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.
I take it you mean victim of tariffs for certain, but do you also mean the South wasn't a victim of anything perpetrated by the North ?
What is Sen. Calhoun(or actually the guy who read Calhoun's speech that day cause Calhoun was under the weather. dying a few weeks later) talking about?
........
The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed in the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue but for protection--that is, intended to put money, not in the Treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course of sixty years has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe to say that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealthy of the North, and thus greatly increase her population by attracting immigration from all quarters to that section.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html
Was this common and accepted fact in those days? If so, why is it so dismissively shrugged off today?