So you should be able reference Tariffs in the Statements of Secession from the various states, in which they list their reasons for seceding right? I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs? Otherwise, the tariff issue as a cause of secession becomes moot, and you would be well advised to stop raising it.
I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum.
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy. Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor as they applied to 19th century America, and then either change your name or switch sides.
Happily. See the Georgia declaration of causes (one of the four states to do so). It speaks of the tariff over several paragraphs.
I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
If he did, I do not recall seeing it. He did attempt to downplay the Georgia declaration's tariff statements. He called them brief and negligable when in fact they encompass several paragraphs. He also overstated slavery in those documents. It appears in only those four declarations of causes, though he made it sound as if every single state cited it.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs?
None of the 11 ordinances mentions either the tariff or slavery as a cause. Georgia's declaration mentions both. Here's the tariff part from it:
"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success."
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy.
Not in the least. As this tariff discussion no doubt indicates, the southerners sided with the capitalist position of free trade. Northerners sided with protectionism, economic intervention, government subsidies, and the sort. They also drew many fans of their cause from the far left, including Karl Marx himself.
Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor
I already have, actually. It goes without saying that neither labor system was particularly capitalist or desirable. Beyond labor though (which, unless you are Karl Marx, is NOT the entirity of economics and far from it), one side of the conflict was clearly oriented toward capitalist markets and the other toward interventionist markets.