Here are the tariff numbers I go by.
You will note: overall tariffs
Once Civil War began, then Union tariffs were further increased, reaching 36% in 1865 and 45% in 1870 -- but these obviously had nothing to do with causing Deep South secession.
PeaRidge: "By comparison, the confederate tariff adopted in May 1861 had an average rate of just over 13%."
According to this source, the Confederates' ad velorum duty rate was 15%, but included new tariffs imposed on "imports" from the Union, which effectively meant Southerners would pay more tariffs than ever before!
PeaRidge: "It was critically important to Northern manufacturing and consumers that the Morrill tariff was 40% higher and would drive European trade through Southern ports."
You obviously intend to suggest that Northern fears of Confederate tariff rates caused Lincoln to provoke war by resupplying Fort Sumter, right?
One problem with that idea is: Confederates did not pass their new lower tariff rate (March 15) until after Lincoln had already announced (March 4) his policy to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government".
So Lincoln's policy was not based on Confederate tariffs, but rather on his oath of office as President.
Yes, Lincoln was willing to trade a fort (Sumter) for a state (Virginia), but no such offer was ever accepted.
PeaRidge: "Actually they [highest rates of 45%] came five years before then", meaning in 1865.
According to this source, Union tariffs rose from 36% in 1865 to peak at 48% in 1868, then to 45% in 1870.
PeaRidge on the 1860 Morrill vote: "The sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border states, and 1–39 in the south.
Had everyone in the South and border states voted against it, it would still carry."
In fact, there were more than enough votes among Southerners and/or Democrats to defeat Morrill in 1860.
First, eight Border and Southern representatives voted for Morrill, along with seven Northern Democrats.
Those 15 votes alone would change the overall vote from 105 versus 64 to 90 for and 79 against, meaning opponents would need only 12 more votes to defeat Morrill.
Second, those 12 final votes to defeat Morrill could easily have come from among 21 Southerners and 12 Northern Democrats who abstained from voting.
By contrast, only 13 Republicans abstained.
That's why I say Morrill could have been defeated in 1860 if Southerners and Democrats had been solidly opposed.
But they were not.
PeaRidge: "Wrong again."
Right again.
PeaRidge: "Wrong again and again....this is boring."
Right again and again... and your repeated DeNiles are worse than boring.
PeaRidge quoting Texas Senator Wigfall: "Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote."
First and foremost it's important to remember that Secessionist Fire-Eaters engineered the Democrats' election defeat in 1860, by splitting their party in two, thus guaranteeing victory for minority "Black Republicans", and giving Fire-Eaters the justification they needed for secession.
A leader among Fire-Eaters was none other than Texas Senator Louis Wigfall.
So your quote above simply shows Wigfall decrying conditions that he himself hoped-for and helped engineer to justify secession.
In a five-month period in 1840, Wigfall managed to get into a fistfight, two duels, three near-duels, and was charged, but not indicted, for killing a man.
He later (Dec. 1860) co-authored the Southern Manifesto of southern Senators and Reps by which they denounced any farther attempts at compromise and urged immediate secession. Oddly enough, no mention of tariff rates or really any other reason for secession was mentioned, though the references to "the slave-holding states" implies there just may be some connection between the Peculiar Institution and southern grievances.
http://southernmanifesto.blogspot.com/
Also ran across what is far and away the most comprehensive timeline of the Civil War I've ever seen. Very useful.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/civilwar.html