John Quincy Adams on the Hartford Convention

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

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
The original posted quote, condems secession by single states or by a combination. Since New England did not secede or even claimed to have done so. Its condemnation would seem to apply only to the secession of 1860-1861.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York

Joshua Horn

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Location
Wake Forest, NC
The original posted quote, condems secession by single states or by a combination. Since New England did not secede or even claimed to have done so. Its condemnation would seem to apply only to the secession of 1860-1861.
Which quote do you mean? What about the other Adams quotes in the thread?
 
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
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.
Well maybe, but I don’t see how it makes Red Harvest’s case that the Southern planter class was completely out of touch with other Southern whites in how they thought about the North, Lincoln, the fighting ability of Yankees or any other hot topic of the day. I don’t think any Southerner of any class thought themselves superior to ten Yankees, but they certainly thought they were superior, even given their far fewer number. But the belief appeared just as prevalent among privates, in the ranks as among the planter class colonels and generals.

“There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything.”
Robert E. Lee
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
And enough Southerners fought for the Union to replace every man killed for the first couple of years...
Which makes it all the more extraordinary that so few Southerners were able to contend with so many for so long. I suppose the Confederate government should have been thankful they weren’t up against a first rate European army, but on the other hand the war would have ended much sooner with the likely less lost of life on all sides.

“There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything.”
Robert E. Lee
 
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
Well maybe, but I don’t see how it makes Red Harvest’s case that the Southern planter class was completely out of touch with other Southern whites in how they thought about the North, Lincoln, the fighting ability of Yankees or any other hot topic of the day. I don’t think any Southerner of any class thought themselves superior to ten Yankees, but they certainly thought they were superior, even given their far fewer number. But the belief appeared just as prevalent among privates, in the ranks as among the planter class colonels and generals.

“There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything.”
Robert E. Lee
We get into a bit of a muddle with the Southern planter class. Deep South Cotton States, they ran things and they pretty much told the other whites what to think. Upper South and border states, they were having problems staying in power, because of the increasing political influence and power of the free labor whites.

There are several instances of Southern whites thinking that they could whip 10 Yankees. It is doubtful soldiers held that after a battle or two, but war is like that; the soldiers betters tell them and civilians how superior their soldiers are and how easy to beat the enemy as a part of the propaganda for war.
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Well maybe, but I don’t see how it makes Red Harvest’s case that the Southern planter class was completely out of touch with other Southern whites in how they thought about the North, Lincoln, the fighting ability of Yankees or any other hot topic of the day. I don’t think any Southerner of any class thought themselves superior to ten Yankees, but they certainly thought they were superior, even given their far fewer number. But the belief appeared just as prevalent among privates, in the ranks as among the planter class colonels and generals.
You've got it backwards as that is not my case at all. The planters knew how to manipulate the whole society to serve them and were very successful in doing so. Race based slavery and perceived superiority only fed the delusions of grandeur. Unfortunately, what was in the slaveholders' best interests was not in the long term best interests of other farmers or laborers in the South.

As to belief in some multiple in ability of their soldiers, many made various statement to that effect at the time, whether it was 10 or 5, etc. And amusingly you are making the same argument here.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Which makes it all the more extraordinary that so few Southerners were able to contend with so many for so long. I suppose the Confederate government should have been thankful they weren’t up against a first rate European army, but on the other hand the war would have ended much sooner with the likely less lost of life on all sides.

“There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything.”
Robert E. Lee
That would be an interesting match up, the fluid tactics of Lee/Longstreet/Jackson against a European army...
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You left out the next paragraph which significantly changes the meaning. See copperhead's post above.

I read copperhead's post and from what I read it does not change my view that Adams ever advocated secession.

I'm not saying the Hartford Convention was a step down the road to secession, that was John Quincy Adams.
And based on copperhead's posts, it is very much in doubt that Adams said what you posted he said.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Another speech by John Quincy Adams, recorded, thankfully, in the US House of Representatives, May 25, 1836.

In that speech, John Quincy Adams had declared that in "the last great conflict which must be fought between Slavery and Emancipation," Congress "must and will interfere" with Slavery, "and they will not only possess the Constitutional power so to interfere, but they will be bound in duty to do it, by the express provisions of the Constitution itself." And he followed this declaration with the equally emphatic words: "From the instant that your Slave-holding States become the theatre of War - civil, servile, or foreign -- from that instant, the War powers of Congress extend to interference with the Institution of Slavery in every Way by which it can be interfered with."

Source: The Great Conspiracy, Volume 4, by John Alexander Logan.

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Great-Conspiracy-Volume-4-1.html

Unionblue
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
All the snippet proves was that the 'idea' os secession was a devisive issue in the Congress and the country even at the time of the acquisition of The La. Terr. and the War of 1812, that New England(at least) recognized as dangereous and to approached with due care and dilligence to finding compromise, rather than precipitate action.
New England, as with SC in 1830, found economic issues were not enough to break the bonds of national unity.
 
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
Which reinforces my point of just how bad their judgement was.
Think of how many former colonies (including the US) would have remained so, at least to the second half of the 20th Century, had they not faced the odds and fought for independence despite what might of seemed to be bad judgment at the time.

“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
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Think of how many former colonies (including the US) would have remained so, at least to the second half of the 20th Century, had they not faced the odds and fought for independence despite what might of seemed to be bad judgment at the time.
The comparision falls apart quickly: The CSA had over representation and self governance, not lack of representation. The CSA leadership weren't revolutionaries, but counter revolutionaries that wanted to go back to a more feudal aristocratic system. They weren't moving forward, they were moving backwards to a more primitive structure with a vulnerable agrarian basis.

Unlike the American Revolution, the CSA couldn't really play off two major rivals to make its war manageable. Relying on "King Cotton" and going all-in for slavery didn't attract the necessary international support.

The United States recognized that the CSA was aggressive and hostile. There was no reason to expect peaceful coexistence with the CSA. This made the Confederacy an existential threat to the U.S., something Britain didn't face with the Revolution.
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Location
Worcester, MA
I actually read much of the book by J Q Adams. Thanks to Joshua for posting it. Adams was definitely against secession as he was critical of the Hartford Convention. He gives two reasons that the HC was unconstitutional. He points out the Journal of the HC was eventually presented to the MA Legislature. Unfortunately, the Journal contained no notes on any debates held at the HC. So, as has been pointed out previously there is no primary source evidence that the delegates at the HC discussed secession at the HC. The only primary source evidence is the Report of the Hartford Convention which does not promote secession or disunion.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top