Should succession have been permitted

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Jan 13, 2014.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
    Why did New England want to seccede from the Union in 1812 - and should they have been permitted to do so?
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I believe Barry Goldwater said some states need to be cut off and allowed to drift out to sea!
     
  3. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Fine with me......As long as you are tasked with completing the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT!!! :thumbs:
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    That is asking too much of mortal man. For that matter any EIS is almost too much for mortal man, unless he suffers from insomnia, and I am not sure even they could stay awake.
    :tonofbricks::tonofbricks:
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    In answer to Salty's excellent questions, New England states were outraged at the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts which essentially denied public opposition to the government, made it easier to deport foreigners, and attempted to make it more difficult for new immigrants to vote. This was in direct response to French leaders deciding to issue an order allowing for the seizure of American merchant ships, carefully timed to catch as many as possible by surprise. That was done in 1796, as one of the final acts of the French Revolutionary government.

    Actions and initiatives taken by the Jeffersonian-leaning Democratic-Republican Party (at the time, a combined movement) left the Federalists feeling threatened. They opposed the Louisiana Purchase, supposing the population of the new territories to be dominated by Democratic-Republican Party representation. The impeachment of John Pickering, a Federalist district judge, by the Jeffersonian-dominated Congress and similar attacks on Pennsylvania state officials by the Democratic-Republican legislature added to the Federalists' alarm. By 1804, their national leadership was decimated and their viable base was reduced to the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware.

    Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts and a few Federalists envisioned creating a separate New England confederation, possibly combining with lower Canada to form a new pro-British nation, and that concept was fueled by the passage of the Embargo Act of 1807, seen as a threat to the economy of Massachusetts. In the spring of 1808 the state legislature briefly debated secession, but no definite plan materialized.

    The Hartford Convention was convened by the Federalist Party December 15, 1814. The opposition to what later became known as the War of 1812 and the so-called "Virginia Dynasty" said to be dominating the U.S. government was cause for alarm and debate among the attendees. Massachusetts sent twelve delegates, Connecticut seven, and Rhode Island four. A few counties from New Hampshire and Vermont attended, but the state governments declined participation.

    Interestingly, this is where the animosity began toward the South. The foundation was laid for the Civil War, as the convention proposed several amendments to the Constitution that would have limited what the delegates termed "the over-representation of white Southerners in Congress, the "growing power" of the West, the "influence of foreigners" and of course the continuing war. Ironically, rather than the Hartford Convention Report being castigated as unreasonable regional anxiety and a cultural and economic attack on the South and the West, the convention, an event Jefferson termed "a synonym for disloyalty and treason," was blamed more on the Federalist Party, which essentially caused its demise. As a result, there was no overarching opposition to the anti-Southern rhetoric spewed at the convention, and the attitude and angst was allowed to grow and instill rancor among all Northerners over the next several decades until the North managed to instigate, legislate and exacerbate sufficiently to foment Civil War.

    Since the New England states never seriously undertook secession, I can't truthfully opine as to whether or not they should have been allowed to do so. However, had the movement been sufficient to result in secession, it could be said the United States would have been better off without them, given they might have taken the poisonous attitude toward the South and the West with them, rather than having it infect all of Northern socioeconomic and political culture as a whole.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
    I'm suprised that Van hasent gotten into this discussion
     
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    Salty, I had not noticed this tread. Thanks for starting it. It is an interesting topic. Been a long time since I thought about this area of American history. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Massachusetts that was the first colony/state that wanted succeed from the US. They were not allowed to do so and if the had tried, as did the south, they would have been brought back into line with troops from other areas ... IMHO

    I need to do a bit of research on this to refresh my knowledge on this subject.
     
  8. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I stated in my post, CTB, it wasn't that they weren't allowed to, they never tried to do so. Had they attempted to secede, there are no prohibitions in the U.S. Constitution regarding secession. It was Lincoln's decision to oppose the South's forming the Confederacy, declaring them all rebellious states rather than giving them status as a nation at war with the U.S. He had not solid constitutional basis for doing so.
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    It is ridiculous to try to tie everything to the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution that you or anyone can fly on an airplane, but we do.

