COULD BIG VOICES HAVE STOPPED WAR BEFORE IT BEGAN?

[Piewacket1861]

The most important speeches on both sides of the question have been reprinted in Joseph Clarke Robert's The Road from Monticello, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1941, appendix A, pp. 57-112.

There'd already been a stronger movement for secession in the US with that of New England during the War of 1812.  The facts are laid out clearly in the Journal and Report of the Hartford Convention. (Reproduced in Theodore White, History of the Hartford Convention, Russell, Odiorne & Co., Boston, 1833, republished by Da Capo Press, New York, 1970, pp. 352-399.

This Convention met at the end of 1814 and adjourned in early 1815 to protest against an unjust and unnecessary war imposed by Southern politicians upon the commercial section of the Union.  For New England desired  peace & trade with Great Britain and Canada.  Secession from the Union was actually contemplated.  Breakup of the Union was avoided because President James Madison saw the danger before the situation degenerated too far, and successfully negotiated the Treaty of Ghent.

The most prominent antebellum text writers  on the United States Constitution in the North and the South had no difficulty in conceding a constitutional right of the several States to secede from the Union.  St. George Tucker, Professor of Law at the College of William & Mary, and Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, prepared an annotated edition of Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England,published by Birch & Small of Philadelphia in 1803, , and widely used by the legal profession in the United States.

In Appendix D in the 1st volume of his edition, on page 187, Judge Tucker concluded that each State of the Union is

"still soveriegn, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions in the most unlimited extent."

The same right of secession was expounded by Wm. Rawles, appointed by President George Washington as United States Attorney in Pennsylvania, in his View of the Constitution of the United States, first edition published by Carey & Lea of Philadelphia in 1825, 2nd edition published by Philip Nicklin of Philadelphia in 1829. 

The last chapter of both editions, Rawles concluded that

any State may wholly withdraw from the Union."

This text was used for instruction at West Point, and it was highly recommended for professional and scholarly use as late as 1859.

Many Northern newspapers editorialized in 1860 & '61 that the Southern States should be allowed to withdraw from the Union in peace.

Less than 2 weeks after the election of Lincoln as President, the Cincinnati Daily Press heralded, "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute."/u]

Editorials such as these continued up to and included the day after Jefferson Davis was inaugurated provisional President of the Confederate States, and the Detroit Free Press editorialized,

"An attempt to subjugate the  seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil, -evil unmitigated in character, and appalling in extent."

Regarding this respectable political sentiment, well founded in legal scholarship, it's impossible to make a fair argument that the war was caused by secession in 1860 and 1861.  Both sides agreed that secession from the Union was reserved to the several States, and a war cannot be fought over a question on which both sides agree.

In fact, peaceful secession of the Southern States would probably have been in the best interests of all concerned, for power would be more equally distributed across North America today, if the Confederate States, the United States, and the Dominion of Canada occupied the continental expanse above the Rio Grande.  Each confederacy would then protect the traditions and culture of a distinct civilization, yet all three unions could interact productivily by treaties of commerce and alliance, while counterbalancing each other from excess. 

Therefore the war was not necessary to maintain sound continental order.  On the contrary, the breakup of the United States was certainly foreseen in the Philadelphia Convention as a natural and inevitable event.   For Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts had served as President of Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in the Philadelphia Convention.  And to emphasize the obvious, Gorham casually asked a rhetorical question during deliberations on August 7, 1787:

"Can it be supposed that this vast country, including the western territory, will one hundred fifty years hence be one nation?"

(The comment is preserved in Madison's Notes. See Jonathan Elliot (ed.) Debates on the Federal Constitution J.P. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1859, Vol. 5, p. 392.

Many comments above are paraphrased from the book: BLOOD MONEY The CIVIL WAR and the FEDERAL RESERVE, John Remington Graham Foreward By David Aiken, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, 2006

PIEWACKET1861

[mobile_96]

This Convention met at the end of 1814 and adjourned in early 1815 to protest against an unjust and unnecessary war imposed by Southern politicians upon the commercial section of the Union.  Secession from the Union was actually contemplated.  Breakup of the Union was avoided because President James Madison saw the danger before the situation degenerated too far, and successfully negotiated the Treaty of Ghent.

The Hartford Convention was never about Secession. (It gets claimed it was because there was some talk of secession by a Few indivuals In the Northeast states.) The claim for secession came from the anti-Federalists in an effort to discredit the Federalist holding the Convention. Since the meetings of the Convention were held in secret, the charge was believed, (because no one would discredit the charges) because of the charge the Federalists
was not refuted by any of the members.
Everything in the Opinions of the Convention became null and void when the Treaty of Ghent was signed and it was Never submitted to the Federal Government.
This is another case of It was a secret, information Unknown, so I can say it was about anything I want to say it was about, and there are no facts to prove me wrong. Problem with that, it also meanst there is no facts to prove me Right
 

View of the Constitution of the United States,
This text was used for instruction at West Point, and it was highly recommended for professional and scholarly use as late as 1859.

Not true. There is no proof that the book was used as a text at West Point. It was supposed to be in the West Point lib. for maybe 2 years,  but it never used in any classroom. West Point didn't do classes on the Constitution or on constitutional law. It was more a engineering school. There was a very carefull study done many years ago, and available online (for free) that disproves the books use at West Point.

Gorham casually asked a rhetorical question during deliberations on August 7, 1787:
Quote "Can it be supposed that this vast country, including the western territory, will one hundred fifty years hence be one nation?" (The comment is preserved in Madison's Notes. See Jonathan Elliot (ed.) Debates on the Federal Constitution J.P. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1859, Vol. 5, p. 392.

And was there a reply, and if so, what was it, to this Retorical question.
Another question, Is this retorical question suppose to prove something, In your opinion of course.

If this is the best that John Graham can come up with in his book, then he needs to try again, (with new material) as everything  posted from that book has been disproven far too many times and in the years before he even published the book. In other words, its nothing more than a mish-mash of old myths and quotes taken out of context to prove His point, and adds nothing to the study of the American Civil War.