Secession

[unionblue]

Friends,

Thought I would give you another take on secession, this one from a Northern view.

By the mid-1840s anger in New England and in the Yankee diaspora over the annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico became so widespread that talk of disunion and civil disobedience became almost fashionable, especially among those sections of the elite in which the old Federalist party were still strong. Adams and 12 other congressmen openly threatened it; as conservative an evangelical as Francis Wayland, still reticent and cautious in hi antislavery statements, hinted at it; and federal judge William Jay, son of John Jay, provided a constitutional justification for it.

The compact between the states embodied in the Constitution was destroyed by the South, said Jay, when Texas was admitted by a simple majority of both Houses rather than by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, as required for transactions with a foreign power (which Texas was, remember?). Although not every violation of the Constitution warranted dissolution, this one did because, "it enabled slavery to burst the bounds within which it had confined and ensured a permanent proslavery majority in the Senate." The prospect was not only for an "indefinite extension of the southern boundary" and a perpetual "slave-holding control of the federal government," but it was now "more likely" that "continuance of the Union" would "enslave the North rather that free the South." Under circumstances the "morals and happiness of the children of Northerners" deserved "more weight than the vain hope of freeing the slaves who would populate Texas and the territories to its south."

Now, what would have happened if the New England States had run with their theory of secession in 1840 and left the Union?

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 20, 2003)

[unionblue]

Thea,

To answer your post above about Rawle's view on the Constitution, remember, the man's book was taught for two whole years and then removed from course instruction at the Point and replaced by Story's view on the Constitution:

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm

and Kent's Commentaries:

http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_000.htm

Story's being the more authoritative and recognized view.

Just a gentle reminder,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 20, 2003)

[thea_447]

Alabama's Letter to the State of North Carolina

From: "The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama", William R. Smith (Montgomery, Ala: White, Pfister, & Co, 1861; reprint Spartanburg, SC: Reprint Company Publishers, 1975), pp. 432-436.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/AL-NC.htm

(P.S. How DO you get that bold print? I always need something for emphasis but never know how to get it...same thing with italics!)


YMOS,

Thea,
To get bold type you click the Bold icon before and then unclick it after the word(s) you want to make bold.
But sometimes, I cannot figure out why, it produces not bold text but little red **** instead. When it happens I just cannot get it to work.

Hope this helps When all else fails I just use CAPS for emphasis.

YMOS
tommy

[pickettcsa]

Interesting post. I just read an article in a magazine the other day talking about the politics leading up to the War Between the States. According to the author (I apologize as I do not have the article handy), he stated that the politicians of the antebellum period, especially tens years prior to the start of the war, were the most inept in American history and that a better class of leaders would have been able to avoid or come to an agreement to placate South Carolina's secession. When I review a list of names of leaders prior to 1850 I see Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C Calhoun (who regardless of his views, is still considered to have been one, if not the best, senator in the history of Congress) but afterwards see Douglass, Breckenridge, Davis, Chandler, Chase and Fessenden. None of whom are widely remembered except for Douglass and Davis.

I say to this day that the war was started by the politicians who were backed by businessmen and bankers.

[unionblue]

Michael,

I don't go with that thought that you have in your above post. I think there were men of politics with ability right up to the begining of the war who in a class all by themselves. Davis, Douglas, and others.

And there had been compromise after compromise with the South. It just never seemed to be enough, until finally, the North said it had heard the cry, 'Wolf!' too many times in the threat of secession from the South to take it serious. There in lies the tradgedy.

And as I recall, businessmen and bankers in New York and elsewhere, tried like crazy not to start a war as it might be bad for business. Some men of business in the South felt the same way.

And no politician of the era ever expected such a bloody, long and terrible war. Slavery started the war.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[tamaroa]

Michael, compare the politicians of the 1850's with who we have now! I think the Ineptitude award goes to the current crop of alleged senators and representatives in congress now. What a bunch of miscreants!!! In fact, I will go ****her and even though I'm not a Democrat will say that that the last best hope for a decent politician in this century was Hubert Humphrey. He was honest, principled and a hard worker for his constituents.

Bill

[johan_steele]

Oh C'mon Neil & Michael! There have always been honest Politicians, honest Lawyers and even Santa... at least that's what I keep telling my daughter. If I say it often enough maybe I'll come to believe it.

[pickettcsa]

Shakespeare once wrote, "If you want justice, first kill all the lawyers." As most of our politicians, past and present, have been lawyers, I think that speaks for itself. Personally, I've just recently bought a new house. It was one hell of a battle and if I didn't watch my back, I'd have about 3 daggers buried in my back from the banker and the realtor. There is no honesty in politics or business - LOL. Nice try though.

[unionblue]

Friends,

I have found another great site called, 'US Constitution, Later Debate (Mostly 19th c.)'

http://www.digitalbookindex.com/_sea...titution2a.asp

May it help you with your research and debates.

YMOS,
Unionblue