(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... ;-)
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.
Bwahahaha! A comment that is both vainglorious boasting and incorrect at the same time. A twofer! Oh well, here you go again:
(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.
The South did not secede "at pleasure" or for the "light and transient causes," the Declaration of Independence cautioned against. Helper's Book is an example of the many sorts of things that might have influenced the South to secede. Helper's book was endorsed by a majority of Republicans in Congress. The book, which they distributed, contained statements like these:
... our purpose is as fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and -- so help us God -- abolish it we will! [page 187]
We believe it is, as it ought to be, the desire, the determination, and the destiny of this party [Republican] to give the death-blow to slavery; ... [page 234]
We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards ... [page 149]
And then there was Lincoln saying the "government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."
An economic threat against slavery, the main pillar of Southern economy, by the party coming into power in Washington, was bound to be taken seriously by the South as an economic existential threat. Much the same way perhaps that the seceded South's use the 1857 US tariff was seen as an existential threat to the Northern economy. It was such a threat to the North’s economy because the North had just shot themselves in the foot (or other significant part of the anatomy) by passing the Morrill Tariff, which was substantially higher than the 1857 US tariff. As I have pointed out on this thread, future Northern tariff revenue was thought by many, including Lincoln, to be in serious trouble because of the two different tariffs.
You said “unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession …”.
In 1788-90 states had peaceably, unilaterally and with the approval of their own state conventions withdrawn from Union under the Articles of Confederation. Where in the Constitution was the right of states to use the power that they had just exercised taken away from them? Under the Constitution, secession wasn’t prohibited to the states, and other states and the federal government were not given the power to stop it. It was therefore a power retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment. They had it and exercised it while under the Articles; it wasn’t taken away by the Constitution; they still had it after the Constitution was ratified. It was a peaceful, legal way out of the Union for a state, should the Union not work out well for them.
From "Free, Sovereign, and Independent States, The Intended Meaning of the American Constitution" by John Remington Graham (2009). Page 178:
Among the powers reserved to the several States was the right of the people of each state in convention to take back the authority delegated to the federal government under the United States Constitution, and thereby to secede from the union.
Let's see whether that book’s interpretation agrees with statements made during the ratification. As far as what the Founders said, cue Hamilton and Jay (two of the three authors of The Federalist Papers), and the other New Yorkers (Founders all) who ratified the Constitution and said in their ratification document [my emphasis below]:
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness
... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution
Well, that agrees with the interpretation of the book above, IMO. And it does not require any outside approval for of a state individually to reassume their powers of government.
And then, of course, there was Madison, the other author of The Federalist Papers, telling the country in Federalist 45 before the Constitution was ratified [my emphasis below]:
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.
How does one judge "public happiness?" Many Southern states asked their voters directly whether to secede and were given approval to go ahead. Their publics were not happy remaining in the Union.
Here is another quote from Graham's book above (same page):
Amendment X added nothing new, but confirmed what the main body of the Constitution was already understood to mean. It was meant, not only as a safeguard against forced construction of the powers of the Union, but also or but to give solemnity to the constitutional custom allowed in extraordinary circumstances revolutionary but peaceable and lawful alterations in government.
This reminds me of a few things Madison said. Here is Madison in Congress in 1789 talking about the proposed Amendments in the Bill of Rights [Link]:
I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.
In other words, it's not needed because the Constitution already means that, but it doesn't hurt to add it.
And Madison again [Link]:
In a speech delivered to the House of Representatives while the Bill of Rights remained pending in the states, James Madison reminded the assembly that the proponents of the Constitution had assured the states that “the general government could not exceed the expressly delegated powers.”
And the statement Madison said in the Virginia Ratification Convention and which I posted to you earlier:
"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."
To this you said: Assuming your quote is authentic, confirmed by Madison himself?
Madison spoke those words on June 16, 1788 [Link or Link 2, starts on page 414 and continues on page 415 of Elliot's Debates]
By the way, I word-searched the text of that Ratification Convention's minutes and found two previous mentions of the word "dissatisfied," but they were not used in the context of Madison’s statement. Neither were the words "withdraw," "leave," or "secede" previously used in any way like what Madison said in the quote above. It may be that similar words had been said by someone else and that previous statement had not been captured by the minutes. In any event, Madison said or repeated them and was using them to counter Patrick Henry's concerns about the Constitution.
rustbucket: "imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted."
BroJoeK: 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%.
I see that I must speak or post very slowly when posting to you. I have no trouble with the average tariff rate under the 1857 US tariff being 15%. Raw materials imported into the United States were typically tariffed at low rates, e.g., 4%, 8% and so on. Manufactured goods were normally taxed at higher than average rates, like I said, 24 or 32% typically. The Chicago Times quote I posted was referring to manufacturers. Manufactured goods were taxed at rates above the average tariff rate. Look up a table of the 1857 rates if you don’t believe me. I have no problem with the initial average tariff rate of the South being 15%. They used the existing 1857 tariff rate for a while until they agreed on lowering the tariff rate on a number of items a short while later.