    Try or not they would not have been allowed to leave. I say this because of the thread of NE to do so president Madison sent troops to Albany where the could be quickly sent into Massachusetts to thaw a secession and maintain the union.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
    Disagree -

    In your example - nothing in the COTUS does NOT prohibit the flying of planes.

    The Constitution - as also the Bible - has 2 considerations
    1) it prohibits some actions
    2) requires some actions

    Therefore if the Constitution does not prohibit or require - then there is freedom

    This is a very general statement - as in your example - there are regulations for flying a plane - various FAA regs - which the vast majority are well purposed.
     
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    And it leaves other actions to our own discretion.

    I know of no place in the Constitution where it says this country cannot bring back into the fold regions/states in rebellion.

     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    There is no place where it says they can. Like most, if not all liberals, you are ignoring the 10th amendment.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
    There is no place where it says they can. Like many, you are ignoring the 10th amendment.
     
  14. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    Don't think so. So, it is up to the government to give or with hold permission and they chose to with hold that permission. Any nation would. The Constitution, even with the 10th amendment is mute on this point. So it is reserved to the federal government.

    Secession id not work in the past, would not work now, will not work in the future.

    You realized indirectly you are proposing the Balkanization of the US?
     
  15. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    Just so folks know, the tenth amendment states:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    There is no provision in the constitution for the Federal government to extend rule over the states by imposing bureaucratic authority and regulations.

    Laws - certainly.

    Laws such as the interstate commerce, currency, taxes, voting, citizenship, immigration, treaties, ...

    However, the vast number of regulatory agencies in such as the EPA, OSHA, ... are actually unconstitutional, or at least proclaimed as such if the superior court was not consistent with Yankee dominance.

    There is NO provision in the constitution that does not allow a state to withdraw from the union.

    That Lincoln and the Yankee's forced the South, by murder, rape and ravages, into submission was in essence making slaves the people of the south to the desires of the North. The very opposite of what the typical sorry Yankee stated proclamations.

    By in large, Yankees were and are liars. They would extinguish what they say is wrong, but do the same in their own house.

    They would state slavery was wrong, but then make huge attempts to block legislation regulating child labor and free schooling for all children. They would hold their own unfortunate people servants and workers hostage by such things as black lists and now unions. They in effect made folks slaves, but proclaimed them as free. They would openly say that a person was free to quit the work, but then black list them so they would starve. They held the worker hostage to the "company" housing and store. They held the worker in slavery by entrapping them in conditions that no slave had to work in, and in hazardous employment that no slave owner would even consider for their slave.

    The Yankee lie was not overt, but always shrouded in great tempests of swelling blusters in righteousness. They would distract from the evil of their own house, and they would puff up their own righteousness by proclaiming something evil (slavery) and yet not be able to show a single Bible verse to support their claims; all the while the ungodly Yankee would not provide, as the Scriptures state, for the care and upkeep of their own and those under their care.

    The Yankee would not desire their own products to be heavily taxed, but heavily tax the Southerner.

    And the greatest of evils?

    When their own Yankee government started the draft, the wealthy Yankees would purchase the services of an immigrant or another person to serve instead of their own. The poor and ill-informed were pressed into a conflict that was not of their own making, pressed into war against the fine outstanding Southerners. All while their own weak fathers and sons cowardly hid in the lap of luxury beating the drum of the unfair treatment of the slaves. They would gladly shed the innocent blood of others, gleefully ravage, rape and pillage others, while proclaiming each other ever more righteous for doing so.

    The Yankee would condemn the outstanding Southerner for the courage to actually act upon what the Yankee would only puff smoke about and bluster with loud noise and no teeth.

    The fine gentlemen of the South has and always will put teeth to what they say and believe. The South walks the talk, all the Yankee does is talk and hide - forcing others to walk.
     

Share This Page

Loading...