1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free! If you aren't ready for that, try posting your question or comment as a guest!

Colonel Pickering of Massachusetts

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by the54thmass, Sep 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    In the prior history of the country, repeated instances are found of the assertion of this right (to secede), and of a purpose entertained at various times to put it in execution. Notably is this true of Massachusetts and other New England States. The acquisition of Louisiana, in 1803, had created much dissatisfaction in those States, for the reason, expressed by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, that "the influence of our [the Northeastern] part of the Union must be diminished by the acquisition of more weight at the other extremity." The project of a separation was freely discussed, with no intimation, in the records of the period, of any idea among its advocates that it could be regarded as treasonable or revolutionary.


    Colonel Timothy Pickering, who had been an officer of the war of the Revolution, afterward successively Postmaster-General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State, in the Cabinet of General Washington, and, still later, long a representative of the State of Massachusetts in the Senate of the United States, was one of the leading secessionists of his day. Writing from Washington to a friend, on the 24th of December, 1803, he says:

    "I will not yet despair. I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic democrats of the South. There will be (and our children, at f a r thest, will see it) a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary."

    In another letter, written a few weeks afterward (January 29, 1804), speaking of what he regarded as wrongs and abuses perpetrated by the then existing Administration, he thus expresses his views of the remedy to be applied:


    "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy—a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt....

    "I do not believe in the practicability of a long-continued Union. A Northern Confederacy would unite congenial characters and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left to 'manage their own affairs in their own way.' If a separation were to take place, our mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable. The Southern States would require the naval protection of the Northern Union, and the products of the former would be important to the navigation and commerce of the latter....

    "It [the separation] must begin, in Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed in Connecticut; and could we doubt of New Hampshire? But New York must be associated; and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the center of the Confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow of course, and Rhode Island of necessity."

    Substituting South Carolina for Massachusetts; Virginia for New York; Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, for New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island; Kentucky for New Jersey, etc., etc., we find the suggestions of 1860-'61 only a reproduction of those thus outlined nearly sixty years earlier.


    Mr. Pickering seems to have had a correct and intelligent perception of the altogether pacific character of the secession which he proposed, and of the mutual advantages likely to accrue to both sections from a peaceable separation. Writing in February, 1804, he explicitly disavows the idea of hostile feeling or action toward the South, expressing himself as follows:

    "While thus contemplating the only means of maintaining our ancient institutions in morals and religion, and our equal rights, we wish no ill to the Southern States and those naturally connected with them. The public debts might be equitably apportioned between the new confederacies, and a separation somewhere about the line above suggested would divide the different characters
    of the existing Union. The manners of the Eastern portion of the States would be sufficiently congenial to form a Union, and their interests are alike intimately connected with agriculture and commerce. A friendly and commercial intercourse would be maintained with the States in the Southern Confederacy as at present. Thus all the advantages which have been for a few years depending on the general Union would be continued to its respective portions, without the jealousies and enmities which now afflict both, and which peculiarly embitter the condition of that of the North. It is not unusual for two friends, when disagreeing about the mode of conducting a common concern, to separate and manage, each in his own way, his separate interest, and thereby preserve a useful friendship, which without such separation would infallibly be destroyed."

    Such were the views of an undoubted patriot who had participated in the formation of the Union, and who had long been confidentially associated with Washington in the administration of its Government, looking at the subject from a Northern standpoint, within fifteen years after the organization of that Government under the Constitution. Whether his reasons for advocating a dissolution of the Union were valid and sufficient, or not, is another question which it is not necessary to discuss. His authority is cited only as showing the opinion prevailing in the North at that day with regard to the right of secession from the Union, if deemed advisable by the ultimate and irreversible judgment of the people of a sovereign State.

    In 1811, on the bill for the admission of Louisiana as a State of the Union, the Hon. Josiah Quincy, a member of Congress from Massachusetts, said
    "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of this Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation—amicably if they can, violently if they must."
    Mr. Poindexter, delegate from what was then the Mississippi Territory, took exception to these expressions of Mr. Quincy,

    and called him to order. The Speaker (Mr. Varnum, of Massachusetts) sustained Mr. Poindexter, and decided that the suggestion of a dissolution of the Union was out of order. An appeal was taken from this decision, and it was reversed. Mr. Quincy proceeded to vindicate the propriety of his position in a speech of some length, in the course of which he said:

    "Is there a principle of public law better settled or more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from its obligations? Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new partner without the concurrence of the other three; would it not be at their option to abandon the partnership after so palpable an infringement of their rights? How much more in the political partnership, where the admission of new associates, without previous authority, is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils!"

