As a supporter of much of what the South stood for, I freely admit that slavery was wrong and needed to be ended. But supporters of the North continue to believe that they contributed nothing to the continued need for slaves in the South and that they in fact profited as well from both the slave trade and slave's labor.
Sorry, but that is a high horse that just doesn't ride.
bttt
What I fail to find is any rational economic justification for why these decisions and policies were so onerous to the south that they just HAD to secede (especially since they barely mentioned them themselves). I also can find no rational reason why the south failed to create its own financial, manufacturing and shipping interests instead of complaining how the northern ones were exploiting them. You cite the Morrill Tariff, but the fact is that the south had been dictating tariff policy for years. Look up the Walker Tariff of 1846, or the 1857 tariff. Those benefitted southern cotton and hurt northern industry, but God forbid the pendulum should swing back the other way.
Earlier in the thread, you cited the failure of northern industry to open plants in the south, while they were opening them in the west. There are a couple of basic reasons for it: population and transportation. The population of the west was booming while the population of the south was not. And the north and west had built a transportation system of rails and canals while the south had not. Why?