[BroJoeK]

Kalamata (post #484, 2nd partial): "Most citizens, North and South, were jealous of their pocket books, and for their respective states, not the Union.
But, just in case, please cite references for your claim."

Sure, the word "tariff" does not appear in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents, while "slavery" appears many times in each.
Yes, the word "tariff" does appear twice in Robert Rhett's December 1860 "Address to Slaveholding States", but not to complain about them being raised, only in passing.
By contrast, some form of the word "slavery" appears over three dozen times, as it does in every such document.

Nothing could be clearer in meaning than Mississippi's "Reasons for Secession" document:

"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.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Clearly that is an economic argument, but it's the economics of slavery they hoped to protect.

Kalamata: "Joey is deceiving you by throwing out contextually-useless numbers. "

As usual, Olive-boy is lying.

Kalamata: "Federal tariffs, especially the 1824 Henry Clay Whig tariff, were "targeted" to favor politically-connected, crony-capitalistic Northerners.
The 1846 tariff reduced the crony capitalism somewhat, and the 1857 tariff even more so.
But the Morrill Tariff was an in-your-face return to Whig-style crony-capitalism:"

Kalamata quoting:

"Morrill's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."
[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]"

But a look at the facts shows us something different:

Commodity	1846 Tariff	1857 Tariff	Morrill
Woolens	30%	24%	37%
Brown Sugar	30%	24%	26%
Cotton	25	19	25
Iron mfg	30	24	29
Wines	40	30	40
Average	31%	24%	31%

It's important to remember that these five commodities alone accounted for over half of US total imports.

Kalamata: "The Morrill Tariff was the bastard-child of defunct Whig Party politics.
Abraham Lincoln was a devout Whig, as were many of the so-called "republicans" of his day, and crony-capitalism was their game."

Well... before we run off insanely yelling against "crony capitalism", let's first remember that protecting American produced products was part of the Federal game plan from Day One -- the very first tariff of 1789 (the Hamilton Tariff) was so intended:

"The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution and it had two purposes.
It was to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and was to raise revenue for the federal government.
It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.
The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton."

Notice that first Tariff of 1789 was intended to raise Federal revenues and protect American producers.
It was proposed by Virginia Congressman Madison and signed by President Washington.
It also protected US shipping.

As years went past Democrats generally (but not always) favored lower tariffs, Federalists-Whigs-Republicans higher tariffs.
And even today the list of Republicans who've used higher tariffs to support American producers includes President Trump.
And so far, nobody I've seen on Free Republic accuses Mr. Trump of supporting "crony capitalism".

Kalamata: "Don't confuse Joey with the facts.
Lincoln made it crystal clear that the collection of taxes (tariff revenues) was vital to his "success"."

And yet again the Olive-boy denial tactics -- having lost the previous argument he immediately changes subjects and attacks, attacks, attacks.

So... there's no doubt that in March 1861 Lincoln said he wanted to

" hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts"

And there's no doubt some Confederates called that "a declaration of war".

But we should notice first that Lincoln did not specify which properties or which duties he intended.
Second, our pro-Confederates tell us seized properties no longer belonged to the Federal government, which you'd suppose exempted them from Lincoln's pledge.
Therefore, to call Lincoln's words in March "a declaration of war" seems a bit... premature.

Third, Lincoln then made no moves to occupy any properties or collect any duties except, in the cases of Forts Sumter & Pickens, which were already occupied, Lincoln tried to resupply them.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata (post #484, 2nd partial): "Most citizens, North and South, were jealous of their pocket books, and for their respective states, not the Union. But, just in case, please cite references for your claim."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, the word "tariff" does not appear in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents, while "slavery" appears many times in each."

Joey loves playing word games. This is a large segment from the Georgia Declaration, containing no mention of "tariff," nor of "plunder," but leaves the reader with no doubt that it referring to "tariffs" and crony-capitalistic "plunder":

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.

"Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

"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. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence.

"These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. 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 Secession Declaration." Avalon Project, Jan 29, 1861]

I posted this earlier, but it may help clarify some of the Georgia objections. We are observing from far outside the box. Details crucial to the competing parties, may seem irrevelant to us. The key to interpretation is (as always,) "follow the money":

"As president [James Polk, who defeated the protectionist Henry Clay,] delivered on his promise in 1846 when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker, Congress adopted a comprehensive overhaul of the tariff system featuring a moderate downward revision of rates and, importantly, the standardization of tariff categories on a tiered ad valorem schedule.

"This final feature was intended to improve the transparency of the tariff system by consolidating the somewhat convoluted list of tariff items, itself the product of many decades of lobbying and the carving out of highly specialized categories as political favors for specific companies and industries. By converting the tariff from a system that relied primarily on itemized specific duties or individually assigned ad valorem rates to a formal tiered schedule of ad valorem categories in which tariffs were assessed as a percentage of the import 's declared dollar value, Walker further limited the ability of special interests of all stripes to disguise tariff favoritism in units of volume and measurement—different tariff rates assessed by tons of iron, gallons of alcohol, yards of cord and so forth.

