Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

” . . . unilateral unapproved declarations of secession **at pleasure**.”

Seems like I have read that expression over and over. It’s sounds so very authoritative - I’m thinking it’s probably language taken directly from the DOI but looking at my copy I can’t put my finger on it.

Flt-bird: "LOL! As if this were the first thread on the subject....as if you and I had not posted back and forth 100+ times already.
It is I who think the lady doth protest too much."

Well... lady or not, I do protest your repeated complaints about being asked to provide sources & quotes.
You are here trying to defend the Lost Cause myths that 99% of historians view as little more than self-serving revisionism.
So you start off with the disadvantage that nobody can take your opinions seriously.
The way you add weight to mere opinions is by citing the sources & quotes you took them from.

Now some of us are somewhat familiar with various arguments and have seen where they come from.
So we know sources for some arguments and may not challenge you on that at first.
But whenever you concoct something new, then we'll want to see where you got it and if all you do is blow smoke in response, we'll write it off as being nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.

You might look at it this way: a request for sources is also an offer to take your argument seriously, if the source proves legit.
That's why I keep dozens & dozens of sources, quotes & data summaries handy just in case I'm challenged on them.
Plus I know how to look up many more whenever something new comes along.

Let me put it this way: your opinions are only as valuable as the data they're based on and if you refuse to supply us sources, then your opinions, by themselves, carry no weight here.

Flt-bird: "Pure fantasy.
The majority opinion of PC Revisionist Academia today was not the majority view even within Academia a generation ago.
The “its all about slavery” mantra really got going again in the 1980s after having been dismissed as the laughable propaganda it was generations earlier."

So now you are also an expert in Civil War historiography and in intellectual trends in academia?
And you acquired this expertise where, exactly?

I'm no expert but do remember being taught as a young man that Charles Beard's "progressivism" and "economic determinism", aka Marxism, were at the root cause of Civil War.
I didn't believe it then and don't now because that's not what those people said at the time.
What they said then was slavery was their number one reason for secession.
That makes slavery important regardless of how sophisticated intellectuals with their Marxist theories might try to explain it away.

Flt-bird: "Its the pack of lies that falls under the category of PC Revisionism that is not history, never was and never will be.
Notice how its invariably the hardcore Leftists who push this line of BS?"

No, if you review the list of Civil War "schools" in my link, you'll see that the Marxists, Progressives & leftists have always emphasized economic determinism over slavery or race.

Flt-bird: "Real history are the facts and quotes and sources I’ve provided numerous times.
PC Revisionist lies and propaganda are the 'its all about slavery' and virtuous North myths."

Facts & quotes are "real history" and I've not seen those from FLT-bird.
"Schools of thought", interpretations, theories, points of view, etc., are all matters of opinions, all subject to scrutiny and revision.
Opinions unsupported by substantial "real history" are worth only the electrons used to distribute them.

By the way, one leader of the Comparative School, which does emphasize slavery, was Eugene Genovese who in the last decades of his life became a solid Southern conservative.

Here’s some facts for you about those peaceful secessionists that just wanted to be left alone.

State of Alabama: On 3 January 1861 Governor A. B. Moore directed the Alabama militia to seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal and Forts Morgan and Gaines, which controlled the entrance to Mobile Bay. The Arsenal was seized on the 4th, and the two forts a day later. Alabama didn’t succeed from the Union until 11 January.

State of Arkansas: On 8 February 1861 Arkansas militia volunteer companies seized the Little Rock Arsenal at the direction of the governor. On 6 May the Arkansas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Convention elected not to submit the Ordnance to the people of Arkansas in a referendum for their approval.

State of Florida: On 6 January 1861 the Florida militia seized the U.S. arsenal at Apalachicola, the sole Federal arsenal in the state. On 7 January the Florida militia seized Fort Marion at St. Augustine. And, on 8 January Federal troops at Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to the harbor at Pensacola, fired on a party of Florida militia who had demanded the surrender of that fort. The next day, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer gathered the 50 men in his company from Forts Barrancas and McRee, dumped 20,000 pounds of gunpowder into the bay, and spiked his guns at those two forts. With the help of sailors from the Warrington Navy Yard, he moved all of his remaining supplies across the bay to Fort Pickens, which the Federal Army retained for the balance of the war. On 10 January the Florida Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of Florida for their approval in a referendum.

