Replies

This, however was not the view of some of the Southern States which chose to withdraw from the Union. Their belief was that a Republican controlled House and Senate in unison with a Republican President would, at some point in time, take action to end slavery as it existed in 1860. The only avenue left, in their view, was to withdraw beyond the power of the Federal Government. Hence, secession was the answer to allay their fears.

I can see Lincoln using his "Pen and Telegraph" to enact executive orders that would interfere with it, but I cannot see how the President or the Congress could do anything more than rail about it. No concrete changes could have been enacted.

The Southern reps were not stupid, so I'm finding it hard to grasp how they could have seen an actual threat to their peculiar institution.

I have read others allege and I lean toward's the view that agitation to secede because of slavery was just a means to cover up their real reasons for leaving, which were financial gain.

As the Boston Transcript noted on March 18, 1861:

now the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports . . . by a revenue system verging on free trade. . . . The government would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against.

The difference in sentiment between the North and the South about slavery was a convenient wedge issue to achieve the results they sought in obtaining commercial independence. This is not so remarkable when you noticed Thomas Jefferson said something similar years before.

Six years later the territorial legislature of Missouri asked for admission. The House of Representatives in Washington approved, but attached an amendment requiring that Missouri phase out slavery after statehood. The Senate balked at such a stipulation. . . . Jefferson saw Northern sectionalism conspiring to keep additional Southern states out of the Union. The question of slavery carried with it, according to the former president, “just enough semblance of morality to throw dust into the eyes of the people, and to fanaticize them; while with the knowing ones it is simply a question of power.” (Cisco, Taking A Stand, p. 59)

And

The Missouri question is a mere party trick. The leaders of Federalism, defeated in their schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans to the principle of monarchism . . . have changed their tack and thrown out another barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage of the virtuous feelings of the people to effect a division of parties by a geographical line. They expect that this will ensure them, on local principles, the majority that they could never obtain on principles of Federalism.(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Pinckney, September 20, 1820; cf. Robert Catlett Cave, The Men In Gray, Crawfordville, Georgia: Ruffin Flag Company, 1997, reprint of original edition, p. 134)

I am not going to repost the documents issued by GA,SC,MS and TX explaining their reasoning for secession. You have read them. They go to great lengths to point out a perceived threat to slavery. Finances are barely mentioned in only two of those documents and not at all in the other two.
You may choose to ignore the written thoughts of the men responsible for secession and prefer the thoughts of men that had nothing to do with secession opining of issues decades before.
The way I read those documents, a strong belief, that in the future, Lincoln and the Republican, would act against slavery was the prime motivations for their actions.

DiogenesLamp: "The Southern reps were not stupid, so I'm finding it hard to grasp how they could have seen an actual threat to their peculiar institution."

Southerners certainly didn't see existential threats to slavery in the 1840s when Fire Eaters first began campaigning for secession.
And they didn't in 1850 when Fire Eater activity reached a peak before the 1850 Compromise.
And they still didn't in 1856 when Democrats united to elect Doughfaced Northerner James Buchanan President.

So in 1860 Fire Eaters tried a different strategy.
First they split apart their national Democrat party, North vs. South, based on what?
Split over tariffs?
No, they split apart, North vs. South, over slavery.

With Democrats now guaranteed defeat in 1860 Fire Eaters next announced that if "Black Republicans" won, Fire Eaters would declare secession on that account alone.
Secession over tariffs? No.
Secession over "Northeastern power brokers"? No.
Secession over "European money flows"? No.
No, in 1860 Fire Eaters announced they'd declare secession if "Black Republicans" won, secession to protect slavery, period.

And that's just what they did.

DiogenesLamp: "I have read others allege and I lean toward's the view that agitation to secede because of slavery was just a means to cover up their real reasons for leaving, which were financial gain. "

And right here is where your lust for historical fantasies overcomes all semblance of good judgment -- because even a smidgen of common sense would tell you that even if the "top 1%" were motivated by power and money, the vast 90%+ were motivated by just what they said -- slavery -- and that's what made it happen.

I'm saying the unique motives of those "top 1%" are irrelevant if they differed from the other 90+% because without the majority support no secession could happen.

So what's important here is not that some in the "top 1%" may have cynically taken advantage of the slavery issue for their own financial advantage.
Rather, the important point is that the vast majority of Deep South voters did believe slavery was threatened in 1860 by "Black Republicans".