Replies

FLT-bird: "Most Southerners who did not own slaves were FAR more concerned about tariffs than they were about slaves!!!!"

That is a total Lost Cause lie, and here's why:

First, how many slaveholders were there?
In 1860, 15 slaveholding states with roughly 8 million whites (plus 4 million slaves), about half were males and half of those adults (the median age in 1860 was 19), of whom about half were relatively prosperous -- so, in 1860 the entire South included about one million prosperous adult white men.
According to the 1860 census, ~400,000 were slaveholders, meaning circa 40% of prosperous white men.
But slaveholders and slaves were far from evenly distributed over the South, about half of all slaveholders lived in the seven Deep South states, meaning, of ~300,000 prosperous adult white men in the Deep South, nearly 200,000 owned slaves.
Further, everybody in those days had very large families and communities of close friends -- meaning everyone was closely related or associated with slaveholders.
So, nearly anyone who didn't themselves hold slaves was closely related to others who did.
That meant only in relatively "backward" regions -- i.e., Appalachia, northern Alabama, central & northern Texas -- where few or no slaves were held, could communities be found to actually oppose slavery, secession and civil war against "the North".
Slaveholders in the Confederate Army:
"Historian Joseph Glatthaar’s statistical analysis of the 1861 volunteers in what would become the Army of Northern Virginia reveals that one in 10 owned a slave and that one in four lived with parents who were slave-owners.
Both exceeded ratios in the general population, in which one in 20 owned a slave and one in five lived in a slaveholding household.
“Thus,” Glatthaar notes, “volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.”
In short, Confederate volunteers actually owned more slaves than the general population."
It's important to remember that these percentages varied widely among different regions of the South.
Historian James McPherson estimates 1/3 of Confederate soldiers came from slaveholding families, and doubtless that's true of some regions, not true of others.
How important were tariffs in the 1860 presidential election?
- The 1860 Southern Democrat Party (Breckenridge) platform said not one word about tariffs.
- The 1860 Northern Democrat Party (Douglas) platform said not one word about tariffs.
- The 1860 Constitutional Union Party (Bell) platform said not one word about tariffs.
- The 1860 Republican Party (Donald Trump) platform said this about tariffs:
  "12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence -- in other words, MAKE AMERICA GREAT and PUT AMERICANS FIRST -- DJT"
95% of Southerners never saw a tariff and never paid a tariff, so tariffs were irrelevant to their lives except in a vague sense of everybody grumbles about high prices.
But this was not a political issue in 1860, nor did any Southern politician threaten secession over tariffs.
Not a single 1860 or 1861 "Reasons for Secession" document mentioned the Morrill Tariff specifically, or even high tariffs generally as their reason for secession.

FLT-bird: "This is just false.
Yeah they were negotiable and were part of politics but one region had a significantly larger population and thus was able to push through tariff rates that even at their lowest were still much higher than the other region would have preferred they be at their very highest.
The Tariff of Abominations had already caused massive economic harm in the Southern states and had provoked the Nullification Crisis - then the most serious internal power struggle in the nation's history.
A generation later, the same northern corporate interests were on the verge of pushing through a tariff that would have reproduced the Tariff of Abominations.
Though Tariffs were part of normal politics, they had been the source of absolutely bitter political fights for over a generation by 1860."

Some of that is fake history, beginning here: the 1860 proposed Morrill Tariff did not restore 1828 Tariff of Abominations rates, but rather those of the much lower 1846 Walker Tariff.
These Walker rates had been approved by Southerners in 1846, were even commended in Georgia's "Reasons for Secession" document of January 1861, and as predicted at the time (1846), produced an economic boom throughout the country.

The problem in 1860 was (as always) Democrat government overspending, which doubled the national debt in just the four years of the Buchanan administration.
The Democrat government needed more revenues to pay its bills, and that was the origin of the Morrill Tariff.

