John Quincy Adams on the Hartford Convention

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Too bad the leaders of the Ante-Bellum south's leaders for secession did not read John Q. Adams. The Historical point is New England drew back from secession, even the south did not.
Don’t you think the end of the War of 1812 and the resultant end of New England’s economic problems had something to do with their drawing back from secession?

“While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom’s sons still supports her cause.”

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
There are various reasons /theories as to why the entire south supported slavery, not just the slaveholders, but it is that simple. They did. The voting citizens of the south voted for slavery, even though most of them were not slaveholders. It was not something that was forced on them by the slave owners. They chose to vote that way.
So in your opinion was the common person fighitng to support it?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
[
Will you cite credible information that “trickle down economics” benefited Northern mill workers more than it did for non- slave owning Southerners or that upward economic mobility was easier for Northern cotton mill workers than for the cotton growing Southern yeomanry?

“While I am able for service I intend to stand by the cause while a banner floats to tell where freedom’s sons still supports her cause.”

Major Walter Clark of the North Carolina Junior Reserve Brigade in a letter to his mother
Think of it this way, if a slave owner or plantaion owner wanted to expand what did they do? They purchased more land to plant crops then bought or rented out extra slave hands to work it.. If a Northern capitalist wanted to expand he opened up more factories, (agreed that they were sweat shops) but it was jobs that the poor wanted..
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Think of it this way, if a slave owner or plantaion owner wanted to expand what did they do? They purchased more land to plant crops then bought or rented out extra slave hands to work it.. If a Northern capitalist wanted to expand he opened up more factories, (agreed that they were sweat shops) but it was jobs that the poor wanted..
Exactly right. Southern slaveowners convinced other Southern whites that their interests were the same, when in actuality they were not. The movement of Southerners out of the South and lack of immigration to the South reflects the nature of the problem.

Slaveowning was the ultimate elite big business. It gobbled up the best land, denying it to settlers. It created a royally screwed up labor market that persists to this day. Folks were determined not to hire free labor--that's what I've learned reading what the elite Southerners wrote about their fellow citizens. These same poor schmucks were turned into cannon fodder for the aristocracy.

In the North a rising tide could lift all boats...not so much true in the South.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Location
South Carolina
Exactly right. Southern slaveowners convinced other Southern whites that their interests were the same, when in actuality they were not. The movement of Southerners out of the South and lack of immigration to the South reflects the nature of the problem.

Slaveowning was the ultimate elite big business. It gobbled up the best land, denying it to settlers. It created a royally screwed up labor market that persists to this day. Folks were determined not to hire free labor--that's what I've learned reading what the elite Southerners wrote about their fellow citizens. These same poor schmucks were turned into cannon fodder for the aristocracy.

In the North a rising tide could lift all boats...not so much true in the South.
Are you suggesting that antebellum Southerners left the South? You must've read Olmstead or Phillips instead of Owsley. I think that must be where you're getting that three class structure in the South; planter, poor white and slave. By doing so, you've left out the majority, non slaveholding middle class farmers that were the voters, they also hired poor whites.
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Are you suggesting that antebellum Southerners left the South? You must've read Olmstead or Phillips instead of Owsley. I think that must be where you're getting that three class structure in the South; planter, poor white and slave. By doing so, you've left out the majority, non slaveholding middle class farmers that were the voters, they also hired poor whites.
I'm looking at what really happened vs. fantasy. Haven't bothered with your references and instead have looked more at what was happening to demographics in areas of contention (that includes IN, IL, NY, NJ, MD, KY, MO, etc.) Reading Edwards/Shelby, etc. as well as various IN, IL, KY etc. accounts suggests to me that slaveholding interests controlled the vast majority of politics and did a very poor job of representing constituents in many Southern dominated counties. (SC's fireeaters I don't really care about, they were at the farthest extreme, way beyond any intelligent debate.)