    It is to be remembered that these men—Cabot, Pickering. Quincy, and others—whose opinions and expressions have been cited, were not Democrats, misled by extreme theories of State rights, but leaders and expositors of the highest type of "Federalism, and of a strong central Government." This fact gives their support of the right of secession the greater significance.


    How is Colonel Timothy Pickering, a Colonel, a Senator, and a Secretary of War, and a Northern Secessionist viewed... in contrast to Colonel Jefferson Davis, a Senator, a Secretary of War, and a Southern Unionist, whose loyalty was first to his state?




    54th
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Dred

    Dred First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
    Last time I checked, Colonel Pickering didn't put into play events that would eventually lead to the deaths of 600,000 Americans. Interesting to note how you refer to a man that never attempted disunion as the "secessionist" and the one who was the president of a seceded south as the unionist... And how exactly can a unionist be loyal to his state first? The very term Unionist contradicts.
     
  4. mobile_96

    mobile_96 First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,005
    Location:
    Ill.
    54th says: This fact gives their support of the right of secession the greater significance.<
    Still doesn't go very far in proving unilateral secession was legal in the first place.
     
  5. CChartreux

    CChartreux Cadet

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Location:
    Alexandria, Virginia
    "His authority is cited only as showing the opinion prevailing in the North at that day with regard to the right of secession from the Union, if deemed advisable by the ultimate and irreversible judgment of the people of a sovereign State." [the54thmass/#1]



    FWIW - I'd want to see more documentation that this actually was the prevailing opinion...rather than one opinion among many.






    CC
     
  6. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    To be clear: Unionist in the following sense of the word:


    10 December 1860 - Overheard in the Senate:

    It is that our fathers formed a Government for a Union of friendly States; and though under it the people have been prosperous beyond comparison with any other whose career is recorded in the history of man, still that Union of friendly States has changed its character, and sectional hostility has been substituted for the fraternity in which the Government was founded.


    The theory of our Constitution, Mr. President, is one of peace, of equality of sovereign States. It was made by States and made for States; and for greater assurance they passed an amendment, doing that which was necessarily implied by the nature of the instrument, as it was a mere instrument of grants. But, in the abundance of caution, they declared that everything which had not been delegated was reserved to the States, or to the people—that is, to the State governments as instituted by the people of each State, or to the people in their sovereign capacity.


    I need not, then, go on to argue from the history and nature of our Government that no power of coercion exists in it. It is enough for me to demand the clause of the Constitution which confers the power. If it is not there, the Government does not possess it. That is the plain construction of the Constitution—made plainer, if possible, by its amendment.

    This Union is dear to me as a Union of fraternal States. It would lose its value if I had to regard it as a Union held together by physical force. I would be happy to know that every State now felt that fraternity which made this Union possible; and, if that evidence could go out, if evidence satisfactory to the people of the South could be given that that feeling existed in the hearts of the Northern people, you might burn your statute-books and we would cling to the Union still. But it is because of their conviction that hostility, and not fraternity, now exists in the hearts of the people, that they are looking to their reserved rights and to their independent powers for their own protection. If there be any good, then, which we can do, it is by sending evidence to them of that which I fear does not exist—the purpose of your constituents to fulfill in the spirit of justice and fraternity all their constitutional obligations. If you can submit to them that evidence, I feel confidence that, with the assurance that aggression is henceforth to cease, will terminate all the measures for defense. Upon you of the majority section it depends to restore peace and perpetuate the Union of equal States; upon us of the minority section rests the duty to maintain our equality and community rights; and the means in one case or the other must be such as each can control.


    54th
     
  7. ole

    ole Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    30,661
    Location:
    Near Kankakee
    Great. It's a rational world when "overheard in the senate" becomes history.

