[FLT-bird]

And so you've claimed, but where are actual data to support your claims? I've never seen them.

I'm sure there are. I haven't noted them. What I have noted are the comments of everybody at the time saying exactly what I've said which is that the Southern states were responsible for about 75% of the exports and imports and thus were paying about 75% of the tariff. You of course, claim miraculously to have never seen them even though I've posted them multiple times every time this subject has come up.

And still, typical of your Democrat mind-set, which values narrative over everything else, when presented with actual facts, all you can do is handwave them away. The truth about "Doughfaces" is that the term was coined by Virginia Senator John Randolph, circa 1820, as a sign of disrespect for Northerners eager to do what Randolph wanted them to do.

This is what shrinks call "projection". You accuse me of exactly that which you yourself are guilty of. Northern politicians elected by Northern voters were controlled by....wait for it....Northerners. Duh. I guess the dishonest claims otherwise are part of your Democrat mindset. LOL!

So handwave away and ignore all you want, it's still a fact.

What is a fact is that these were Northerners elected by Northern voters in Northern states.

4. Even South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, when he was a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican (until 1828), supported protective tariffs, internal improvements and the National Bank.

He did at the time until he saw how destructive high tariffs were to the Southern economy. He also noted that Northern states got the lion's share of the federal budget. "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," John C Calhoun March 4, 1850

You will doubtless squeal that this can't possibly be true and gosh, that Calhoun guy is an evil, wicked, nasty, horrible guy and must be lying and slavery slavery slavery, blah blah blah. I will note that what Calhoun said here is no different from what numerous other political leaders and newspapers were saying.

your suggestions that every Southerner before 1860 was a anti-American Neanderthal Democrat is simply false. In fact, many Southerners were as patriotic and pro-American as our Southern Founders like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.

Strawman alert. I never suggested any such thing.

In Southern states the House vote was 17 for and 65 against the 1828 Tariff. In Northern states the vote was 88 for and 29 against. So, there were more Northerners opposed than there were Southerners for the tariff. In 1828 the "Solid South" was not 100% solid. And no, the rates were not immediately lowered dramatically and South Carolina did not soon get what it wanted. Instead, five years later the 1833 Compromise Tariff began to reduce tariffs gradually back to their 1820 levels of around 20%.

As I said, Southerners became far more anti Tariff once they saw how destructive the Tariff of Abominations was to their states economically. Note the use of the word "became"...as in they weren't as opposed initially.

Also, I said the compromise reached to end the Nullification Crisis was that tariff rates were lowered. They were. I did not say "immediately".

What South Carolina wanted in 1830 was to secede and that couldn't happen because no other states were willing to join South Carolina over just the issue of tariffs.What South Carolina wanted was the tariffs to be lowered. That's what they got. Note they nullified the tariff. They did not secede. Had they wanted to secede, presumably, they would have seceded. They were still willing to compromise because they believed compromise possible.

What South Carolinians realized then was that in order to secede, they needed an issue strong enough to outrage all Southerners, and there was only one such issue -- slavery.

that was Andrew Jackson's view but it is debatable. Had they wanted to secede they would presumably have done so. After all, Massachusetts and Connecticut had threatened to secede over the Embargo Act about 15 years earlier during the Hartford Convention so the idea that each state could unilaterally secede was not limited to Southern states.

by the way, notice how secession is often what states threaten or resort to when their economy is crushed by blocking or impinging on foreign trade?

Southerners absolutely did stop Morrill in 1860, and could have stopped it in 1861, or at least forced a compromise, had not their election strategy been to split their majority Democrat party, making them two minority parties.

No they didn't stop it in 1860. It passed the House. The process of log rolling to pick up one or two more votes in the Senate was underway. It was a certainty that some Senator could be induced to flip for the right payoff for his constituents. Everybody knew this.

That's a lie, and you need to stop lying, it's not that hard, you can easily look it up yourself.,/p>

Your denial is a lie. You need to stop lying. Rates were 17% before the Morrill Tariff. "The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes."

