Sure, as somebody posted here recently, that was Jefferson Davis' argument in January, 1861, on the US Senate floor.
But no legitimate Founder ever made such an argument, certainly not Madison, Hamilton or Jay in the Federalist Papers.
Therefore it was not Founders Original Intent.
As I've said before (sigh), three states put reassume or resume powers of governance in their ratification documents and four others included Tenth Amendment type statements which in effect accomplished the same thing since the Constitution did not prohibit secession of states. The power of secession therefore remained with the states individually, as the Tenth said. That made a majority of the thirteen original states. Then, of course, the Tenth Amendment itself was ratified and became part of the Constitution.
Well, if you argue: "Founders intent doesn't matter, what really matters is Patrick Henry's intent and warnings", then you reveal yourself as an anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution and not validly conservative.
I am arguing that Founders’ original intent does matter. You seem to be arguing the opposite by ignoring what was in the various ratification documents and ratifications conventions even including Madison’s reply to Patrick Henry:
An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfiedwith the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence.
and Madison’s “happiness comment in Federalist Paper 45 which supports New York’s reassune powers statement if “necessary to their happiness”:
Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union.
You cite the following quote I posted from the Chicago Times of December 1860:
The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
To that you reply: Much more careful studies still show Deep South cotton hugely important to total US exports, but not 72%, rather closer to 50% depending on what-all you include.
Umm … The Chicago Times didn’t say that cotton alone was what accounted for the high Southern contribution to US exports. That is your assumption, and you are not correct. You have already been effectively refuted by PeaRidge in Post 343
Your figure is cotton and does not include Southern exports of tobacco, food, semi-finished cotton goods, chemicals, hemp, or the proportional value of finished cotton.
DeBow and Kettel have done excellent work on pulling together the entire data listings. That data shows the Southern contributions to export value in the 75 to 87#% range depending on year.
Your reply to the Chicago Times article also included: And US tariffs in 1860 averaged around 15%, not the "30% to 50%" the piece claims.
First, perhaps you don’t realize that the 1857 tariff ranged from 4% to 80% depending on the specific item. Raw materials generally got the lower rates while manufactured items were tariffed at 60 to 113 percent above the average rate you quoted. In other words, imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted.
Second, remember that the price charged to the purchaser of imported manufactured items would have to cover the price of the imported goods, the overseas transportation cost, warehousing costs in New York or elsewhere, as well as the tariff rate. The net effect could well have been 30 to 50%, IMO. European goods of the time might well have been better quality or more uniform quality than American goods. American manufactured items would need a price advantage over perhaps better quality imported ones, an advantage they could use to boost their own prices and still be below the price of imported ones.
Years ago, I (and many others) used to argue Civil War history with WhiskeyPapa. I'd show that he was clearly in error in one thread, then he would repeat the same error in the next thread. I asked him why he was posting stuff that had been clearly refuted. He said that he was posting to the lurkers. Is that what you are doing, BroJoeK?
1790.......James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution” expressed his view on the government and the status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he said,
“In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which its…ordinary powers are to be drawn…founded on the assent …of the people …to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves…Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act”.
Is that what you did in #596?
Another great Whack-A-Brojoke post.
(Sigh), as I've repeatedly explained, none of those states, and no founder ever suggested unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure" or "for light and transient causes" were considered constitutional, lawful or appropriate.
And yet, that is just what happened beginning in December, 1860.
rustbucket: "Madison’s reply to Patrick Henry: An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
Assuming your quote is authentic, confirmed by Madison himself?
Regardless, as I (sigh) posted before, that word "dissatisfied" can mean anything from "light and transient" to nearly mortal.
At no time did either Madison or any other Founder suggest "light and transient" dissatisfaction was adequate to justify secession "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting Madison: "Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Again, the definition of "public happiness"?
The Founders' Declaration of Independence gives a long list of reasons for total public unhappiness necessary to justify Independence.
Did even one of those conditions apply in 1860?
No they did not, and so the Founders' criteria for lawful secession were never met in 1860.
rustbucket quoting PeaRidge: "DeBow and Kettel have done excellent work on pulling together the entire data listings.
That data shows the Southern contributions to export value in the 75 to 87#% range depending on year."
I've seen nothing to confirm those numbers and much to dispute them.
My post # 317 among others links to sources which lead me to believe Southern exports, while certainly important (50+%) were nowhere near the overwhelming percentages (75% to 87%) often claimed.
Further, stop just a minute and consider this question: when you say "the South" which South do you mean?
Just the Deep South?
Both the Deep and Upper South, the Confederacy?
Or Deep, Upper and Border South?
If you add in the Border South, you can goose those numbers higher, but at the price of claiming Union states for "the South".
rustbucket: "imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted."
What, do you suppose I make these numbers up?
That 15% average number comes from here, and is readily compared to averages from earlier and later years.
It also compares to reports that the Confederacy's average tariffs (which were seldom collected) were also 15%.
rustbucket: " I asked him why he was posting stuff that had been clearly refuted.
He said that he was posting to the lurkers.
Is that what you are doing, BroJoeK?"
Certainly not, and the differences are:
You have never refuted any of my recent posts (I grant you Harriet Lane) while I have refuted all of yours, refutations which you always refuse to acknowledge.
I assume your problem is that after, ahem, a certain age, people just won't learn anything new, but I'm patient and will keep at it as long as able... ;-)