[BroJoeK]

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The point of the arguements was who got to decide this issue for each territory...the people of that teritorry or the fed gov?"

Republicans proposed that people of each territory should decide.
In that they were supported by Northern "Douglas Democrats", but opposed by Southern Democrats who insisted such decisions be made in Washington.

That is the issue which split the Democrat convention in Charleston, SC, in April 1860.
Southern Democrats were for more Federal power protecting slavery, while Northern Democrats & Republicans wanted more territorial & states' rights to abolish it.

The result was Southern Fire Eaters, lead by William Yancey, walked out and eventually nominated their own candidates.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your problem is you keep trying to portray them as being for the permanent perpetuation of slavery.
They weren't .
They were for abolishing it graudally in their own time like the North did."

Sure, that's a nice revisionist fantasy, but there's no historical evidence from the time to support such wild claims.
What the evidence supports is that Fire Eaters and others who lead the charge for secession were motivated exclusively by their desires to protect slavery.

One of those was former US Senator, then Confederate Senator Louis Wigfall, noted in previous posts here:

"Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal."
-- Louis Wigfall, January 1865, Richmond.[15]

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It wasn't slavery they were trying to protect, it was their independence.
Taking the deal would have meant surrender."

And yet, within weeks of losing both independence and slavery, unconditionally, they rejected an opportunity to bargain for a better deal.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "They began freeing and arming blacks on their own before they were forced to surrender."

Pathetic, weak, half-hearted, insincere and way-way too late to make any difference.
Confederates had finally seen the handwriting on the wall, and made just enough changes allowing them to revise & rewrite history for their own benefit.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The only ones who brought up the topic of immediate abolition everywhere were the abolitionists, many of whom were quite vitriolic and supported murderers like John Brown."

There were no "murderers like John Brown".
Brown himself was captured, tried & executed for his crimes.
His actions, while admired by some, were widely condemned by many in the North.
Of his "secret six" wealthy supporters, three fled to Canada to avoid arrest, one to Italy, one to an insane asylum (Garret Smith) with only one, Thomas Higginson, openly defending Brown.

Curiously, Garret Smith before admitting himself to an insane asylum, became the object of Senator Jefferson Davis' wrath, when Davis "unsuccessfully attempted to have Smith accused, tried, and hanged along with Brown."

In 1867 Smith helped underwrite $100,000 bond needed to free Jefferson Davis from prison.

Bottom line: John Brown's raid was highly exaggerated by Fire Eater propagandists in the South to gain sympathy for their cause of secession.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And you are correct in noting that the Republican party at that time was purely a sectional phenomena."

No, that's not what I said.
In 1860 there was no national party, because both previous national parties had split in half.
In 1860 the Democrat party split in half between Northern Douglas Democrats and Southern Breckenridge Democrats.
The old Whig party had already split, between Northern Lincoln Republicans and Southern John Bell Constitutional Unionists.

And three of the four regional parties were Unionists, which on the question of secession made them allies: effectively one national party.

Only one of the four -- Southern Democrats -- was threatening to secede if the election didn't go their way.
The fact that Lincoln Republicans won the majority of electoral votes was not anticipated by some, but was exactly what Southern secessionist Fire Eaters wished for.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I think you underestimate the tariff issue.
True the Morrill tariff was not passed while the South was still in the union, but they had had all election season to hear the North talk about passing it."

Like I said, tariffs were "politics as usual".
Tariffs went up, they went down, you win some, lose some and come back to politic another day.
So, there was simply no reason why a proposed modest increase in tariffs should drive some to declare their secession.

And indeed, when you read their original "Reasons for Secession" documents, while slavery is mentioned many, many times, tariffs are not mentioned, even once.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: Davis "...was the one who approved of telling Britain and France that the South would abolish slavery in return for recognition."

That obscure tale took a lot of googling to find & verify.
It comes from a Duncan Kenner, very large slave-holder, as reported to William Henry and first recorded in 1899.
The key fact to remember, if the tale is even true, it came at the very end of the war, as a last desperate act, before the Confederacy collapsed.
Here is the heart of the story:

"Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments that the Confederacy would abolish slavery.
No timeframe was discussed, and Kenner originally floated the idea of presenting the plan to the Confederate Congress.
Davis asked Kenner not to do so and rejected the idea outright, thinking that the situation was not yet desperate enough to warrant such a move, but in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion.
Kenner was given credentials and set out on a secret mission to Europe in January 1865.
He arrived just weeks before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse..."

The Brits, to their credit, utterly rejected Kenner's desperate proposal.
Soon after, Lee surrendered.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If slavery was the only issue or even the most important one, then they would have taken the North up on this offer.
And likewise if slavery was the only or the main issue they wouldn't have offered to give it up to gain recogntition."