After the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", Congress reduced tariffs four different times:

1832 Tariff -- from >50% to ~40%
1833 Tariff -- from 40% to ~20%
1842 "Black Tariff" -- increased from 20% to 32%
1846 Walker Tariff -- from 32% to 25%
1857 Tariff -- from 25% to ~16%
1860 Proposed Morrill -- from 16% to ~26%

So, the entire Lost Causer claim that anything remotely resembling a majority of Southerners could be persuaded to declare secession and civil war against the United States over minor fluctuations in tariff rates is just absurd, ridiculous and 100% counter-factual.

FLT-bird: "The Morrill tariff would immediately DOUBLE tariff rates.
So much for being "watered down". "

No, Morrill didn't double average rates, but those did rise from the record low 1857 levels of ~16% to around the Tariff of 1846 rates -- 26% -- which were about half of 1828 "Tariff of Abomination" rates, over 50%.
Remember, Morrill was defeated in 1860 and only passed in 1861 because Southern Democrats walked out of Congress, thus letting Republicans call the shots on tariffs.
Had Democrats remained in Congress in 1861 they could have again defeated Morrill, or at least modified it more to their liking.

FLT-bird: "This passed the House in the May of 1860 and was certain to pass the Senate - as everybody well knew.
All that was needed was the usual log rolling to pick off one or two senators and it would pass. "

Morrill could not even pass the House in 1860, had Democrats remained solid in opposition, but they weren't -- a huge number even abstained from voting.
In the Senate, even in 1861, Morrill could only pass after Southern Democrats left Congress.

FLT-bird: "The "record low" Walker Tariff was 16%.
In the Confederate Constitution the maximum tariff allowed was a revenue tariff which was universally understood to mean no more than 10%.
So even this "record low" tariff was still significantly higher than the Southern states wanted."

First of all, the 1846 Walker Tariff reduced the "Black Tariff" of 1842 from 32% to 25%.
The Tariff of 1857 further reduced rates to ~16%, contributing to a doubling of the US national debt during the four years of the Buchanan administration.
That's why the Morrill Tariff was proposed to restore the old Walker Tariff rates of 1846.

Second, your 10% rate is pure fantasy that had never been achieved, was never even proposed, not even in the Confederate Congress.
Third, no politician in the 1860 election ever threatened to secede over tariffs -- that's a fact.

Finally, here are the average total tariff rates per presidential administration (source 1), (source 2):

Washington: 21% (Tariff of 1792)
John Adams: 24%
Jefferson 32%
Madison: 31%
Monroe: 35% (Tariff of 1816)
J.Q. Adams: 47% (Tariff of 1824)
Jackson (1): 48% ("Tariff of Abominations")
Jackson (2): 23% (Tariff of 1833)
Van Buren: 19%
Harrison/Tyler: 22% ("Black Tariff" effective 1844)
Polk: 26% (1846 Walker Tariff)
Taylor/Fillmore: 24%
Pierce: 26%
Buchanan: 17% (Tariff of 1857)
Lincoln (1): 25% (Morrill Tariff)
Lincoln/Johnson (2): 43%

FLT-bird quoting unnamed: "Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention.
Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance."

In fact, Rhett did not mention the Morrill Tariff, in his Address to the Slaveholding States, and only spoke vaguely and falsely about tariffs -- by claiming that only Northerners supported them and only Southerners opposed them.
The truth is that both support for and opposition to protective tariffs was national and depended highly on how people made their livings.
The actual rates then were the results of complicated political negotiations and varied depending on elections.
In 1860 tariffs were the lowest they had been since the early years of Pres. Washington's administration.

And one fact which no Southern politician ever mentioned was that every Southern export -- cotton (25%), tobacco (40%), sugar (30%), rice, etc. -- was also highly protected by US import tariffs.

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

Sure, after the November election, when Toombs was campaigning for secession, and as a result, Georgia was the only state to mention tariffs in its "Reasons for Secession" document.
However, even Georgia did not mention the Morrill Tariff and, indeed, pointed to the Tariff of 1846 as their example of a "good tariff".
Ironically, it was the 1846 Tariff levels that Morrill was attempting to restore!!!

