Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Unionblue,
I suppose I should also again start reading the debate. I had before concentrated on the Senate debate, but never really went over the House debate, which might be slightly more interesting. I recall my disappointment with the anti-climatic debate in the Senate before the vote on the alleged Earth-shaking bill before them. With seven states already gone, they argued whether old books should pay the same tariff rate as new books.
Well, we can imagine how high tempers were running over that type of oppression!
I look forward to your findings. It makes me wonder why the "scholars" who so often make accusations of the 1861 tariff act's severity never actually reference the tariff schedules or debate. A needle and a baloon come to mind.
I am quite certain that eventually – you will come up with the answer on the duties. However, I would like to point out that the duties not only paid for the revolutionary war but also was paid for the war of 1812.
Just as the Pittsburgh plus taxes paid for the North’s war against the seceding states, which were within the rights of the constitutional agreement. That tax lasted until 1963 in order to punish the South and insure they would not sell to foreign nations. It never ceases to amaze me that when the north wished to secede (1814) it was considered legal by them. My guess is that was because they wanted out.
It never ceases to amaze me that when the north wished to secede (1814) it was considered legal by them. My guess is that was because they wanted out.
Since when do 26 delegates from five New England states equal "the North"? And where is it established that "the North" considered secession legal? Secession was debated and rejected as part of the proceedings of the Hartford Convention. That somehow ends up being twisted into "the North" thought secession legal. That line of reasoning is what is truly amazing to me.
Can you elaborate on the "Pittsburg Plus taxes" that you mention? I have never heard of them, and frankly find it hard to believe that businesses were prohibited by the federal government from foreign trade because of what section of the country they were from. That's the kind of gravy that lawyers live for.
Last edited by cedarstripper; 08-28-2005 at 08:39 PM.
Since when do 26 delegates from five New England states equal "the North"? And where is it established that "the North" considered secession legal? Secession was debated and rejected as part of the proceedings of the Hartford Convention. That somehow ends up being twisted into "the North" thought secession legal. That line of reasoning is what is truly amazing to me.
Actually, there is no evidence that I've seen that secession was even mentioned at the Hartford Convention. It's not in the report, it's not in the convention's journal, and its not in any of the correspondence I've seen from the members of the convention.
"The character of the twenty-six delegates at the convention also boded well. George Cabot, Nathan Dane, and [Harrison Gray] Otis headed the Massachusetts delegation; Chauncey Goodrich and James Hillhoun, the Connecticut delegation; and Daniel Lyman and Samuel Ward the Rhode Island delegation. Except for Timothy Bigelow and perhaps one or two others, all the delegates were moderates, hardly the sort to promote violent measures. Radicals like Blake, Quincy, and Fessenden were purposely excluded from the meeting." [Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict,
University of Illinois Press, 1989, page 275]
The convention, dominated by moderates, had perhaps as many as three radicals. "The only known radical, Bigelow, was given no committee assignments and apparently did not play a major role in the proceedings. Nor was there any sign of disunion." [Ibid., p. 277]
The Secretary of the Hartford Convention, Theodore Dwight, published the journal of the convention during the Nullification Crisis, when people were claiming the Hartford Convention had been secessionist. In his book in which he published the journal, he defended the Hartford Convention from these charges of its being a secessionist convention:
"The case of the Hartford Convention appears, then, to be summarily as follows:--It was legitimate in its origin, in no respect violating any provisions of the constitution of the United States, either in its letter or its spirit. The commissions given to the members were scrupulously guarded against any unconstitutional conduct on the part of the Convention, giving them authority only to confer together, and recommend such measures to their principals as they might deem expedient, taking care to govern themselves by a regard to the duties and obligations which the states owed to the United States. The account of their proceedings shows that they punctiliously observed the injunctions contained in their instructions; and the result of their deliberations proves their conduct to have been, in every respect, strictly constitutional.
