I find in the very same paper and the very same editorial:
But as the Northern States will not leave the Union, as in common decency they ought to do seeing that they are so unhappy about the countenance the Union is supposed to give to the institution of slavery, there is no alternative to the South except to withdraw for herself.
_______
Here’s another editorial from the Charleston Mercury
Same paper, passage immediately before what you quoted:
But we are to delay action further, to see if the Northern Legislatures will not repeal their Personal Liberty Laws. So far as the Cotton States are concerned, these laws, excepting in the insult they convey to the South, and the faithlessness they indicate in the North, are not of the slightest consequence. Few or none of our slaves are lost, by being carried away and protected from recapture in the Northern States. Nor to the frontier States, are they of much consequence. Their slaves are stolen and carried off—not by the agency of these Personal Liberty Laws—but by the combination of individuals in the Northern States. What are these acts as indications of the hostility and faithlessness of the Northern people towards the South (and they are nothing more), when compared with the mighty sectional despotism they have set up over the South in the election of Messrs. LINCOLN and HAMLIN to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States? Repeal that, and there would be something to invite delay.
It looks like you are relying on cherry picked and canned quotations that somebody chose to present things in a different light than how they really were.
You can find those same two quotes you cited all over the Internet (right down to getting the date wrong on one of them). Maybe because most of the rest of the evidence doesn't support your view.
Everybody knew what the stakes were in 1860. Advocates of secession threw in something about taxes in order to win over waverers, but that shouldn't be taken as the whole story by any means.
It looks like you are relying on cherry picked and canned quotations that somebody chose to present things in a different light than how they really were.
You can find those same two quotes you cited all over the Internet (right down to getting the date wrong on one of them). Maybe because most of the rest of the evidence doesn’t support your view.
Everybody knew what the stakes were in 1860. Advocates of secession threw in something about taxes in order to win over waverers, but that shouldn’t be taken as the whole story by any means.
And you don’t cherry pick those passages which support your arguments? Of course you do.
I’d say exactly the opposite of what you said. Advocates of secession threw in the fact that the Northern states had actually violated the Constitution by their refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. That actually was unconstitutional.
Their economic arguments were perfectly true and the high tariffs and grossly unequal federal government expenditures did serve to drain money out of the South and direct it to the Northern states but no matter how unfair it was and no matter how much they hated it, it was not unconstitutional. There’s a reason they did not accept the North’s offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. It would have done nothing to address their economic grievances. Indeed their situation was going to get a lot worse since Lincoln’s big campaign promises revolved around raising the tariff and having the federal government dole out corporate subsidies - invariably to Northern companies....especially railroads. He had been the chief counsel and lobbyist to the Illinois Central Railroad after all.