FLT-bird: "As we've gone over before, violation of the compact over slavery was something the Southern states COULD legitimately claim.
The Northern states really had violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.
The Tariffs and federal expenditures - no matter how unfair they were and no matter how much Southerners hated them - were not unconstitutional."

Of course, I understand your point here, however, the Compromise of 1850 took responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws away from states and made that a Federal authority.
In November 1860 there had been no complaints by Southerners against the Federal enforcement of Fugitive Slave Laws, nor could there be so long as Democrats were in charge, which they had been almost continuously since the election of 1800.

FLT-bird quoting: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election"

I agree with you that a very small number of South Carolina's richest globo-slaver elites had believed this ever since the Nullification Crisis of 1832.
However, there was no possible way that a handful of South Carolina's wealthiest citizens could convince millions of loyal Southern citizens to declare secession and war on the United States over something as minor as small adjustments in the tariff rates.
So, whatever the SC elites believed and wanted, the masses of Southern citizens had to be convinced that their vital interests -- their way of life, their "peculiar institutions" -- were being assaulted by "evil Northerners".

And that would require a massive campaign of propaganda, lies and deceptions the likes which this country had never seen before, and didn't see again until very recent years.

This is a good place to stop for now...

1860 political cartoon:

BroJoeK: That is a total Lost Cause lie,

Nope! its the reality. The denial of it is the lie.

BroJoeK: First, how many slaveholders were there? In 1860, 15 slaveholding states with roughly 8 million whites (plus 4 million slaves), about half were males and half of those adults (the median age in 1860 was 19), of whom about half were relatively prosperous -- so, in 1860 the entire South included about one million prosperous adult white men. According to the 1860 census, ~400,000 were slaveholders, meaning circa 40% of prosperous white men. But slaveholders and slaves were far from evenly distributed over the South, about half of all slaveholders lived in the seven Deep South states, meaning, of ~300,000 prosperous adult white men in the Deep South, nearly 200,000 owned slaves. Further, everybody in those days had very large families and communities of close friends -- meaning everyone was closely related or associated with slaveholders. So, nearly anyone who didn't themselves hold slaves was closely related to others who did.

Its true that the Wealthy owned a grossly disproportionate share of the slaves. Of that 5.63% of all White Southerners who owned slaves, half owned 5 or fewer. Meaning, about 2.8% owned a LOT of them. Of course, in those wealthy families which owned a lot of slaves, it was quite common for the husband to own slaves, the wife to have inherited slaves from her family (like Lee's Wife, Grant's Wife, etc), adult children would be given slaves (eg a childhood playmate they were close to, a personal servant, etc) so having multiple slave owners in one family was common for those wealthy families.

BroJoeK: That meant only in relatively "backward" regions -- i.e., Appalachia, northern Alabama, central & northern Texas -- where few or no slaves were held, could communities be found to actually oppose slavery, secession and civil war against "the North".

The percentage of White families which owned slaves was relatively small and this was more true in the Upper South where industrialization was more advanced and where for the most part the land was less suited to growing cash crops like cotton and tobacco.

BroJoeK: Slaveholders in the Confederate Army: "Historian Joseph Glatthaar’s statistical analysis of the 1861 volunteers in what would become the Army of Northern Virginia reveals that one in 10 owned a slave and that one in four lived with parents who were slave-owners. Both exceeded ratios in the general population, in which one in 20 owned a slave and one in five lived in a slaveholding household. “Thus,” Glatthaar notes, “volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.” In short, Confederate volunteers actually owned more slaves than the general population." It's important to remember that these percentages varied widely among different regions of the South.

That was volunteers at the beginning....which makes sense given that a lot of family farmers couldn't afford nearly so easily to take time away from the farm to go off to fight. Ergo, the volunteers at the start tended to be more from the wealthier strata which could afford to send the men off to fight more easily.

