Author Topic: Hartford Convention of 1814  (Read 7286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Hartford Convention of 1814
« on: February 04, 2013, 12:59:17 AM »
Before the southern secession and the War Between the States, the first secession threat in American history actually came from the North.

Half a century before the southern states left the Union in 1860-1861, the people of the New England states plotted to break from the Union. This culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, in which delegates narrowly voted against secession.

New England resentment toward the federal government generally began when Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801. Although there were no political parties at the time, Jefferson led a faction called the “Democratic-Republicans” (or Republicans) that favored an economy based on agriculture, expansion, and weaker ties to Britain. This contrasted with the “Federalist” faction, which emphasized manufacturing over farming and stronger ties to Britain. Federalists were most prevalent in New England.

When Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, New Englanders feared that America would be opened to “hordes of foreigners” that would threaten the nation’s ethnic purity. They also feared that the new territory would someday be carved into southern states that could politically diminish New England. By 1804, Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, a former adjutant general to George Washington in the War for Independence, urged his fellow New Englanders to consider seceding from the Union.

During much of Jefferson’s presidency, Britain and France were at war, and U.S. shipping suffered collateral damage as a result. Jefferson responded by signing the Embargo Act, which intended to deprive British and French markets of U.S. goods by prohibiting the U.S. from trading with either country.

U.S. markets suffered from the loss of two of their main trading partners. New Englanders were especially harmed by the Embargo Act because of their reliance on foreign trade, mostly with Britain. Many condemned Jefferson’s “damnbargo” and resorted to illegal smuggling while talk of secession intensified.

Jefferson was succeeded as president by James Madison, another southern Republican. Madison proved even more unpopular among New Englanders by approving the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, which strengthened Jefferson’s trade embargo. New Englanders responded by issuing a “Treaty of Alliance and Confederation,” declaring that the central government was just an association of states and had no authority to impose such harsh measures.

Alienating New England further was Madison’s initiation of the War of 1812 against Britain. This war ended all legal trade with Britain, which was New England’s largest trading partner. New England Federalists feared that another war with Britain would destroy their commerce and tax them into poverty.

When Madison ordered the War Department to commandeer state militias for the war, the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to furnish troops. The Connecticut legislature denounced Madison’s military draft plan as “barbarous and unconstitutional.” The Massachusetts legislature approved assembling a convention to air grievances against the federal government.

The Hartford Convention assembled at the Old State House in Connecticut’s state capital in December 1814. Attending were 26 delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The delegates considered several measures, including seizing the federal customs houses, impounding federal funds, declaring neutrality, and seceding from the Union.

Many delegates shied from secession because they feared that if they supported such a move, and New England remained in the Union, their political careers would be ruined. Moreover, New York refused to send representation, and most convention delegates believed that secession could not be sustained without New York. Therefore, a series of constitutional amendments were proposed as an alternate to secession. These were designed to limit federal power and protect New England interests:

    Apportioning representatives and taxes according to the number of free people in each state. This would repeal the “three-fifths” clause in which each southern slave was counted as three-fifths of a person to increase southern population and decrease southern taxation, thus giving the South more representation in Congress with fewer taxes.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to admit a new state into the Union. This would minimize the potential creation of southern states within the Louisiana Purchase.
    Limiting trade embargoes on U.S. ports to 60 days or less. This would reduce the adverse effects of future embargo laws on New England commerce.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to interfere with trade between any state and any foreign country. This would minimize federal control over New England’s trade with Britain.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to declare war, except in cases of defense. This would prevent future unpopular conflicts such as the War of 1812.
    Requiring senators and representatives to have been born in the U.S. This would prevent foreign influence on the federal government, mostly among pro-French Republicans.
    Limiting presidents to one term and requiring a succeeding president to come from a different state than his predecessor. This would break Virginia’s presidential dynasty of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

In addition, the delegates asserted their right to resist abusive government power. This was a right that was ironically endorsed by their political enemy, Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. It was the same right invoked by the southern states when they seceded from the Union three generations later.