Slaveholders fooled gullible Southern whites into secession. That much is apparent.
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Location
South Carolina
I'm looking at what really happened vs. fantasy. Haven't bothered with your references and instead have looked more at what was happening to demographics in areas of contention (that includes IN, IL, NY, NJ, MD, KY, MO, etc.) Reading Edwards/Shelby, etc. as well as various IN, IL, KY etc. accounts suggests to me that slaveholding interests controlled the vast majority of politics and did a very poor job of representing constituents in many Southern dominated counties. (SC's fireeaters I don't really care about, they were at the farthest extreme, way beyond any intelligent debate.)

Slaveholders fooled gullible Southern whites into secession. That much is apparent.
Well I don't understand your methodology but maybe we can discuss that on another thread. How the heck did the subject turn to Southerners when the topic is the Hartford Convention?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Well I don't understand your methodology but maybe we can discuss that on another thread. How the heck did the subject turn to Southerners when the topic is the Hartford Convention?
I dunno, perhaps the mysterious conflation of Hartford Convention and Southern secession? :bounce::mstickle::skip: Gotta count on Josh for this sort of thing.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I just stumbled across some interesting commentary by John Quincy Adams on the Hartford Convention. It's in Documents relating to New England Federalism, available here: http://books.google.com/books?id=BR5-P7Ti47oC. Here is one interesting paragraph:

"This representative convention of several State legislatures was in itself an incident organization of a new confederacy. The leaders of the party, by whom it had been devised, had been struggling seven years to organize such an assembly. And it was undoubtedly the measure indispensable for effecting the dissolution of the Union. The Hartford Convention was to the Northern confederacy precisely what the Congress of 1774 was to the Declaration of Independence. The Convention itself could not be held but by an agreement between two more more States, which is an express violation of the Constitution, - a violation which would have been still more flagrant, had a second convention been elected according to one of the closing recommendations of that assembly." p. 245

There is a long section on the Hartford Convention from page 283-330.

John Quincy Adams, by the way, during the debates over the annexation of Texas, said that if the annexation went through the Northern states could, and should, secede.
"...There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is the Constitution of the United States - let them speak for themselves. The grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic state sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven, for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration says it is not in me. The Constitution says it is not in me..."

"...In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a State to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence..." John Quincy Adams, April 30, 1839.

Source for the above quote:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

Hartford Convention.

1.4 Secession

Secession was again mentioned in 1814-1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Ottis, the key leader of the Convention, blocked radical proposals like seizing the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and other delegates took charge, the radical secessionist might take power. Indeed, Otis was unaware that Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong had already sent a secret mission to discuss terms with the British for a separate peace.

There are a number of reasons why historians doubt that the New England Federalists were seriously considering secession. All the states, especially Connecticut with its claims to western lands, stood to lose more than they would gain. Efforts were made in the delegation selection process to exclude firebrands like John Lowell, Jr., Timothy Pickering, and Josiah Quincey who might have pushed for secession. Also, the final results did not propose secession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_convention

Unionblue
 
Here it is. It is from A Solemn Appeal to the People of the Free States which Adams (among others) signed. My comment in the original post was slightly misleading, as it was from a paper rather than an actual speech.


"We hesitate not to say that annexation of Texas, effected by any act or proceeding of the Federal Government, or any of its departments, would be identical with dissolution. It would be a violation of our national compact, its objects, designs, and the great elementary principles with entered into its formation, of a character so deep and fundamental, and would be an attempt to authorize an institution and a power of a nature so unjust in themselves, so injurious to the interests and abhorrent to the feelings of the people of the Free States, as, in our opinion, not only inevitably to result in a dissolution of the Union, but fully to justify it; and we not only assert that the people of the Free States 'ought not to submit to it,' but we say, with confidence, they would not submit to it."
My understanding is that Representative Joshua Giddings read this excerpt before an 1850 session of the House that came from an eight year old "address to the people of the free states" and claimed that J. Q. Adams had been one of the twenty signatories on the paper. That may be so, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Adams was advocating secession or that he even agreed with it. It would be difficult to determine without seeing the entire document in context. However we do have another document written by Adams where he is quite clear on his views regarding secession. From his Jubilee of the Constitution, Adams stated:

"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon the earth, and their governments from necessity, must in their intercourse with each other decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations, absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfilment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independences of states, connected together by the immediate action of the *people* of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven.

