Permit me to direct our exchange back to the importance of slavery to the South. Based on the US statistical abstract, here are the state by state percentages of the population that was slaves:
1860
Slaves as per cent
of population
Alabama 45.12
Arkansas 25.52
Delaware 1.60
Florida 43.97
Georgia 43.72
Kentucky 19.51
Louisiana 46.85
Maryland 12.69
Mississippi 55.18
Missouri 9.72
North Carolina 33.35
South Carolina 57.18
Tennessee 24.84
Texas 30.22
Virginia 30.75
Overall 32.27
So which do you think would be a stronger influence on public opinion in the South before the Civil War? The speculative promise of marginally cheaper manufactured goods due to lower tariffs under a Confederate government?
Or that with the liberation of the slaves, a third of the South’s population, would become hungry, homeless, without work, and free to roam and settle where they liked and do as they liked? And, as in Haiti, many of the freed slaves could be expected to be angry and vengeful toward their former owners and whites in general.
Under emancipation, the former slaves would also get the right to vote and their numbers would determine the officials, laws, and policies in a great many Southern states and communities. That would be the end of white rule in those areas.
For many Southerners, the continuation of slavery was essential to a safe and civilized public order. Even for non-slaveholders, emancipation carried the certainty of not just major social and economic upheaval but also a risk of violence and chaos at the hands of newly free former slaves.
As it was, the South after the Civil War experienced many such ills. The result was the formation of the Klan and the creation of Jim Crow and disenfranchisement to keep blacks separate and under control.
Due to such calculations, most Southern whites who did not own slaves nevertheless wanted slavery to continue. That accounts for their support for secession, not tariffs.
Let's unpack these one at a time. Yes, a significant percentage of the total population were slaves. Yet only a small percentage of the White Southern population owned them. Of those who did, half of them owned fewer than 5. So we are really talking about maybe 10% of families who were the really large plantation owners. For the VAST majority of White Southerners, slavery was not "integral". They didn't own any. Their livelihood hardly depended on something they didn't have.
Next, manufactured goods wouldn't be "marginally" more expensive. They would be massively more expensive. The Morrill Tariff TRIPLED tariff rates. Northern manufacturers would of course take the opportunity to jack their prices way up too. I notice you did not even address the fact that the Tariff of Abomination cut cotton sales in half when it was implemented AND lowered the price of cotton. So Southerners who had seen this all before, could expect not just higher prices for the things they needed to buy but also significantly less money for what they produced. They would be hurt in both ways, not just one. This was not speculative to them. They had lived it a generation earlier.
Or that with the liberation of the slaves, a third of the South’s population, would become hungry, homeless, without work, and free to roam and settle where they liked and do as they liked? And, as in Haiti, many of the freed slaves could be expected to be angry and vengeful toward their former owners and whites in general.
What liberation? There was no prospect of anybody imposing abolition. It was not constitutional and moreover, there was hardly any political support for it anywhere. *IF* it ever came, it would have had to have been on the same terms slavery was ended in the Northern states, the British Empire and various European colonial empires which is via a compensated emancipation scheme.....and that is for the relatively small minority of White Southerners who actually owned slaves.
Under emancipation, the former slaves would also get the right to vote and their numbers would determine the officials, laws, and policies in a great many Southern states and communities. That would be the end of white rule in those areas.
Where are you getting this from? Emancipation does not equal full civil equality much less the right to vote. The Northern states at the time had "Black Codes" under which there was strict segregation, Blacks could not sign contracts, serve as jurors, vote, etc. Even in states where it was technically legal for them to vote, few of them were foolish enough to actually try to do so. They would be violently attacked by White mobs if they tried - and they knew it. The Jim Crow laws enacted in the Southern States after the Occupation were based on the Northern Black Codes.
For many Southerners, the continuation of slavery was essential to a safe and civilized public order.
But for the vast majority who did not own any slaves, it was not.
Even for non-slaveholders, emancipation carried the certainty of not just major social and economic upheaval but also a risk of violence and chaos at the hands of newly free former slaves.
Again, you ASSUME emancipation automatically equaled full civil equality. It most certainly did not. Blacks in the North did not enjoy civil equality and were barred in many cases from owning guns for example.