    Ole
     
  8. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    12,870
    Location:
    California
    Assuming we trust this quote: So the union was dear to Davis, as long as it meant no more than a gentleman's club.

    Maybe less than a gentleman's club. I don't think the protocol for withdrawing from membership is limited to "I quit." being good enough if one has outstanding dues.
     
  9. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    18,288
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    From the book, DISUNION! The Coming of The American Civil War, 1789-1859, by Elizabeth R. Varon, chapter 1, The Language of Terrifying Prophecy; Disunion Debates In The Early Republic, pg. 37:

    "...In dignant that the Louisiana Purchase would open the way for the expansion of slavery and thus upset the political balance struck by the three-fifths compromise, a cadre of New England Federalists under Massachusetts senator Timothy Pickering explored, in 1803-4, the possibility of forming a New England confederacy and even allying with Quebec and Britain. Although this failed scheme "can hardly be called a plot since it never took concrete form," as Richard Buel Jr. points out, it nonetheless provided ammunition to Republicans in their campaign to tar their critics with treachery..."

    From the book, Negro President; Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills, chapter 8, 1803: Louisiana, pg. 125:

    "...In light of these considerations, now seemed the time to free the Constitution of the three-fifths clause. If that could not be accomplished, the agitation to amend might lead to one or another compromise--either that slavery be excluded from Louisiana (as Hillhouse proposed to the Senate), or that the three-fifths clause not be extended to the territory (since it was tailored only to the specific balance of the thirteen original states)...

    ...Since there was little hope of passing the Ely admendment, Pickering sounded out friends on a more radical response to the expanding slave domination. The addition of a huge new realm in the Southwest should be countered by a withdrawal of the Northeast from the Union..."

    From the same book, chapter 9, 1804: Pickering and Burr, pg 131-133:

    "...They took most seriously the argument that the Louisiana Purchase, by advancing the slave power, had broken the regional compromise on which the three-fifths clause was based. They tried in secret to recruit people who would help them declare New England independent of a country they saw as ruled by the slave power. Neither go far in this effort. (Roger) Griswold had a little better luck recruiting support for it among his colleagues in Connecticut than did Pickering in Massachusetts. The thickest cluster of men entertaining the idea of secession was not in Essex County, Massachusetts, but in the Connecticut Valley. Griswold got a warm response there from Samuel Hunt, Simeon Olcott, Caleb Strong, Uriah Tracy, James Hillhouse, and John Goddard.

    But when Pickering sounded out his state's most important Federalist leaders, foremost among them Fisher Ames, George Cabot, and Stephen Higginson, they all told him his plans were impracticable. That did not mean they had any doubts about the evils wrought by the federal ratio (three-fifths clause). They deplored the addition of Louisiana and said that a separation might become not only desirable but necessary at some future date. The public, however, had not yet reached a consensus on that, and without public support Pickering's plan was doomed. George Cabot, in a long and friendly letter spelled out the problem:

    "The subject [of separation] is as important as it is delicate, and has often occupied my thoughts. All the evils you describe and many more are to be apprehended; but I greatly fear that a separation would be no remedy, because the source of them is in the political theories of our country and in ourselves. A separation at some period not very remote may probably take place. The first impression of it is even now favorably received by many." [emphasis in original]

    Cabot continues,

    "...If, as is probable, we do not find ourselves strong enough now to act with success the part proposed, I am sensible of the dangers you point out, and see no way of escaping them. We shall go the way of all government wholly popular--from bad to worse--until the evils, no longer tolerable, shall generate their own remedies...

    ...By this time, you will suppose I am willing to do nothing but submit to fate. I would not be so understood. I am convinced we cannot do what is wished; but we can do much, if we work with nature (or the course of things), and not against her. A separation is now impracticable because we do not feel the necessity or utility of it. The same separation then will be unavoidable, when our loyalty to the Union is generally perceived to be the instrument of debasement and impoverishment. If it is prematurely attempted, those few only will promote it wh discern what is hidden from the multitude; and to those may be addre3ssed--

    Truths would you teach, or save a sinking land,
    All fear, some aid you, and few understadn.

