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.
It seems we have established the fact that the idea of unilateral secession was not a recognized right during the ratification debates. We have also seen evidence that the Supreme Court early on gave the distinct impression from numerous cases that the idea of secession was not a legal recourse or avenue a state could take to leave the union.
We've even seen a southern newspaper editorial that claimed secession was nothing but treason during the War of 1812.
It is this period of history I would like further input on. It has often been said that secession was recognized as an option for the New England States during that period that resulted in the now infamous Hartford Convention, but the record seems a little thin on what actually the convention was about and how secession became attached to it.
Anyone willing to comment on it?
I do not believe the secession concept of the South in 1860 is at all the concept of New England in 1814. Even Massachusetts, the most aggressive of those states, wanted to talk about how to go about leaving before it made a separation.
There was a strong belief, throughout America, that the other states/the Federal government had no power to compel a state by force to remain in the Union. At the same time, there was a belief that no state had the right to "just leave". Even in 1861, that seems to have been the largest single position of Americans.
This was also the position of the Supreme Court on some cases, where a state refused to comply with Federal law. The state had a duty to conform to the law, but the Federal government could not use force to compel obedience (for example, Kentucky v. Dennison, 1859, for example).
The position of the South on secession seems based on Calhoun's theories in the 1830s and later, not the Founding Fathers' views of the 18th Century.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
It has often been said that secession was recognized as an option for the New England States during that period that resulted in the now infamous Hartford Convention, but the record seems a little thin on what actually the convention was about and how secession became attached to it.
Anyone willing to comment on it?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
The convention was not about secession.
"From December 15 to January 5 the convention met behind closed doors, and no one, either then or since, ever obtained a complete record of its deliberations. The little information that the administration did receive from those observing the convention, however, was generally encouraging. Jessup's predecessor in Connecticut, Colonel Joseph Smith, for example, reported to the War Department that he doubted whether the convention would attempt 'open rebellion'; it would try instead to give 'tone, confidence, and system to an opposition which shall continue its equivocal course, possessing all the moral qualities of treason and rebellion and at the same time avoiding a liability to their penalties.'
"Jessup, while en route to Hartford, met with Governor Tompkins in early December and learned that the New Yorker likewise questioned whether the convention would do much more than complain, issue an address to the people, and then go home. The leaders of the Republican party in Connecticut shared this view, informing both Jessup and Monroe that the thin attendance at Hartford--Vermont and New Hampshire were not officially represented at all--was hardly representative of New England opinion as a whole, and that many of the delegates, especially those from Connecticut itself, were not advocates of secession. Connecticut had accepted the call for the convention only with the reservation that its activities would be consistent with the state's obligations as a member 'of the national union,' and much of the Connecticut debt was invested in lands in New YOrk and Ohio to provide money for the state school fund. Furthermore, it was not difficult for Republican newspaper editors to provide other examples of New England's very considerable dependence on trade and investments with other parts of theUnion and to make the point that disunion would cost the states involved far more than it cost the United States itself." ... That there were extremists in New England who would have welcomed secession Jessup never doubted, but in retrospect it seemed clear to him that they had controlled neither the Federalist party nor the Hartford Convention." [J. C. A. Stagg, _Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783-1830,_ pp. 479-483]
"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." [Hickey, _The War of 1812,_ p. 277]
"The Hartford Convention pressed the administration to explain its inattention to the immigrant problem: 'Why admit to a participation in the government,' asked the convention report, 'aliens who were not parties to the compact--who are ignorant of the nature of our institutions and have no stake in the welfare of the country but what is recent and transitory?' " [James M. Banner, Jr., _To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815,_ 1969, page 94]
"Although the election of 1800 dashed their hopes of constitutional and statutory revision, they persisted throughout the Jeffersonian era in their plans. The Hartford Convention culminated their efforts to gain a hearing for an amendment to prohibit naturalized citizens from holding 'any civil office' under national authority. In the convention report which it is generally agreed he wrote, Otis, the undisputed champion of American nativists, attacked 'the easy admission of naturalized foreigners, to places of trust, honour or profit, operating as an inducement to the malcontent subjects of the old world to come to these States, in quest of executive patronage, and to repay it by an abject devotion to executive measures.' " [Banner, _To the Hartford Convention,_ p. 98]
"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]
Theodore Dwight was the secretary of the Hartford Convention. He published the journal of the convention in his book. There is no mention of secession at all.
There was a strong belief, throughout America, that the other states/the Federal government had no power to compel a state by force to remain in the Union. At the same time, there was a belief that no state had the right to "just leave". Even in 1861, that seems to have been the largest single position of Americans.
How do we reconcile this with Jackson's strong response to the Nullifcation Crisis?
What was the extent of the Federal police power in 1860?
How do we reconcile this with Jackson's strong response to the Nullifcation Crisis?
America was and is a country that allows multiple opinions. There was no one dominant opinion on the "right of secession" that Calhoun and his followers professed. Even as late as early 1861, the "no right to break the Union/no Federal right to compel a state by force" idea is still regarded as the single largest position Americans had on the matter (even in the North). But that means it was held by a large percentage of people, more than any other; it does not appear to have been a majority view.
However, in the 1830s South Carolina stood alone, and the doctrine of "Nullification" was basically flawed and went down in flames. It was never really held by a large portion of the Southern people. Zachary Taylor stomped hard on Southern secessionists in his brief term in office as well. One of the things we might take from that is that it is unlikely the Southern secessionists ever would have gotten so far along the path if Buchanan had not been President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
What was the extent of the Federal police power in 1860?
Against the states, on most things, I'd describe it as pretty weak and never used. Undoubtedly the biggest use of it East of the Mississippi in decades was in support of the obnoxious Fugitive Slave Law in the 1850s (such as the military force used to extradite a runaway slave to Virginia from Boston). The Kentucky v. Dennison case that hit the Supreme Court in 1859 was also involved with Fugitive Slave law (a man who had helped a slave escape from Ky to Ohio was being extradited) -- and the Court ruled the Governor had a duty to hand the fugitive over, but that the Federal Marshal could not use force to compel the Governor to do his duty. This Supreme Court decision stood for over a century, until overturned in Puerto Rico v. Branstad in 1987. (Branstad was the Governor of Iowa.)
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
You say the Hartford Convention was not about secession.
But yet was not the Hartford Convention called for because of concerns that the extremists in the Federalist Party were calling for the secession of New England during the War of 1812?
In that sense, wasn't the convention concerned about secession?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You say the Hartford Convention was not about secession.
But yet was not the Hartford Convention called for because of concerns that the extremists in the Federalist Party were calling for the secession of New England during the War of 1812?
In that sense, wasn't the convention concerned about secession?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
I'd have to disagree with that assessment, Neil. The Hartford Convention was called to address some serious concerns the New England states had with the way the Madison Administration was governing. The War of 1812 was a major issue, but so was appointing immigrants to office. Additionally, slavery issues were another key point of contention. The 3/5 clause gave disproportionate political power to the slave states, and expansion of slavery into the territories would lead to more slave states and more slave state power. The convention was called to address these concerns. Conventions were a popular method of addressing grievances in the antebellum years.
It's true that some Federalist hotheads were calling for secession, but they were a tiny minority with little chance of actually effecting such a policy.
Then why all the Southern states coming down so hard on New England for advocating secession? Why the editorial in the Richmond press being so point-blank about no state being able to secede from the Union, calling such an act treason?
If this was done in response to the Hartford Convention why so?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
If this was done in response to the Hartford Convention, why so?
Blue: I suspect it was not so much a response to the convention, which published nothing, as it was a response to hostile editorials in some New England newpapers.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
