Posted on 11/21/2015 11:35:55 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Before when free-soil men invoked the right of revolution in defense of their political rights, proslavery men condemned them for defying the legitimate government. But proslavery men feared the loss of their right to own slaves as much as free soilers feared the loss of the right to exclude slavery.
At Hickory Point, [Kansas] a squabble over land claims ignited these political quarrels. A settler named Franklin M. Coleman had been squatting on land abandoned by some Hoosiers, who subsequently sold the claim to Jacob Branson, another Hoosier. In late 1854, when Branson informed Coleman of his legal claim and attempted to move into Coleman’s house, Coleman held him off with a gun. A group of arbitrators later awarded part of the claim to Branson, but the boundaries between his land and Coleman’s were not determined. Branson invited in other men, including a young Ohioan named Charles W. Dow. Branson belonged to the free-state militia, a connection he used to intimidate Coleman, although Branson later testified that there had been no problems between Dow and Coleman – until the day of Dow’s murder.
On the morning of November 21, 1855, Dow went to the blacksmith shop at Hickory Point to have a wagon skein and lynchpin mended. While there he argued with one of Coleman’s friends, but left unharmed. As he walked away, he passed Coleman on the road. Coleman snapped a cap at him. When Dow turned around, he received a charge of buckshot in the chest and died immediately. His body lay in the road until Branson recovered it four hours later. Coleman claimed that Dow had threateningly raised the wagon skein (a two-foot piece of iron) as they argued over their claim dispute, forcing him to act in self-defense. Fearing that he could not get fair treatment at the free-state settlement of Hickory Point, Coleman and his family fled to Missouri.
Nicole Etcheson, “Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Eraâ€
Is this is a “revolution†or maybe a form of “secessionâ€
Zero would say that states are revolting or seceding (attempting) by not implementing obamacare or taking muslim refugees. and he will force the issues on us along with homos and other issues.
Lots of parallels between then and now?
Looking back, I am glad the union was maintained (although not perfect) and slavery was elimated (but again, not perfectly)
So my question to all here does anyone wish our nation had divided and slavery maintained? Lets all keep the BIG PICTURE.
I don’t think the evils of chattel slavery or abortion are subjective at all. And there is no legitimate moral equation between the evils promoted by Barack Obama and the objective moral evils of chattel slavery and abortion.
As for King George the Third, I don’t care what he thought. The moral principles that this republic was founded upon are self-evident. And the founders did a fine job of identifying his tryannies. They were, quite objectively-speaking, evil. And the whole world was convicted of that.
I recently had this discussion about the Revolutionary War. I don’t have the time or inclination to pound out more on my tablet tonight, but the Civil War was not a revolution. Maybe more to follow over Christmas when I’m at the desktop.
There is no mention of secession in either the Kentucky or Virginia Resolves. In fact quite the opposite is true. The Virginia Resolve opens with a statement affirming the assembly's desire to uphold and defend the Constitution. It goes on to say that the assembly "solemly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States". The argument it goes on to make is that that the Union is one in which the states have the power to over-ride any federal laws they deem detrimental to the state, not leave the Union as a result.
This would be the only resolution that Washington would have likely made any comment on since the announcement of the passage of the Kentucky Resolution coincided with the announcement of Washington's death being only separated by a couple of weeks. (Patrick Henry had died 5 months earlier)
But the Kentucky Resolution's language is even more pointed against the idea of secession. In is it states that the commonwealth of Kentucky "does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union....and will be among the last to seek its dissolution."
Does that mean that some of the founders would never entertain separation from the Union? No, but these examples really do not provide any proof to that supposition. These resolutions are an argument of state's rights over federal authority, not union or disunion, at a time when it was still being felt out what the limits of the new federal union was.
The Constitution itself is a series of compromises including ones that are designed to satisfy those who had very strong feelings toward individual states rights, like Madison and Jefferson, and those who felt the need for a more powerful central government like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.
In the case of these resolutions the argument that they do make is correct in that the Alien and Sedition Acts did violate the Constitution of the United States, but no where do they suggest secession as a recourse to this fact.
That is really rich. The US Government feared losing a treason trial so they let Davis go. Davis spent time in Canada and Europe after the war and voluntarily returned several times DEMANDING a trial which the sniveling cowardice US government failed to do. Davis would have won and the consensus at the time was that a trial would be a disaster for the US Govt.
There was a great deal of discussion in 1865 about bringing treason trials, especially against Jefferson Davis, and there was no consensus in President Johnson's cabinet to do so. There were no treason trials against anyone, as it was felt they would probably not succeed and would impede reconciliation.[140][141][142][143] After two years of imprisonment, Davis was released on bail of $100,000, which was posted by prominent citizens including Horace Greeley, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Gerrit Smith.[144]
To expound (briefly) on this matter:
The Revolutionary War was not a “revolution” in my opinion. Or if it was, it was as John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815:
“What is meant by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution.... the Revolution was in the minds of the People, and this was effected...before a drop of blood was drawn.”
