Why do you put so much stock in their listed grievances? As I pointed out, the Canadians did not find these conditions so intolerable, so the degree of misery involved depends upon the perspective of those who suffer it.
It is irrelevant to their claim that under "the laws of nature and of nature's God..." "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,". This principle stands on it's own merits and does not require grievances to make it valid.
The founders listed grievances in an effort to win support for their cause, not because it was necessary to the assertion of the principle of "consent of the governed."
It was different in 1861. Constitutional and democratic processes for the redress of grievances existed but were ignored by the secessionists.
The existence of a "process" does not mean the grievances will get addressed. This is the fallacy of the Democratic process, that two wolves and a sheep can vote on what's for dinner. It makes no difference if there is a "process" when it does not produce a result that is tolerable for all parties.
The North had the government sewn up, and there was nothing the South could do to fix any of this. Under the existing system, they not only had to keep paying for 3/4ths of all federal revenues, they also had to keep losing about 40% of their export revenues to New York.
They were stuck in a position where their only option within the system was to keep feeding the beast to the North, all the while listening to the chorus of smug Northern Liberals telling them what horrible rotten people they were.
Sort of like Modern America.
As previously pointed out, Canadians did not suffer conditions listed in the Declaration of Independence, so there was nothing "subjective" or "perspective" about it:
DiogenesLamp: "The founders listed grievances in an effort to win support for their cause, not because it was necessary to the assertion of the principle of 'consent of the governed.' "
But for our purposes here, there is an even greater principle, the principle that trumps all others: to be considered a genuine American conservative (as opposed to "conservative" in other countries) you must subscribe to the principle of: Founders' Original Intent.
That's because American conservatives, Free Republic conservatives, can be defined with two words: Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order.
And in both cases the words refer to Original Intent, not some later reinterpretation or reimagining of what they should have meant.
Conservatives do not consider either Constitution or Bible to be "living documents" which can mean whatever the h*ll the latest fad ideas wish they meant.
Instead we base our understandings on Original Intent, so the Declaration means what Founders meant, not necessarily what DiogenesLamp wishes they would have meant.
Apropos this discussion, no Founder ever advocated an unrestricted "right of secession" at pleasure, period.
DiogenesLamp to x: "The North had the government sewn up, and there was nothing the South could do to fix any of this.
Under the existing system, they not only had to keep paying for 3/4ths of all federal revenues, they also had to keep losing about 40% of their export revenues to New York. "
That is a crock of lies now corrected many times on these threads.
First of all, due to the Constitution's 3/5 representation clause and other reasons, Southerners dominated Federal Government almost continuously from 1788 through 1860, often by huge majorities.
So there was nothing they seriously wanted from Washington they could not eventually get.
Second, Deep South cotton & rice exports grew to pay for about 50% not 75% of total US imports.
The next largest US export, tobacco, came mostly from Union states.
Third, we know this for certain because when Deep South cotton was taken out of the US export mix, Federal import revenues fell only 26% in 1861, then rose 19%, 37% and 51%% in the following years.
Clearly, pro-Confederates then & now grossly exaggerated the overall importance of their exports.
Fourth, as pointed out in recent posts, shipping was risky business, even with Federal "subsidies", so SS Baltic owners, the Collins Line, went bankrupt in 1857 despite them.
That may help explain why most Southerners preferred the economic security of, for example, raising cotton.
DiogenesLamp to x: "They were stuck in a position where their only option within the system was to keep feeding the beast to the North, all the while listening to the chorus of smug Northern Liberals telling them what horrible rotten people they were."
In fact, until the election of November 1860, Southerners dominated Washington DC so could have, and did, demand whatever adjustments they needed in Federal laws.
All claims otherwise are cockamamie nonsense.
To consider just one Federal acquiescence to Southern demands, simply remember the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
After the 1860 election, Deep South Fire Eaters did not wait for any "unpleasantness" to justify disunion as "necessary", but rather immediately declared secession "at pleasure".