The New Hartford Convention

Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
627
Location
Wake Forest, NC
#1
Here is something that I ran across today and hadn't heard of before. In 1863 the Connecticut Democrats met in Hartford to nominate their candidate for governor. They also passed anti-war resolutions:

2. That while, as citizens of Connecticut, we assert our devotion to the Constitution and the Union, and will hereafter, as we have heretofore, support with zeal and energy the authorities of the United States in the full constitutional exercise of their powers, we deliberately avow that the liberties of the people are menaced by Congressional and Federal usurpations, and can only be preserved by the energetic action of State authority; and we are determined to maintain and defend the honor of our State, and the rights of the people.

3. That while we denounce the heresy of secession as undefended and unwarranted by the Constitution, we as confidently assert, that whatever may have been the opinion of our countrymen, the time has now arrived when all true lovers of the Constitution are ready to abandon the "monstrous fallacy" that the Union can be restored by the armed hand; and are anxious to inaugurate such action, honorable alike to the contending factions, as will stop the ravages of war, avert universal bankruptcy and unite all the States upon terms of equality, as members of one Confederacy.

Complete document here.

The New York Times tied this convention back to the Hartford Convention of 1814:

We have styled this gathering of the Connecticut malcontents a "new Hartford Convention;" but we doubt, after all, the appropriateness of the name. The Convention of 1814 was but the very mildest sort of a prototype. The boldest words of the original were only the gentlest words of this. ... Well, we are glad. All the world will now know precisely what this opposition to the Administration means. The heart of the matter is at last reached. Opposition means peace, and peace means disunion. All of the clamor on minor points which has hitherto been kept up to distract and mislead the people is now merged in the great grievance that war against rebels is allowed to go on at all. It is a good thing that the people are at length enabled to meet this complaint understandingly, and to deal with it on its naked merits. These are no times for illusions of any sort. The public mind should distinctly apprehend the essential points, and as distinctly pronounce upon them. If it is against the rebellion, it should repel all faction as calculated to aid it, and devote itself with an absolute singleness of purpose to the maintenance of the war, and its more effectual prosecution if possible. If it is for the rebellion, it should frankly assent to it, and accept without a murmur, all the ignominious and ruinous consequences. We have no fears what the decision will be, when the gist of the case is thus presented. The people of Connecticut and the people of every other Northern State will answer, in a manner not to be mistaken, that the Republic shall be preserved, and its authority vindicated. You can never get them to lower that proud old flag to traitors -- never, never.

Complete document here.
 

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

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,330
#2
"We have styled this gathering of the Connecticut malcontents as "a new Hartford Convention;" but we doubt, after all, the appropriateness of the name."(my emphasis)
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,330
#4
...and the newspaper, on further reflection, decided that its reference to the original Hartford Convention was inappropriate.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
627
Location
Wake Forest, NC
#5
...and the newspaper, on further reflection, decided that its reference to the original Hartford Convention was inappropriate.
I'm still not sure what you mean. Are you surprised that I would post something because it was interesting not because I was trying to make a point about the causes of the war?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,330
#6
I thank Joshua Horn's interesting proof that the comparison between the secession of 1860-1861 and the original Hartford Convention was/is inappropriate.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
627
Location
Wake Forest, NC
#7
I thank Joshua Horn's interesting proof that the comparison between the secession of 1860-1861 and the original Hartford Convention was/is inappropriate.
Please. Where exactly did I say this was "interesting proof" that the secession of 1861 and the Hartford Convention were the same? That's an association that was made the the linked article. The Hartford Convention didn't even propose secession! The article here is comparing it to an anti-secession convention which opposed the war.

Why do you feel the need to twist words to turn every post into an argument?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,330
#12
That "...to some extent" was, in fact, the difference between Peace and Civil War, i.e., the boldest words of the older Convention, would have been the mildest found in those of the Connecticut Democrats.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,330
#14
Was there a real connection between the two conventions? What interested Joshua Horn in that particular part of the Article?
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
627
Location
Wake Forest, NC
#15
Was there a real connection between the two conventions? What interested Joshua Horn in that particular part of the Article?
What problem do you have with what I posted? I posted it because I had never heard of the convention before, and I thought it was interesting that they would refer back to the 1814 Convention without having to give a whole lot of context to their remarks. I assume you are accusing me of using this as an argument for secession. That is ridiculous, because the final result of neither the Hartford Convention of 1814 or 1863 recommended secession.
 



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