"The Walker reforms helped to stabilize many years of fluctuating tariff politics by instituting a moderately free trade Tariff-for-revenue system that lasted, subject to a further uniform reduction of rates in 1857, until the eve of the Civil War…

"Between December 1858 and March 1860, Morrill was inundated with letters from manufacturers and industrialists requesting favorable protective tariff rates against their foreign competitors. Many of these petitions were copied verbatim into the text of the tariff bill. The Morrill schedule also replaced the ad valorem schedule system of Walker with the reintroduction of item-by-item rates. The new schedule utilized an ad hoc mixture of individual ad valorem rates and specific duties, assessed by import units rather than volume, making its administration less transparent. While it is difficult to measure the full effect of the revisions given this change of assessment, Morrill 's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."

[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Federal tariffs, especially the 1824 Henry Clay Whig tariff, were “targeted” to favor politically-connected, crony-capitalistic Northerners. The 1846 tariff reduced the crony capitalism somewhat, and the 1857 tariff even more so. But the Morrill Tariff was an in-your-face return to Whig-style crony-capitalism:”
>>Kalamata quoting: “Morrill’s equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842.”
>>Joey wrote: “But a look at the facts shows us something different . . . It’s important to remember that these five commodities alone accounted for over half of US total imports.”

Your numbers have been cherry-picked, Joey. The Morrill Tariff signaled a return to cronyism.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The Morrill Tariff was the bastard-child of defunct Whig Party politics. Abraham Lincoln was a devout Whig, as were many of the so-called “republicans” of his day, and crony-capitalism was their game.”
>>Joey wrote: “Well... before we run off insanely yelling against “crony capitalism”, let’s first remember that protecting American produced products was part of the Federal game plan from Day One — the very first tariff of 1789 (the Hamilton Tariff) was so intended: “The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution and it had two purposes. It was to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and was to raise revenue for the federal government.”

A tariff is constitutional, Joey, if applied equally and fairly; but tariffs eventually became a political tool – pay for play.

BTW, it was Hamilton who promoted a crony-capitalist economy to favor the wealthy and politically connected. Clay was a Hamiltonite, and deep in bed with the bankers.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “As years went past Democrats generally (but not always) favored lower tariffs, Federalists-Whigs-Republicans higher tariffs.”

That is misleading. The exporters favored standardized rates. The Whigs favored item-by-item rates to subsidize politically-connected Northern interests.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “And even today the list of Republicans who’ve used higher tariffs to support American producers includes President Trump. And so far, nobody I’ve seen on Free Republic accuses Mr. Trump of supporting “crony capitalism”.”

If Trump is an orange (no pun intended,) the Whigs were apples. The “Republican” Party of Lincoln inherited Whig economics, which Lincoln promoted throughout his entire political career, as did his hero, Henry Clay.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Don’t confuse Joey with the facts.
Lincoln made it crystal clear that the collection of taxes (tariff revenues) was vital to his “success”.”
>>Joey wrote: “And yet again the Olive-boy denial tactics — having lost the previous argument he immediately changes subjects and attacks, attacks, attacks.”

With Joey, it is never about facts, but about “winning.”

****************
>>Joey wrote: “So... there’s no doubt that in March 1861 Lincoln said he wanted to “hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts.” And there’s no doubt some Confederates called that “a declaration of war”.

That was, effectively, a declaration of war against a foreign nation. When Montgomery secretly moved his troops to a more fortified position (Fort Sumter,) that showed an intention to declare war, at least in the minds of the Carolinians, which was “confirmed” when a resupply ship showed up.

Later, after Montgomery warned Lincoln that he could not defend the fort, Lincoln’s cabinet, including Seward, voted almost unanimously against resupply, with Seward explaining that he “would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding states [e.g., Fort Sumter.]”

But Lincoln ignored his cabinet and pressed ahead with a scheme of “sending bread to Anderson,” to provoke the South into firing the first shot. Lincoln was, after all, a high-powered railroad lawyer, who had mastered the rhetoric of effective propaganda.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “But we should notice first that Lincoln did not specify which properties or which duties he intended.”

Yes he did. He made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states. Lincoln was a tyrant.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Second, our pro-Confederates tell us seized properties no longer belonged to the Federal government, which you’d suppose exempted them from Lincoln’s pledge.”

That is correct. The South offered to pay for the forts and other properties recovered from the Union, but Lincoln rejected it.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Therefore, to call Lincoln’s words in March “a declaration of war” seems a bit... premature.”

Lincoln effectively declared war in his first inaugural. He told the seceding states to either consent to be governed by the Federal Government, or die.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Third, Lincoln then made no moves to occupy any properties or collect any duties except, in the cases of Forts Sumter & Pickens, which were already occupied, Lincoln tried to resupply them.”

That was an act of war.

Mr. Kalamata