The delegates narrowly voted against seceding from the Union, and no official resolution to secede was adopted. Moreover, no official document asserted the right to secede, mainly because it was believed that the right was inherent and its assertion would be redundant. There was also no indication that any delegate believed that endorsing secession was treason.

Commissioners were designated to present the Hartford Convention demands to federal officials in Washington. However, the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 before the commissioners reached the capital. With the war ended, the New England Federalists’ demands were perceived as irrelevant at best and subversive at worst.

Remembering New England’s refusal to participate in the war, Americans throughout the rest of the country turned against the region. The legality of secession was not questioned, but many viewed New Englanders as traitors for considering secession in a time of war. The anger was so pervasive that the Federalist faction dissolved within a decade.

New Englanders exercised what they believed to be their inherent right to oppose an overbearing, tyrannical federal government that favored southern interests ahead of their own. As time went on, southerners came to embrace the ideals of the Hartford Convention, making the same charge against Washington as did the New Englanders.

Had New Englanders voted to secede in 1814, the federal government most likely would not have stopped them. However, by the time the southern states seceded in 1860-1861, supporters of centralized government equated secession with treason, even though they were not one and the same according to the nation’s founders. This sectional dispute, which had originated in the North, led to the most terrible war in American history.


http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 01:45:03 PM »
Logically, if a state came into the Union voluntarily, it should also be able to leave voluntarily.

Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and other future Canadian provinces refused to join the 13 American colonies. Quebec was less welcome, because it was mostly French-speaking and Catholic.

From a practical point of view, secession didn't work at least the economically dominant Northern industrialists did not think it would work: the mills of the North needed the cotton and other agricultural products of the South: the South needed the markets and the machinery of the North. New York commerce heavily involved the South,and there was a secessionist movement in NYC that wanted to simply be a part of neither the South or the North. It was clear that two smaller, weaker states would have less economic and physical clout than one unified state.

It was also illogical that the country could permit slavery in part of the country and ban it from another part. The Dred Scott decision basically meant that free black persons living in the North could be enslaved if they were accused of being escaped slaves.Of course, most had no papers.

Slavery was based on the concept that Blacks were natural slaves, and after all, they WERE becoming Christians and thirty or forty years of free labor was nothing compared with the salvation of their eternal souls.

Of course, slavery was a contradiction of the "self evident truth" that all men were equal before God and therefore all men deserved equal treatment.

Logically, the South could not really win the Civil War, but being as they thought their arrangement superior, they refused to accept this.

As usually happens, the issue was not decided on the basis of logic.

There was logic on both sides, and each side thought they hand the better case.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 07:13:39 PM »
I guess logic favors the side with better artillery.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 07:34:30 PM »
This intrigued me:

 Apportioning representatives and taxes according to the number of free people in each state. This would repeal the “three-fifths” clause in which each southern slave was counted as three-fifths of a person to increase southern population and decrease southern taxation, thus giving the South more representation in Congress with fewer taxes.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2013, 12:24:47 AM »
The country began with slavery as a legal institution. That was a major error. The South, as you say, was given representation based on slaves, who had no choice about what to wear or what to have for dinner.

There were all sorts of contradictions and major amounts of illogic on both sides. But I think that the South's desire to impose slavery on the North after the Dred Scott decision and the South's seceding and firing on Ft Sumpter made the South most to blame.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2013, 06:57:41 AM »
The country began with slavery as a legal institution. That was a major error. The South, as you say, was given representation based on slaves, who had no choice about what to wear or what to have for dinner.

There were all sorts of contradictions and major amounts of illogic on both sides. But I think that the South's desire to impose slavery on the North after the Dred Scott decision and the South's seceding and firing on Ft Sumpter made the South most to blame.


That is probly true.

Would a peacefull divorce have been a better idea?

If ,as you point out , fireing on Fort Sumpter was a key event , then there was a time when General Beareaugard could have chosen to hold his fire and kept the matter in the courts.

