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In 1788-90 states had peaceably, unilaterally and with the approval of their own state conventions withdrawn from Union under the Articles of Confederation.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.
“but also or but to give solemnity” should have been “but to give solemnity”. I dictated the words but garbled them.
Well, just under half -- endorsed by 68 of 142 Republican senators & Congressmen in the 1860 election.
And at least you here give Republicans credit for abolitionism.
So many pro-Confederates -- DiogenesLamp comes to mind -- try to convince us that it was Confederates who wanted to abolish slavery while Northerners hated blacks too much want them freed.
It's nice to see credit here given where it's due.
Second, Helper's book was written by a North Carolinian for other Southerners.
So any references to "we" or "our purpose" or "we believe" etc., etc., was not to Republicans specifically, but rather to Helper's fellow anti-slavery Southerners!
Of course, Republicans generally liked what Helper wrote and many were happy to endorse his ideas.
Regardless, US political campaigns were always pretty rough & tumble affairs.
Jefferson vs. Adams in 1800 comes to mind, where supporters of each accused the other of amazing crimes.
So Republicans using slavery as a political "wedge-issue" against Democrats seems pretty normal politics to me.
Certainly nothing creating a new condition of constitutional "unhappiness" necessary to justify declarations of secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "And then there was Lincoln saying the 'government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.' "
It was a simple prediction based on the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott ruling which could easily be interpreted to imply that slavery could not be outlawed in the North!
It meant the US was on the path to becoming a 100% slave-nation under Democrats, so the the old "half-slave, half-free" would not long endure.
Philosophical / political musings by a relatively unknown Illinois lawyer can hardly be considered a "material breach" of the Constitution's compact justifying secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "An economic threat against slavery, the main pillar of Southern economy, by the party coming into power in Washington..."
But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not.
As many pro-Confederates like to point out, most Northerners were only too happy to benefit from the massive economic profits of Deep Cotton South slavery.
rustbucket: "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."
But tariffs were totally "politics as usual", since they repeatedly rose and fell based on economic and political factors without ever becoming a casus belli.
But more to the point, neither the proposed Morrill tariff nor Confederates 15% rate were even on the radar screen when South Carolina first began to organize for secession in November 1860.
So tariffs are irrelevant to this discussion.
rustbucket: "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? "
In fact, our Founders twice demonstrated the categories of justified disunion.
The second category, "mutual consent" you mention here, while calling it "unilateral", when in fact it was the exact opposite of "unilateral".
Eventually the old Articles of Confederation were withdrawn by 100% mutual consent, and act of Congress, to be replaced by the newly ratified Constitution.
It was peaceful, lawful, orderly mutual consent of which our Founders totally approved.
But no such mutual consent existed in December 1860.
The other justification for disunion, of which our Founders approved and demonstrated themselves, was independence driven by the absolute necessity of major, material breaches of compact, such as those itemized in their Declaration of Independence.
But no such breaches existed, and therefore no such necessity, in December 1860.
That only leaves the type of disunion our Founders consistently opposed: declarations of secession "at pleasure", meaning unilateral and unapproved secessions without material cause.
rustbucket: "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. "
Sure, as posted here previously, that was approximately the argument Jefferson Davis made to the US Senate in January 1861.
But no US Founder ever made that argument, and Founders fully understood the differences among "mutual consent", "material breach of compact" and secession "at pleasure".
Founders would consider Deep South declarations of secession as "at pleasure" and not approved.
But most Northerners, including Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln did not believe the Federal Government could or should do anything to stop secessionists, so long as they didn't start a war against the United States.
But once the Confederacy did launch and formally declared war then Northerners felt a necessity for defeating the military power which threatened the United States.
rustbucket quoting New York's ratification statement: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Once again, the key word here is not "happiness", but rather "necessary" and refers to the categories of "necessary" listed in the Declaration of Independence.
But no condition even remotely similar to July 1776 existed in December 1860.
rustbucket: "...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."
But it certainly does require necessity which in no way existed in December 1860.
rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist 45: "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."
Certainly using exactly the reasons & methods Founders used to separate first from Britain then from the old Articles.
Founders intimately knowledgeable on such matters were not in the least confused about legitimate versus "at pleasure" secessions.
rustbucket: "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."
It's simple to tell the difference between secession "for cause" and "at pleasure".
First, ask this question: politically & constitutionally speaking, was the nation "happy" on November 5, 1860?
Answer: absolutely, since under then existing conditions of "politics as usual" there were no significant secession movements.
Next ask: politically & constitutionally speaking, what changed regarding "happiness" after November 5, 1860?
Answer: nothing changed, no new laws, no military violence, no material breach of constitutional compact, only a vote happened on November 6.
But the Government itself on November 6 was exactly the same as it had been on November 5.
Since there was no constitutional cause, and no mutual consent, that means Deep South declarations were, by default, "at pleasure" and so not according to Founders Original Intent.
rustbucket a quote alleged from Madison: "If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
Even that word "dissatisfied" in a constitutional context does not mean somebody woke up one morning on the wrong side of his bed and so decided to declare secession, "at pleasure".
Rather, Madison certainly meant the types of dissatisfaction enumerated in their own Declaration of Independence.
But no such condition even remotely existed in December 1860.
rustbucket referencing his links: "Madison spoke those words on June 16, 1788"
Curiously, it turns out on close reading, that Madison was there quoting someone else, unnamed.
So the words are not necessarily Madison's own opinion when more precisely expressed, such as here.
Bottom line: Madison did not here, or anywhere else, express approval for unilateral declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "I see that I must speak or post very slowly when posting to you."
Virtually every poster I've read on this subject gets confused and ends up quoting only numbers that support their own opinions, regardless of how appropriate, comparing apples to oranges, etc.
But I'm patient, and you can type as s..l..o..w..l..y as you might wish. ;-)