Nice try. I specifically referenced the first section of the Georgia Secession Statement that mentions protection here 748 and provided my analysis. Did you even read it, before posting more boring speeches that took place years before Secession?
Your intellectual dishonesty is becoming more apparent. Your inability to quote from the Georgia Secession document to support your position that tariffs were a Cause for Secession speaks volumes. Those reading along can make up their own minds.
Yeah. Your "analysis" quotes a preliminary paragraph and ignores the meat on the tariff issue, which I posted in an excerpt to you previously.
Did you even read it, before posting more boring speeches that took place years before Secession?
Toombs' speech was in November 1860, about a month before South Carolina seceded. Hunter's speech was in February 1861, after South Carolina and a few other states had seceded. Did you even read any of them? Seeing as you dated both years away from their actual occurence despite my having informed you of the timing, it would seem not.
Your intellectual dishonesty is becoming more apparent.
Project what faults you may onto others, just bear in mind that it was you, not myself, who just asserted two important tariff speeches to have occurred years before secession when in fact it was made known to him previously that both happened during that event.
Your inability to quote from the Georgia Secession document to support your position that tariffs were a Cause for Secession speaks volumes.
Much to the contrary as my ability to quote from that document has already been shown in the lengthy excerpt I previously provided. You virtually ignored that excerpt on the absurd grounds that it used synonyms like "protection" instead of the word "tariff." Since you are obviously having trouble in the area of basic comprehension, I'll happily provide the excerpt again for you:
"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."
Surely you cannot honestly read that and miss its tariff contents! The message is very clear - for years the yankees have been leaching off the government to protect their material wealth. That disastrous policy, they note, was abandoned for its failure in 1846 by the rest of the country. Yet the yankees kept pushing it and they "cast about for new allies" to reinstate their tariffs by uniting the north and taking the government. They found that ally in the anti-slavery movement, just as Robert Toombs said in his speech a few months before this resolution.
Those reading along can make up their own minds.
That they can and I welcome it. They will see your evasion of the part of the resolution I excerpted above. They will also see your attempts to avoid the secession-era speeches of Sens. Hunter and Toombs on the tariff issue. That being the case, I confidently invite them to weigh in.