>>>However over half the 90 Southern representatives voted for the Morrill Tariff, or abstained, or played hookey. That’s why Morill passed the House . . . The Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any Southern Declaration of Causes of Secession.<<<
Read very carefully:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. “ — from the Georgia Declaration of Causes, Jan 29, 1861
“It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.” - Mississippi Causes of Secession, Jan 9, 1861
“On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost.” - South Carolina Secession Causes, Dec 24, 1860.
>>>”All the rest is just Neo-Confederate Lost Causer nonsense, pal.”<<<
What on earth is a “Neo-Confederate”, pal? Sounds like liberal Yankee talk, to me (e.g., like “Neo-Conservative”). Either you believe the South was justified in secession, or you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence. Sure, Lincoln name-dropped the Declaration on occasion, but he was no more sincere than William Jefferson Clinton when Clinton declared the Democrat party to be the “Party of Jefferson”.
Note: Thomas Jefferson was darn-near an anti-Federalist, in that he had little trust in the federal government. He was the founder of the first Republican Party (an anti-big-government party). He and James Madison founded the National Gazette, an anti-big-government newspaper. Philip Freneau was hired as the Editor. Freneau’s greatest work, and one of the greatest political articles of all time, in my opinion, is the 1792 editorial satire titled, “Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one”. Read at: http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRENEAUbanking.html
I did.
Neither the word "Morrill" nor the word "tarriff" appears in any of the secession documents that I've seen, or that you quoted.
And all of the other Southern complaints, without exception, are minor issues, easily resolved by Congress's most powerful single voting block -- the South -- through negotiations with other Representatives.
Furthermore, the South had an absolute LOCK on the Senate -- nothing could pass the Senate over the South's objections.
There was simply no reason besides slavery for secession -- and the proof of that is: the South never seceded, or seriously threatened it, until the South feared slavery's future would be restricted, or even eliminated by the just-elected Republican president.
Every other "reason for secession" was added on afterwards.
They don't amount to a hill of beans, and they are not the real reason.
Slavery was the real reason.
Neo-Confederate Lost Causer -- does that not refer to you?
Or which part of it do you object to -- "Neo-Confederate" or "Lost Causer"?
Seems to me that anyone such as yourself who takes the trouble to post pro-Confederate arguments would not necessarily object to being correctly labeled a "Neo-Confederate" or "Lost Causer" -- or am I missing something here?
As for "Neo-Conservative" -- where have I heard that term used before?
And exactly what does it mean? Is it always a slur, or only sometimes?
PhilipFreneau: "Either you believe the South was justified in secession, or you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence."
Ha! Nice try, pal -- that sentence pretty well defines the word "non-sequitur," meaning: it does not follow.
But if you wish to draw some connections between the American Revolution and Civil War, I'd say it's this:
When our Founding Fathers declared their Independence, they expected and received a long, bloody war from Great Britain.
Fortunately, our Founders were able to form alliances and received vital military aid from nations like France, Holland, Spain, additional generals from Poland and Germany, and critical financial support from international Jews.
When the South seceded from the United States, its leaders also expected war, and were not content to wait for war to come to them.
Instead they provoked it, with many incidents -- only the most serious of which was the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861.
Unfortunately for the South, their cause was not just in any way, shape or form, so they made no alliances and received no aid.
Even the world's most jaded regimes in the 1860s did not want to be on the side of slavery.
So the South lost their "war for independence" -- and rightly so.