"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation." https://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war

Go ahead and emote about the source. We all know that's your go to response whenever you see information you don't like. LOL!

You have no evidence that Lincoln "orchestrated" anything. The evidence we have clearly shows that New York Senator Seward led the Republican efforts, and that he was generally acting as a loose cannon, on his own. In his 1st Inaugural, Lincoln said he'd not even seen the proposed amendment.

Lincoln orchestrated it.

"At this point the historical meaning of the amendment takes an intriguing turn. While Seward presented the measure before the committee in late December 1860, the circumstances of its introduction are enveloped in his own communications with the president-elect. Seward drafted the measure after conferring with his political ally and newspaperman Thurlow Weed on a train ride across New York. Weed had just come from Springfield, Illinois and carried both verbal and written instructions from Abraham Lincoln to his allies in Congress. Crofts reassembles the steps of each figure’s journey to make a cautious case that Lincoln had fingerprints on the Corwin amendment from the beginning.

The main challenge here, and the one that led Potter astray, is that Lincoln’s written instructions to Seward made no reference to a proslavery concession, though he did suggest elements of other parallel compromises that Seward submitted on the Fugitive Slave Act and a commitment to preserving the union. Seward’s subsequent letters to Lincoln intimate that the future Corwin amendment was part of the verbal instruction that Lincoln provided to Weed."

"Though not a part of his direct communications with Seward about the actions on the Committee of Thirteen, Lincoln drafted a parallel affirmation of ‘the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively’ a few days after he met with Weed. The amendment showed signs of stirring in the House almost immediately after Lincoln’s arrival."

"Lincoln apparently did much of the lifting to bring a sufficient number of Republican votes into the fold to secure the requisite two-thirds majorities. In other instances, antislavery legislators who could not countenance the measure were likely induced to intentionally abstain. Aside from a few direct witness attestations (Charles Francis Adams’ famous historian son Henry, then a young congressional staffer, provided one of them), Lincoln’s influence must be gleaned from sporadic reports of his private meetings with Corwin and other congressional leaders or, in one example teased out by Crofts, patterns in the patronage appointments he likely offered to a crucial congressional block from Maine."

Go ahead and attack this source too. LOL! https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/2063

Sure, but the majority of Republicans opposed Corwin, even with Seward's support for it. 100% of Democrats supported Corwin and it was signed by Democrat President Buchanan, not Lincoln.

Sure, but a supermajority of Northerners supported it.

That's not the truth, and you can easily see this yourself if you simply imagine, today, some Republican politician saying in an interview, "I am not opposed to Donald Trump as our Presidential nominee". Would you consider that a real endorsement?? Really?? I don't, but that's what Lincoln said about Corwin's Amendment.

That is the truth and Lincoln's fingerprints were all over the Corwin Amendment right from the start - see above.

So here, yet again, is the list of explicit new protections for slavery in the new Confederate constitution (from post #170):

Here again is me telling you that the protections of slavery in the Confederate Constitution were no more than existed in the US Constitution plus the Corwin Amendment. ie slave owners could travel with their slaves through states or territories that did not have slavery. See Dred Scott. Importing slaves from Africa or indeed any place that it was no longer legal to import slaves from was barred....ie it was only legal to bring in slaves from other states just as the law was in the US.

Given these significant increases in protection for slavery in the Confederate constitution, there is no way Confederate states could seriously contemplate returning to the Union.

Given slavery had no significant increases in protection in the Confederate Constitution, accepting the Corwin Amendment would have offered the exact same protections in the US Constitution as existed in the Confederate Constitution. Yet the original 7 seceding states refused to return. They must have been motivated by something other than slavery.

Or so you claim, and yet without a scrap of evidence to support your claims, here or elsewhere.

See above. I provided ample evidence. His own hagiographer Doris Kearns-Goodwin also admitted Lincoln orchestrated its passage.