State of Georgia: The Georgia Secession Convention passed its ordnance of secession on 19 January 1861 and the state withdrew from the Union. The Georgia militia seized the Augusta Arsenal on 24 January, and on the 27th Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort James Jackson at Savanah were also seized. In response to a demand from the state government for surrender of the Arsenal, Captain Arnold Elzey, the commander, had asked the War Department for instructions. Acting Secretary of War Holt had responded on 23 January that “The governor of Georgia has assumed against your post and the United States an attitude of war. His summons is harsh and preemptory. It is not expected that your defense shall be desperate. If forced to surrender by violence or starvation you will stipulate for honorable terms and a free passage by water with your company to New York.” In accordance with his instructions, Elzey made terms with Governor Brown, and his company was permitted to depart the arsenal with its arms and company property and to have unobstructed passage to New York.

State of Louisiana: The U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, was seized by the Louisiana militia on 10 January 1861, as was the U.S. Army pentagon barracks at Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Barracks [Jackson Barracks] was seized on 11 January, as were Forts St. Philip and Jackson. Between them, these two forts controlled the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans. Fort Pike, which controlled the Rigolets Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was taken on 14 January. Fort Macomb, which controlled the Chef Menteur Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was seized on 28 January. On 31 January Revenue Captain James G. Breshwood surrendered the revenue cutter Robert McClelland to the State of Louisiana; which turned the cutter over to the Confederate States Navy which renamed her CSS Pickens. On 31 January the revenue cutter Washington was seized by Louisiana authorities in New Orleans. On 26 January the Louisiana Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Louisiana for their approval.

State of Mississippi: On 9 January 1861 the Mississippi Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Mississippi for their approval. On 21 January the Mississippi militia seized Fort Massachusetts, an unfinished brick fort on Ship Island on the Mississippi coast. The fort was abandoned by the end of January because Governor Pettus had no artillery to arm it.

State of North Carolina: On 23 April 1861 the North Carolina militia seized the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville, and the Federal garrison subsequently departed on 27 April. On 20 May the North Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of North Carolina for their approval in a referendum.

State of South Carolina: On 20 December 1860 the South Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of South Carolina for their approval. On 27 December Captain Napoleon Coste turned the revenue cutter William Aiken over to South Carolina secessionists. On the same date, the South Carolina militia seized Castle Pickney, a small masonry fort in Charleston harbor. A Federal officer and a sergeant and his family were captured, provoking a discussion by the South Carolinians over whether to treat them as prisoners of war. The officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter, while the sergeant was given a safe conduct and permitted to remain in his quarters at the fort. Also on the 27th the militia seized Fort Moultrie, another of the forts guarding Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 26th. On 28 December the South Carolina militia occupied the site of Fort Johnson on Windmill Point on James Island. Although long unoccupied by the U.S. Army, it had been one of the four forts controlling Charleston harbor. On 30 December the Charleston Arsenal was seized.

State of Tennessee: On 6 May 1861 the Tennessee Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. Although the state did not formally succeed from the Union until a “declaration of independence” referendum on 8 June, Governor Isham G. Harris persuaded the legislature to create the Provisional Army of Tennessee on 6 May. The enabling legislation authorized an army of 55,000 volunteers and authorized the governor to issue $5 million in state bonds for defense and military supplies. By the end of May convicts at the state penitentiary in Nashville were manufacturing small arms cartridges and other military supplies. The 8 June referendum affirmed the Ordnance of Secession 104, 913 to 47,238. East Tennessee voted solidly Unionist, and there were reports of interference with the vote in middle and western Tennessee, however.

State of Texas: On 1 February 1861 the Texas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was submitted to the people of Texas for their approval on 23 February, with the referendum passing 46,153 to 14,747. Although Texas had not yet seceded, Major General Twiggs surrendered his forces and facilities, including the San Antonio Arsenal, at the demand of Texas authorities on 16 February. His officers and enlisted personnel were permitted to depart the state with their small arms, and the two artillery batteries under his command with four guns each.