The point made here is that by 1775, the American colonists had begun to think of themselves as a polity separate from Britain, where they were not represented in Parliament. Instead, they were increasingly looking at King George, his appointed governors and judges, and the troops stationed in the colonies in time of peace, as an occupying power. In other words, the Americans already saw themselves as Americans.
I look at a revolution as an overthrow of the fundamental political and social order. The French and Russian Revolutions were clearly that. The American War of 1776-1783 was really a war of independence rather than a revolution. At the end of the war, the existing social order in Britain was unchanged. More importantly, the existing social order in the American colonies remained unchanged. The leaders of the War of Independence were essentially the same people who wrote the Constitution. The faces may have changed, but they were of the same social class. The fundamental or revolutionary change, if there was one, that came after the war was the creation of the Constitution. And even that creation, based upon compromise and the recognition of limited states’ rights, was not a radical change in the existing social and political order. Those changes came later in fits and starts, with the seminal Supreme Court cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v. Maryland and later with “Jacksonian Democracy.” Even the fundamental changes in the relationships of the States to the Federal government that came out of the Civil War were not immediately apparent, as the Court initially gutted the meaning of two clauses of the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson.
But I digress. The Civil War had many of the same parallels as the Revolutionary War. The Southern states saw themselves as a separate polity from the Union, and sought to dissolve the Union through their own independence. As such, the Civil War was an unsuccessful war of independence. It did not seek to overturn an existing social and political structure. On the contrary, the leaders of the existing social and political structure were trying to preserve it (and their positions). Given the population, social and economic trends taking place in the United States in the 1850s, it was apparent that in a few years the southern states would permanently lose their ability to control the federal government, and the Three Fifths Compromise that had allowed the south greater proportional representation in Congress had been superseded by changing circumstances.
The South saw a window of opportunity to separate from the Union, and they thought the window was closing. However, the reality was that given the far greater resources of the north in 1860, as they they translated into military advantage during the war, the window had already closed.
And I think you have heard that one of the framers, a certain Thomas Jefferson, forecast and anticipated slavery, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." (To paraphrase Alexander Stephens in his Cornerstone Speech.)
A century and a half later, it may yet be.
By the way, I disagree with U.S. Grant’s statement. I believe the Founders did forsee the possibility of an attempt at an armed dissolution of the Union, and were willing to submit the nation to a war to preserve it.
Reread the Constitution as adopted. Count the references to “rebellion” and to how to handle cases of Treason. The document is laced with them, a reference in virtually every article. Also, consider Article VI, Sec. 3, Clause 1:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution....”
Not just Federal office holders, but every single state and local officer down to 3rd shift assistant mens’ room attendant, is required to take an oath upholding the Constitution.
They clearly intended the Union to be indivisible, contemplated that armed force may be necessary to preserve it, and were willing to apply it.
Douglass wrote his story three times over the years. This is the last version. I like it so much that I have decided to serialize the early years here so everyone can get caught up.
"The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass," by Frederick Douglass, (1892 edition)
So while the language of the resolutions doesn't mention secession the implication of their logic was already recognized by Washington, among others. The Resolves and their Compact Theory of the American founding would remain a philosophical basis for both secession and nullification.
Excellent choice.
I do too. For him to have said that the framers didn't foresee the possibility, is simply rebutted by citing the words of Jefferson.
Note also how A. Stephens, early in 1861, pre-Sumter, is already viewing the Separatiom of States as a done-deal. Throughout the "Cornerstone Speech" he refers to the "old Union", the "old government, the "old constitution". It begins with, I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.
The speech is a "must read". Especially for anyone who thinks the master/slave relationship can be likened to parent/child.
Why don't you retire this silly nonsense of a question. You appear to feeeeeeeel that it is a yuge gotcha but it isn't - it just makes you look even more foolish for asking it.
"When your only tool is a hammer, all you see are nails"
Great choice! Thanks for the ping!
We didn't secede from Great Britain - we openly rebelled against their rule.
A distinction without a difference. Secession can be peaceful, in the instance of the American war of independence the secession included rebellion.
There was still a monument to the county's Confederate veterans at the courthouse, or at least was as of about a year ago.
The Eastern Shore is still mainly an agricultural region, although obviously on a completely different basis than in Frederick Douglass's day.
Can’t answer it can you.
I see, the letter is based on the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, not the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 which I was referring to. Even still in that set of 9 resolution is an implicit indication of desire to preserve the Union and a stated dedication to that compact.
This still it centered on an enumerated verses implied interpretation of the Constitution which was a major issue of the time, and not secession.
Born in Easton, and my family has been there since the early 1900’s. It was truly a paradise before the bridge was built. Mom still lives on the water in a 30’s vintage farm house.
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.