Here again is the breakdown of the reasons for secession" documents:here again is me telling you only 4 states issued declarations of causes and only one of those states listed slavery as the exclusive cause. 3 of the 4 states went on at length about the economic grievances even though these were not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional.

Noooo... the 1860 census says there were 393,975 slaveholders, which is 1.26% of the total population of 31,183,582. That implies that 98.7% of Americans were not slaveholders. Of course, virtually 100% of Northerners were not slaveholders, so if we just look at the Southern white population, it was 8,289,782, making non-slaveholders ~95%. However, in 1860, according to the US census, the average family was about 5 people, meaning there were roughly 1,660,000 Southern white families. If we assume only one slaveholder per family, then about 24% of families "owned" slaves -- and that number corresponds to reports from the time that about 1/4 of Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Now you wish to argue that maybe some families had more than one slaveholder, even though typically, "the man of the house" owned everything..

No. That was not typical. Look at Grant's wife. Look at Lee's wife. THEY owned the slaves - not Grant or Lee personally. This happened all the time. Ever heard of wills? Kids of large slaveholding families would also often be gifted slaves during the parents' lifetimes.

So, only in a few elite families were women high-status enough to legally own slaves. How many? Maybe 10% at most. Therefore, instead of there being 393,975 slaveholding families, there were only around 355,000 families who "owned" slaves, or 21% of all Southern families. But that's all Southern families. If we only look at the Confederacy, we find the white population was 5,582,222 CSA individuals, which means roughly 1,116,000 CSA white families. Of those, 316,632 individuals owned slaves, and if we apply the 90% factor, we have 284,969 CSA slaveholding families, or 26% of all CSA families. But that's just the CSA average. If we look at high-slave states like South Carolina and Mississippi, and again allow for 10% multiple slaveholders in one family, we see South Carolina had 41% and Mississippi 44% of families owning slaves. And just to make the point clear, for every such family who did not own slaves, there were other family members -- brothers, uncles, cousins, in-laws and close neighbors -- who did.

Just because one household owned slaves, that does not mean the rest of the extended family did. That's another bad assumption on your part.

And that is why the entire culture -- the "Southern Way of Life" -- was built around their "peculiar institution".

No it wasn't. That was a small minority.

here are the results of the 1860 US census by state:

Alabama Total Free Population 529121 Total # of Slaveowners 33730 % of Free population owning slaves 6.37%

Arkansas Total Free Population 324335 Total # of Slaveowners 11481 % of Free population owning slaves 3.54%

Florida Total Free Population 78679 Total # of Slaveowners 5152 % of Free population owning slaves 6.55%

Georgia Total Free Population 595088 Total # of Slaveowners 41084 % of Free population owning slaves 6.90%

Louisiana Total Free Population 376276 Total # of Slaveowners 22033 % of Free population owning slaves 5.86%

Mississippi Total Free Population 354674 Total # of Slaveowners 30943 % of Free population owning slaves 8.72%

North Carolina Total Free Population 661583 Total # of Slaveowners 34658 % of Free population owning slaves 5.24%

South Carolina Total Free Population 301302 Total # of Slaveowners 26701 % of Free population owning slaves 8.86%

Tennessee Total Free Population 834082 Total # of Slaveowners 36844 % of Free population owning slaves 4.42%

Texas Total Free Population 421649 Total # of Slaveowners 21878 % of Free population owning slaves 5.19%

Virginia Total Free Population 1105453 Total # of Slaveowners 52128 % of Free population owning slaves 4.72%

Total Total Free Population 5582242 Total # of Slaveowners 316632 % of Free population owning slaves 5.67%

Note this is total free population, not total White population. ie this includes Black slaveowners....and yes, there definitely were Blacks who owned slaves. We can see that even in the two states with the highest percentage of Blacks as a share of the population (South Carolina and Mississippi) the percentage of the total free population that owned slaves did not exceed 9%. As a whole, fewer than 6% of the total free population owned slaves. What percent of families did depends on your guesstimate of average family size and how many slaveowners there were per family. Thus, one family in which the rich husband owned slaves, the wife who was also from money inherited slaves from her family - or was gifted some slaves of her own as for example, a wedding gift, and the kids were gifted slaves could easily account for 4-5 slaveowners in just that one family. For the big plantations that had hundreds of slaves, this kind of pattern was not unusual.

