You essentially just ignore the arguments made against your view and fall back on the idea that the South was paying all the taxes. But the people you are arguing with don't accept your figures and don't think you understand economics, so your contributions to the discussion don't contribute much to the discussion.
So long as the North had the majority in congress, the money stream from Southern trade with Europe would continue routing through their hands, and those nasty cheaper European products would continue to be held back from their markets by beneficial taxes making them uneconomical to purchase.
Tariffs in the years leading up to the Civil War were not burdensome or an insurmountable barrier to imports. The Democratic Party controlled politics during this period and was favorable to Southern interests. Northerners didn't dominate trade because of laws, but because it was their bread and butter. It was what they had to do, so they became quite good at it.
But the institution? What could you do by voting to further it? It was either there, or it wasn't. It's like being a little bit pregnant.
For one thing, they would keep parties that didn't like slavery out of power. For somebody always b*tch*ng about the power of the courts today, you seem oblivious to the importance of judgeships and control of Congress in the 19th century. I outlined in my post ways in which Republicans could weaken slavery over time - or ways in which Southern slaveowners thought the Republicans could weaken slavery. Did you just ignore all that?
The Southern states would have voted for it in July of 1860, but by March of 1861, they'd decided to do something different.
Lincoln took office in March of 1861, so the amendment was DOA from the beginning. It wasn't going to prevent secession, and the rejection of it did not mean that Southerners didn't care about slavery.
My opinion that the status quo would continue being the status quo if not disturbed, is too radical for you?
Again, I ask, what does your opinion or my opinion have to do with the opinions of people at the time? They believed what they believed. If we think that they were irrational or wrong, that doesn't mean that they didn't believe what they believed.
They produced 73% of the output. Somehow that money has to come back to them, so either directly or indirectly, they end up paying the taxes on any imports sent in payment. Even BroJoeK admits they produced 50% of the total, and on one occasion at least he has admitted they produced 60% of the total.
But the people you are arguing with don't accept your figures and don't think you understand economics, so your contributions to the discussion don't contribute much to the discussion.
More's the pity that they are economically ignorant. Also I would counsel most of their lack of understanding is somewhat explained by Upton Sinclair's observaton —
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
But with their "salary" substituted by a desire not to see something.
Northerners didn't dominate trade because of laws, but because it was their bread and butter. It was what they had to do, so they became quite good at it.
They had laws helping them, one of which was the "Navigation act of 1817", which gave them a virtual monopoly on all shipping for the nation. Read Robert Rhett's observation of what happened to Southern Ship building and shipping.
For one thing, they would keep parties that didn't like slavery out of power. For somebody always b*tch*ng about the power of the courts today, you seem oblivious to the importance of judgeships and control of Congress in the 19th century.
I b*tch about the courts making up false meanings and then forcing their bullsh*t down everybody's throat against their will. Courts that follow the laws as written are not a problem, and when the other side has total control of Congress, it is the laws that become the problem, not the "interpretation" of them.
The Northern coalition had managed to get control of congress in such a way as to enact laws that aided their financial prosperity but to the detriment of everyone else. As Kalamata likes to point out, they engaged in a great deal of "Crony Capitalism", especially regarding the rail roads, shipping and manufacturers.
I outlined in my post ways in which Republicans could weaken slavery over time - or ways in which Southern slaveowners thought the Republicans could weaken slavery. Did you just ignore all that?
I thought it was speculative and uncertain, though it is possibly valid. I've seen how the bureaucrats regulate and undermine existing social institutions in modern America, and how they have far too much power to regulate things which they ought not be able to regulate, so the idea that the Executive branch could damage groups out of favor with a thousand tiny cuts is not an unreasonable conjecture.
But I have never supported the role of the bureaucracy to do this sort of thing, and I don't think it was as bad back in that era as it is today. We had a lot fewer bureaucrats back then.
Lincoln took office in March of 1861, so the amendment was DOA from the beginning. It wasn't going to prevent secession, and the rejection of it did not mean that Southerners didn't care about slavery.
Prior to Lincoln taking office, all the slaveholding states would have voted for it. After Lincoln took office, and with pressure from him and his administration, a sufficient number of Northern states would have voted for it. As I said, Seward promised New York would ratify it, and if New York did it, it's network of satellite states would have done so as well.
So yes, the amendment had a very real chance of passing had the timing been a little different.
Again, I ask, what does your opinion or my opinion have to do with the opinions of people at the time?
You are trying to steer the conversation into the ditch. What is radical about believing that the status quo would continue if people were elected who did not threaten the status quo?