For example, one of the men charged with actually writing the Constitution in Philadelphia believed that the original 13 had never been independently sovereign (that is never, as in not once, not ever). He felt the 13 had only achieved the state of sovereignity as a group and could not claim to be independently sovereign. His was not what history records as a majority opinion. However, he was a well-respected legal mind of the time, a man of strong background and impressive credentials. He might have been right in his argument..
The 3/5 rule was about slavery, specifically it was about how slaves were to be counted for purposes of representation.The major difference was they changed the message from the 3/5th rule to slavery. This was a significant difference because it included a human element.
The Hartford Convention is an important topic of discussion in Civil War history because it shows there were feelings in the North of disunion, even if only on a mob level. The feelings from the North and South regarding secession even carried over into the time period just before the war as no legislation was ever passed to make it illegal. By the 1850's those angry mobs turned into abolitionists which they found to be a far more effective vehicle of change than disunion. Had Lincoln lost, those mobs would have likely turned back to disunion.
You are correct and it is a fact that is almost completely lost in Civil War discussion. Prior to the War, disunion in the South was almost exclusively among the political elites, who then trickled it down. Whereas in the North, it was mostly in the far radical mobs and politicians.Interestingly in contrast to "the mob" being behind threats of disunion in the new england states, in the slave states it was the political elite pushing it forward.
Hey, whaddya know, I agree!You are correct and it is a fact that is almost completely lost in Civil War discussion. Prior to the War, disunion in the South was almost exclusively among the political elites, who then trickled it down. Whereas in the North, it was mostly in the far radical mobs and politicians.
That is what made the Southern secession avoidable. It was not a movement of the people, but of the elites.
This is where I disagree. The driving force behind the sectionalism was those same Southern elites, driving anti-slavery Northerners out of the Democratic Party and turning IT into a sectional, pro-slavery party, then refusing to allow a Republican ballot in their own states.However, they had nowhere else to turn. The Republicans chose not to include their party in any Southern state, thus giving no alternate party message throughout the entire future Confederacy. The party was founded on the basis of causing political harm to the South. Their sectional strategy only played into anti-Southern, sectionalism, fears that events like the Hartford Convention created. Sectionalism won the election for Republicans, but it was a political strategy of madness and had as much to do with secession as the Confederates themselves.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Hartford Convention||Wartime Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||12|
|The Hartford Convention||Wartime Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||4|
|John Quincy Adams on the Hartford Convention||Wartime Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||54|
|The New Hartford Convention||Wartime Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||14|