Of that 5.67% of the total free population which owned slaves, half of them owned 5 or fewer. These often tended to be domestic servants (cooks, nannies, butlers, etc). Occasionally, there would be a yeoman farmer who owned 2-3 to help out on the farm but that was not common. Slaves were expensive. The vast vast majority of people were family farmers who did not own any slaves. Most family farmers had lots and lots of kids who served as farm labor.

Not as rare as you pretend.

Large plantations were not as common as you pretend. They were rather rare. Most people were nowhere near rich enough for that.

First of all, 393,975 slaveholders means the average slaveholder owned ~10 slaves. Second, I have no reason to doubt your number that "half of them owned 5 or less," suggesting an average for them of 2.5 slaves, or roughly 500,000 slaves "owned" by about 200,000 slaveholders. That means the other approx. 3,500,000 slaves were "owned" by just 300,000 slaveholders or 13 per slaveholder. Those were large operations and suggest their families were also larger than average -- instead of just five members, they were 7 or 8 -- suggesting that 23% of Confederates belonged to large families which "owned" slaves.

LOL! No. You seriously want to try to convince us that 23% of White Southerners came from rich families? Get out of here with that laughable BS. There were roughly 5.5 million White Southerners. Add in 3 or 4 hundred thousand free Blacks and you have a little less than 6 million people. There were about 3 million slaves. There were 316,632 slave owners. About half or 150,000 of those people owned less than 5 slaves. To that's 300-450,000 slaves total. Meaning 160,000 slave owners owned 2.6 or 2.7 million slaves. The really big slave owners were 160,000 out of 6 million. That's a tiny minority.

Except that you never read a single word of truth on your own. What you discovered was a pack of lies that you were too ignorant and innocent to distinguish from real facts and way too eager to believe as opposed to the harsh and unchanging truth.

Except that this is a complete lie. Sorry to do something I normally hate which is to toot my own horn, but I have 2 grad degrees, speak 3 languages, have lived in 8 states and 4 foreign countries. I am neither ignorant nor innocent. Quite the opposite. I've been exposed to vastly vastly more than most people ever will be. I learned through lots and lots of reading that what we are taught about this subject in the government schools, what is shown on PBS and the so-called history channel, etc are lies and BS. Of course, once you see how corrupted the media and a lot of government institutions are...how ready and willing they are to lie to suit their agenda, their lies about history become a whole lot less shocking. Its a pattern with them.

If that's not Establishment, nothing is." Naw... Lincoln was a small-time independent country lawyer who defended all kinds of people, both innocent and guilty, rich and poor.

early on in his career maybe. That was certainly not the case by the time he started his career in politics. He was a consummate insider by then.

The "Establishment" figure you're thinking of, was a Democrat, a very high-level corporate executive in charge of vast railroad operations, including in Illinois, politically connected to the Democrat administration in Washington, DC. You might even remember his name, because he represented the Confederacy's last-best hope for Civil War political victory. He was George McClellan.

There certainly were Democrats who were Establishment insiders. There were also lots of Republicans who were insiders. Lincoln and McClellan knew each other quite well and worked together on the Illinois Central Railroad long before the war.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: responding to "is there actual data to support your claims?" : "I'm sure there are.
I haven't noted them.
What I have noted are the comments of everybody at the time saying exactly what I've said which is that the Southern states were responsible for about 75% of the exports and imports and thus were paying about 75% of the tariff.
You of course, claim miraculously to have never seen them even though I've posted them multiple times every time this subject has come up."

It is a fact, not a "claim", that in our exchanges you have never posted even one shred of evidence to support even one of your ridiculous claims.
Of course, I see where you claim to have posted your proof-texts elsewhere, which means they must be readily available to you.

