Yeah, from revisionists like you. The idea that the South was “subjugated” is nonsense. Posters like BroJoeK, x, rockrr, and myself have demonstrated beyond any objective standard that the usual excuses don’t wash.
The South was NOT politically subjugated.
The South was NOT economically subjugated.
The federal government was not tyrannical.
Tariffs were NOT high in 1860.
The South was NOT overly taxed or tariffed.
Federal expenditures did NOT favor the North.
The main difference between regions of the country was slavery.
Slavery had been accommodated from the founding to the Corwin Amendment.
Southern Democrats were so obsessed the the Republican Party that they refused to work with it (sound familiar?). They were ready to walk out in 1856 if they didn’t get their way (sound familiar?).
The vast majority of Southern secession rhetoric in 1860/1861 listed the preservation of slavery as the main motivation for disunion.
You have no legs to stand on.
You haven’t demonstrated anything.
The Southern states WERE being economically exploited.
The South DID NOT have enough votes in Congress to stop it.
It WAS going to get worse.
Lincoln WAS a tyrant.
The Morrill Tariff DID jack rates up to crushingly high levels and leave them there for 50 years.
The South DID pay the majority of the tariffs.
Federal expenditures DID favor the North.
The regions were totally different economically with the Southern economy being geared for export.
Slavery was NOT threatened within the US.
The North DID offer slavery forever via express constitutional amendment.
The Original 7 seceding states DID reject that.
You have no leg to stand on.
Tariffs are ultimately paid by those buying the goods at retail. How could the South, with a population of freemen less than half the North, possibly be more economically subjugated, and yet rich enough to pay more tariffs for goods, at the same time?
“The Southern states WERE being economically exploited.”
You might want to rethink that.
“Studies of the past few decades, however, have seriously questioned the old assumption of a markedly inferior Southern economy in the pre-war years...
Southern white per capita income exceeded the national average and compared favorably with that of the Northeast. The West South Central region exceeded the Northeast in per capita income in 1840, even considering the slaves as part of the population...
Revising Easterlin’s data, Stanley Engerman found a higher rate of growth of Southern per capita income over Northern between 1840 and 1860, 1.6 percent versus 1.3 percent if slaves are counted in the population. 1.8 percent versus 1.3 percent if only the free population is considered...
The study, however, that gives the hammer blow to the idea that the antebellum South was poor, or even had wealth inequality greatly exceeding that of the North, is Lee Soltow’s Men and Wealth in the United States, 1850 – 1870. Basing his study primarily on “spin samples” of the 1850, 1860, and 1870 censuses, but also buttressed by the published census data, Soltow gives some startling statistics which confirm the wealth of the antebellum South.”
Was the South Poor Before the War?
By William Cawthon
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/was-the-south-poor-before-the-war/
FLT-bird's version of the Lost Cause myth is somewhat unique, for example, I've never seen another make such a big deal of the Corwin amendment and lie so bald-facedly about it being "offered" and "rejected".
I'd say anyone who can concoct such a claim is a serious propagandist and could find ready employment with the Democrat National Committee.