Commonwealth of Virginia: On 17 April 1861 the Virginia Secession Convention passed the Commonwealth’s Ordnance of Secession, but there was an effort to initially suppress the announcement that the Ordnance had passed. While the Convention was meeting in secret session on the 17th, William C. Scott, the delegate from Powhatan County, said “I was told by the Adjutant General this morning that if we passed an ordinance of secession, we ought not to let it be known for a few days, because he sent for arms to the North, and he is apprehensive that they may be intercepted if it was known that the ordinance passed. Would it not be well, if we are determined to secede, to wait a little while in order that we may receive those arms from the North? We could then secede, and we would be in a much better condition to meet the enemy than we are now. This seems to be the proper course, and I trust the Convention will pursue it.” Later in the debates that day, Scott again mentioned his conversation with the Adjutant General and said “The Governor tells us this morning that if the action of this Convention is permitted to be known outside of this body, these arms will not be allowed to come here. If you send a communication of this sort to the President of the Confederate States, there will be great danger that the whole secret will leak out.” On 30 April the Convention authorized the Governor to issue $2,000,000 in treasury notes for the defense of the Commonwealth. The Ordnance of Succession was not ratified by the people of Virginia until a referendum on 23 May, wherein it passed 132,201 to 37,451. Although secession had not yet been approved by the people, the Commonwealth militia prepared to seize the Harper’s Ferry Armory. First Lieutenant Roger Jones, USA, had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry on 3 January with a company of eight non-commissioned officers and 60 enlisted men. By 18 April Rogers was in command of the post. Recognizing his utter inability to defend the armory, Jones set fire to the buildings and retreated with his troops across the Potomac River.

The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only “aggression” I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a “bitter ender” would assert that LT Slemmer’s defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was “aggression,” or that the burning of the Harper’s Ferry Armory by 1LT Jones was “aggression.”

FLT-bird: ***”Nope! THAT is a lie.
What you claim ONLY happened AFTER Lincoln started a war.
Once the war was on, the Southern states took every measure to **defend themselves**.
When they left they made no claim to any territory outside their borders.”***

As OIFVeteran’s post #483 above clearly demonstrates, Confederates waged war against the United States long before either President Buchanan or Lincoln responded militarily.

And like Central_va, you have a very, ah, odd view of “defense”, when that word includes claiming & sending armies into Union territories of New Mexico & Oklahoma, Union states of Missouri, Kentucky & West Virginia, along with invading Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana & Kansas, plus guerrillas in California, Colorado & Vermont among others.
All of that in the name of “defense”??
I don’t think so.
I think that “defense” was an existential threat to the United States which had to be destroyed, utterly.

FLT-bird: **”Nope! It is your dishonest anti historical claims that are pure nonsense.”***

So do you now utterly confess there was nothing “defensive” about Confederate invasions of the Union once war started?
Do you also confess that Confederates waged war against the United States **for months** before the Union responded — see OIFVeteran’s post #483?

Then you are being honest.
Otherwise it’s all just an exercise in misdirection & deception, FRiend.

FLT-bird: ***”This right here is pure lies, propaganda and myth.
People got very animated over differences in tariff rates, differences in federal expenditures, federal usurpation of state sovereign rights, etc.
Tariff of abominations anyone?
Nullification crisis anyone?”***

Note my words, “nobody got enraged over small differences.”
The 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” was no “small difference”, but rather two to three times the rates in 1860.
“Tariff of Abominations” were the highest rates in US history, only ever approached in peacetime by the Depression era Smoot Hawley tariffs.
In 1860 US tariffs were among the world’s lowest and were as low as they’d ever been in US history.
Nothing proposed in 1860 would do more than return US tariffs to their historical average levels.
Those were still levels accepted in the past without threats of Nullification or secession.

FLT-bird: ***”Its really funny you try to equate Republicans of 150 years ago and Democrats of 150 years ago with Republicans and Democrats today.
There is no equivalence between them.
The Republicans of 150 years ago were for big government.
The Democrats were the party of limited government and states’ rights.
The two have exactly reversed since then.
What you spout today are lies and propaganda embraced by hardcore LEFTISTS.”***

Nonsense, because Democrats, especially Southerners, in 1860 just as today, loved, loved, looooooooved Big Government, just so long as ***THEY*** ruled it.
For proof, consider that Democrat Congresses & Presidents Pierce & Buchanan DOUBLED the national debt, then doubled it again — they were as spendthrift then as Obama today!!

Democrats then only became suddenly “strict constructionists” when **out of power**.

For more proof consider the 1850 Compromise which moved responsibility for Fugitive Slaves from States to Big **Federal government**.

