Marine Corp Commandant order Confederate items removed from bases.

Interesting stats, thanks.

Clearly it wasn’t. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US. If anybody thought it was, the Northern dominated congress passed and the president signed and Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment which would have expressly protected slavery by constitutional amendment.

The big objection the Southern States had to the Republican Party platform was that as a regional party, it wanted high protectionist tariffs that would benefit Northern industry at the South’s expense. They had already seen how damaging high tariffs were to them during the Tariff of Abominations a generation earlier.

This was expressed by Georgia Senator Robert Tombs: On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the “infamous Morrill bill.” The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which “the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists.” Toombs described this coalition as “the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South.” Anti-tariff sentiments also appeared in Georgia’s Secession Declaration of January 29, 1861.

There were plenty of others expressing similar sentiments.

“Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.” ——Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton

[To a Northern Congressman] “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions.” Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas

“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate

From the days of the illustrious Henry onwards, the South had generally stood in the way of the Northern goal to make such an unjust system of taxation permanent. According to John Taylor of Virginia, a high protective tariff system, like that which existed in Great Britain, was “undoubtedly the best which has ever appeared for extracting money from the people; and commercial restrictions, both upon foreign and domestick commerce, are its most effectual means for accomplishing this object. No equal mode of enriching the party of government, and impoverishing the party of people, has ever been discovered.” Nevertheless, the North clung tenaciously to its protectionist policy and managed to push through the tariff legislation of 1828 which provoked South Carolina to resistance to the general Government and nearly to secession from the Union during the Administration of Andrew Jackson. It should be noted that, by 1828, the public debt was near to extinction and, at the current rate of taxation on imported goods, a twelve to thirteen million dollar annual surplus would have been created in the Treasury. Thus, the excuse for a high tariff system as a source of Government revenue was a flimsy one at best; the so-called “Tariff of Abomination” really served no other purpose than to “rob and plunder nearly one half of the Union, for the benefit of the residue.” James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:

This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.

This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this.

George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, “If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation.” While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities.

Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters.

Robert Barnwell Rhett:
The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city.

In a letter to the Carolina Times in 1857, Representative Laurence Keitt wrote, “I believe that the safety of the South is only in herself.” James H. Hammond likewise stated in 1858, “I have no hesitation in saying that the Plantation States should discard any government that makes a protective tariff its policy.”

What exactly would you accept as proof that the Southern states exercised their sovereign right to secede due to their economic interests? It seems their own statements and declarations do not carry any weight with you. Nor does the North’s express offer of slavery forever by constitutional amendment if they would agree to return.

There is no amount of evidence that would change your mind.

Those slaves were the property of Lee’s wife Mary until they were freed. She was Custis’ heir.

Julia Dent Grant owned those slaves and repeatedly in her own words called them “my slaves”. Don’t know how much more clear it can be.

I’ve posted the exact numbers from the 1860 US census for you. Feel free to argue with the Census.

There used to be a FReeper named ‘stand watie’. I met him once. Hasn’t been around for a while.

Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.

Then why did southern leaders say it was?

He’s still here - under a new name.

The express reservations of the various states of their sovereign right to secede shows quite clearly what the states were agreeing to - and what they were not agreeing to - when they ratified the constitution.

Under the Comity principle, every state has equal rights. So if New York and Virginia have the right to secede, then every state has the right to secede....and they do. They never agreed to surrender that right.

The Southern states said the Northern states had violated the fugitive slave clause of the constitution - which they clearly had.

This was unconstitutional. This gave them a great argument for saying (correctly) that the Northern states had violated the compact between the states.

No matter how much they hated it, unequal treatment due to tariffs and unequal federal expenditures was not unconstitutional. Violating the fugitive slave clause of the constitution WAS unconstitutional.

If it was “all about slavery”, why did the North offer and why did the South reject explicit protection of slavery by constitutional amendment?.....ie the Corwin Amendment.

I don’t need to argue with the Census since my numbers correspond with the numbers posted by the Census as shown in this historical illustration: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_slave_distribution.pdf

Distinction without a difference.

"Cherokees! The President of the United States has sent me, with a powerful army, to cause you, in obedience to the Treaty of 1835, to join that part of your people who are already established in prosperity, on the other side of the Mississippi. . . . The full moon of May is already on the wane, and before another shall have passed away, every Cherokee man, woman and child . . . must be in motion to join their brethren in the far West." - General Winfield Scott, who oversaw the government eradication of American Indians from the south, later, a General in the Union Army

The same government, the same actors. Defend it however suits your needs. In the American Indians' case, the discovery of gold on their land being the reason for the federal government's human continental cattle drive.

They never agreed to surrender that right.

By ratifying a constitution that omitted a provision for unilateral secession they did agree to "surrender that right".

Here ya go. Feel free to argue with this. This is where the numbers came from.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.html

If it was “all about slavery”, why did the North offer and why did the South reject explicit protection of slavery by constitutional amendment?.....ie the Corwin Amendment.

Because they were hotheads and "Fire-eaters"? They chose poorly.

But that makes no sense. Slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. Everything they wanted!...offered up freely by the Northern States....Right?

No they didn’t. Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Read the 10th amendment.

“later, a General in the Union Army.”

Operative word here is “later”. Scott was a general in the United States Army the time this was written.

Slave owners in 1860 made a lot of noise but very little sense.

Your position is irrational. They were offered what they supposedly wanted. Nobody chooses a bloody and expensive war over accepting an offer for what they wanted right up front.

The rebels tried that ruse - it didn’t work out so well.

Congress holds the authority to create and modify states (with certain reservations). It therefore follows that the entity to allow negotiated separation (secession) would be the Congress as well.