"With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the *people* of every state in the Union with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part -- and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself."
Excerpt from The Jubilee of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams, pp. 68-69
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Joshua Horn

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Location
Wake Forest, NC
My understanding is that Representative Joshua Giddings read this excerpt before an 1850 session of the House that came from an eight year old "address to the people of the free states" and claimed that J. Q. Adams had been one of the twenty signatories on the paper. That may be so, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Adams was advocating secession or that he even agreed with it. It would be difficult to determine without seeing the entire document in context. However we do have another document written by Adams where he is quite clear on his views regarding secession. From his Jubilee of the Constitution, Adams stated:

"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon the earth, and their governments from necessity, must in their intercourse with each other decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations, absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfilment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independences of states, connected together by the immediate action of the *people* of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven.

"With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the *people* of every state in the Union with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part -- and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself."
Excerpt from The Jubilee of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams, pp. 68-69
I see part of the proclamation quoted in this Jan. 1846 book on Google Books, but it does not list the signators:
http://goo.gl/aI1JC

The complete proclamation, as well as a list of the (reputed) signators is here:
http://goo.gl/rDdRr

Thanks as well for the quote. I'm a bit confused by it... In the last paragraph what qualifications is he referring to? That it has to be the people of the state, and not he state legislature? The next paragraph also speaks to it:

Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.
 

Joshua Horn

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Location
Wake Forest, NC

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Are you suggesting that antebellum Southerners left the South? You must've read Olmstead or Phillips instead of Owsley. I think that must be where you're getting that three class structure in the South; planter, poor white and slave. By doing so, you've left out the majority, non slaveholding middle class farmers that were the voters, they also hired poor whites.
They may have voted but there were land requirements to be in the state legislature in some states, and it was the state legislature that voted for the people in the higher offices, such as Congress, so there was a kind of disconnect between the populus and them.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Exactly right. Southern slaveowners convinced other Southern whites that their interests were the same, when in actuality they were not. The movement of Southerners out of the South and lack of immigration to the South reflects the nature of the problem.

Slaveowning was the ultimate elite big business. It gobbled up the best land, denying it to settlers. It created a royally screwed up labor market that persists to this day. Folks were determined not to hire free labor--that's what I've learned reading what the elite Southerners wrote about their fellow citizens. These same poor schmucks were turned into cannon fodder for the aristocracy.

In the North a rising tide could lift all boats...not so much true in the South.
Enough Southern whites were convinced to bloody for four years a larger country that would create an armed force that equaled or exceeded the entire white male population of the Confederate South.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html 1860 census

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html
 

BillO

Captain
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Location
Quinton, VA.
Well I don't understand your methodology but maybe we can discuss that on another thread. How the heck did the subject turn to Southerners when the topic is the Hartford Convention?
Let me help a friend out. It's simple really, what it boils down to is folks in New England talk about doing something. They talk about it alot. Forever and ever. Down south it's more of a the heck with it and they just do it. Sometimes even when maybe, just maybe they should of talked about it a little more first. Remember "Hey Bubba, watch this."
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Will you cite credible information that “trickle down economics” benefited Northern mill workers more than it did for non- slave owning Southerners or that upward economic mobility was easier for Northern cotton mill workers than for the cotton growing Southern yeomanry?
I'd suggest that as a general rule, factory workers, Yankee and Southern earned more than farm workers. As the Yankees were more industrialized then their workers earned more.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Let me help a friend out. It's simple really, what it boils down to is folks in New England talk about doing something. They talk about it alot. Forever and ever. Down south it's more of a the heck with it and they just do it. Sometimes even when maybe, just maybe they should of talked about it a little more first. Remember "Hey Bubba, watch this."

The Southerners talked a bunch too. 10 years seriously 1850-1860. First discussion during the 1780s.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Enough Southern whites were convinced to bloody for four years a larger country that would create an armed force that equaled or exceeded the entire white male population of the Confederate South.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html 1860 census

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html

But we thought each Southern boy could whip 10 Yanks, which meant that the ANV alone could whip all the Yankee Armies 2 times or more over.

Once you undertake a war, like hugging a tar baby, it hard to get rid of.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top