I have stated why I did not do so on several occasions. But just to finally attempt to silence your vicious and unwarranted attacks I did so in:
Post 251,
Post 252,
Post 253.
All of which you now ignore.
You also offer no counter evidence that:
The north profited from running slaves to the south
the North increased their profits by helping to keep prices down
The banks in the North loaned money to southern plantation owners to continue slavery.
That northern shipyards modified existing ships for the slave trade despite the fact that slave trading was illegal.
You have no proof that the above statements are not true. I challenge you to prove those statements wrong.
You might as well say that the south benefits from drug smuggling into Florida today.
the North increased their profits by helping to keep prices down
And normal good business practice is to pay as much as you can for raw materials? Blame capitalism.
The banks in the North loaned money to southern plantation owners to continue slavery.
Banks in the north loaned money to the south to make more money. You keep bringing up these northern banks, but I have yet to see how they forced the south to borrow money from them.
That northern shipyards modified existing ships for the slave trade despite the fact that slave trading was illegal
And some southern boatyards no doubt modify speedboats to smuggle drugs despite the fact that drug smuggling is illegal.
I challenge you to prove those statements wrong.
And I challenge you to show how any of these justify unilateral secession, or the firing on US troops.
Try defending the comments you made originally rather than the ones you wish you had made.
No friend, the ignorance is all yours.
You were asked a couple of probing questions much earlier in this debate. Post 217 "Why didn't Southern capital open their own factories?" and Post 219 "Why didn't the South build their own fleet of trading ships rather than rely on the North for their shipping needs?"
These questions were direct rebuttals to the tariff issue which comprises your eventual Post 251. The source you reluctantly provided doesn't answer these questions any better than the poorly drawn analogies of your posts 230 & 234.
Quoting Charles Dickens as a source on 19th century US economics (your Post 252) is..meaningless. It's like asking Gore Vidal to comment on the European Union. Who cares? You seem to be grasping at straws or maybe you're just unwilling to think through the questions you've been asked.
Post 253 essentially rehashes the Tariff issue again, focusing on the late 1850's. It doesn't address the underlying causes, it simply chronicles events. Nothing new there.
The truth is that US tariff laws and navigation acts were DESIGNED and enacted by the FOUNDERS to protect this country from foreign economic and military power. They applied EQUALLY to every American state. NOTHING prevented the South from competing for shipping, trade, and manufacturing EXCEPT ingenuity and hard work and money.
So despite all your huffing and puffing about intentional Northern exploitation, and laws designed to take financial advantage of the South, one essential question remains unanswered,
" Why couldn't the South compete more effectively with the North for manufacturing, trade and shipping?"