Sure, I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad, but fortunately it only takes a little work to unwrap the facts.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.
That may well be the reason pro-Confederate papers called Lincoln's Inaugural a declaration of war, but Lincoln himself did not consider it such.
rustbucket quoting New York Times: "We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."
In fact, some New York Democrats wanted to join in secession and provide secessionists with whatever concessions might be necessary.
Just how secession might hurt them took some time for them to figure out.
rustbucket: "The key point you miss was that because the bulk of manufacturing was done in the North, the tariff protection of Northern industries resulted in Southerners paying a large amount each year for tariff-inflated prices on Northern goods."
The key point you miss is that not all manufacturing was done in the North and tariffs equally protected producers and wages in all regions.
rustbucket: "Northern All manufacturers profited because of the tariff, and Northern all workers got jobs.
This was sectional aggrandizement national industrialization at work."
Fixed it for you. No problem, you're welcome.
rustbucket: "Averaging those percent reductions in tariff revenue for April through December gives a 40.0% loss in revenue after the Morrill Tariff went into effect.
That is an approximate figure."
Interesting to see the changes by month, and yet we should note the following:
rustbucket: "Even with the higher tariff, there was a significant loss in income.
And I posted earlier the yearly totals of business failures in various port cities.
Those darn Democrat papers were correct!"
But the facts remain that, first, overall losses were not as severe as secessionists predicted and some Northerners might have feared, and second, the Northern economy quickly adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.
rustbucket: "Now I am "mocking" Unionists?
I'm just arguing a different interpretation of history than what you believe, and I provide information that supports my arguments."
And I likewise argue that economics (slavery) motivated Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession and Confederacy.
But here's the difference: I use their actual words in their official Declarations of Causes for Secession.
By contrast, you cannot quote official Union documents (or any others) saying, in effect: "we must start war to collect tariffs".
Such documents don't exist because that's not why they did what they did.
They don't need my help to do that.
1.Fact #1: The Morrill Tariff was supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats and only passed in 1861 after Southern Democrats left Congress.
I've posted Senator Wigfall's December 1860 count of likely Senate votes on the tariff in the incoming Senate showing that it would pass even if all Southern Senators stayed. You disagreed.
2.Fact #2: Northern concerns over collecting tariffs in secession states were not related to Morrill, but to any Union tariff.
If so, why were a number of Republicans calling for the repeal of the Morrill Tariff or the blockade of the Southern ports?
3.Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:
It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again. Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.
So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.
He was going to collect tariff revenue from states that had seceded. How could that be accomplished without resistance from the seceded states? The states had seceded consistent with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's statements that they could reassume/resume their powers of government. Those three founders were the authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant.
The key point you miss is that not all manufacturing was done in the North and tariffs equally protected producers and wages in all regions.
That pales in comparison with the money spent by Southerners on Northern goods, whose prices were inflated by the tariff. Remember that December 1860 Chicago Times article I posted:
We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
But the facts remain that, first, overall losses were not as severe as secessionists predicted and some Northerners might have feared, and second, the Northern economy quickly adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.
Overall looses were not as severe as Northern newspapers had predicted because Lincoln blockaded Southern ports thereby stemming the flow of imported goods that would have gone directly to the South. Remember Lincoln's blockade proclamation, the proclamation that the Supreme Court said was the start of the Civil War.
Another way of looking at the import figures was that they tell how much of the imports were going to the North and how much (the missing part) had been going to the South. The actual volume of imports to the North dropped more than the 41.4% that the revenue decreased by because it took fewer imports to produce equivalent revenue at higher tariff rates than the volume of imports needed to produce that revenue in 1860.
But here's the difference: I use their actual words in their official Declarations of Causes for Secession.
By contrast, you cannot quote official Union documents (or any others) saying, in effect: "we must start war to collect tariffs".
Such documents don't exist because that's not why they did what they did.
Lincoln kept his intention for the Sumter expedition secret, but it leaked out anyway. Consider what Lincoln wrote Gustavus Fox on May 1, 1861. Fox was the guy who proposed, planned, and led the Sumter expedition.
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results."
The result of the Sumter expedition was war.
Lincoln’s two wartime secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, put it this way after the war in their book about Lincoln:
President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.
Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse. Others on this thread cannot.