This statement is overly broad. What people have claimed Madison meant is contradicted by other evidence such as the ratification statements of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.
One reason the other states didn't object was because most of their conventions had already ratified the constitution and gone home.
And no other legal body in the other states could make a statement on the point? You know, like the governors or legislatures? They could not say "We Disagree!"?
You are glossing over the fact that in terms of a provocative statement, silence is assent.
Other states that included reservations in their ratifications refered to the right of revolution or to the people reasserting the power they had delegated. They didn't advocate any specific procedure for that happening.
Didn't need to. With the founding document proclaiming it a right, the procedure was just for the states to resume governing themselves.
Your logic is faulty. Voting to reject a plan doesn't mean the plan is legal or feasible.
The contrary is also true. Rejecting a plan does not establish it as illegal.
That is why people wonder about you. Slaveowners were not the slaves of Washington or New York.
I'm thinking that is in the eye of the beholder. Finding out that 60% of their income went to DC and New York would tend to make someone think they are a slave or a servant.
You've swallowed whole the slaveowner's argument that New York City was cheating them out of millions.
I never knew about this aspect of the situation until BroJoeK posted one of his links that revealed New York was running the cotton trade, and the book he linked showed that New York and DC were getting about 60% of the total revenue from all Southern trade with Europe.
This was some years ago, and i'm sure the link is still on free republic, but it might be hard to find because it was in an old discussion.
If Southerners objected to going through NYC, they could buy and crew ships,...
This topic has been covered in past discussions regarding why all the shipping was controlled by New York. One significant factor was government subsidies payed to these Northern shipping companies, such as for mail delivery, which made their packet trade more profitable than a competing company from the south, and subsidies to the fishing ships. There was a fellow that commented in a discussion some years back, telling us that his family was heavily involved in the shipping trade and in the cotton shipping trade at exactly this period in history, and he went into some detail as to how they dominated everything.
The reason for going through NYC was so that ships wouldn't be empty coming over from Europe or Britain: the Southern market was that much smaller than the Northern.
That too was an artificial result partially caused by government manipulation of the markets. What do you suppose would have happened if the Southerners had 60% more money to spend and weren't required to use Northern shipping and other industries?
If the North kept the South down economically, wouldn't they have a smaller market as a result? Plus the stuff they bought because of government protectionist laws made them do business with the North and Northeast at a higher cost than they would have paid if not for government laws compelling them.
A pattern emerges of the government favoring the well to do businessmen of the North and giving them all sorts of economic incentives to maximize their profits.
Southerners got their fair share out of government appropriations.
That is contrary to what Robert Rhett and other Southerners who did the math said at the time. I recall reading one fellow who put an actual number on the money being transferred from the South to the North on the basis of government laws.
I don't recall the name, but I do recall he put a lot of work into it to get a precise number.
You argue that there was such a right to secede without consulting or arranging things with the federal government and achieving a settlement and approval. So you apparently think there has to be a settled answer one way or the other. I don't think states did have the right to secede whenever they wanted, but my main point is that any state that wanted to leave would face disagreement and opposition from those who thought otherwise. The result would be war if such a state persisted.
And no other legal body in the other states could make a statement on the point? You know, like the governors or legislatures? They could not say "We Disagree!"?
They didn't feel the need to come down one way or the other. They accepted the Constitution as it was and that was that. At that time, perhaps even more than now, what some state convention saw fit to slip into their ratification message probably didn't attract much attention.
The contrary is also true. Rejecting a plan does not establish it as illegal.
You said that the fact that the Hartford Convention considered secession and rejected it. I pointed out that rejecting it didn't mean that they thought it constitutional. I did not say that rejecting the idea meant that they thought it was unconstitutional. Again, that doesn't matter. That wasn't my argument.
I'm thinking that is in the eye of the beholder. Finding out that 60% of their income went to DC and New York would tend to make someone think they are a slave or a servant.
Where are you getting those statistics from? There are legitimate expenses involved in getting goods to market on another continent. Those expenses still exist whoever the shipper and insurer and the banks are, so cotton growers would still be complaining even if they used Southern shippers and insurers and banks -- as was the case sometimes.
One significant factor was government subsidies payed to these Northern shipping companies, such as for mail delivery, which made their packet trade more profitable than a competing company from the south, and subsidies to the fishing ships.
You are ignoring just how global trade was even back then. A firm like Fraser, Trenholm & Co. had offices in Charleston, New York, and Liverpool. Was it a New York or a British or a Southern firm? Answer: it was a Charleston firm that did what it could for the Confederacy during the war.
And "fishing subsidies" is a red herring. Here's from encyclopedia.com:
FISHING BOUNTIES in the United States were not at first true bounties. To aid domestic fisheries, from 1789 until 1807 the federal government levied duties on imported salt and paid allowances on fish and meat cured with foreign salt and then exported. This allowance, or bounty, primarily affected the cod fisheries, which used large quantities of imported salt. The bounty as revived in 1813 applied only to the fisheries. Beginning in 1828 the duty was lowered while the bounty remained unchanged. The bounty was continued in 1866 to support northeastern fisheries, considered training grounds for seamen.
This encouraged American cod fishermen, who were in New England, and it gave secessionists something to gripe about, but what effect could it realistically have on whether Southerners could charter their own ships and send their cargo directly to Britain and France?
There was a fellow that commented in a discussion some years back, telling us that his family was heavily involved in the shipping trade and in the cotton shipping trade at exactly this period in history, and he went into some detail as to how they dominated everything.
Maybe, but I've learned not to trust anonymous people on the Internet, especially on these Civil War threads.
That too was an artificial result partially caused by government manipulation of the markets. What do you suppose would have happened if the Southerners had 60% more money to spend and weren't required to use Northern shipping and other industries?
60% more people would have made a real difference. As it was, cotton plantation owners were some of the richest people in the country. There weren't enough of them to make the South as large an importer of foreign goods as the North, so it was likely that ships would be coming from Europe half full, which was bad business.
Here is a "thought experiment" somebody did relating to shipping cotton directly from New Orleans to Manchester. Plenty of money had to be paid as costs along the way, so planters would always be discontented. Notice the information at the bottom of the page about the spoilage. Given the possibility of spoilage and the ups and downs of the market, cotton brokers (many of whom were Southerners) were in a very risky business and could lose their shirts.
A pattern emerges of the government favoring the well to do businessmen of the North and giving them all sorts of economic incentives to maximize their profits.
And Eastern fisherman and shippers complained about the wars the country fought to get more land for the cotton growers. Gripes are a part of life. Southern supporters of secession and the creation of a new country were always exploiting -- and creating -- gripes about mercenary Yankees. A bit of skepticism about such talk is helpful.
I recall reading one fellow who put an actual number on the money being transferred from the South to the North on the basis of government laws.
Again, not so different from today. Add up everything some other part of the country gets from the government and it looks damning if you don't bother to calculate what your own part of the country gets from Uncle Sam.