It's beside the point. The point is that if the Congress has the right to set tariffs, then they are not acting unconstitutionally. Therefore, all the states are obligated to adhere to them, or use the proper channels to alter the law. To resist the lawful execution of national policy is to invite enforcement, which is to say, violence.
For something called "secession" to occur with any hope of peace, all the parties to the compact would have had to agree to it, or at least to agree to a process from which it would be decided. That wasn't the case.
You can't undo the Constitution--or your obligation to it--just because you don't agree with policy, or the outcome of an election. That's anti-republican. It's anarchy.
What's wrong with anarchy?
Agreed, and since there is no recourse to abuse within the limits of the Constitution, to which the South acknowledged they were bound - thus the need for secession.
To resist the lawful execution of national policy is to invite enforcement, which is to say, violence.
Had they remained within the Union and demanded the benefits thereof as a member state, I would agree with you. Once they have 'left the fold' then 'national policy' no longer applies; thus a guarantee that 'naional policy' will remain in the best interests of the people.
For something called "secession" to occur with any hope of peace, all the parties to the compact would have had to agree to it, or at least to agree to a process from which it would be decided. That wasn't the case.
However, the South knew that they were outmatched in any nationally representative body and no such agreement was possible. That they did not attempt it, IMO, was still a mistake.
You can't undo the Constitution--or your obligation to it--just because you don't agree with policy, or the outcome of an election. That's anti-republican. It's anarchy.
I don't think that even you agree with such a blanket statement. If such is the case, then no resistance to tyrants is justified.
I have discussed the question of anarchy at length with others. My opinion has always been (and remains) that anarchy is a logical impossibility -- due to the nature of man it can never happen in sustained fashion. If all authority were dissolved tomorrow, the first thing people would do is begin forming alliances for self-protection (i.e. forming pseudo-governments and granting them authority, negating the notion of anarchy).