So, there was nothing, nothing about Big Government 1860 Democrats didn’t like, except when THEY were out of power.
Then, just as today, Democrats went berserk.

As OIFVeteran’s post #483 above clearly demonstrates, Confederates waged war against the United States long before either President Buchanan or Lincoln responded militarily.

No they didn’t.

And like Central_va, you have a very, ah, odd view of “defense”, when that word includes claiming & sending armies into Union territories of New Mexico & Oklahoma, Union states of Missouri, Kentucky & West Virginia, along with invading Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana & Kansas, plus guerrillas in California, Colorado & Vermont among others. All of that in the name of “defense”??
I don’t think so.

Uhhh yes. Once a war starts, all bets are off. Were the colonists waging a war of aggression against the British Empire? They invaded Canada. Were the Allies waging a war of aggression against the Axis? They invaded Iceland - and Iran. An aggressive defense is still defense.

I think that “defense” was an existential threat to the United States which had to be destroyed, utterly.

I believe you are wrong and that the Lincoln administration started and waged a war of aggression to impose its rule on people who did not consent to be ruled by it.

So do you now utterly confess there was nothing “defensive” about Confederate invasions of the Union once war started?

No of course not. Do you confess it was defensive for the Confederates to have an aggressive defense policy once Lincoln started the war?

Do you also confess that Confederates waged war against the United States **for months** before the Union responded — see OIFVeteran’s post #483?

No. Do you confess Lincoln started the war and waged a war of aggression?

Then you are being honest.
Otherwise it’s all just an exercise in misdirection & deception, FRiend.

Nah. It is you who is trying to engage in misdirection and deception here FRiend.

FLT-bird: ***”Rhett made the case in 1860 - though he’d been making it for years - that the federal government under the control of the Northern states was treating the Southern states exactly as the British had treated the Colonies.

“Sure pro forma, the constitution did provide a vote but when a majority can impose taxes that fall overwhelmingly on a minority and use the tax revenue to enrich themselves, they will quickly develop an appetite for ever more of that....kinda like we see with social programs today.
If the taxes are paid by a minority, the rest will just vote themselves ever more of other people’s money.”***

In theory you’re correct, in part, and that is what happens today, sometimes with a vengeance.
But historically things were different.
That’s because Washington DC became a Southern Democrat company town in 1801, with election of the “Negro President” Jefferson and his Democrat majorities in Congress.
From 1801 until secession in 1861 Democrats ruled Washington almost continuously, with Southerners the majority of their majority Democrat party.
But Southerners themselves were not always united and I can cite several examples, beginning with your “Tariff of Abominations” which was originally SUPPORTED by Southerners VP Calhoun and President Jackson.
At the same time it was OPPOSED by many New Englanders — so it was never an issue of strictly North vs. South.

Another example is your mention of Henry Clay’s “American System”.
Clay was a Southern born slaveholding plantation owner with no interest, none, nada, in aggrandizing the North at the South’s expense.
What Clay certainly did want was to, ahem, “put Americans first” and, ah, “make America great” by encouraging US manufacturing North, South and West.
And your problem with that is what, exactly?

Even in 1860, when modest Morrill Tariff increases passed the House (but not the Senate) the reason was less to do with loss of Southern majorities than with disunion amongst Southerners.
Just as some Northerners opposed Morrill, some Southerners supported it, or abstained from voting.
So the “Solid South” was far from solid in 1860.

That was the real issue, regardless of how Robert Rhett tried to spin it.
Indeed, that real issue became obvious when only the Deep South declared secession before Fort Sumter and Border Slave States refused to secede even after Confederates formally declared war on the United States.

Do you disagree?

Well... lady or not, I do protest your repeated complaints about being asked to provide sources & quotes.

And I protest the repeated trolling your side tries to engage in.

You are here trying to defend the Lost Cause myths that 99% of historians view as little more than self-serving revisionism.

You are here trying to defend PC Revisionism that 99% of historians before the current crop of Leftists viewed as little more than self serving wartime propaganda.

So you start off with the disadvantage that nobody can
take your opinions seriously. The way you add weight to mere opinions is by citing the sources & quotes you took them from.

Nah it is you who starts off with the disadvantage and who cannot be taken seriously here. You have aligned yourself with hardcore Leftist historical revisionists even though you claim to be conservative. You are obviously nothing of the sort.

