Hartford Convention

Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
271
#1
Hello,

In case there's not already a thread on this site about this, I wanted to create one for the purposes of learning more about the Hartford Convention.

I'm wondering:

a. if anyone can tell me whether secession was in fact discussed and considered at Hartford and provide quotes from the debates to prove it.
b. if anyone can tell me whether Madison or any of the others from the founding generation said or wrote anything about the events
c. if it is true that Madison moved troops to Albany to put down a secessionist force

Below is the record of the proceedings and letters about it.



I want to ultimately read it myself, but don't have the time right now due to taking full time college classes, working full time, and studying for the LSAT.

https://archive.org/details/shortaccountofha00lyma/page/n2
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,747
Location
Central Massachusetts
#3
Like jgoodguy said. No. No. And No.

New England secession was suggested by a few influential and particularly vocal politicians, and the opposition blew it all out of proportion. It had very little support anywhere, and, unlike the secession proposals of the 1850s, nothing came of it.

Free speech means you can talk about pretty much whatever you want. The 'rub' comes when you try to do something about it.
 
Last edited:

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,906
Location
NC
#4
Hello,

In case there's not already a thread on this site about this, I wanted to create one for the purposes of learning more about the Hartford Convention.

I'm wondering:

a. if anyone can tell me whether secession was in fact discussed and considered at Hartford and provide quotes from the debates to prove it.
b. if anyone can tell me whether Madison or any of the others from the founding generation said or wrote anything about the events
c. if it is true that Madison moved troops to Albany to put down a secessionist force

Below is the record of the proceedings and letters about it.



I want to ultimately read it myself, but don't have the time right now due to taking full time college classes, working full time, and studying for the LSAT.

https://archive.org/details/shortaccountofha00lyma/page/n2
Yes to part a. Here are three sources I can locate quickly. The feelings were a minority of the people because the grievances were ultimately resolved.

-------------
Despite please in the New England press for secession and a separate
peace, most of the delegates taking part in the Hartford Convention
were determined to pursue a moderate course. Only Timothy Bigelow of
Massachusetts apparently favored extreme measures, and he did not
play a major role in the proceedings. When asked what the result of
the convention was likely to be, Massachusetts hot-head Josiah
Quincy replied: "A GREAT PAMPHLET!" - a prediction that proved
remarkably accurate.

Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 By David Stephen Heidler, Jeanne T.
Heidler pg. 233
-----------------

----------------------------
The Hartford Convention, as we are informed by its report, dealt with the question in 1814, in this wise: "If the Union be destined to dissolution, by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad administrations, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent. Some new form of Confederacy should be substituted among those states which shall intend to maintain a federal relation to each other. But, a severance of the Union by one or more states, against the will of the rest, especially in time of war, can be justified only by absolute necessity."

The origin and growth of the American Constitution by Hannis Taylor pg. 324
----------------------------

----------------------------
It (Hartford Convention report) justified a severance by any state in case of "absolute necessity", and many in New England thought they were up against just such necessity.

Poltroons and Patriots: A Popular Account of the War of 1812 By Dr. Glenn Tucker
-------------
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,121
Location
Laurinburg NC
#6
Like jgoodguy said. No. No. And No.

New England secession was suggested by a few influential and particularly vocal politicians, and the opposition blew it all out of proportion. It had very little support anywhere, and, unlike the secession proposals of the 1850s, nothing came of it.

Free speech means you can talk about pretty much whatever you want. The 'rub' comes when you try to do something about it.
The timely end of the War of 1812 to do with that.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,776
Location
Texas
#8
Yep, Andy Jackson stopping the Brits at New Orleans probably stopped Yankee Secession. Don’t know whether to thank him or NOT.

Reguardless, the Federalist thought Secession was Legal. They thought it was Revolutionary, but legal.
Is the "Federalist" you speak of, equal to the US Constitution? The US Constitution seems to have the final word on such matters.

Kevin Dally
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,913
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#9
Yep, Andy Jackson stopping the Brits at New Orleans probably stopped Yankee Secession.

Flat-out opinion, nothing more. There was no real effort at "Yankee secession" because of ther Hartford Convention.

Don’t know whether to thank him or NOT.

He's dead, so thanks of any kind seems to be a bit late.

Reguardless, the Federalist thought Secession was Legal.

More opinion if a source cannot be provided.

They thought it was Revolutionary, but legal.
Odd how the concept of "Revolutionary" can be equated to "legal" when most revolutions are against the established, legal, order.

Unionblue
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,945
#10
Odd how the concept of "Revolutionary" can be equated to "legal" when most revolutions are against the established, legal, order.

Unionblue
It amazes me. The OP states the same thing, and gets Likes. I post it and get Flamed. Maybe there is something wrong with your understanding.
 
#12
A very small handful of Federalist delegates who were members of the Essex Junto, a group which had sought separation from the Union since the early 1800s when the Federalists were beginning their decline in state and federal power, had discussed secession among themselves at the Convention but were dismissed by the remainder of the delegates and none of their talk or proposals made it to the floor.

Theodore Dwight was the secretary of the Hartford Convention who published a journal of the entire convention in 1833 titled History of the Hartford Convention: With a Review of the Policy of the United States Government, Which Led to the War of 1812. On pages 402-403, Dwight wrote:
"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, 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. No such discovery having been made, the inference must necessarily be, that no such treasonable practice or intention existed."
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
516
#13
It is also to be noted that even the discussion of secession without it being even brought to the floor for serious consideration was one of the prime factors that led to the complete dissolution of the Federalist party.

To somehow equate that with the politics of post war Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the enshrinement of the myth of the Lost Cause is baffling.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top