"Notwithstanding the vast amount of calumny and reproach that has been bestowed upon the Hartford Convention by the ignorant and the worthless, it will not be a hazardous assumption to say, that henceforward no man who justly estimates the value of his character for truth and honesty, and who, of course, means to sustain such a character, will risk his reputation by the repetition of such falsehoods respecting that body, as have heretofore been uttered with impunity. No man, with the facts before him, can do this, without sacrificing all claim to veracity, and, of course, to integrity and honour. Nor will the subterfuge that the journal and report of the Convention do not contain the whole of their proceedings, save him from the disgrace of wilfully disregarding the truth. Nearly nineteen years have elapsed since the Convention adjourned, and no proof has been adduced, and nothing nearer proof, than the unsupported assertions of the corrupt journals of political partizans [sic], of any measure having been adopted or recommended by the Convention, besides those contained in the journal and the report. If there was any treason, proposed or meditated, against the United States, at the Convention, it must have been hidden in as deep and impenetrable obscurity, as the fabulous secrets of free masonry are said to be buried, otherwise some traces of it would have been discovered and disclosed to the public before this late period." [Theodore Dwight, History of the Hartford Convention: With a Review of the Policy of the United States Government, Which Led to the War of 1812, New York, 1833, pp. 401-402]
Actually, there is no evidence that I've seen that secession was even mentioned at the Hartford Convention. It's not in the report, it's not in the convention's journal, and its not in any of the correspondence I've seen from the members of the convention.
That's interesting to find out. Was secession indeed considered independently of the convention by any prominent NE politicians, or were references to it more of a Democratic-Republican effort to discredit and ridicule the convention? For instance, Jefferson referred to 'Massachusetts men" and their plans to secede, claiming that were they to ever be presented to the common New Englander, they would be completely rejected.
That's interesting to find out. Was secession indeed considered independently of the convention by any prominent NE politicians, or were references to it more of a Democratic-Republican effort to discredit and ridicule the convention? For instance, Jefferson referred to 'Massachusetts men" and their plans to secede, claiming that were they to ever be presented to the common New Englander, they would be completely rejected.
Radical Federalists like Timothy Pickering talked about secession, but they had little in the way of a following. Most folks in New England regarded them as kooks, from what I've been able to find out. A large reason for their discontent, of course, was the 3/5 Clause, which they said gave slave states disproportionate representation and influence on the national government.
The Democratic-Republicans did accuse the Hartford Convention of being secessionist in order to discredit it and the Federalists. Since their meetings were held in secret the charges had time to stick, leading to the annihilation of the Federalist Party. Seems that the perception one was a secessionist was hazardous to one's political health at the time.
Seems that the perception one was a secessionist was hazardous to one's political health at the time.
Yep, seems so. Even Theodore Dwight, the Secretary of the convention referred to secession as treason in the passage you posted.
Well, whether secession was on the agenda at the convention, or the personal grumblings of a few, I'll stay with my point that it certainly did not establish "the North" as advocating secession in 1815, nor considering it constitutional.
I have one other question in fairness to objectivity. Considering the disgrace that the conventioners ended up with, is it possible that by 1833, Dwight practiced a revisionism designed to minimize that disgrace? (similar to the post-war writings of Davis and Stephens) I see where secession was not a topic chosen by the commitee to discuss at the convention, but is it possible that the secrecy of these meetings allowed it to be debated and not recorded?
I have one other question in fairness to objectivity. Considering the disgrace that the conventioners ended up with, is it possible that by 1833, Dwight practiced a revisionism designed to minimize that disgrace? (similar to the post-war writings of Davis and Stephens) I see where secession was not a topic chosen by the commitee to discuss at the convention, but is it possible that the secrecy of these meetings allowed it to be debated and not recorded?
---------------
I suppose almost anything is possible. But it's not in the journal, it's not in the report, and so far I haven't found it in any of the writings of the participants that I could find.
Compliments,
I must admit, in all honesty, I have no idea what ya`ll are talking about but, Was the whole idea to keep the southern planters from getting too rich from the idea of no labor[black] over head. This compared to what[business wise] the Nor`easters had to put up with??
Didn`t the gentlemen, in the northeast, come up with the brain child of secession
first?
I know should of read the first 9 pages of this post.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