I also see where you admit that you don't actually have data to support this particular claim (75% of tariffs paid by Southerners), only supposedly newspaper accounts which you say repeat the claim.
If they actually do, then they're wrong, but I doubt if your proof-texts actually say what you're claiming.
And that is possibly why you are so reluctant to post them.

FLT-bird: "This is what shrinks call "projection".
You accuse me of exactly that which you yourself are guilty of.
Northern politicians elected by Northern voters were controlled by....wait for it....Northerners. Duh.
I guess the dishonest claims otherwise are part of your Democrat mindset. LOL!"

And yet again you are literally babbling nonsense, ignoring the facts in order to protect your precious narrative -- for you Democrats, it's narrative uber alles.

But the fact is, before 1861, it was Northern Democratic "Doughfaces" who helped Southerners protect slavery and kept Democrats in control over Washington, DC.
Again, I'll list the specifics:

1. "1820 -- 17 Northern doughfaces made the Missouri Compromise possible.

2. 1836 -- 60 Northern doughfaces voted with the South in the passage of a gag rule to prevent anti-slavery petitions from being formally received in the House of Representatives.

3. 1847 -- 27 Northern doughfaces joined with the South in opposing the Wilmot Proviso, and in

4. 1850 -- 35 Northern doughfaces supported a stronger fugitive slave law.

5. 1854 -- 58 Northern doughfaces joined Southerners to support repeal of the Missouri Compromise in the Kansas–Nebraska Act.[4]

6. Richards has classified 320 congressmen in the period from 1820 to 1860 as doughfaces.

7. The two U.S. Presidents preceding Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce[6] and James Buchanan, were both commonly referred to as doughfaces."

The fact is that, with the help of Doughfaced Northern Democrats, Southerners ruled over Washington DC almost continuously from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.

FLT-bird: "What is a fact is that these were Northerners elected by Northern voters in Northern states."

Sure, but they were political allies of Southern Democrats who voted with Southerners on their most important issues, including those listed above.
Why is it such a problem for you to admit the simple truth?

FLT-bird on Calhoun's support for tariffs, infrastructure & national bank: "He did at the time until he saw how destructive high tariffs were to the Southern economy.
He also noted that Northern states got the lion's share of the federal budget.

"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,"
John C Calhoun March 4, 1850"

So, first, it took some doing because your quote here is not exactly right, but it's close enough and I found it in Calhoun's last speech to the US Senate, March 4, 1850, shortly before his death on March 31.

In his lengthy speech, Calhoun promised to explain his accusation of "undue portions" in Federal taxing and spending.
But when the place in his speech comes to explain and provide evidence of his claims, here's what he said:

"The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the Government.
It is well known that the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports.
I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due portion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed.
Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed at the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her."

This is the argument our lost causers have been making, and like Calhoun, they all skip right over the place where they should be providing evidence to prove their claims.
Like Calhoun, they just assume to be true what has never been established.

In fact, the data we do have tells a very different story from what Calhoun and Lost Causers claim.

FLT-bird "You will doubtless squeal that this can't possibly be true and gosh, that Calhoun guy is an evil, wicked, nasty, horrible guy and must be lying and slavery slavery slavery, blah blah blah.
I will note that what Calhoun said here is no different from what numerous other political leaders and newspapers were saying."

I think we can stipulate that Calhoun's words in his March 4, 1850 speech to the US Senate, became, if they were not already, standard Southern propaganda claims, still argued by our Lost Causers even today.

But I have never seen actual facts to support such claims.

FLT-bird responding to -- were all Southerners Neanderthal anti-American Democrats: "Strawman alert. I never suggested any such thing."

I know, you never said "Neanderthal", but you have implied Southerners were far more united in their anti-Americanism than, in fact, they ever were.

FLT-bird "As I said, Southerners became far more anti Tariff once they saw how destructive the Tariff of Abominations was to their states economically.
Note the use of the word "became"...as in they weren't as opposed initially."

