream.
Never happened.

FLT-bird: "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."

Seriously, FRiend, you've been victimized by Lost Cause mythology and so have no real grasp on actual history.
President Buchanan was a Northern Doughfaced Democrat, elected in 1856 by the Solid South in alliance with a minority of Northern Democrats.
Buchanan was highly sympathetic to slavery and the South and was instrumental behind the scenes in the Supreme Court's radical Dred Scott decision.

In late 1860 and early 1861 Buchanan did nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to slow or stop secession & Confederacy.
The South could not have a better friend than Buchanan, though in the end Buchanan could not bring himself to publically support the Confederacy, he did nothing to stop it.

Presidential election of 1856, when the South still had many friends up North.

FLT-bird quoting: "...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..."

Totally irrelevant!
What matters is that Southern Democrats remained in control of the majority Democrat party until secession in 1861.
They did this with support from Northern allies like President Buchanan, allies they lost when they declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

FLT-bird quoting: "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. . . "

Sure, one of those very rare occasions when Democrats lost control of one house of Congress.
They still ruled the Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court and the army with Jefferson Davis the Secretary of War!

And by 1856 Democrats were back in control of both houses of Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and military.
So their very brief sojourn in the minority "woods" of one house could not possibly seriously reduce the Democrats iron grip over Washington, DC.

FLT-bird quoting: "The election of 1858. . . . Southern Democrats . . . were no longer able to shape public policy. . . .” (Catton, editor..."

Oh, my goodness, those pooooor dear snowflake babies, doesn't your heart just cry out in anguish for those Democrats who, having grown totally accustomed to rule with an iron fist over Washington, DC, now suddenly in 1858 found themselves once again kicked out of power in one house of Congress!!
Now in 1859 they must console their poooor hearts with control over only the US Senate, the Presidency, Supreme Court and military.
Oh, the pooooor snowflakes, how could they ever learn to get along with those evil deplorable, irredeemable, basket of bitter clinging REPUBLICANS!!

Doesn't your heart just cry out in sympathy?
I know mind does.
I know what Democrats in 1859 should do too: RESIST, and attack the collusion of those deplorable Republicans with, with... with... oh, who did they collude with??? I know, it must have been Russians!

</sarcasm>

FLT-bird: "Yes you obfuscate..."

False.

FLT-bird: "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."

False.
When you really look at what they wrote, they were all over the map.
It wasn't just a simple case of saying "fugitive slave laws", rather they dredged up and threw out every complaint they ever had, regardless of how valid, but all about slavery.

So obfuscate that all you wish, but it's still true.

FLT-bird: "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."

Right, and just as with "Commiefornia's" sanctuary laws, constitutionally Federal law, ahem, trumps state laws.
But Federal laws must be enforced, and if the regime in Washington won't do it, then states run wild, which is what happened then and is happening now.
But who's to blame?
Throughout the 1850s Democrats ruled over Washington, DC, and Southerners ruled the Democrats.
They enforced what they wanted to enforce.
We have to believe, if they were truly concerned about it, they would have enforced their own laws.
So why didn't they?
Obviously, it wasn't that big a deal for them, then.

FLT-bird: "It is up to each state to determine when its injury or oppression rises to a level sufficient to warrant secession."

No it isn't.

FLT-bird: "That is what it is to be sovereign."

They gave up absolute sovereignty on ratifying the US Constitution.

FLT-bird: "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."

Rubbish.

FLT-bird: "They felt it necessary in 1860-61 and that’s enough."

Nonsense.

FLT-bird: "They had nothing to prove to anybody else when it came to choosing to exercise their sovereign rights."

Pure fantasy.

FLT-bird: "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."

Horse feathers.
When South Carolinians met in November & December 1860 to decide on secession, their fear was "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans, not what percentage some new tariff might be.
Really, you should read some real history some day.

FLT-bird: "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). "

Wrong again.
The original Morrill tariff proposal, which was defeated by Southern Democrats in 1860, called for a modest increase back to average levels of years past.
It was certainly nothing remotely close to the levels eventually forced on it by Civil War.
But Fire Eaters destroyed the national Democrat party at their conventions in 1860 and the results included victory for the minority Republicans.
As a result, Democrats in the 1861 Congress could not defeat Morrill by themselves, but that was irrelevant when secession states walked out giving Republicans free hand.
Faced with potential Civil War, the final Morrill Tariff was much higher than it would be had Southern Democrats stuck around to defend their own interests.

FLT-bird: "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."

False, because regardless of how often repeated, there still are no actual facts to support such claims.
The facts we do have say otherwise, and logic tells us that Congress must, long term, spend its money roughly in proportion to its constituents.

FLT-bird: "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? "

No, I'm saying constitutionally Federal law, ahem, trumps state laws, but the Feds must still enforce their own rules.
If Feds don't enforce then states run wild, which is what we saw in the 1850s and see again today.

But I'm also saying that alleged concerns about Fugitive Slave law violations were grossly exaggerated by secessionists in 1861 because when they had the opportunity to actually do something about it, they did nothing much.

FLT-bird: "And your claims that the minority Southerners controlled the Federal government is nothing but pure fantasy."

And your claims that the majority Southerners in the majority Democrat party did not control the Federal government are nothing but pure fantasy.

FLT-bird: "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."

Irrelevant once the 1850 Compromise transferred responsibility for Fugitive Slave law enforcement to the Southern dominated Feds.

FLT-bird: "You just ASSUME Northern Democrats would automatically kowtow to Southern Democrats and do whatever they were told.
That is patently absurd."

