Replies

>>>Neither the word “Morrill” nor the word “tarriff” appears in any of the secession documents that I’ve seen, or that you quoted.<<<

I asked you to read carefully. The entire paragraph from Georgia was related to tariffs.

>>>Furthermore, the South had an absolute LOCK on the Senate — nothing could pass the Senate over the South’s objections.<<<

That’s odd considering the fact that South Carolina (the first state to secede) declared in their Secession Causes that the Republicans would take control of government in March, 1861. So maybe your “facts” are wrong (again). The following link shows that in the 37th Congress the Republicans and Unionists combined for a total of 34 votes. There were only 33 states at the time (Kansas was added a month later in Jan 1861).

Link:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Note that Mississippi also stated the Republicans had taken control of the government.

"The entire paragraph from Georgia was related to tariffs."

Do you think Georgians were stupid?
Do you think if they had meant "tarriffs" they were too dumb to say "tarriffs"? The word they used was "bounties" implying a subsidy from the treasury.

And once again, note a brief history of US tarriffs:

The Federal Government imposed increasingly high tarriffs on imports until around 1830 they reached over 50%.
The Compromise Tarriff of 1833 reduced those to 20%.
These were raised again to 40% by the Black Tarriff of 1842.
The Walker Tarriff of 1846 reduce rates back to 17% overall, where they remained until the Morrill Tarriff of 1861.
The Morrill Tarriff raised rates back to 26% overall.

So the Morrill rates were not particularly high by historic standards, and the South had not threatened secession over previous, much higher rates.

Furthermore, the Morrill Tarriff could not have even passed, had the South remained united in Congress to oppose it.

So your arguments that high tarriffs caused the South's secession is a red-herring and bogus to the max, pal.

PhilipFreneau: "That’s odd considering the fact that South Carolina (the first state to secede) declared in their Secession Causes that the Republicans would take control of government in March, 1861.
So maybe your “facts” are wrong (again)."

Both the original Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution were understood at the time as being "perpetual" Unions.

According to James Madison (you remember him?) the Union could be dissolved only through "mutual consent" or from "usurpations" and "abuses" having that effect.

Madison wrote at the time that the Constitution must be adopted in whole, and forever -- and later that no state could secede "at pleasure".

In 1860 and 1861, there was no "mutual consent" and also no "usurpations" or "abuses".

Instead, the South seceded "at pleasure" because of the election of a Congress and President which the South feared might threaten slavery at some point in the future.

Then the seceding states began immediately to attack and seize dozens federal properties, including forts, armories, ships, customs facilities and a mint.

Seceding "at pleasure" made it a Constitutional "rebellion."
Using force to seize Federal properties made it a Constitutional "insurrection."

That's the bottom line.