Rates in the 1828 Tariff of Abominations were gradually reduced, beginning in 1835, and especially in the 1846 Walker Tariff.
Still, as late as the election of 1848, a majority of voters in many Southern states elected the high-tariff Whig, a Southern slaveholder, Zachary Taylor, president.

Even as late as 1852, the high-tariff Whig candidate carried Kentucky and Tennessee, and came very close in Louisiana, North Carolina and Delaware.

Again, my point here is only that "The South" was not as solidly opposed to protective tariffs as you like to pretend.
There were many Southerners who understood that protective tariffs would also protect their businesses and jobs.

FLT-bird: "What South Carolina wanted was the tariffs to be lowered.
That's what they got.
Note they nullified the tariff.
They did not secede.
Had they wanted to secede, presumably, they would have seceded.
They were still willing to compromise because they believed compromise possible."

So you claim, but in fact, there were enough threats of secession coming from South Carolina, they forced Democratic President Andrew Jackson to send a naval "war fleet" with US troops onboard to Charleston harbor and issue his famous threat:

"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[67]"

Clearly, Pres. Jackson took South Carolina's threats seriously, even if you don't.

FLT-bird: "that was Andrew Jackson's view but it is debatable.
Had they wanted to secede they would presumably have done so.
After all, Massachusetts and Connecticut had threatened to secede over the Embargo Act about 15 years earlier during the Hartford Convention so the idea that each state could unilaterally secede was not limited to Southern states."

And those 1814 Hartford Convention threats of secession helped destroy the old Federalist party, making the United States briefly a single party state -- Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.
So, doubtless, South Carolinians in the 1830s realized that one state threatening secession was not the route to political success.

FLT-bird: "by the way, notice how secession is often what states threaten or resort to when their economy is crushed by blocking or impinging on foreign trade?"

And yet... and yet... that's not what happened in 1860.
No Southerner, not one, threatened secession if the new Morrill tariff passed.
Many did threaten secession if an anti-slavery "Black Republican" was elected president.

Those are facts, deny them as much as you want.

FLT-bird: "No they didn't stop it in 1860.
It passed the House.
The process of log rolling to pick up one or two more votes in the Senate was underway.
It was a certainty that some Senator could be induced to flip for the right payoff for his constituents.
Everybody knew this.

Well, then, certainly... if "everybody knew" then you should have no trouble providing many different quotes from different sources saying exactly that, right?

FLT-bird after quoting some ridiculous nonsense regarding the Morrill Tariff: "Go ahead and emote about the source.
We all know that's your go to response whenever you see information you don't like. LOL!"

Well, it's true that your source is insane and biased, anti-American to the max.
Less biased sources say this:

"In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%.
In 1860, American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th-century standards, the average rate for 1857 to 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), 21% on dutiable items only.
The Morrill Tariff immediately raised those averages to about 26% overall, or 36% on dutiable items."

The Morrill increase was 70% on dutiable items (from 21% to 36%), but only 50% overall (from 17% to 26%).
The overall was less because some items were removed from tariffs altogether.
The original Morrill average rate of 26% restored the old 1846 Walker Tariff average rate of 25%.

Of course, after Southern Democrats left Congress and declared war on the United States, then the Union had to scramble to raise money however it could, and so the Morrill tariff was increase and increased again.
But you can't claim that Democrats began leaving Congress in 1860 because they didn't want to pay even higher tariffs that would result from Democrats' declarations of war on the United States.

FLT-bird on Corwin's Amendment: "Lincoln orchestrated it." -- followed by lengthy quotes which prove nothing except, perhaps, that Lincoln did talk directly to Seward and Weed at some points.

FLT-bird: "Go ahead and attack this source too. LOL!"

There's no need because your source simply insinuates everything without providing evidence of anything.
And it's all irrelevant anyway, because the key fact about Corwin is that 100% of Democrats supported it and the Democrat President signed it, while a majority of Republicans opposed it, and Lincoln expressly said it did not change the Constitution as he understood it.

