D. Webster: Prescient Politician

Rockingham Memorial Speech | 1812 | Daniel Webster

[Renkluaf]

Addressing President Madison:

“We are, Sir, from principle and habit attached to the Union of the States. But our attachment is to the substance and not to the form. . . If the time should ever arrive, when this Union shall be holden together by nothing but the authority of Law. . . We, Sir, shall look on that hour as the closing scene of our country’s prosperity.”

. . .

“When one portion of a country undertakes to control, to regulate and to sacrifice the interest of another – when a small and heated Majority in the government, taking counsel of their passions, and not of their reason, contemptuously disregarding the interests, and perhaps stopping the mouths, of a large and respectable minority, shall by hasty, rash and ruinous measures, threaten to destroy essential rights; and lay waste the most important interests.”

[Renkluaf]

'Nuff said.

[billyboy15]

IOW we’re fu**ed!! (unless our elected officials grow a spine)

[BroJoeK]

Worth remembering: at that time, Daniel Webster was a New Hampshire congressman and threats of secession were coming from his fellow New Englanders -- they opposed "Mr. Madison's War" (War of 1812) and the embargo imposed on New England's trade with the Brits.

So Webster is here complaining about Southern domination in Washington, DC, of New England interests.

Later in life Webster wrote:

"Secession! Peaceable secession!
Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle.
The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! ...
There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession.
Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility...
We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it..."
Daniel Webster (March 7, 1850 A Plea for Harmony and Peace)"

[motor_racer]

Our elected officials HAVE grown a spine. They just aren’t interested in serving the electorate, but in ruling according to their own goals.

[jeffersondem]

“Worth remembering: at that time, Daniel Webster was a New Hampshire congressman and threats of secession were coming from his fellow New Englanders . . .”

When it was in the northern best self-interest to promote secession, they promoted secession.

When it was in the northern best self-interest to oppose secession, they went to war and destroyed anything and everything that got in their way.

[Pining_4_TX]

He also believed government schools were there to produce people who didn’t think for themselves.

[GreyHoundSailor]

Webster did no such thing.

[jeffersondem]

“Webster did no such thing.”

That is an interesting comment.

[GreyHoundSailor]

Read some of his speeches.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "When it was in the northern best self-interest to promote secession, they promoted secession."

That's an interesting comment.

But only remotely true if by, "northern best self-interest" you mean the claims of a few wild-eyed radicals in MA, CN & RI.

You might remember that during those years (1776 to 1814) there were five different rebellions against the United States, plus another half dozen Indian wars, plus two separate threats of secession, of which the 1814 Hartford Convention included one.
Of the five rebellions, three were in the North (Shay's, Whiskey & Fries's) and two in the South (Muskogee FL & German Coast LA).
Of the two threatened secessions, the first came from Pres. Jefferson's (you remember him, right?) VP Aaron Burr who wanted to secede Louisiana.
Pres. Jefferson had Burr arrested & tried for treason.

The second threatened secession came during the 1814 Hartford Convention over "Mr. Madison's War" and his embargo of New England trade with the Brits.
The Hartford Convention produced a list of five recommendations to restrict the power of Democrats in Washington, DC, -- in language echoing Jefferson's own Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions -- but secession was not among them.
That didn't matter to Democrats & President Madison -- claiming secession was a real threat Madison moved US Army troops off the frontier with Canada and into position near New England, incase of rebellion they'd be needed.

Those army troops weren't needed because New England secession talk soon collapsed and along with it the old Federalist Party destroyed itself, was never again a major factor in US politics.

"There are a number of reasons why historians doubt that the New England Federalists were seriously considering secession.
All the states, especially Connecticut with its claims to western lands, stood to lose more than they would gain.
Efforts were made in the delegation selection process to exclude firebrands like John Lowell, Jr., Timothy Pickering, and Josiah Quincy who might have pushed for secession, and the final report of the convention did not propose secession.[4]:219–220[2]:53"

Contrast that with the 1860s, when Southern Democrat Fire Eaters not only threatened secession, they declared it and then declared war against the United States, the bloodiest war in our history.
And after it was all over, Democrats didn't just slink quietly into the ash-cans of history, but came roaring back and still, arguably, to this day continue to wage civil war against the United States.

[BroJoeK]

Pining_4_TX on Webster: "He also believed government schools were there to produce people who didn’t think for themselves."

Both Webster and his wife, Grace, had been school teachers, so knew what they talked of.
Here is an actual quote from Webster on teaching:

"If we work upon marble, it will perish; if we work upon brass, time will efface it; if we rear temples, they will crumble to dust; but if we work on men's immortal minds, if we impress on them with high principles, the just fear of God and love for their fellow-men, we engrave on those tablets something which no time can efface, and which will brighten and brighten to all eternity."
Daniel Webster (May 22, 1852)

So, do you say that Webster was wrong about it?

[jeffersondem]

In your post 10 you concede: “The second threatened secession came during the 1814 Hartford Convention over “Mr. Madison’s War” and his embargo of New England trade with the Brits.”

