Re: Disunion reasons shift...
What I'm am finding a Southern disunion movement that was looking for any "uniting" cause as far back as the 1820s. Calhoun was its motivator but even his enemies write he never would have taken it as far as his followers did after his death. He did not want disunion to be accomplished by war. Knowing that a few Southern states could not survive alone they believed that, at a minimum, they needed the old Texas Territory as part of their new nation. They even used the issue of Texas annexation as a platform for disunion just like nullification and later slavery. They hoped that Texas would be rejected inorder to put their ideas into motion and they would be able to leave the old union and form a new one with Texas as their anchor. Politically abolitionist were these mens best friend's. The only thing that mattered to their cause was disunion and any devisive issue would do. In other words, its hard to say if their claims were sincere when their ultimate goal would surely have negative effects upon the economic and social institutions they were "protecting".
This was an extremely small but vocal group that had money to push their aggenda. They were not popular in the South for many years, but their ideas affected the sensibilities of a great majority of Southerners and affected the thinking of new generations. Whereas in 1850 the ideas of disunion to a great many Southerners was repulsive, by 1861, it was the natural course to follow.
The first secession phase that started in 1860 has its roots and causes with these radicals and their goal was a Southern Confederacy, not protecting the property of individuals.