Now some of us are somewhat familiar with various arguments and have seen where they come from. So we know sources for some arguments and may not challenge you on that at first.
But whenever you concoct something new, then we’ll want to see where you got it and if all you do is blow smoke in response, we’ll write it off as being nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions.

Yes and I’m familiar with the drivel you PC Revisionists have been spewing in Academia since the 1980s. I’ve seen the usual BS from the usual Leftist sources and unsubstantiated claims. I am used to your side’s standard tactics.

You might look at it this way: a request for sources is also an offer to take your argument seriously, if the source proves legit.

LOL! You’ve been presented those sources umpteen times already. Lemme give you a tip. You are never going to sit in judgment here. You are never going to send me on a wild goose chase to try to satisfy some standard you determine wasting huge amounts of time when due to your bias of course, the standard can never be satisfied. I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen trolling before and know how it works.

That’s why I keep dozens & dozens of sources, quotes & data summaries handy just in case I’m challenged on them.

Yes, I do too.

Plus I know how to look up many more whenever something new comes along.

Ditto.

Let me put it this way: your opinions are only as valuable as the data they’re based on and if you refuse to supply us sources, then your opinions, by themselves, carry no weight here.

You’ve been supplied facts quotes and sources - a wide variety of sources - scores of times. We both know you will never admit that ANY Source presented that refutes your dogma will ever be deemed acceptable. If you cannot challenge its credibility, you will simply pivot to claiming its “cherry picked” or “irrelevant”. You will do anything to avoid admitting you were ever wrong about anything.

So now you are also an expert in Civil War historiography and in intellectual trends in academia? And you acquired this expertise where, exactly?

You don’t have to be an expert to read. I’ve read up on this topic quite a lot. As for my credentials, I don’t care to engage in some internet dick measuring contest over claimed credentials that none of us can actually verify. That’s just a waste of time.

I’m no expert but do remember being taught as a young man that Charles Beard’s “progressivism” and “economic determinism”, aka Marxism, were at the root cause of Civil War.I didn’t believe it then and don’t now because that’s not what those people said at the time.

Charles Beard was correct that both sides were really motivated by money - as people pretty much always are - no matter what grand noble cause they claim is their motivation.

What they said then was slavery was their number one reason
for secession. That makes slavery important regardless of how sophisticated intellectuals with their Marxist theories might try to explain it away.

They cited the Northern states violation of the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. They were correct - that was a violation of the constitution. That however, was a pretext. It was said by many at the time - including many Northerners that it was a pretext and the fact that the Southern states were offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and turned it down shows that protection of slavery was obviously not their motivation.

No, if you review the list of Civil War “schools” in my link, you’ll see that the Marxists, Progressives & leftists have always emphasized economic determinism over slavery or race.

No. Howard Zinn, James McPherson and the rest of the 1960’s Leftists who came to prominence in Academia in the 1980s were the ones who put forth the whole PC Revisionist “it was all about slavery” dogma. They and those like them are unabashed Leftists. Go to any Liberal Arts faculty today and you can see that they are overwhelmingly hardcore Lefties.

Facts & quotes are “real history” and I’ve not seen those from FLT-bird.

Then you’ve simply refused to look because I have provided them umpteen times including in this thread.

“Schools of thought”, interpretations, theories, points of view, etc., are all matters of opinions, all subject to scrutiny and revision. Opinions unsupported by substantial “real history” are worth only the electrons used to distribute them.

So you admit you cling to PC Revisionist dogma put forth in Academia by hardcore Leftists in the last generation. YOu’d have saved a lot of time if you had just said that from the start.

Here’s some facts for you about those peaceful secessionists that just wanted to be left alone.

blah blah blah

The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only “aggression” I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a “bitter ender” would assert that LT Slemmer’s defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was “aggression,” or that the burning of the Harper’s Ferry Armory by 1LT Jones was “aggression.”

They seized military and governmental installations within their states’ sovereign borders. How is this any different from what the Colonists did in 1775?

You DO remember that right? It all started in 1775 BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was issued.

Note my words, “nobody got enraged over small differences.”
The 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” was no “small difference”, but rather two to three times the rates in 1860.
“Tariff of Abominations” were the highest rates in US history, only ever approached in peacetime by the Depression era Smoot Hawley tariffs.

