How would history have gone differently if the Confederacy had been held accountable for the war??

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
The Nullification Crisis was a much bigger threat to the Union than Hartford Convention. The moderates dominated the Convention and secession was never really likely to happen. The South Carolina situation was much more serious.
Wouldn't losing New England be more harmful to the Union than losing South Carolina would be due to New England's greater industrialization, though?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,954
Republika Srpska
More from Madison on secession...

January 1833. letter to N.P.Trist: "It would seem that the doctrine of secession is losing ground; but it has, as yet, more adherents than its twin heresy nullification, though it ought to be buried in the same grave with it."

February 1830, letter to N.P.Trist: "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. (...) What would be the condition of the State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Pennsylvania, for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social and constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct and absolute sovereignties? In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual state, as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions. (...) Even in the case of a mere league between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure"

February 1833, to A. Stevenson: "Of late, attempts are observed to shelter the heresy of secession under the case of expatriation."

1833, confidential letter to a "Friend of Union and state rights": "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,954
Republika Srpska
Wouldn't losing New England be more harmful to the Union than losing South Carolina would be due to New England's greater industrialization, though?
Yes, but the chances of S. Carolina seceding during the Crisis was higher than the chance of N. England seceding during the Convention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
More from Madison on secession...

January 1833. letter to N.P.Trist: "It would seem that the doctrine of secession is losing ground; but it has, as yet, more adherents than its twin heresy nullification, though it ought to be buried in the same grave with it."

February 1830, letter to N.P.Trist: "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. (...) What would be the condition of the State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Pennsylvania, for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social and constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct and absolute sovereignties? In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual state, as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions. (...) Even in the case of a mere league between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure"

February 1833, to A. Stevenson: "Of late, attempts are observed to shelter the heresy of secession under the case of expatriation."

1833, confidential letter to a "Friend of Union and state rights": "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
Is this N. P. Trist the same guy who negotiated the US peace with Mexico after the Mexican-American War 15 years later? :


It sure looks like it is because the initials match and he's a Virginian just like Madison is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maki

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
The Nullification Crisis was a much bigger threat to the Union than Hartford Convention. The moderates dominated the Convention and secession was never really likely to happen. The South Carolina situation was much more serious.
So, since you are changing subjects, does that mean you are relenting on the baseless contention that Madison said secession is illegal, because with my assistance you now realize that he said unfaithful not illegal?

And how was it more serious? Where is the information and analysis that led to this?

As I wrote before, are we historians or hysterians? States had been nullifying laws since 1798. I posted reference to it. I pointed out how New England states were even nullifying Madison's call up of the State militias during a shooting war on the homeland. If it is not a crisis during a war when several states were opposing the general government on issues of actual defense, why would it be a crisis during peace when it is only one state? Why didn't you answer this the first time I asked for this explanation?

Are we both reading the same posts, because I wonder how you imagine you are countering my larger argument that modern beliefs about this time are largely myth? Where would anyone starting from square one and reading all the relevant documents get the idea that the States could not reorder the union again as they had done in 1787? Nowhere!

BTW, feel free to try to answer any of the above questions.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
Madison's words are pretty clear. I see your argument, but in the end it really comes down to:
- secession for no reason - NO
- secession to protect yourself - YES.
I think you left something out that Madison and others said. It is same sticking point you tried to avoid before. The State is the judge of when it needs to protect its people and itself. I have already posted nullification claims and resolutions by governors, legislatures and courts which stated exactly that. How is it that 'everyone knew' this for decades, and now, no one knows it (or just doesn't want to admit it).
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,954
Republika Srpska
So, since you are changing subjects, does that mean you are relenting on the baseless contention that Madison said secession is illegal, because with my assistance you realized that he said unfaithful not illegal?
You wrote:

I think if you were going to make a useful and objective analysis of this, you'd look at how both men reacted as President to secession talk. One said nothing and the other threatened invasion.
I responded to that. How is that changing subjects?

And how was it more serious? Where is the information and analysis that led to this?
It was more serious because secession was not a likely outcome of the Hartford Convention. The moderates like H.G.Otis formed the majority at the Convention. South Carolina was close to secession during the Nullification Crisis.

As I wrote before, are we historians or hysterians? States had been nullifying laws since 1798. I posted reference to it. I pointed out how New England states were even nullifying Madison's call up of the State militias during a shooting war on the homeland. If it is not a crisis during a war when several states were opposing the general government on issues of actual defense, why would it be a crisis during peace when it is only one state? Why didn't you answer this the first time I asked for this explanation?
Are you saying the Nullification Crisis was not a crisis? It was, no matter which side you consider to be in the wrong.

Are we both reading the same posts, because I wonder how you imagine you are countering my larger argument that modern beliefs about this time are largely myth? Where would anyone starting from square one and reading all the relevant documents get the idea that the States could not reorder the union again as they had done in 1787? Nowhere!
StateS. Not an individual state or merely a group of some states. Once again, read Madison's quotes.

I think you left something out that Madison and others said. It is same sticking point you tried to avoid before. The State is the judge of when it needs to protect its people and itself. I have already posted nullification claims and resolutions by governors, legislatures and courts which stated exactly that. How is it that 'everyone knew' this for decades, and now, no one knows it (or just doesn't want to admit it).
I addressed that. The states in 1861 presented no credible arguments for that. Just because a guy you do not like got elected does not mean you are oppressed.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
It was more serious because secession was not a likely outcome of the Hartford Convention. The moderates like H.G.Otis formed the majority at the Convention. South Carolina was close to secession during the Nullification Crisis.
Based on what?

And you are relying on hindsight. Madison never wrote that when the Hartford Convention began, a secession convention, it's not going to happen. The key point is that he never said it was illegal, not then, not in 1809 and not in 1803 - when he was in government. He never said it was illegal when he and the others did it in 1787. And he explains why it is not illegal in Federalist 43.

IStateS. Not an individual state or merely a group of some states. Once again, read Madison's quotes.
Do think Madison is now departing from the Constitution where it says States "respectively" not collectively, meaning one by one, individually. The same thing he said in many other places. You are playing word games with the one informal quote, rather than relying on the many formal ones.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,954
Republika Srpska
Those informal quotes are Madison's opinions that you chose to dismiss. And given that Madison opposed the old Articles and wanted to create a new Constitution on stronger foundations, I would say those opinions are quite expected and do not really divert from Madison's previous opinions.

I would also like to quote Chief Justice Marshall:
"It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change, the extent of which must be determined by a fair consideration of the instrument by which that change was effected."
(Gibbons v. Ogden)

I would say that is formal enough.

I do however think we are moving around in circles. I thank you for the discussion, I have learned things from you and I hope you learned something from me, but I don't think we are going to change our opinions.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,514
Caribbean
Those informal quotes are Madison's opinions that you chose to dismiss.
Quotes or quote?

I didn't dismiss it. I took it at full face value that he said secession without cause is a breach of faith, and that he did not say it was unconstitutional.

the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change, the extent of which must be determined
And where does this address the idea of a State somehow lose the power to repeal its own domestic legislation? Do you think Marshall is saying the States changed into something other than what the Constitution says they are? Maybe they changed into the Republic of Marshall.

I do however think we are moving around in circles.
I am moving in a straight and logical line from square one using the copous evidence that history has provided.
 
Last edited: