[rustbucket]

•Third, calls for repeal of Morrill could only come after it was signed, in March 1861, at which time other factors (i.e., Fort Sumter) were already driving towards war.

A lot of papers in March 1861 had mentioned repealing the law, which obviously happened after it was signed (duh). And even Lincoln's Treasury Secretary Chase was reported to say that it must be repealed.

With regard to Fort Sumter, perhaps you are forgetting leaks to the press in March that Fort Sumter was going to be evacuated. That was what Lincoln's messenger Lamon had also said to the Governor of South Carolina and to Major Anderson in the fort. The book Lamon wrote after the war said he told them what Lincoln instructed him to say.

Anderson was mad about this when he later learned the expedition was coming:

I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.

It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. ...

I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.

[BroJoeK in Post 1,647]: "3.Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:

[rustbucket in Post 1,648]: 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.

[BroJoeK in Post 1,649]: According to this site, that was the speech delivered on March 4, 1861.

Yes, I know. You first said that Lincoln said those words on March 3, 1861. Then I said, March 3 was the day before his inaugural speech on March 4. Why was he saying it on March 3 like you first claimed? That is why I asked about your old error-filled almanac, which for all I know did say March 3.

In early March, 1861 Lincoln believed it [rb: collecting tariff revenue from seceding states without resistence] could be.
Events soon proved him mistaken in that idea.

If Lincoln believed that he could do that without resistence from the seceded states, he was hopelessly naïve. All he had to do was to read editorials about his inaugural speech in Southern newspapers and Northern Democrat newspapers. [Link]

Lincoln wasn't naïve. As you know, I believe he wanted to start a war that would not be blamed on him as his secretaries Nicolay and Hay later said in their book about Lincoln.

Your Civil War education is sorely lacking. I recommend to you the book, "Lincoln Takes Command, How Lincoln Got The War He Wanted" by John Shipley Tilley. It is a good book. It covers a lot of the things we Southern posters have independently discovered and posted on these threads.

Oh, but I forgot. You earlier said: I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad

I am sorry if the historical documents, newspaper articles, quotes from the Congressional Globe and the Official Record, and data from various sources that the Southern posters provide don't agree with Northern posters' preconceived notions and therefore apparently confuse them. Should I put a trigger warning on my posts?

In fact, by Madison's definition and others, Fire Eaters had declared their secessions "at pleasure", which was not considered legitimate.

To justify their 1861 secession, the Virginia Secession Convention used the exact words that Madison and other Federalists had put in (and voted for) the 1788 Virginia ratification document.

As you know, Hamilton and Jay, the other two authors of the Federalist papers, voted for the New York ratification document which said:

... the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

The question was put to the people of Virginia, and they overwhelmingly voted to secede.

1.Tariffs protected all US manufacturing and while Southern & Western production was less than Northern, they were also growing rapidly, thanks to tariff protections.

If Southern manufacturing were such a big deal, why did 40 Southern members of the House vote against the Morrill Tariff, while only one voted for it?

A major potential problem for the North was that goods imported into Southern ports could be smuggled into the North without paying a Northern tariff and sold at prices below those supported by the Morrill Tariff.

In the future Southern market, Northern goods would face competition from lower priced, better quality, European goods imported to Southern ports under the lower Confederate tariff. Northern manufacturers could not sell their goods at Morrill Tariff-inflated prices in the South because of that competition and also because the South would place a tariff on goods coming from the North. I think it was Kettell who calculated the value of Northern goods sold annually to the South at 240 million dollars.

The South would have the same problem with Northern goods being smuggled to the South that the North would have for goods smuggled the other way. It perhaps would have been better if the two sides separated peaceably and agreed to no tariff being applied to Northern or Southern goods going to the other region.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "A lot of papers in March 1861 had mentioned repealing the law, which obviously happened after it was signed (duh).
And even Lincoln's Treasury Secretary Chase was reported to say that it must be repealed."

But the opposite happened, Morrill rates were soon increased, then increased again.
So who really wanted it repealed, and why?
Well, Democrats of course, since they opposed it to begin with.
Anyone else?
Not that I can specifically find.

Here's an interesting article on the subject, from the Newark Daily Advertiser, April 2, 1861, quite sympathetic to Republicans.

And here's another, from the anti-Republican Pittsburgh Post, April 2, 1861.

Most important to note: neither the pro nor anti-Republican newspapers call for war to solve economic problems.
And this was just ten days before Jefferson Davis ordered Civil War to begin at Fort Sumter.

rustbucket: "With regard to Fort Sumter, perhaps you are forgetting leaks to the press in March that Fort Sumter was going to be evacuated."