I’m gonna stop you right here. The Morill Tariff would immediately have doubled tariff rates and everybody knew this was only the first step...the same Northern business interests that got this passed would be back for more. Indeed that is exactly what happened. Tariff rates were more than TRIPLED over what they had been in 1860 and let in place until well into the 20th century.

In 1860 US tariffs were among the world’s lowest and were as low as they’d ever been in US history.

They were far higher than for example, Britain’s tariff rates. They were also far higher than the tariff rate the Southern states would set if free to set their own rates....which is why they specified in the Confederate Constitution that only a revenue ie max 10% tariff would be allowed rather than a protective tariff. The Walker tariff rate was 17%. At least double the rate the CSA wanted.

Nonsense, because Democrats, especially Southerners, in 1860 just as today, loved, loved, looooooooved Big Government, just so long as ***THEY*** ruled it.

For proof, consider that Democrat Congresses & Presidents Pierce & Buchanan DOUBLED the national debt, then doubled it again — they were as spendthrift then as Obama today!!

False! It was the Republicans then who were for more federal power at the expensive of states, who were for more corporate welfare and federal spending, who were for higher taxes, etc. The Southern states at the time were against all these things (and still are today). Just look at their ante bellum state budgets. Look at the fact that the Confederate constitution severely restricted the general welfare clause, had numerous measures to control spending, required a balanced budget, and set the maximum tariff rate at 10%. If we were to take those positions through to today, those are MUCH MORE aligned with today’s Republican party. That would all be anathema to today’s Democrat party.

Democrats then only became suddenly “strict constructionists” when **out of power**.

For more proof consider the 1850 Compromise which moved responsibility for Fugitive Slaves from States to Big **Federal government**.

That was the deal struck because the Northern states were violating the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution. Then just as now, both sides were quite willing to be hypocritical or to eschew principle if by doing so they could get their way, stick it to their political enemies etc. That should not surprise anybody. As I’ve said before, neither side was noble, righteous and pure. Neither side had clean hands. Both sides then (as now) were only too happy to screw over their political enemies.

So, there was nothing, nothing about Big Government 1860 Democrats didn’t like, except when THEY were out of power.
Then, just as today, Democrats went berserk.

There I disagree entirely. The Southern states and the Democrat party were at that time FAR MORE inclined to support limited government, balanced budgets, less federal spending, lower taxes and more decentralized power. The Republicans at the time were against all of that. The two parties have completely flipped on those broad positions in the last 150 years.

In theory you’re correct, in part, and that is what happens today, sometimes with a vengeance.
But historically things were different.
That’s because Washington DC became a Southern Democrat company town in 1801, with election of the “Negro President” Jefferson and his Democrat majorities in Congress.
From 1801 until secession in 1861 Democrats ruled Washington almost continuously, with Southerners the majority of their majority Democrat party.

Things were not different. People have always been only too happy to vote themselves other people’s money.

To say the South dominated the federal government until 1861 or that Washington DC was a SOUTHERN Democrat company town is ridiculous. The South was always in the minority. Sure the Democrats weren’t but there were plenty of Northern Democrats. The Federalist party and later Whigs and later Republicans were overwhelmingly Northerners. The North had more people and thus more representatives from the start. That only grew over time.

But Southerners themselves were not always united and I can cite several examples, beginning with your “Tariff of Abominations” which was originally SUPPORTED by Southerners VP Calhoun and President Jackson.
At the same time it was OPPOSED by many New Englanders — so it was never an issue of strictly North vs. South.

Agreed. There were divisions until Southerners got a good look at what the high tariffs did to their economies. Once they saw that, they were extremely opposed. Conversely, once Northern Manufacturers saw how they could raise prices and still gain market share when tariffs were sky high, they were clamoring for high tariffs even moreso from that point on.

Another example is your mention of Henry Clay’s “American System”. Clay was a Southern born slaveholding plantation owner with no interest, none, nada, in aggrandizing the North at the South’s expense.

What Clay certainly did want was to, ahem, “put Americans first” and, ah, “make America great” by encouraging US manufacturing North, South and West. And your problem with that is what, exactly?

