Doubtless he wasn't the person and this wasn't the moment to make such an observation. But wasn't the German more or less right about slavery and secession?
I apologized meekly for my ignorance, on the grounds that my ancestors had come from England to Virginia in 1608, and, in the short intervening period of two hundred fifty-odd years, had found no time to convey to me correct ideas of the duties of American citizenship. Moreover, my grandfather, commanding the 9th Virginia regiment in our Revolutionary army, had assisted in the defeat and capture of the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton, and I lamented that he had not, by association with these worthies, enlightened his understanding. My friend smiled blandly, and assured me of his willingness to instruct me...."
Is there anything noteworthy in the way that Taylor thinks his bloodline is a counterargument? Wouldn't some find him in his own way as supercilious or pompous as the German?
I won't hold Taylor's brief association with the Know-Nothings against him -- though some would attack him for it had he been a Unionist -- or his later support for the Democrats.
But it is worth noting that Dick Taylor's uncle, General Joseph Pannill Taylor served with the Union Army, as did Dick's cousin, Colonel Joseph Hancock Taylor.
One of Dick's brothers-in-law had been Jefferson Davis. The other was William Wallace Smith Bliss who Ft. Bliss was named after.
Why didn't Dick follow his uncle and cousin and fight on the Union side?
Maybe it was Lousiana, where he settled, or the creole family he married into.
More likely, Harvard and Yale, where he went to school, had something to do with it.
Given the North's successful resort to ad baculum, the offer of instruction/argumentation appears superfluous.
FWIW, I have read (but not confirmed through research) that one of the textbooks used at West Point acknowledged the propriety of secession under certain circumstances. Perhaps another observer could offer more insight (and citations) on this point.