As I said, two did offer up some financial arguments, but they paled in comparison to the slave issue. Include Arkansas statements before the secession vote. They include a substantial argument for the protection of slavery from the black republicans and Lincoln. The primary reason for seceding by four of the first 7 states to do so was slavery. That is what they wrote. I would consider that more apropos to the discussion than a letter written 40 years before or TJs opinion some years before that. But suit your self.
Now I think that is a matter of interpretation. People see what they want to see. To the people intent on justifying the war because the South had practiced legal slavery in the Union for "four score and seven years", it is important to play up the slavery issue, but to people who see it as a financial struggle between the existing power structure and the challenger of it, the financial arguments seem more important.
I would consider that more apropos to the discussion than a letter written 40 years before...
I don't know what you are referring to here.
...or TJs opinion some years before that. But suit your self.
TJ's opinion is relevant because he perceived the issue as a smoke screen for a larger power struggle behind the scenes. I've come to look at this issue with this same concept in mind.
I cannot reconcile how a Northern congress could pass the Corwin Amendment while claiming to be against slavery. It doesn't stand to reason if you believe morality is the force behind what they did, but it makes perfect sense if you look at it as a fight over money.