This is going to be easier than I thought.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "This is going to be easier than I thought."

You mean: easy for me, since secession talk in 1814 consisted of a few radicals in three states -- MA, CT & RI.
The country had plenty of radicals then, just as we do today.
But the 1814 Hartford Convention rejected secession and Pres. Madison responded with military force against it.
In the end, mere discussions of secession destroyed the old Federalist party and united the country behind Washington Democrats.

Contrast that to the 1860s when a few radical Southern Democrat "Fire Eaters" not only threatened secession, but declared it and then war on the United States.
After which the Democrat party not only survived but thrived and, arguably, continues to wage civil war against the United States to this very day.

So, you're right, that was pretty easy.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . secession talk in 1814 consisted of a few radicals in three states — MA, CT & RI.”

That is what you say but a shore enough expert in post 3 said: “Worth remembering: at that time, Daniel Webster was a New Hampshire congressman and threats of secession were coming from his fellow New Englanders . . .”

You are not credibly going to be able to paint Webster as a radical, or even a fellow traveler "of a few radicals.”

That would be like calling a founding father a “yapping dog.” Just don't do it.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You are not credibly going to be able to paint Webster as a radical, or even a fellow traveler "of a few radicals.” "

Nothing in Webster's words here suggest he was threatening secession.
So here's the bottom line: in 1814 New England patriots successfully squelched radical secessionists among them, and not only prevented secession & civil war, but also destroyed the old Federalist party for its tolerance of them.

By contrast, in 1860 Deep South Fire Eaters not only successfully declared secession and war against the United States, but also preserved & defended the Democrat party they lead.

So, by 1860, in addition to the Quasi-War, Barbary Wars, War of 1812 and Mexican War, the United States had already defeated a dozen different rebellions, three dozen Indian wars and two separate secession attempts.
But none of those resembled in scope or danger events triggered by the election of the first openly anti-slavery President in our history.

[jeffersondem]

“But only remotely true if by, “northern best self-interest” you mean the claims of a few wild-eyed radicals in MA, CN & RI.”

That is an interesting comment. In the context of this thread you are saying that few in the North ever favored secession.

Yet in post 15 a knowledgeable commentator with credentials every bit equal to yours makes this claim: “in 1814 New England patriots successfully squelched radical secessionists among them, and not only prevented secession & civil war, but also destroyed the old Federalist party for its tolerance of them (secessionists).”

It must be remembered that the Federalist Party is considered the first political party in the United States - and not just first, it was dominant, especially in New England.

Daniel Webster was a Federalist.

And, according to the knowledgeable commentator, the Federalist Party was so riddled with secessionists it had to be destroyed.

Setting aside Abraham Lincoln's outspoken advocacy of secession later, it is not reasonable to say northern sentiment for secession was always limited to a “few.”

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Setting aside Abraham Lincoln's outspoken advocacy of secession later, it is not reasonable to say northern sentiment for secession was always limited to a “few.”"

Given the context of your argument, I think by "reasonable" by actually mean "unreasonable".
No big deal, when you start arguing in double & triple negatives, it's easy to get confused.

Regardless, the answer is: we are not told how many New England secessionists there were in, say, 1814 and we know even less about them than we do about 1850s era Southern Fire Eaters.
But what we do know for certain is that New England secessionists in 1814 were defeated by New England patriots (and that was before Tom Brady!) and were opposed militarily by President Madison.
The eventual result was, dissolving the Federalist Party.

By contrast, in 1860 Southern Fire Eaters defeated Southern patriots (even at Tampa Bay!) in declaring both secession and war against the United States.
The result was the Fire Eaters' Democrat party not only survived & prospered, but continues to wage war against the United States to this day.

[jeffersondem]

“Given the context of your argument, I think by “reasonable” by actually mean “unreasonable”.” (sic)

Suddenly, this is harder than I thought it would be.

[x]

Moderate Federalists defeated the secessionists at the Hartford Convention, but the Federalists became associated with the idea of New England secession and that hurt the party, especially after the war had been won. Webster was not a secessionist, but as a New Englander who had been a Federalist it was common for those on the other side to attack him by linking him to the Hartford Convention’s secessionist elements. Then as now, the subtleties get lost in partisan politics.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "...according to the knowledgeable commentator, the Federalist Party was so riddled with secessionists it had to be destroyed."

The fact is the Federalists' party was destroyed, largely for the crime of harboring secessionists.
But what we also know is that at the moment of their maximum discontent, New England secessionists were unable to defeat New England Unionists and so failed in their efforts to declare secession.
This suggests they were a decided minority, even in New England, even at the height of Washington economic "oppression" against New England.

To this very day Northern Unionists (Republicans) remain weak & apologetic to the ever more aggressive & dominant Democrat majorities.

Again, by stark contrast, in 1860 Southern Democrat secessionists defeated Southern Unionists, declared secession & war against the United States, lost the civil war, but kept their party, the Democrats, viable, strong and aggressively at war against the United States to this day.