Protecting slavery was the reason -- the only reason cited -- for Deep South declarations of secession.
But clearly, once Confederate government formed, then self-preservation became its number one objective.

*************

Insane former NY Congressman Garret Smith, supported John Brown in 1859, helped pay $100,000 bond to free Jefferson Davis from prison, in 1867.

[rockrr]

Good post BroJoeK. I had assembled some notes in preparation to responding to DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis’s post but you knocked it out of the park.

In researching Kenner’s deal I refreshed a connection that I had uncovered before but not made note of - it really does appear to be Kenner’s deal and not davis’s. That comports with what I have read of davis, who wasn’t a staunch slaver, but rather seemed to fit in that ambiguous “hate it but I still use it” case. As the record shows, he was adamantly opposed to budging on abolition, or even blacks volunteering for service until he found himself with his back against the wall. His decision was borne of reluctant pragmatism, not idealism.

There was no abolition movement to speak of in the south. Point in fact, it was illegal to speak of abolition and a good way to find yourself and your property firebombed. The southern leadership had proven itself unshaken in it’s belief that the Peculiar Institution would also be the Perpetual Institution.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Fire Eaters and others who lead the charge for secession were motivated exclusively by their desires to protect slavery.

Slavery was an issue of course, but if it was the only one or even the main one then they would have accepted the ammendment that Lincoln was pushing regarding protecting slavery.

within weeks of losing both independence and slavery, unconditionally, they rejected an opportunity to bargain for a better deal.

The "better deal" meant of course surrender. By going so far as to reject that even in these final stages meant that they were clinging desperately onto the faintest hope of independence. If slavery was all they were clinging to they would have taken the deal, seeing as they were almost defeated as it was.

Pathetic, weak, half-hearted, insincere and way-way too late to make any difference.

There were many (like Lee and Cleburn) who wanted to institute that years before, however there were just enough of those stubborn stalwarts in Congress to block the issue until it was too late. Did you know Lincoln was also against early attempts to recruit blacks? He also waited until the North had lost a good number of battles before he finally changed stance.

You underestimate the negative effect of John Brown. He had been funded by Northerners, and after his death many Northern abolitionists called him a martyr. Have you ever heard the song "John Brown's Body"? It was very popular up North:

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave;
(3X)
His soul's marching on!

(Chorus)

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
his soul's marching on!

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord! (3X)
His soul's marching on! (Chorus)

This kind of stuff made many in the South feel they weren't wanted or respected in the Union. Kind of the way Israelis feel when Palistinians name streets and buildings after their "martyrs". Oh btw, funny fact about Brown: His first victim in his attack on Harpers Ferry was a free black man who refused to join in his raid.

.In 1860 there was no national party

The Democrat party had always been a national party...this was the first electinon that that the Democrats had fielded a Northern and a southern candiate, however their platforms remained very similar. It does show the extent that the sections had become more fractured.

I have to laugh at how you keep downplaying the tariffs. The tariff issue alone was enough to make South Carolina seceed in the 1830s. The tariffs benefitted the North at the expense of the South and the North had used the slavery issue many times to get the tariffs they wanted. Northern politicians were ever ready to sacrifice whatever anti-slavery sentiments they had for the sake of a tariff deal. Rumors after the Compromise of 1850 linked it to logrolling for tariff protection. Illinois votes for the Compromise were connected to railroad land grants that Illinois obtained in 1850. Southern congressmen claimed to have won over Pennsylvania's delegation by promising to repay a vote for the Compromise with "adjustments" in the tariff rates. At the same time, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to repeal laws that handicapped efforts to recapture fugitive slaves.

And it was mentioned during the secession debate....here is one example...
Robert Barnwell Rhett railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in his address, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance. He said:

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."

Also, this tariff the North was pushing wasn't small. It increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. This is why when the North passed it in a knee-jerk fashion after the South had left (they were used to not having it effect them much) they found out that they had practically just killed their economy. The free South had implemented low tariffs and northern businesses began to lament about their loss of business. The fact that the northern economy was nearing collapse forced Lincoln to act quick in order force the South back into the union.

Protecting slavery was the reason -- the only reason cited -- for Deep South declarations of secession.

It is frequently mentioned yes, but note that they talk about the failure of Northern states to comply with fugitives slave laws (as stipulated by the constitution) and also the slavery in the territories issue (you know, the issues that they actually argued about). Notice that they don't further these claims by leaving the Union, the abandon all claim over these issues. It wasn't so much these slavery issues in themselves (as they just forfeited their right to them) as it was the extreme deterioration of the relation between the sections that drove them to secession. The election of a purely sectional candidate was the final nail in the coffin of this division.