BroJoeK: Historian James McPherson estimates 1/3 of Confederate soldiers came from slaveholding families, and doubtless that's true of some regions, not true of others.

Yeah I've seen his claims here and don't find them credible. He doesn't provide much evidence for his guesstimate.

BroJoeK: How important were tariffs in the 1860 presidential election? The 1860 Southern Democrat Party (Breckenridge) platform said not one word about tariffs. The 1860 Northern Democrat Party (Douglas) platform said not one word about tariffs. The 1860 Constitutional Union Party (Bell) platform said not one word about tariffs. The 1860 Republican Party platform said this about tariffs: "12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence -- in other words, Line the pockets of our coporate fatcat supporters and appeal to Northern factory workers too since they stand to benefit from the competition being priced out of the market."

Gosh, how did these parties do in the Deep South? Oh that's right! They were complete non entities. The Southern Democrats utterly dominated the South - most especially the Deep South and they were not at all shy in their complaints about the Tariff or about the totally unequal federal government expenditures. They had not been shy about complaining about it bitterly for years and years.

BroJoeK: 95% of Southerners never saw a tariff and never paid a tariff, so tariffs were irrelevant to their lives except in a vague sense of everybody grumbles about high prices.

This is 100% pure unadulterated BS. Southerners saw the effects of the tariff when they got less money from Wholesalers for their cash crops. They saw the effects of the tariff when they saw sales of their cash crops decline in foreign markets. They saw the effects of the tariff when the price of the manufactured goods they needed to buy went up considerably. They knew full well exactly what caused all of this - high tariffs. That's what caused the Nullification Crisis after all.

BroJoeK: But this was not a political issue in 1860, nor did any Southern politician threaten secession over tariffs.

More complete and utter BS. It was a political issue in the 1820s. It was a political issue during the Nullification Crisis. It had been an ongoing political issue ever since then. Multiple Southern politicians said quite openly that the ruinously high tariffs were ample ground for them to secede. They had been saying similar things for a long time.

BroJoeK: Not a single 1860 or 1861 "Reasons for Secession" document mentioned the Morrill Tariff specifically, or even high tariffs generally as their reason for secession.

They didn't say "Morrill" Tariff specifically but they said "they drain our substance via sectional partisan legislation" (Texas), they complained bitterly about tariffs and the grossly unequal federal expenditures which benefitted the North at the South's expense (Georgia) or they complained bitterly about both the Tariff and the grossly unequal federal expenditures which benefitted the North at the South's expense (Rhett's address attached to and sent out with South Carolina's declaration of Causes).

BroJoeK: Some of that is fake history, beginning here: the 1860 proposed Morrill Tariff did not restore 1828 Tariff of Abominations rates, but rather those of the much lower 1846 Walker Tariff.

No, that is false. Everybody knew the first round of the Morrill Tariff would not be the last. They "only" proposed to double tariff rates but once they pushed that through, they weren't going to stop. They'd keep pushing until the Tariff rates were pushed to the stratosphere as indeed they were going to an incredible 53% where they stayed until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. The Walker Tariff was 25%. That was already WAY higher than the Southern states wanted. Remember the MAXIMUM tariff allowed under the Confederate Constitution was 10%.

These Walker rates had been approved by Southerners in 1846, were even commended in Georgia's "Reasons for Secession" document of January 1861, and as predicted at the time (1846), produced an economic boom throughout the country.

Southerners agreed to the Walker Tariff because that was as low as they could get the tariff rates and they knew it. It was still far far higher than would have been appropriate to meet their needs. Free to set their own tariff rates in the Confederate Constitution they set their maximum at 10%. What you're acting like was a compromise and such a great deal for the Southern states was just getting screwed not quite as hard as they'd been getting screwed before. It was a LONG way from being a tariff rate that would be beneficial to them.

BroJoeK: The problem in 1860 was (as always) Democrat government overspending, which doubled the national debt in just the four years of the Buchanan administration. The Democrat government needed more revenues to pay its bills, and that was the origin of the Morrill Tariff.

