Replies

But the acts of ratification did create or affirm a federated nation and an American people, and a convention in one state breaking with the Constitution and the nation was bound to be problematic.

I think the union of such diverse and competing interests as it was from 1800 (or earlier) to 1860 would have eventually broken apart whether secession was legal (psst, it was) or not.

I am reminded of what the visitor from France, Alexis de Tocqueville, said in his book, Democracy in America [my emphasis below]:

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.

de Tocqueville was pretty perceptive in 1831. I see some de Tocqueville predictions coming true in the Civil War:

First red bold area above. All four items are true. He was just reporting how things were in 1831.

Second and Third red bold areas above. The North was especially interested in retaining the Union. The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem. There was no personal income tax, so tariff income from imports paid the expenses of government, a government that had greatly increased the national debt in the few years since the 1857 tariff became effective. The government was almost out of money in early 1861. Northern port cities were dependent on the import business. Northern manufacturers and suppliers sold over 200 million dollars of products to the South, often at tariff-raised prices. The manufacturers made more money, Northern workers got jobs, and the South was being "fleeced" as the New Orleans Picayune newspaper said. If the South left the Union, many of the benefits the North received from the South decreased or disappeared.

Fourth red bold area above. The North was treating the South like a colony. "It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters." [Source]. Even before the 1861 Morrill Tariff, the 1857 US tariff was transferring many millions of dollars from the South to the North to pay tariff protected prices for Northern manufactured goods. When Lincoln finally allowed the US Congress to reconvene in July after he had invaded the South, spent money on things Congress had not authorized it for, expanded the size and extended the service of the military, pronounced a blockade of Southern ports, and gotten us into war (things he didn't have the power to do in the Constitution). When Congress reconvened, it passed resolutions that said "this war is ... not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union.

Dadgum, that de Tocqueville was prescient.

rustbucket quoting de Tocqueville: "If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union.
Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist."

We should remember that de Tocqueville was French and France is ruled from Paris, so he is here merely describing his own country's situation.
DiogenesLamp's jihad against New York not withstanding, the US has never been so centralized.

rustbucket: "The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem."

The Deep South provided one crop -- cotton -- which in 1860 totaled roughly $200 million in exports, or 50% of total US exports of $400 million, including specie see here, page 605.
Confederates in early 1861 well understood that cotton was the only export they had of any real value, see here, post 7.
Everything else sometimes classified as "Southern products" could be and was also produced in Union states.
This was clearly demonstrated in 1861 when Confederate exports were 100% deleted from US export totals, and yet those totals fell only 35%.

rustbucket "Northern manufacturers and suppliers sold over 200 million dollars of products to the South, often at tariff-raised prices."

Right and that's a key point because it helps explain why well over half of US imports went to states outside the South.
Eastern, Northern & Western states earned some of the money to pay for imports by "exporting" to Southern states.

rustbucket: "...government that had greatly increased the national debt in the few years since the 1857 tariff became effective.
The government was almost out of money in early 1861."

Maybe, but the Federal government had no problem borrowing as much money as it needed in 1861, or throughout the Civil War.
Much has been made of the new Morrill Tariff, blaming it after the fact for what happened before it passed, but it did do two very important things:

Protected US manufacturing (put America First).
Increased Federal revenues from imports, i.e., from $53 million in 1860 to $102 million in 1864.

rustbucket "The manufacturers made more money, Northern workers got jobs, and the South was being "fleeced" as the New Orleans Picayune newspaper said.
If the South left the Union, many of the benefits the North received from the South decreased or disappeared."

Maybe, but three points to be made here:

There was no clamor in the South for more manufacturing jobs, just the opposite, most Southerners considered industrialization and merchanting... well, uncivilized.
As former Texas Senator Louis Wigfall told William Russell from the Times of London in early 1861:
The great Northeastern merchants & bankers were, then as now, Democrats, social, political and economic allies to the Southern slave-power who voted with them in Congress and supported them financially.
These Northern Democrats were at first sympathetic to Southern secession and wanted to join them, until... until... until they began to realize secession was first & foremost aimed specifically at themselves.
This became especially obvious when Confederates began renouncing their debts, suspending & diverting payments and even withholding exports -- "cotton diplomacy".
That produced an extraordinary rarity in US politics: a united political front, Democrats joining Republicans in opposition to Confederate actions.
But it's sometimes claimed -- by DiogenesLamp & others -- that these Northern Democrats were somehow "pulling Lincoln's strings" and ordering him to "start war at Fort Sumter" and such talk is pure fantasy, so far as I've ever seen.

rustbucket quoting: "It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters."

Thanks again for that quote because, unlike others which repeat the 40% number, it makes clear that much of this comes from goods sold to Southern planters -- in short, they did receive items of value in exchange for their 40%.

rustbucket: "Even before the 1861 Morrill Tariff, the 1857 US tariff was transferring many millions of dollars from the South to the North to pay tariff protected prices for Northern manufactured goods."

But even with the Morrill Tariff overall US tariffs were among the world's lowest, see here.
Further, US tariffs protected all producers, not just those in the North.
Nor was the South totally lacking in its own industries -- Tredegar and Cumberland Iron Works come to mind.
So the real issue here may be simply one group of politically connected interests hoping to take business away from another.

rustbucket "When Lincoln finally allowed the US Congress to reconvene in July after he had invaded the South, spent money on things Congress had not authorized it for, expanded the size and extended the service of the military, pronounced a blockade of Southern ports, and gotten us into war (things he didn't have the power to do in the Constitution)."

Well... first, there was no "invasion" until after Confederates:

Provoked war by seizing dozens of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc., threatened Federal officials, fired on US ships, imprisoned Union soldiers (in Texas) and renounced their debts.
Started war at Fort Sumter by military assault forcing Union surrender.
Formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.
Waged war in Union states -- Missouri & Maryland.

In the Civil War's first 12 months, 30 of 52 larger battles were fought in Union states & territories, see here.

Second, it was clearly an emergency situation, in which Congress approved all of Lincoln's actions.
Nor did the US Supreme Court (Chief Justice Taney notwithstanding) strike down any of Lincoln's responses.

The South provided more than 70 percent of the value of the exports of the US, which enabled the US to import a like value without a large balance of payments problem.

Money circulates. If you use money to buy things domestically, the people you give the money to are then able to buy things from foreign vendors.

The government was almost out of money in early 1861.

The deficit and debt had been growing since 1857. By the standards of the day, it was a problem, but not a great problem when compared to what has happened at other times in the history of the world. The increase in the tariff was expected to fix the deficit.

Northern port cities were dependent on the import business.

They also exported things, and produced goods for the domestic market. Many of the panic stories you could find in the newspapers may be exaggerated.

But let's say the country was facing a dire crisis in 1860-1. What are we to think of people who would bail out and reject their native land?