Not on their own. They could have arranged with Congress to negotiate their withdrawal from the union. Seizing government property and firing on federal forts closed that door.
I was responding to the idea that the split between the North and South wasn't about slavery but about tariffs. Saying that "that doesn't matter" doesn't matter so far as the actual discussion was involved.
How did this issue play into the secession crises of 1828?
Barring war or other national emergency, no federal government would raise taxes as high as the 1828 Congress did (at least until Smoot-Hawley in the Depression, and maybe now). South Carolina, which was run by an oligarchy of rich planters and slaveowners objected to the high tariff. While the tariff was certainly too high, ordinary Americans, South or North weren't, so far as I'm aware, up in arms about it. Nor was there great agitation against the more modest proposed increases in 1860. Had their been, Southern politicians would have been working to fight the tariff, rather than looking for ways to leave the union.
I will wait for you to find a flaw in my logic.
Yeah, yeah, I'm not in the mood to carry this on endlessly.
Where is your evidence?
Barring war or other national emergency, no federal government would raise taxes as high as the 1828 Congress did (at least until Smoot-Hawley in the Depression, and maybe now). South Carolina, which was run by an oligarchy of rich planters and slaveowners objected to the high tariff. While the tariff was certainly too high, ordinary Americans, South or North weren't, so far as I'm aware, up in arms about it. Nor was there great agitation against the more modest proposed increases in 1860. Had their been, Southern politicians would have been working to fight the tariff, rather than looking for ways to leave the union.
So it wasn't about slavery? It was about money? (Like I have been saying it is *ALWAYS* about money?)