    I have said that a separation now is not desirable, because we should not remedy the evil but should bring it home and aggravate it, by cherishing and giving new sanction to the causes which produce it. But if a separation should by and by be produced by suffereing, I think it might be accompanied by important ameliorations of our theories."

    Other leaders Pickering tried to interest in his scheme threw the same cold water on it. Stephen Higginson wrote on Feb. 15:

    "I have seen your letters to Mr. Cabot and Mr. Lyman on the question of separation, which is a very delicate and important one, considered in the abstract. We all agree there can be no doubt of its being desirable; but the expediency of attempting it or discussing it now, at this moment, we all very much doubt. It is dangerous to continue under the Virginia system; but how to extricate ourselves at present we see not."

    Fisher Ames was just as discouraging, and this response from Massachusetts figures would be made even more strongly by Alexander Hamilton and Rufus King in New York.

    Pickering's great plot looks, then, like an idle hope quickly struck down in the real world."

    Question: "How is Colonel Timothy Pickering, a Colonel, a Senator, and a Secretary of War, and a Northern Secessionist viewed...in contrast to Colonel Jefferson Davis, a Senator, a Secretary of War, and a Southern Unionist, whose loyalty was first to his state?"

    Answer: He cannot be compared to Jefferson for a number of reasons.

    One: Although he considered secession, talked about it, advoacted it with others, he did not participate in an actual secession attempt.

    Two: Pickering was fighting against the expansion of slavery and the three-fifths clause of the Constitution, as he felt both actions were supporting the advocates of the slave power and the expansion of slavery.

    Three: Davis advocated the strongest federal legislation to date, by fully supporting a federal slave code, which directly infringed upon the concept of States Rights by putting the federal government squarely in support of protecting and expanding slavery.

    What it boils down to, as it always does when talking about why the Davis and the South did what it did vs. why Pickering did what he did, we always come back to slavery and its protection and expansion and the fight to prevent such.

    Davis consented to unilateral secession. Pickering did not.

    Davis participated in the process of secession. Pickering did not.

    Davis led the Southern States in rebellion. Pickering did not lead the New England States in secession.

    Talking about cannibalism does not make one a cannibal.

    It is the act that makes one such.

    Unionblue
     
  10. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    So, then, if I read this correctly, Pickering was attempting to control the general government (who, at the time, was actually and in actuality the Conservative Southern Instrument whom Grant et. al. at the North (East) accuse it of being... and ("the fear of a 'Black' Planet") i.e., the Southern Conservative majority who brings their blacks with them into the new areas of this uncharted West could literally and through the vote
    stop the Northern desire to see both a monstrous Federal system put in place, as well as prohibiting most of this
    Federalist system's plans for expansion, in their (later) Whig use of high protectionist tariffs, strong central governmental control, and internal improvements (the likes of which nearly bankrupted Illinois under Lincoln the first time he tried these things some time earlier)...

    and Pickering fears the 3/5's status given to the owners of the blacks in the South should it go out West...

    and wants to secede because, really, of a fear of "a greater weight at the other extremity..."

    In plain Modern American language, then, the North East
    feared that the South, in acquiring this new land, would
    always be the dominant party
    in the general government, and would always resist attempts to change the government to "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".


    I can see where this was only in the North East's mind, for the most part, since the South had had control of the general government, and yet had not gone into the North East with its pointed nose, demanding that the North East comply with its ideas of 'the way things ought to be' and will be, once we legislate it so...

    So then the Northern majority in Pickering's time has a vote of confidence for the Southern majority government, in its applications, and does not secede from the Union..

    Now, contrast this... with the South as a growing minority, and its fears that the encroaching Northern majorities will
    confine the Southern elite to the South, thus giving the North the same majority against the South that it ,the North, had originally feared from this same South, in the beginning, only this time, the threat to the South is very real... because the North enjoys its role as a political corrector of other states and their shortcomings... and full well the South knows this particular shortcoming of the Northern politicians...


    So, if the Southern moneyed elite (read Slave Owners) are to be confined to the South, by Lincoln... ("What I insist upon...") then why should the South have to pay for the Railroads of the North (The TC RR will no longer even go through the South!) and all the other federally-paid improvements of the North???