Such rumors encouraged by Secretary of State Seward, who wished to avoid war and wanted Fort Sumter surrendered.
And so long as Lincoln had hope of "a fort for a state" deal, the rumors were not false.
And that deal did not completely fail until around April 4, when Lincoln met with Virginia representative John B. Baldwin.
At that point, Lincoln's choices were:

1. Surrender Fort Sumter with nothing of value received in return.
   
2. Send a large force -- 25,000+ troops -- to relieve Fort Sumter.
   
3. Attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, to hold for future negotiations.

Of the three, only the last was remotely possible or likely to succeed.

rustbucket quoting Maj. Anderson: "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced."

You guys love to quote Unionist warnings of war, but ignore the more important warning to Jefferson Davis from his own Secretary of State, Robert Toombs:

""Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[14"

The decision to start Civil war at Fort Sumter belonged to Jefferson Davis alone.

rustbucket: "Then I said, March 3 was the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.
Why was he saying it on March 3 like you first claimed? "

Pesky typos, can't catch them all.

rustbucket: "If Lincoln believed that he could do that without resistence from the seceded states, he was hopelessly naïve.
All he had to do was to read editorials about his inaugural speech in Southern newspapers and Northern Democrat newspapers."

Possibly "hopelessly naïve".
But the more accurate understanding would be to realize Lincoln intended to do everything his Oath of Office required, such as collecting tariffs, peacefully if possible, by force only if absolutely necessary.

Lincoln understood that the only thing which could remove his obligation to enforce the laws was Congressional action to change those laws.

rustbucket; "I recommend to you the book, "Lincoln Takes Command, How Lincoln Got The War He Wanted" by John Shipley Tilley.
It is a good book."

Outside these threads I've actually tried to read pro-Confederate propaganda material, and sorry to say, just can't.
For a comparison, consider: how long can you stand to listen to Hillary screech?
That's about the same length of time I can put up with serious pro-Confederate propaganda.
It is so wrong, so misguided and rooted in historical fantasies I can't read more than a few sentences.

And I get plenty of it here, to which I can always respond, in depth.

rustbucket: "Should I put a trigger warning on my posts? "

Odd that I first heard that term "trigger warning" a few days ago, now it appears everywhere... odd.

All your old quotes are just fine, but you use them as a propagandist would, not like a scholar.
You take them out of context, ascribe meanings not intended and don't show where these particular ideas fit into the overall discussions of that time.

rustbucket: "To justify their 1861 secession, the Virginia Secession Convention used the exact words that Madison and other Federalists had put in (and voted for) the 1788 Virginia ratification document."

Sure, after Fort Sumter, just as intended by Jefferson Davis when he ordered war to begin there.
Literally, Virginia was unable to declare secession "at pleasure" absent conditions recognized as valid by the Founders:

1. Mutual consent, meaning from Congress or some national convention.
   
2. Material breech of compact, such as oppression or usurpations.

Since neither condition existed before Fort Sumter Virginia was unable to declare secession.
But once war began, then Virginians could declare their own secession, in accordance with their ratifications statements of 1788.

rustbucket: "If Southern manufacturing were such a big deal, why did 40 Southern members of the House vote against the Morrill Tariff, while only one voted for it?"

As we've reviewed before, there were 21 Southern and 12 Northern Democrats who abstained, along with 14 Republicans.
Eight Southerners voted "yes" and 15 Northerners voted "no".

Yes, of Deep South representatives who voted, almost all were "no".
But outside the Deep South itself, feelings were mixed.
More to my point: effective leadership amongst those who opposed Morrill could have produced better results, from their own perspectives.

rustbucket: "A major potential problem for the North was that goods imported into Southern ports could be smuggled into the North without paying a Northern tariff and sold at prices below those supported by the Morrill Tariff. "

No, not a major problem, only a minor issue requiring extra tariff agents in cities, railroads and steamboats connecting North & South.
And they would not have to catch every smuggler, only the major shippers and those were enough to keep that vast majority of Nothern trade flowing through Union, not Confederate, ports.

rustbucket: "In the future Southern market, Northern goods would face competition from lower priced, better quality, European goods imported to Southern ports under the lower Confederate tariff."

Impossible, since all large shipments would be taxed twice, first by the Confederacy then the Union.
So no merchant would want that, and would make certain imports intended for Union citizens landed in Union cities, etc.

rustbucket: "I think it was Kettell who calculated the value of Northern goods sold annually to the South at 240 million dollars."

Remember, that trade did disappear in 1861, gone.
And what happened?
Federal revenues fell by 26% in 1861 then rose by 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
So sure, 26% is a big problem, but not the end of the world economically.

rustbucket: "It perhaps would have been better if the two sides separated peaceably and agreed to no tariff being applied to Northern or Southern goods going to the other region."

Maybe, but all such discussion ended on April 12, 1861 when Jefferson Davis ordered Civil War to begin at Fort Sumter.