Its true Clay did not have a sectional interest. The problem was the economies of the regions developed very differently (manufacturing in the North was relatively minor early in the 19th century but became very important by the mid 19th century). By the mid 19th century a high tariff was seen by everybody as doing great harm to the Southern states and providing great benefit to the Northern states....particularly New England and the Upper Midwest which were more industrialized.

Even in 1860, when modest Morrill Tariff increases passed the House (but not the Senate) the reason was less to do with loss of Southern majorities than with disunion amongst Southerners.

I wouldn’t call an immediate doubling of tariff rates “modest”.

Just as some Northerners opposed Morrill, some Southerners supported it, or abstained from voting. So the “Solid South” was far from solid in 1860.

The Upper South though not as industrialized as the North was relatively much more industrialized than the Deep South. As a result they were not as opposed to the high tariffs.....and gee lookie here. They stayed in initially. That was not a coincidence. Economics drives politics.

That was the real issue, regardless of how Robert Rhett tried to spin it. Indeed, that real issue became obvious when only the Deep South declared secession before Fort Sumter and Border Slave States refused to secede even after Confederates formally declared war on the United States.

Uhh....as I said above both sides were motivated primarily by economics/money. People almost always are. MONEY is what about 90% of all wars are about.

And others who knew Lincoln’s resupply plan thought it had a good chance of success. The plan was: resupply under cover of night & fog using small boats. Then Confederate gunners couldn’t hit what they couldn’t see.

First of all, the plan REQUIRED the small boats carried by the Powhatan. Porter makes specific mention that none of the boats on the Powhatan were serviceable, and in any case the Powhatan went to Pensacola to start the war there. Second of all, the Confederates had set up fire barges in the channels, and they were to keep them burning all night. The shells were ranged such that they could burst canister over the tops of the small boats, and kill everyone beneath them. Also the Confederate guns could burst shells over the landing area set to unload supplies.

Anderson had sent all this information to Washington in his dispatches. The only person that thought the plan was workable was Gustavus Fox. Everyone else thought it was insane.

And it wasn't a "resupply" mission. You don't send warships to "supply" something, you send cargo ships. Warships made it a war mission.

Secession was never lawfully certified by the United States.

Nor Great Britain.

Well.. of course if you are allowed to put words in Lincoln’s mouth he never said and motives in his heart he never expressed, then,,, then I can put all kinds of juicy words & motives on, let’s say, Jefferson Davis, how would you like that?

Don't care. Jefferson Davis never had control of whether or not there was going to be a war. Only Lincoln had that control.

Those orders originated with Seward and Lincoln said it was a screwup.

A particularly miraculous screwup that kept all his ships from being destroyed and gave him the excuse to start the war he wanted and needed anyway.

Only example of which I am aware that the master politician ever made such a bungled screwup.

As a political tactic, this "screwup" was perfect. Absolutely perfect.

FLT-bird: "Only about 6% of the population of the Southern states owned slaves.
Even at the ridiculously claimed 25% of families PC Revisionists have tried to extrapolate that out to conveniently ignoring that more than one family member frequently was a slave owner, that’s still a relatively small percentage of the population that owned slaves."

Seriously, can you even be honest about this topic?
If you could be honest, you'd confess the truth which is that slave ownership varied from very small and declining percentages in Border South states to much higher and growing percentages in Deep South states.
What were those percentages, exactly?
Well, that depends on how you count, but if you figure even a modest sized average slaveholding family, then some Deep South states came in at just under 50% slaveholders.

Sure, you want us to believe that some families had more than one slaveholder, that's fine, but there were many others -- i.e., singles or young married couples getting started -- who fully intended to purchase slaves as soon as they could afford them.
In other words, they were just as committed to the slavocracy as any large plantation owner.

But the bottim line is this: whatever percentage of slaveholders you chose was absolutely correct in some places and very wrong in others.

The rough estimate of 25% came first from Confederate soldiers themselves as to how many of their fellow soldiers came from slaveholding families.

FLT-bird: "The vast majority were not animated by something they never had.
What they were motivated by though were tariffs they overwhelmingly had to pay in order to drive up the price of manufactured goods which they didn’t make and then to add insult to injury, seeing most of the money the tariff raised lavished on the very people who had voted to drive up the price of the manufactured goods which they but not Southerners produced."

Some scholars have studied collections of Civil War soldiers' letters and found that many discuss slavery.
None discussed tariffs.