So you can claim "orchestrated" all you wish, it's a meaningless term.
The fact is that all of the heavy lifting in Congress was done by NY Senator Seward, not Lincoln.

FLT-bird on Corwin: "Sure, but a supermajority of Northerners supported it."

Northern Democrats were eager to keep as many Democrat seats in Congress as possible and some Republicans went along with them because they believed Corwin made no real changes in the US Constitution.

FLT-bird: "That is the truth and Lincoln's fingerprints were all over the Corwin Amendment right from the start - see above."

Your quotes prove nothing except that many pro-Confederates like to believe that Lincoln "orchestrated" Corwin, as opposed to the real evidence which only shows Lincoln did not block Corwin.

FLT-bird "Here again is me telling you that the protections of slavery in the Confederate Constitution were no more than existed in the US Constitution plus the Corwin Amendment."

Meaning, you didn't read, or you refuse to comprehend what those words meant.
Bottom line: the Confederate constitution explicitly prohibited any interference with slavery, period.

Deny that all you wish, it remains a fact.

FLT-bird: "Given slavery had no significant increases in protection in the Confederate Constitution, accepting the Corwin Amendment would have offered the exact same protections in the US Constitution as existed in the Confederate Constitution.
Yet the original 7 seceding states refused to return.
They must have been motivated by something other than slavery."

Now you are simply arguing from your own ignorance, and you can prove that to yourself by simply searching for quotes from Confederates in early 1861 which say something remotely similar to your words here.

I've never seen such quotes and I doubt they exist.

FLT-bird: "See above.
I provided ample evidence.
His own hagiographer Doris Kearns-Goodwin also admitted Lincoln orchestrated its passage."

So, you are going to provide a quote from DK-G where she used the term "orchestrated"?

FLT-bird: "here again is me telling you only 4 states issued declarations of causes and only one of those states listed slavery as the exclusive cause. 3 of the 4 states went on at length about the economic grievances"

The fact is that every state which gave reasons included slavery and no state discussed the Morrill tariff.
Most did not mention tariffs at all.

FLT-bird "No.
That was not typical.
Look at Grant's wife.
Look at Lee's wife.
THEY owned the slaves - not Grant or Lee personally.
This happened all the time.
Ever heard of wills?
Kids of large slaveholding families would also often be gifted slaves during the parents' lifetimes."

Lee's and Grant's wives were both very high-status women, certainly part of the top 10%, if not 1% of society.
So I think it's fair to say that 10% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder, meaning documented for census purposes.

As for parents gifting slaves to their children, you would not expect this while the child was young enough to be living at home, but more when he was ready to set up a household of his own.
That's why I'm willing to stipulate that 10% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder.
But to go beyond 10%, I'd want to see actual evidence of such statistics.

But even if, just for sake of argument, we concede that 20% of slaveholders lived in households with more than one legal slaveholder, we are still looking at roughly 320,000 slaveholder households, or nearly 2 million individuals in households (at 6 per household) which is still around 23% of all Southern families owning slaves.

And that still corresponds to observations from the time that roughly 1/4 of Confederate soldiers were slaveholders.

FLT-bird: "Just because one household owned slaves, that does not mean the rest of the extended family did.
That's another bad assumption on your part."

What's 100% fair to assume is that, where 1/4 to 1/3 or more of households held slaves, then pretty much every non-slaveholding household was related by blood, or marriage, or close friendship, to others families that were slaveholders.
That's why their "peculiar institution" was also their "way of life".
It explains the overall Southern commitment to their "peculiar institution".

Of course, some large regions within the South had very few, to no slaves, and those voters were very much opposed in 1861 to secession and Confederacy.
Examples are western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Alabama and northern Arkansas.

Slavery is what made some men loyal, and others opposed to secession and Confederacy.