LOL! Pure BS. The Tariff was raised because corporate interests had been screaming for it for commercial reasons. A higher tariff meant they could raise price and still gain market share. Similarly, who were the ones who had their greedy hands out grasping for ever more federal pork paid for mostly by Southerners? Why that would be Northerners yet again. It was they who got all kinds of subsidies for their fishing fleets, for mining, for public works like the Erie Canal and the Sewer system for NYC and especially for Railroads.

After the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", Congress reduced tariffs four different times: 1832 Tariff -- from >50% to ~40% 1833 Tariff -- from 40% to ~20% 1842 "Black Tariff" -- increased from 20% to 32% 1846 Walker Tariff -- from 32% to 25% 1857 Tariff -- from 25% to ~16% 1860 Proposed Morrill -- from 16% to ~26% So, the entire Lost Causer claim that anything remotely resembling a majority of Southerners could be persuaded to declare secession and civil war against the United States over minor fluctuations in tariff rates is just absurd, ridiculous and 100% counter-factual.

Firstly, the Morrill Tariff would not raise rates from 16% to 26% as you claim. It would DOUBLE tariffs to 32% and as I've said before, everybody knew that was just the first bite of the apple and they would be back again for more. As indeed they DID come back for more jacking rates all the way to 53% and leaving them there for over FIFTY YEARS.

That puts the lie to the myth that it was just "minor fluctuations" in tariff rates. While Tariffs and grossly unequal federal government expenditures (you conveniently leave that part out) were part of the complaints Southerners had, the centralization of power in Washington DC....aka the usurpation of power by the federal government never granted to it by the states was another bitter bone of contention. Southerners hated "centralism" as they called it. They hated it at the time the Constitution was ratified. They still hate it.

So the entire PC Revisionist claim that it was "all about slavery" is shown once again to be nothing more than antihistorical, unfactual, propaganda and lies.

BroJoeK: No, Morrill didn't double average rates, but those did rise from the record low 1857 levels of ~16% to around the Tariff of 1846 rates -- 26% -- which were about half of 1828 "Tariff of Abomination" rates, over 50%.

32% initially...and of course after the first bite of the apple they came back for more and raised rates to over 50% - as everybody knew they would. That was their aim all along. Kinda like when the gun grabbers say "we only want to ban this set of guns here....the rest will be fine, don't worry about it". Bullshit. They want to ban them all. That is their endgame and everybody knows it. Same deal here.

BroJoeK: Remember, Morrill was defeated in 1860 and only passed in 1861 because Southern Democrats walked out of Congress, thus letting Republicans call the shots on tariffs.

Remember Morrill passed the House in 1860 and everybody knew it was going to pass the Senate. All that was needed was to pick off one or two Senators and that could easily be done by offering a sweetener for this industry or that which happened to be in one Senators' district or another.....and better hurry up and accept our deal or one of your colleagues will accept the deal we offered him and you'll be left out in the cold." ie log rolling.

BroJoeK: Had Democrats remained in Congress in 1861 they could have again defeated Morrill, or at least modified it more to their liking.,/P>

Nah. A Senator or two would have been picked off as I described above and given their majority due to their larger population, the Northern states could have then passed it.

BroJoeK: Morrill could not even pass the House in 1860, had Democrats remained solid in opposition, but they weren't -- a huge number even abstained from voting.

It DID pass the House in 1860.

BroJoeK: In the Senate, even in 1861, Morrill could only pass after Southern Democrats left Congress.

It could have been passed in the Senate by picking off one or two Senators. Remember when they exempted the entire state of Nebraska to get a Senator to vote for Obamacare? If they need to pick off one or two Senators, they can cut a sweetheart deal for him and threaten him that if he doesn't accept and somebody else jumps at the deal they were offered, he and his constituents will be screwed and get nothing. That kind of arm twisting pretty much always works if all you need is one or two.