Further, your total economic argument about "Southern taxes paid for Northern benefits" is contradicted by both common sense and the facts of history.

Common sense: Democrats ruled Washington and Southerners ruled Democrats, so no spending or taxes passed without Southern approval.
Facts of history: Actual Federal spending summarized by category and Free States vs. slave states.

The historical fact is that Southerners did not pay more than their "fair share" and did not receive less than their "fair share" from Washington, DC, regardless what Fire Eater propagandists like Robert Rhett claimed.

Once again, here is that graphic showing which cities paid how much to Federal Revenues:

When Democrats have spent generations building their power and their nests in Washington, it drives them berserk to be suddenly thrown out.

When tax and spend, wealthy Urban Liberals who have strong influence with the government protectionist policies, spent decades building their power and their nest in Washington, it drives them berserk to suddenly lose control of the people whom they were taxing for their benefit.

That is why the Wealthy Liberal Urban power brokers launched a war against those states who had gotten out from under their financial control.

What other reason would anyone want to continue associating with those D@mn slave states?

Invading the south in order to free the slaves was.

But they weren't doing that. They were invading it to force it to continue paying the vast bulk of all the taxes that Washington DC was spending, mostly in the North.

The U.S. Declaration lays out sound justification of secession.

It also specifies that "justification" is not necessary. Loss of "Consent" is the only requirement. People keep latching on to the list of grievances as justification, but the clear text says these were only listed out of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..." not because the right to independence required rationalization.

This kind of reasoning applies, maybe, to Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia, the U.K. relative to the E.U., and maybe to Alberta and the red states of the U.S. They may apply to Crimea and some counties in east Ukraine.

And it applied to the Southern states as well. They had a greater population than did the Colonies when they seceded from England.

Nobody should be held in subjugation. Not any race, nor any people.

No, the Southerners should not have been holding people and forcing them to work for them, but as Lincoln said, "One war at a time." It hardly teaches the lesson that people should not be subjugated by enforcing subjugation on the South by the North. What it teaches is that subjugation is okay if you have the power to do so, which is essentially the foundation of slavery.

The progressive socialists want to subjugate us. They brazenly express their hatred of us. Their culture is increasingly alien. It is some kind of paganistic, atheistic, anti-scientific, utopian nightmare. They are rapidly marginalizing us and we might have to disentangle ourselves from them.

The possibility that we might separate from them and let them perish in their insanity is one of the several reasons I decided to take a second look at this concept of secession. What I learned is that the right to independence ought to be available to people who no longer consent to being ruled over by people who hate them and abuse them. The slavery issue clouds the underlying right of independence, because it has so successfully been propagandized as a war for freedom of the slaves, and what moral person could oppose that?

It was only after looking more closely at it that I realized this wasn't in fact true, and that we had been misled and lied to about how the war started and why.

It was a war about economic dominance, and to insure that Washington DC and it's Acela corridor influence peddlers would continue to reap huge profits and maintain control over all American commerce.

The war was started to benefit the same Aristocratic ruling class that currently dominates the nation today. The war was about money, but was successfully rebranded as a war about freedom, to cover up the reality of why people were being sent to die to put federal chains on people who didn't want them.

“no first use of force*

It does not say that. It says "if you are opposed."

Opposition can be anything, such as sinking those ships in the channel to prevent them from sending boats up it.

It can be stringing chains across the entrance. It is any form of opposition and it is not limited to the confederates firing at them.

Anything which the confederates would do to interfere with their effort to put supplies in the fort would have been "opposition" and would have triggered the use of "force" to complete the mission of reinforcing the fort.

What is actually hilarious is the fact that the mission was impossible even with no opposition whatsoever. According to Fox, the Powhatan's small boats were absolutely necessary to convey the supplies, and according to Porter, not a single one of those small boats the Powhatan carried would float.

The only way Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing was if he only intended the expedition in force to start a war, because that was the only thing it was capable of doing.

This post is a bit dizzying.

Once again, here is that graphic showing which cities paid how much to Federal Revenues:

Incorrect. The graphic shows which cities were *COLLECTING* the money, but the South was paying 75-85% of it. As I keep telling you, the laws were jiggered to funnel almost all import traffic into New York where the Robber Baron crony capitalists who controlled Washington DC could get their cut.

The South was paying for the vast bulk of the European trade, but the money was funneled into New York.