FLT-bird: "here are the results of the 1860 US census by state:
Alabama Total Free Population 529121 Total # of Slaveowners 33730 % of Free population owning slaves 6.37%"

Your 6% only works if you assume that every slaveholder lived alone with no families, or that in every slaveholding household, every member legally held slaves, meaning documented.
I've seen no evidence to support either of those.
Rather, what was more normal is that "head of households" legally owned everything, and in Alabama, the average well-off household had at least 6 white people.
Allowing for 10% multiple slaveholders, your 33,730 slaveholders represent around 30,350 households, which is around 35% of all Alabama households.

Here's the bottom line: in regions of the Confederacy where there truly were few to no slaves, those regions were hotbeds of Union loyalty.

FLT-bird: "...was gifted some slaves of her own as for example, a wedding gift, and the kids were gifted slaves could easily account for 4-5 slaveowners in just that one family.
For the big plantations that had hundreds of slaves, this kind of pattern was not unusual."

Granted, but there were very few of those very large plantations, far less than 10%.
The vast majority of slaveholding families were closer to "middle-class" with fewer slaves and fewer slaveholders.

So, in the absense of actual evidence, I think is fair to say 10% of slaveholder householders had more than one slaveholder and that does not change much the overall statistics on percentages of Southern slaveholding families in the 1/4 to 1/3 or more range.

FLT-bird: "LOL! No.
You seriously want to try to convince us that 23% of White Southerners came from rich families?
Get out of here with that laughable BS. "

All depends on your definition of "rich".
In 1860, statistically, the average Southern white family was better off than their Northern cousins, so they were "rich".
Overall, had the South been a separate country, it was the 4th richest country in the world.
"Rich" and "poor" are states of mind.

Here's the thing -- your argument only works if you can demonstrate that in the average 1860 slaveholding household, each member of the household legally owned at least one slave.
Then we could say that all who were not slaveholders lived in families of non-slaveholders and therefore your 6% slaveholder families could, theoretically, be right.

But even then, every slaveholding family had close relatives , friends and neighbors who loved them, wished them well and wanted to protect their "peculiar institution".

So, however you calculate it, you still come back to the majority of voters in high-slave regions wanting to do what was necessary to protect slavery.

FLT-bird: "Except that this is a complete lie.
Sorry to do something I normally hate which is to toot my own horn, but I have 2 grad degrees, speak 3 languages, have lived in 8 states and 4 foreign countries.
I am neither ignorant nor innocent.
Quite the opposite. "

All you're telling me here is that somewhere, somehow (similar to DiogenesLamp), you drank a whole barrel-full of Lost Cause Kool-Aid and now you're so addicted to it that you literally cannot see facts which contradict your preferred narrative.

Of course, I'm sorry for you, but I'm not here to support your irrational addictions.

FLT-bird: "I learned through lots and lots of reading that what we are taught about this subject in the government schools, what is shown on PBS and the so-called history channel, etc are lies and BS.
Of course, once you see how corrupted the media and a lot of government institutions are...how ready and willing they are to lie to suit their agenda, their lies about history become a whole lot less shocking.
Its a pattern with them."

And so you simply swapped-out what you deemed to be one set of lies for a whole set of different lies, without ever thinking critically about either one!
Seriously, I'm not impressed with either your abilities or accomplishments.
More than anything, I'm sorry for you.

FLT-bird on Lincoln the "outsider": "early on in his career maybe.
That was certainly not the case by the time he started his career in politics.
He was a consummate insider by then."

Lincoln was not insider enough to serve a second term in Congress, after 1849.
Nor was he insider enough to win election as Senator in 1858.
From 1849 to 1861 Lincoln was never permanently employed, he worked odd jobs, defending clients innocent or guilty, rich or poor.
No doubt, Lincoln made lots of friends, but these were not all necessarily the high & mighty.
Nor did he have any close friends in Washington, DC.

So, when it comes to insider / outsider, Lincoln in 1859 was closer to someone like Ulysses Grant than he was to, say, George McClellan, or Jefferson Davis, the consummate insider, or even Rbt. Lee, the creme of Southern aristocracy.