    Basically, the Slave States are being put into a second class citizen status, much like the freed negroes of the South... and are thus relegated to their masters, the
    Northern elite... who will be in a shape soon to make all sorts of demands... 'Constitutionally'...

    (And Lincoln promising to make slavery perpetual through a 13th amendment is no good because of the Northern will to write an as-yet unwritten 14th or 15th amendment rescinding same...).

    SO, the Southern money is looking at being confined, like their Southern negroes, both free and slave, to the Black States. (Lincoln's own desires from his words... so that Northern Wage Slaves may have jobs in the West free of blacks working for less money!)

    They are looking at being a Milch Cow for the North as to their resources... up to the half of everything they produce... with none of that money coming back into their states for improvements...

    So, African servitude built Old England. The trade in these Africans built New England. The results of that trade in ownership built the Old South.

    The North shifts to manufacturing, and then to meddling in the affairs of the other areas, specifically the West and the South...

    Once it gets out of Slave Trading, it can then - on the one hand - demand to be paid tariffs in slave-made dollars, while - on the other hand - demanding that those slaves be housed only in certain states and in none of the territories...

    while - on a THIRD HAND, (from somewhere) - try to threaten to emancipate all the Southern slaves by force of violence, without a Constitutional amendment, without even the mention of a compensation plan, of any sort... without federal involvement for this 'improvment' and this to be done immediately, unlike the very long time period involved with Northern emancipation... (which is said to have gone to least 1873?).

    AND... the loss of slaves in the West means that 3/5's votes from the ownership of these slaves will not count against the North! So, the South is actually losing both its white and black voting power in the West...


    And all the while the other Southern states wait to hear that the suggestions of the 36th Congress have been taken seriously by the incoming party, and something be done federally to curb the abolitionist terrorism that now, according to President Buchanan, terrorizes all Southern matrons at night...

    And nothing happens along any of those lines... And so, the real reason for joining a Union of any kind, initially, (i.e., the protections of 'domestic tranquility' and 'providing for a common defense', ) are not to be found. Anywhere.


    At all.



    Hmmm. Seems to me that the North has actually already seceded the South, against her will, and has cut her off from her rightful equality among the states of the Union, (or more to the point, FROM THE UNION, itself) by this enforced dominance of this new party coming to power...


    So the South just decided to let this be generally known to the world.


    And you wonder why the South actually did pull out, whereas the North did not...


    So the Southerners simply can't vote a VOTE OF CONFIDENCE to the Union in 1860...

    Because of REAL problems, and not Pickering's relatively imagined slights to the North...

    I see...

    1). Where is Unilateral Secession listed as illegal?

    2). Where is Pickering's desire to fight against a Constitutional 3/5's law, and the Southern right to own slaves... not any more egregious than the South's desire to see her rights enforced, legally?

    3). Why does the North's basic contentment to stay put - at the time it considered secession - stand as the whole of the law and the prophets concerning anyone else's desire for secession later?

    4). Pickering WOULD HAVE PARTICIPATED had the North been as upset over Southern meddling as the South was over the Northern interference and agitations. Treason is also within its conspiracy to commit, not just within its actual application! This is why Davis says that Secession was not considered Treason.


    54th
     
  11. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    12,870
    Location:
    California
    54th, your arguements would hold a lot more water if you didn't persistently refuse to base them on facts.
     
  12. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Well, to the uneducated, the untrained, and the un-in-doctrinated, that is the story which unfolds before me...

    Of course, I do not have the benefit of years of 'an official opinion' on the subject...

    We tend to make up our own minds, which lends itself to a
    scattering of ideas, and beliefs.

    One thing throws up a massive red flag in accepting Northern doctrine as absolute fact; the unchanging and constant rhetorical chant that the South was 100% wrong and 100% to blame...

    I have never known that to ever be the case, at any time, in any situation.

    I cannot think that now is any different.

    54th
     
  13. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    12,870
    Location:
    California
    The South decided that it would start the war. One can argue all day on how much ill filling was stirred up one side of the Mason-Dixon or the other, but one side decided that it would turn things from angry debate with a few individuals being radicals to something that ended with 600,000+ young men dead.

    There is no more a way for the South of the day to not be responsible for being that side than for the sun to rise in the West, as the facts stand.