Well, "kowtow" is a pretty strong word, but there were still many Northern Doughfaces left, including President Buchanan.
Yes, it certainly was possible Southerners might need to learn more diplomatic skills, instead of just cracking the whip over their Northern Democrat allies.

So what do you think, was there any chance they could do that?

FLT-bird: "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. "

But there were several new tariffs and many adjustments between 1830 and 1861 and the net results were a steadily falling overall rate.
Note here the falling rates between 1830 and 1861:

FLT-bird: "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..."

But Morrill absolutely could not pass the Senate in 1860, only passed in 1861 after Democrats seceded & walked out.
Furthermore, the blame for Democrat election losses in 1860 belongs solely on Democrats themselves, specifically Southern Fire Eaters who broke up the national Democrat party over slavery, thus turning the election over to minority Republicans.

So you see, once again, it was all about slavery.

FLT-bird: " 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."

Utter rubbish, since the original Morrill increases were quite modest, simply returned tariffs to their levels of, say, 1850.
Drastic increases only became possible and necessary after secession and looming Civil War.

FLT-bird: "Northern special interests had used slavery as a wedge issue to convince the Midwest to go along with their huge tariff hike."

More nonsense, since Morrill was intended to protect US manufacturing of which there was already a huge amount in the Midwest.
Slavery had nothing to do with it.

FLT-bird: "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."

Whatever subsidies might or might not have been available would also go to Southern interests had they been there to defend themselves.
But they walked out.

FLT-bird: "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."

Right, because Lincoln was a Republican and like the Whigs before them, Republicans believed in protecting & promoting US manufacturers.
Indeed, in more recent years we Republicans sort of lost our way on this subject, got intellectually seduced by a bunch of Democrat nonsense, I'd think.

Fortunately, now we have a leader in the tradition of Lincoln who intends ot make America great again by putting Americans first again.

What do you think, FLT-bird, good idea?

FLT-bird: "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."

Of course you're right about that, especially as the years wore on, Southern Democrats needed to learn more & more diplomatic behavior, to more schmooze their Northern Doughfaced Democrat allies, as opposed to just cracking the whip over them, as they had in years past.

But sill, diplomacy... you know, the art of the deal... shouldn't have been that hard for them, should it?

FLT-bird: "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. "

So you keep repeating, over & over & over again, but still doesn't make it true.
In fact, all you're really doing here is projecting your own thoughts back onto 1860 Deep South Fire Eaters.
So I'd suggest that you have no real idea what they thought, or why, but you insist it can't be what they said at the time, because that doesn't help you defend them today, right?

FLT-bird: "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. "

Total complete BS, for which you have no evidence except your own mental state.
Your own loathing for those deplorable, irredeemable Republicans simply prevents you from having realistic ideas about us.
In your mind it's all just seething darkness and hatred, but the reality is far, far different.
I'm just sorry FLT-bird can never see it.

FLT-bird quoting: "“No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power.” Jefferson Davis 1848"

Which only shows that Davis could be as sick in the head as FLT-bird.
That's too bad.

FLT-bird quoting: "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. "

I would first question if this quote is even legit, because its language sounds "off".
But also notice that Davis says nothing about wanting Northern type industry in the South.
What he wants instead is to be free of alleged Northern "aggrandizement".

Davis' problem is that there's no real evidence to demonstrate how "Northerners" were in fact "aggrandizing".

FLT-bird: "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."

Total rubbish because in fact there were as many freed-blacks in the North as in the South -- over 200,000 each, nearly 500,000 total.
Northern states of New York and Pennsylvania had over 50,000 each as did Southern states Maryland & Virginia.
Of course, some states, both North and South had very few freed-blacks -- Mississippi & Texas had fewer than 1,000 each, as did New Hampshire & Vermont.

But generalizations such as yours here are simply wrong.

FLT-bird: "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. "

But only because Fire Eaters like your friend Rhett destroyed the national Democrat party in 1860, giving the minority Republicans a victory.
Had Democrats remained united in 1860 they might well have forced a compromise more to their liking in 1861.

FLT-bird: "There wasn’t going to be a compromise.
They were just going to throw a bone to a Senator or two..."

Because your Fire Eater buddies destroyed the Democrat party in the 1860 election, leaving them in a minority seemingly too weak to negotiate a compromise to their own liking.
You just can't blame Republicans for what Democrats did to themselves, FRiend.

FLT-bird: "You clearly do since you tried to take all kinds of lame shots at Lee."

Ha! Not "lame shots", just the facts, shall we review?

Lee was assigned to protect Texas against Indians.
He failed.
Lee was assigned to defend West Virginia against George McClellan (!!).
He failed.
Lee was assigned to protect Fort Polaski in Georgia against a Union combined army-navy assault.
He failed.
Lee was assigned to protect Virginia against Grant.
He failed.

That's not taking "lame shots", those are just the facts.
The finest US Army officer of his time achieved a truly remarkable record, right?

FLT-bird: "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."

Nonsense because, one more time: Southerners were the majority of Democrats and Democrats ruled Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1800 until secession in 1861.
For Southerners to rule they needed only get along with their Doughfaced Northern Democrat allies.
Is that too much to ask?
Make nice with your friends & allies, so you can stand up against your political opponents?

I don't think so, do you?

FLT-bird: "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."

Iirc, Lee's record in Texas was less than sterling, and not because he had too few resources.
As in other situations, it was mental mistakes that tripped him up.