As it was, the South after the Civil War experienced many such ills. The result was the formation of the Klan and the creation of Jim Crow and disenfranchisement to keep blacks separate and under control.
The South after the Occupation is a different thing. After the corrupt carpetbagger governments robbed the Southern states blind - invariably put and kept in office by Blacks after the vast majority of White Southerners had been disenfranchised - the White population was then deeply embittered. At that point they enacted Jim Crow laws modeled after the Northern Black Codes. At that point, they adopted segregation which had previously been a Northern rather than a Southern practice. The Klan arose due to the corruption and violence initiated by the "Loyal Leagues" and other such organizations as well as the massive corruption of the carpetbagger governments which often dispossessed people of their land.
Due to such calculations, most Southern whites who did not own slaves nevertheless wanted slavery to continue. That accounts for their support for secession, not tariffs.
There was no such calculation because there was simply no support for emancipation prior to secession nor was there a means to accomplish it except voluntarily via some form of compensated emancipation scheme AND emancipation did not mean civil equality. What accounted for support for secession in the original seceding states was the desire for Independence so as to set their own economic policies and stop being treated as cash cows by the Northern states. What accounted for secession in the Upper South was Lincoln starting a war and ordering them to provide troops to impose a government upon other states that did not consent to it.
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Abraham Lincoln
"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln
"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln
“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position." (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas" ... Abraham Lincoln Segregation was a Northern thing prior to the war, not a Southern thing.
"the Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the states where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern state." Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America
"So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle. -Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America", Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.
1862 editorial in an English journal commented, “They (the Northern white men) do not love the Negro as a fellow-man; they pity him as a victim of wrong. They will plead his cause; they will not tolerate his company.”
"The Indiana constitutional convention of 1851 adopted a provision forbidding black migration into the state. This supplemented the state's laws barring blacks already there from voting, serving on juries or in the militia, testifying against whites in court, marrying whites, or going to school with whites. Iowa and Illinois had similar laws on the books and banned black immigration by statute in 1851 and 1853 respectively. These measures reflected the racist sentiments of most whites in those states." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 80)
"There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, 'They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.' Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there." (John Franklin and Alfred Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185
"For all the good intentions of many early white abolitionists, blacks were not especially welcome in the free states of America. Several territories and states, such as Ohio, not only refused to allow slavery but also had passed laws specifically limiting or excluding any blacks from entering its territory or owning property." (Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War, p. 54)
"Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred," said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that "there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro. The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275) ". . .
In the fall of 1865. The legislatures of Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota placed on the ballot constitutional amendments to enfranchise the few black men in those states. Everyone recognized that, in some measure, the popular vote on these amendments would serve as a barometer of Northern opinion on black suffrage. . . . Republican leaders worked for passage of the amendments but fell short of success in all three states. . . . the defeat of the amendments could be seen as a mandate against black suffrage by a majority of Northern voters." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 501)
"In the first half of the nineteenth century, state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut took away Negroes' right to vote; and voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites. In Ohio, Negro males were permitted to vote only if they had "a greater visible admixture of white than colored blood." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 54)
Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, (brother of William T. Sherman): “We do not like the Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…..The whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states.”
William Seward, inveterate moralizer and creator of the phrase “irrepressible conflict,” who, at a political rally in 1860, described the American black man as a “foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation…a pitiful exotic unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.”
On July 12, 1848, during a Senate debate over slavery in the territories, it was a New York Senator, John Dix, who got up and said that “free blacks would continue to be an inferior cast and simply die out.” It was a Senator from Mississippi named Jefferson Davis who replied that he was “horrified” to hear “their extinction treated as a matter of public policy.”
There's much more to be found here: https://slavenorth.com/
We can dispense with the Myth of the virtuous North. There was almost no support for abolition prior to 1863 and Blacks were anything but equal in the North. In fact, many Northern states adopted harsh laws to prevent Blacks from ever moving there and earning a living if they were already there (so as to drive them out). Segregation and Jim Crow-type laws were a Northern construct only later adopted by the Southern states.
Permit me to ask how that has anything to do with why the North invaded them?
You want to deflect to slavery, because you do not want to take a closer look at what happened.