[LS]

Well, the message to take from the nullification controversy is that here was the BIGGEST example of the negative impact of the tariff . . . and yet ONLY South Carolina got upset, and even then, not enough to secede. (Note that had the South seceded in 1829-32, there was no way Jackson would have had enough troops to attain victory.)

But the tariff was NOT the issue that concerned southerners---oh, it was a pain in the rectum, but nothing serious enough to fight over. But SLAVERY . . . well, that was different. The "Tariff of Abominations" shows clearly that the tariff was NOT the issue that cause the South to secede.

[GOPcapitalist]

Well, the message to take from the nullification controversy is that here was the BIGGEST example of the negative impact of the tariff . . . and yet ONLY South Carolina got upset, and even then, not enough to secede.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Anger over the Tariff of Abominations extended throughout the south even if the other states did not take the step South Carolina did with nullification. It is silly to complain that it was "not enough to secede" over when in fact South Carolina pushed the issue to the verge of secession before the tariff supporters in Congress caved and agreed to the 1833 Compromise tariff.

The "Tariff of Abominations" shows clearly that the tariff was NOT the issue that cause the South to secede.

That's absurd. Excepting of the Civil War itself, the nullification crisis was the closest any state had ever come to seceding! And they probably would have had the tariff supporters in Congress not caved.