I recommend that you read "The South as a Conscious Minority, 1789-1861: A Study in Political Thought" by Jesse T. Carpenter. He traces the development of the compact theory of the Constitution and of the South as beleaguered and put upon as providing the legal and moral justification for secession. Once such thinking became current in the South, secession became a clear possibility in the region's political thought. An unpopular war, a disputed presidential election, tariffs, slavery, or some other cause could then provide the pretext, to use Jackson's term.I'll check that out. The South clearly did feel beleaguered and put upon. Its difficult to argue they weren't. I think the Tariff of Abomination was the first really big traumatic shock to Southerners.....that their economy could be wrecked for entirely political/artificial reasons to benefit the corporate interests in the Northeast. That was immediately followed by a 30 year long struggle for political power which the Southern states could see they were losing due to mass immigration in the North.
Then add in the power struggle becoming much more violent, bitter and nasty with Bleeding Kansas and John Brown's raid combined with what Southerners saw as those same corporate interests in the Northeast coming for another round of the Tariff of Abomination - only this time the North was much more numerous and stronger thanks to immigration. Southerners feared that they no longer had the strength to stop it. Even if they could maybe put it off for a teeny tiny bit longer, it was going to happen and they knew it. That's why they decided to leave.
Slavery was connected to this in that it was used as a wedge issue to get the more agricultural parts of the Midwest to align with the Northeast even though their economic interests more aligned with the South's economic interests. For that reason, slavery was an important issue - not because there were any concerns about abolition without compensation at fair market value becoming a reality anytime soon.
I believe that it is usually a mistake to pick a side in history and then form and argue the case for that side.
Instead, it is usually better to look at all the actors and sides sympathetically and accurately so as to arrive at a broad understanding of their circumstances and views, reserving judgement until the end.
A grounding the original sources is important so as to try to see history as it unfolded, not merely in retrospect.
That was more or less what Thucydides did in his magnificent History of the Peloponnesian War.
Democrat Sen. John C. Calhoun from South Carolina
Secession a "constitutional right":
Rockingham #462: "Andrew Jackson, who was President at the time, warned on May 1, 1833, that 'the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object.
The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.' "
Rockingham #478: "I recommend that you read "The South as a Conscious Minority, 1789-1861: A Study in Political Thought" by Jesse T. Carpenter.
He traces the development of the compact theory of the Constitution and of the South as beleaguered and put upon as providing the legal and moral justification for secession.
Once such thinking became current in the South, secession became a clear possibility in the region's political thought.
An unpopular war, a disputed presidential election, tariffs, slavery, or some other cause could then provide the pretext, to use Jackson's term."
FLT-bird #479: "I'll check that out.
The South clearly did feel beleaguered and put upon.
Its difficult to argue they weren't.
I think the Tariff of Abomination was the first really big traumatic shock to Southerners.....that their economy could be wrecked for entirely political/artificial reasons to benefit the corporate interests in the Northeast.
That was immediately followed by a 30 year long struggle for political power which the Southern states could see they were losing due to mass immigration in the North."
Naw... first, Calhoun's argument is 100% complete bullshite and, second, contrary to FLT-bird's claims, "the South" felt no such thing in 1830 or later.
Yes, in the 1830s, Southern-Democrat elites who ruled South Carolina asserted their authority to nullify national laws they disliked, and to declare secession as a "constitutional right".
But "the South" included states like Pres. Jackson's Tennessee and Whig Sen. Henry Clay's Kentucky, none of which tolerated Calhoun's bullshite nonsense:
Pres. Andrew Jackson from Tennessee
"I'll hang you for it":
- Sen. John C. Calhoun (South Carolina): "each state, being sovereign, possessed “the constitutional right peacefully to secede” if its nullification were overturned by amendment."
- Pres. Andrew Jackson (Tennessee): “Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms.”
Jackson, Clay and many other Southerners were exactly right, while Calhoun, FLT-bird, DiogenesLamp and all such are 100% full of Democrat bullshite.