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.
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.
But I've never seen a pro-Confederate who would admit so much.
rustbucket: "An editorial in the daily Chicago Times newspaper comes to mind [December 1860]:
I have long wondered where all these bogus numbers came from, turns out they were extant at the time.
They were nonsense, propaganda against the North and Union in general, it seems.
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.
And US tariffs in 1860 averaged around 15%, not the "30% to 50%" the piece claims.
What it demonstrates is that the press was every bit as dishonest in those days as it is in ours, and in this case as least, misunderstandings lead to false grievances which helped produce declarations of secession and Civil War.
But none of this was listed as a "Cause of Secession" in any secessionist state document.
The "cause of secession" they did list at great length was their concern that Northern hostility to their "peculiar institution" made Union untenable.
Of course, nothing had happened except an election, there were no new complaints in December 1860 which had not been there in, say, October 1860, and yet suddenly the Deep South declared secession, "at pleasure" and for "light and transient causes".
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?
...
But none of this was listed as a "Cause of Secession" in any secessionist state document.
Really? Perhaps you just didn't look very hard once you found the word "Slavery."
The Southern States now stand in the same relation toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation, and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue -- to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.There is another evil in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended on other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized toward the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others connected with the operation of the General Government, has provincialized the cities of the South. Their growth is paralyzed, while they are the mere suburbs of Northern cities. The bases of the foreign commerce of the United States are the agricultural productions of the South; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740 there were five shipyards in South Carolina to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779 there were built in these yards twenty-five square-rigged vessels, beside a great number of sloops and schooners to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
Wasn't the Port at South Carolina the sticking point? The Union quietly relinquished Forts all over the South, but not *THAT* one.
Funny that.