Posted on 05/02/2017 11:02:25 AM PDT by xzins
As early as 1832, South Carolina had proposed a secession from the United States.
Jackson vehemently opposed it
The War of Yankee Aggression obviously did not settle the secession issue once and for all. We are still talking about it 155 years later. California is taking active steps to secede!
This from a president who ignored a Supreme Court ruling and removed the Cherokee from their lands east of the Mississippi, then made sure he and his cronies seized the”abandoned” lands.
You mean The South lost?
So, Trump was right again.
MAGA!
Some of them came from the Essex Junto, an even earlier New England group of prominent politicians advocating secession.
And if they had attempted to secede the current President at the time would have had constitutional authority to suppress such rebellion and insurrection by armed force if necessary.
There is no doubt that Jackson was an expansionist. He was the source of the Texas rebellion, actually. He had tried to buy it, and when that didn’t work, somehow a bunch of Tennesseans following a Jackson friend, Sam Houston, managed to slice Texas away from Mexico.
Jackson’s fingers, via friends/associates, were all over the capture of the entire Hispanic south west and west.
The Cherokee and other tribes were small potatoes compared to what he initiated in the southwest.
Where does the Constitution say that?
Secession was never seriously discussed during the Hartford Convention. There were those there that promoted it, true. But they were a small minority and never came close to having their proposals made part of the convention final report.
Trump has been right on a number of things but on this whole Jackson/Civil War tweet storm I think he's speculating without a lot of supporting evidence.
It was several state governments that evicted the Indians. Jackson ignored an order to intervene. The only authority Jackson had been granted by Congress was authority to purchase land, to encourage voluntary migration, and to make provisions available to migrating Indians. He did all of those things. Meanwhile state governments, in particular Georgia, were evicting Indians by force, and Jackson refused to intervene.
Are we ever going to stop this game of:
1. Trump says something off the wall, and
2. His supporters craft some kind of half-assed narrative to prove that Trump was right.
Trump said that no one ever thinks to ask why the Civil War happened? There are probably 5,000 books on that every subject.
He further states that Andrew Jackson would have stopped it - based on his never-ending belief that a strong leader making a great deal can fix any problem.
That is totally false. The Hartford Convention was assembled for the explicit purpose of seceding from the union. The only reason that did not come about is that the war ended a few days before the convention started. They instead drew up constitutional amendments restricting the federal government's ability to make war and to regulate trade. The convention's delegation to Congress was recognized and scheduled to present their amendments to Congress when news came of Jackson's victory at New Orleans. Public opinion turned sharply against the Hartford delegation. Their presentation to Congress was cancelled, and they left Washington with the French embassy staff lining the road hooting them out of town.
The Hartford Convention was a serious affair and nearly led to the breakup of the United States. The only thing that prevented this outcome was the timing of current events. Had the war lasted another month, or had Jackson not defeated the British so decisively at New Orleans, we probably would have ended up with the United States of New England.
Here are the proposed amendments. Note the last resolution. It basically says adopt these amendments or we're going to secede.
Amendments to the Constitution Proposed by the Hartford Convention : 1814
Historians disagree with that position.
The only reason that did not come about is that the war ended a few days before the convention started.
The convention ran from December 15, 1814 to January 6, 1815. News of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent didn't reach the U.S. until February 1815.
As for the constitutional authority to do it- Charles Francis Adams Jr, Union Army veteran and scion of two Massachusetts Presidents, researched and wrote about that after the war in his "The Constitutional Ethics of Secession". He concluded that it wasn't addressed in the Constitution nor the Articles that preceded it and that both the secession and compulsory union sides had valid arguments.
I think there is an agenda behind that.
The convention ran from December 15, 1814 to January 6, 1815. News of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent didn't reach the U.S. until February 1815.
February was when the treaty was formally ratified by Congress.
The Treaty of Ghent was signed in December while the Hartford convention was still going on. The British had initiated negotiations in September after a couple of military failures; but it was a US capitulation on the matters of impressment and neutral shipping that ended the war. That change in the US position happened with the consent of the US government and was publicly known before the Hartford convention began.
Is there now? But no agenda behind your claims I assume.
February was when the treaty was formally ratified by Congress.
February was also when word reached the U.S. that the treaty had been signed. Regardless, it was signed on December 30, 1814 and not before the Hartford Convention began as you claimed earlier.
That change in the US position happened with the consent of the US government and was publicly known before the Hartford convention began.
Was it now? But the war was continuing. The burning of Washington, the bombardment of Fort McHenry, the Battle of Plattsburg, the Battle of New Orleans all occurred after the beginning of negotiations. Why should the representatives in Hartford believe that peace was imminent?
I have no need to invent something that doesn't exist, a prohibition against secession, nor to pretend that no one ever seriously considered secession before South Carolina.
Hartford wasn't even the first New England flirtation with secession. See Essex Junto.
it was signed on December 30, 1814
December 24th.
The burning of Washington, the bombardment of Fort McHenry, the Battle of Plattsburg, the Battle of New Orleans all occurred after the beginning of negotiations.
Washington was burned August 24th. The Battle of Plattsburg happened September 11th. The bombardment of Fort McHenry was September 13th and 14th. The British military failures at Plattsburg and Baltimore prompted them to drop their insistence on an Indian buffer state. Then the American decision to give up their positions on Canada, neutral shipping, and the wartime propaganda (read fake) issue of impressment sealed the deal. The American negotiating position was public knowledge as were the British defeats. And since Britain had defeated Napoleon and could now commit unlimited resources against the US if they chose to do so, it was clear the British peace overtures meant the war was ending. We had no means of invading them after all. It was only a matter of terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.