BSB

  • Guest
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2013, 09:51:42 AM »
The Confederate States of New England?

No, doesn't ring a bell.


BSB

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2013, 12:01:39 PM »
The South bears most of the blame for the Civil War. and the motive was the desire of a minority of Southerners who had plantations to continue enslaving people was their motive.

The relationship of the Plantation owners to the poor whites was quite similar to the relationship of the Oligarchy to the teabaggers.

Just like Joe the Plumber aspired to buy out his boss and rake in over $250K a year in profits, the poor White Southerners aspired to get rich at mining, horsetrading, gambling or whatever and someday own a Plantation like Tara or Nine Oaks.

And like Joe the Plumber, this was very unlikely to happen. Note that Joe the Plumber has left the plumbing business and failed at politics.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2013, 08:56:13 PM »
The South bears most of the blame for the Civil War. and the motive was the desire of a minority of Southerners who had plantations to continue enslaving people was their motive.

The relationship of the Plantation owners to the poor whites was quite similar to the relationship of the Oligarchy to the teabaggers.

Just like Joe the Plumber aspired to buy out his boss and rake in over $250K a year in profits, the poor White Southerners aspired to get rich at mining, horsetrading, gambling or whatever and someday own a Plantation like Tara or Nine Oaks.

And like Joe the Plumber, this was very unlikely to happen. Note that Joe the Plumber has left the plumbing business and failed at politics.

Slavery had to go , it was largely the reason that there had to be a war, and the nature of the Souths loss , England could have split a rival and gained a market , but they couldn't loan money or make an allience for the sake of slavery.

So... you are right about that.

But why do you call business success unlikely?

Arn't most businesses arisen from humble starts?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2013, 10:01:17 PM »
But why do you call business success unlikely?

Arn't most businesses arisen from humble starts?

==========================================
Business successes of the sort that Joe the Plumber had in mind are not business starts at all. The guy was just daydreaming.

Although many successes may come from humble starts, most humble starts fail miserably in this country. Joe the Plumber was a guy without a clue dreaming of something that might happen someday, maybe after he hit the lottery.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 07:08:34 PM »
The Lotto is less likely to make Joe wealthy than just becoming a first rate plumber would be.

If he attempts to start or take over a business he will be taking a risk in that eight of ten such startup businesses fail.

Of course of those that succeed most are a second or third try.

Don't belittle this process, it is  jobs with small business that employ most of us , and if we hope for recovery we need a lot of Joes to be hopefull more than we need President Obama to do any of the things he has done or plans to do.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 07:58:52 PM »
The Confederate States of New England?

No, doesn't ring a bell.


BSB

Perhaps they referred to it as the Alliance of New England States.

But they sure talked about and almost did it.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 08:12:45 PM »

If he attempts to start or take over a business he will be taking a risk in that eight of ten such startup businesses fail.

Of course of those that succeed most are a second or third try.

===========================================================
Joe the Plumber did not even attempt to start or take over a business. He began by complaining about the taxes that he thought he might have to pay in some ideal future, after which he did nothing and took no action at all, other than to continue kvetching.

His odds at success were far worse than two out of ten.

Basically, he complained about a problem that he would never have, and McCain decided to use him as a poster child against an imaginary raise in taxes that candidate Obama mentioned, which still has not been implemented.


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2013, 12:00:28 AM »
I don't know what you are talking about.

His starting a business isn't on a deadline as far as I know .
What do you know?

He didn't complain about a problem he doesn't have , Obama is Presently President Problem for us all now.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Hartford Convention of 1814
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 01:01:12 AM »
You could ask Joe the Plumber, but he seems to have given up on his plan to buy out his boss and become hugely wealthy. He first mentioned this during the campaign over four years ago.

I suppose that he has to die for you to admit that he was just daydreaming in the first place.

One thing is certain: NOTHING that President Obama has said or done has prevented Joe the Plumber from carrying out his plan. He is the only one responsible for whatever outcome there has been.

His last plan was to run for Congress. He ran as a tea partier and lost miserably.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."