BroJoeK: First of all, the 1846 Walker Tariff reduced the "Black Tariff" of 1842 from 32% to 25%. The Tariff of 1857 further reduced rates to ~16%, contributing to a doubling of the US national debt during the four years of the Buchanan administration.

Well gosh. Just stop giving Northern corporations and special interest groups so much money from the federal treasury and there won't be any budgetary problems. Its not like the US was spending much on its military or like it was spending on social programs since there were none. But no. Northern special interest groups couldn't take their snouts out of the public trough even a little bit for any length of time.

That's why the Morrill Tariff was proposed to restore the old Walker Tariff rates of 1846.,/p>

No it wasn't. Northern Manufacturers had been clamoring for ever higher tariffs for a long time. They had difficulty competing with Britain and France which had first mover advantages and economies of scale. They knew the only way they could really make inroads into their market share was to jack tariffs way up and have a captive market.

BroJoeK: Second, your 10% rate is pure fantasy that had never been achieved, was never even proposed, not even in the Confederate Congress.

The 10% maximum tariff was eminently achievable. Remember that Southern state governments had very small budgets at the time. They also didn't spend much. The South HATED pork barrel spending. They required that bills can only be about one thing and it must state what it is about in the title as part of the Confederate Constitution. They gave the president a line item veto to allow him to cut pork barrel spending. The ONLY reason the Confederate Congress was not able to have tariff rates as low as they would have preferred is they had to raise money to defend themselves from the war of aggression Lincoln started.

BroJoeK: Third, no politician in the 1860 election ever threatened to secede over tariffs -- that's a fact.

There was no maximum tariff in the US Constitution. Jacking tariffs to the stratosphere was perfectly legal no matter how much Southerners hated it. They knew that.

BroJoeK: Finally, here are the average total tariff rates per presidential administration (source 1), (source 2): Washington: 21% (Tariff of 1792) John Adams: 24% Jefferson 32% Madison: 31% Monroe: 35% (Tariff of 1816) J.Q. Adams: 47% (Tariff of 1824) Jackson (1): 48% ("Tariff of Abominations") Jackson (2): 23% (Tariff of 1833) Van Buren: 19% Harrison/Tyler: 22% ("Black Tariff" effective 1844) Polk: 26% (1846 Walker Tariff) Taylor/Fillmore: 24% Pierce: 26% Buchanan: 17% (Tariff of 1857) Lincoln (1): 25% (Morrill Tariff) Lincoln/Johnson (2): 43%

Lincoln 25%???? ROTFLMAO!!! They jacked up the average rate to 47% (53% for some items) and left it there for decades. As several documents said, Southerners agreed to higher tariffs than they would have liked in the early years of the Republic because the Southern Colonies were far and away the richer colonies. Northern politicians pleaded for support for infant industries like shipbuilding, mining, etc. Southerners saw some sense in building up these industries for national security so they readily agreed. But of course once given Northerners only ever clamored for MORE! MORE! MORE! even when those industries were far from infant any more. Its always sweet when you can get the government to give you other people's money. Nobody ever wants to give that up.

BroJoeK: In fact, Rhett did not mention the Morrill Tariff, in his Address to the Slaveholding States, and only spoke vaguely and falsely about tariffs -- by claiming that only Northerners supported them and only Southerners opposed them.

In fact Rhett spoke explicitly about tariffs and spoke very truly. He admitted that Southerners were willing to support them initially for reasons I've outlined above but the greedy corporate interests in the North just kept demanding more.

BroJoeK: The truth is that both support for and opposition to protective tariffs was national and depended highly on how people made their livings.

Early on that was true. That was not really true anymore after the 1820s when Southerners saw just how damaging really high tariffs were to them economically.

BroJoeK: The actual rates then were the results of complicated political negotiations and varied depending on elections. In 1860 tariffs were the lowest they had been since the early years of Pres. Washington's administration.

And they were still considerably higher than Southerners wanted.

BroJoeK: And one fact which no Southern politician ever mentioned was that every Southern export -- cotton (25%), tobacco (40%), sugar (30%), rice, etc. -- was also highly protected by US import tariffs.

