Having said that, it would certainly appear to a fairminded observer to be something to the notion that Northern economic warfare against the south did in fact occur at least with some degree of frequency and intensity over the decades leading up to the northern push in the late 1850's for the odious Morrill tariff, and certainly the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 bore it's name for a reason.
It gives perhaps added meaning to the words; " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."; does it not?
Then the questions should help you learn.
The same document also says, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
And yet of the four states that bothered to show that "decent respect" by declaring the causes that impelled them to separation, slavery is overwhelmingly given as the reason. Why do you suppose that was?
Because you are the one posting all the articles on how the South was paying the overwhelming majority of the tariffs.
Having said that, it would certainly appear to a fairminded observer to be something to the notion that Northern economic warfare against the south did in fact occur at least with some degree of frequency and intensity over the decades leading up to the northern push in the late 1850's for the odious Morrill tariff, and certainly the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 bore it's name for a reason.
Sorry but I disagree.
It gives perhaps added meaning to the words; " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."; does it not?
It might...if it were accurate. But I don't think the South had been the victim in any way, shape, or form.