    Northern "doctrine" has nothing to do with it. The facts inconveniently line up against arguements trying to make the rest of the country responsible for the pigheaded douchebaggery masquerading as "leadership" for the South.
     
  14. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    The attitudes and the ideologies of the founders suggest that they were more in favor of secession as a remedy than Mr. Lincoln's hostile response to it.

    This from General Ulysses S. Grant, in his extremely fascinating memoirs.

    So, based upon this, then, you can reason that the entire founding father's group was of this same '******-baggery'
    persuasion?

    They were all of a basic Conservative mind set.
    They were many of them slave holders, and those who weren't agreed to the practice.
    They formed a voluntary Union, and Jefferson allowed for secession...

    They were a preponderance of them Southerners... if not geographically, then at least in ideology.


    54th
     
  15. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    18,288
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Herein lies your major problem.

    Unionblue
     
  16. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    18,288
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    You beg a question, voice an opinion, and fail, AGAIN and AGAIN, to provide evidence to support you views.

    I have asked you to provide specific source documents above on the people and actions you have referenced in your post above.

    Here is an opportunity for you.

    How you respond is up to you.

    Unionblue
     
  17. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    18,288
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    :smile:

    Sincerely,
    Unionblue
     
  18. Elennsar

    Elennsar Colonel

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    12,870
    Location:
    California
    The most frustrating part is that its possible a fact or two may have strayed into the positions 54th is making - I don't have numbers off hand, but the Founders certainly had a fair helping of conservative and southern members (though not necessarily both together - Hamilton was a nonSoutherner conservative, Jefferson a Southern nonconservative) - but like a drop of ink in a large bucket of water, the rest of the arguement dilutes whatever value the fact may have.

    **** is not history. Its not what if history, its not historical fiction, and its not nonfiction. Its the dust of the bones of a dead horse.
     
  19. CChartreux

    CChartreux Cadet

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    527
    Location:
    Alexandria, Virginia
    "The attitudes and the ideologies of the founders suggest that they were more in favor of secession as a remedy than Mr. Lincoln's hostile response to it."

    This from General Ulysses S. Grant, in his extremely fascinating memoirs."

    and....


    "They formed a voluntary Union, and Jefferson allowed for secession..." [the54thmass/#13]


    What's from Grant's memoirs? That the attitudes and ideologies of the founders suggest they were in favor of secession?

    You claimed earlier that the legal 'right of secession' was a 'prevalent opinion' and now you want to suggest that the Founding Fathers also were in favor of secession...with Grant as your source? Instead of the actual Founding Fathers? Again - I'd want to see clear source material that actually proves (1) it was a 'prevalent opinion' in the North (as you claimed in your first post here) and (2) that 'attitudes and ideologies' of the founders suggest they were in favor of secession.

    Secondly - if I were you, I be careful about invoking the name of Jefferson to 'support secession'. Pro-secession people have a tendency to cherry-pick some of Jefferson's sayings/quotes without taking the whole of them over the man's life. Jefferson was known to have waffled back and forth on this.

    In my opinion, you still haven't demonstrated clearly that the 'founders were in support of secession' and the 'the right to secede was a prevalent opinion'.






    CC
     
  20. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    How is Hamilton a Conservative (save for his line about co-ercing a state - I think that was him) , and how is Jefferson, the originator of Conservatism, listed as a non-Conservative?

    54th
     
  21. the54thmass

    the54thmass Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Okay, here's #1, which I have time for right now... A little bit of cherry picking from Grant:

    But if he means all of this, then he means what I said...


    Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.

    Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.

    Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

    *The framers were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days. It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies.

    In Conclusion to #1. Grant's idea that Secessional legality ended with the Constitution is, to steal from Lincoln's alleged views of Christianity, bunkum. It 'ain't wrote in thar nowhar'... he made that part up.

    Grant's idea that the purchase of Florida by the common treasury would so keep her in a state of bondage to the
    federal government after her establishment as a state is
    also his own period defense of his actions.

    Again, nothing in the Constitution allows for this, and it must be written to allow it, or, as I will show in a later post, it is again bunkum.

    http://www.bartleby.com/1011/16.html

    Subsection 11



    Until I have more time...


    54th
     

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page