LOL! Irrelevant. The US was a large exporter of all the above. The British Empire had not yet developed extensive cotton production in their empire in places where it was suitable like the Nile Delta and India. The US was the world leader in production of Cotton and Tobacco. They weren't worried about foreign competition.

BroJoeK: Sure, after the November election, when Toombs was campaigning for secession, and as a result, Georgia was the only state to mention tariffs in its "Reasons for Secession" document. However, even Georgia did not mention the Morrill Tariff and, indeed, pointed to the Tariff of 1846 as their example of a "good tariff".,/P>

Of course Texas among its bill of particulars said they drain our substance through partisan sectional legislation (they meant tariffs) and South Carolina attached Rhett's address to their declaration of causes. Rhett's address talks in great detail about tariffs and grossly unequal federal expenditures.

BroJoeK: Of course, I understand your point here, however, the Compromise of 1850 took responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave Laws away from states and made that a Federal authority. In November 1860 there had been no complaints by Southerners against the Federal enforcement of Fugitive Slave Laws, nor could there be so long as Democrats were in charge, which they had been almost continuously since the election of 1800.

Northern STATES had violated the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. There's no question here that they did.

BroJoeK: I agree with you that a very small number of South Carolina's richest globo-slaver elites had believed this ever since the Nullification Crisis of 1832.

oh it was FAR more than just "richest globo-slaver elites" who believed that - because it was true of course. There are numerous statements from other Southern political leaders from other areas who said much the same and the New Orleans paper I quoted said the same as well. Jefferson Davis in particular said the same many times before secession and after.

You note their dislike for centralized power as well. Though he's often quoted for the Cornerstone speech, here's what Stephens said about centralism: "If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government,and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne

BroJoeK: However, there was no possible way that a handful of South Carolina's wealthiest citizens could convince millions of loyal Southern citizens to declare secession and war on the United States over something as minor as small adjustments in the tariff rates.

We've already dealt with the false claim that it was "just" "minor adjustments" to the tariff rates. It was also grossly unequal federal expenditures....something you always leave out. It was also federal usurpation of ever more power. It was also arguments over slavery and as I've outlined before, the open support for John Brown and his fellow terrorists by prominent and wealthy backers in the North AND the Northern states' refusal to prosecute them. That event convinced a lot of fence sitters in the South that they weren't dealing with mere political opponents but actual enemies who genuinely meant them harm. Imagine if several prominent Saudis came forward after 9-11 and declared that they had provided financial backing to the terrorists AND the Saudi government refused to hand them over or prosecute them. Just imagine what the feeling in the US would have been toward Saudi Arabia. Now you can begin to understand how a lot of Southerners felt about the Northern states after John Brown's terrorist raid.

Southerners felt like they were being screwed over, that the federal government was becoming more and more tyrannical and those people up there in the Northern states had shown themselves to be enemies. Its not surprising they said "enough" and chose to leave. The war was strictly in self defense after Lincoln attacked them.

BroJoeK: So, whatever the SC elites believed and wanted, the masses of Southern citizens had to be convinced that their vital interests -- their way of life, their "peculiar institutions" -- were being assaulted by "evil Northerners".

See my answer above. It WAS NOT the continuation of slavery. That wasn't threatened. Most Southerners did not own any slaves anyway. It was everything I listed above. They had had enough by 1860-61 and were ready to get out of a toxic relationship.

BroJoeK: And that would require a massive campaign of propaganda, lies and deceptions the likes which this country had never seen before, and didn't see again until very recent years.

No. It just required Southerners to notice what had been happening. Trying to convince Americans in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that it was "all about slavery" despite the obvious facts showing it wasn't has been an ongoing massive campaign of propaganda, lies, half truths and deceptions by Leftists to first demonize the South and its history and culture and then to move on to demonizing the whole US and its history and culture. After all, the Founding Fathers were mostly the Fathers and Grandfathers of Southerners in 1861.