Secession in Massachusetts; Nullification in South Carolina

Posted on February 10, 2013 by “Caius”

Secession off the Coast of Massachusetts

On the island of Nantucket off the coast of Massachusetts, a British gunboat patrolled the shore, cutting off supplies from the mainland. Some islanders begged for food in town.  The sea-going islanders, whalers by trade, were fiercely independent.  Many Nantucket sailors suffered impressment by the British and languished in jail.[1]

At a town meeting, the battle between the Federalists and Republicans on island was tumultuous.  The sheriff ordered an end to the meeting.  Later the Federalists persuaded a bipartisan committee to negotiate a peace treaty with the British.  Nantucket seceded from the Union.  Islanders agreed to stop paying taxes to the United States in exchange for the removal of the British blockade of their food and supplies.  In 1815, two British admirals arrived at England’s Dartmoor prison to assure Nantucket sailors imprisoned there, that they would be released because they were citizens of a neutral country.[2]

How John C. Calhoun’s Nullification differed from the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Jefferson, Madison, and Calhoun all based their arguments on state sovereignty.  Calhoun wanted South Carolina to have all the benefits of remaining in the Union, while disobeying one of its laws.  As an elder statesman, Madison claimed “…for this preposterous and anarchical pretension there is not a shadow of a countenance in the Constitution.”[3]

In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were written in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts.   Aliens were the Irish and French suspected of fomenting a second revolution in America.  The seditious were newspaper editors who opposed the Federalist administration of John Adams.  Calhoun wrote his arguments in response to the Tariff of 1828.

The legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky called for other states to find the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional.  Southern state legislatures did not agree.  Northern state legislatures refused the offer.   They asserted the Supreme Court had the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws. [4]

Article V of the Constitution sets forth procedures for revising the Constitution by passing amendments to it.  A new amendment can be enacted through the Senate and House of Representatives, or by two-thirds of the states.   Article V states,  “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

In August 1799, Jefferson wrote to Madison “[Virginia and Kentucky ought ] to sever our selves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty.”  Secession was debated, but Jefferson and Madison did not act on it.[5]

 

Next: How Mathew Carey Suggested Madison Deal with Secessionists; How John Quincy Adams Responded to South Carolina’s Nullification Threats

Look for it Monday, February 18

[1] Nathaniel Philbrick, Away Off Shore:  Nantucket Island and Its People, 1602-1890, (New York, Penguin Books in association with Mill Hill Press of Nantucket, 1994) 179-80.

[2] Philbrick, Away Off Shore, 180.

[3] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. 1 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 476-7.

[4] Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009) 270.

[5] Wood, Empire of Liberty, 270.

Posted in From The Desk, Nullification, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Secession in Massachusetts; Nullification in South Carolina

States’ Rights in New England and South Carolina

Posted on February 3, 2013 by “Caius”

New England States Asserted their Rights to President Madison in 1813

By 1813, the state governments of New England were under Federalist control.   Federalists opposed the war from the beginning, and were poised to assert states’ rights to President Madison.  Ironically, Madison developed arguments for states’ rights his Virginia Resolution of 1798.   He suggested a state could “interpose” its authority when its citizens suffered from the actions of the Federal government.[1]

While Federal forces waged war on Canada, New England’s economy fared well.  At first, the British blockade did not cover New England’s seaports.  Merchants traded with Canada.  They used wagons or sleds to deliver goods to the Mid-Atlantic and the South.  After the governors of Rhode Island and Connecticut refused to place their militias under the leadership of the war department, Massachusetts was left to its own defenses. [2]

Federalist newspapers claimed the war aided Napoleon.  They argued the Federal Constitution did not favor them.  Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory without regard to the Constitution.   New England had no reason to remain in the Union.[3]

Former president John Adams was concerned.  On July 8, 1813 he wrote to Mathew Carey, noting the apathy of New Englanders, once so spirited during the Revolution.  On July 20, Carey pessimistically responded making observations on the opposition to the federal government by the powerful, elite Federalists of Massachusetts.[4]

In May, 1814, the British blockaded New England’s coast.  They occupied parts of Maine, and the Royal Navy attacked New England’s coastline.[5]

 

How Madison Reacted to South Carolina’s Assertion of States’ Rights during the Nullification Crisis in 1831

Jefferson and Madison secretly composed their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.  John C. Calhoun also concealed his identity when he wrote his South Carolina Exposition in 1828.  By 1833, Calhoun was ready to make his views public.   Calhoun moderated his approach to states’ rights, in a newspaper article called “The Fort Hill Address.”  He wrote that states’ rights curbed the excesses and tyranny of a nation-wide majority. He did not use the word “nullification.” [6] His arguments were, nevertheless, clearly based on Jefferson’s and Madison’s Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Jefferson died in 1826, but Madison was still alive.  Of all those who attended the Philadelphia convention in 1787, only he remained with a memory of its proceedings.  When he read the South Carolina Exposition, Calhoun’s earlier anonymous work, Madison dismissed it, asserting that a state could not nullify federal acts.  In his old age, and after the War of 1812, Madison was a nationalist.  He regarded the term “imposition” more as a protest than the authority to nullify laws.[7]

Next:  What Happened Off the Coast of Massachusetts during the War of 1812; How Calhoun’s Nullification Differs from the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Look for it Monday, February 11.

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. 1 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 367.

[2] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 426-7.

[3] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic,  427.

[4] Edward C. Carter II, “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 89. No. 4 (October 1965) 403.

[5] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 427.

[6]Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought:  The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2007) 399.

[7] Howe, What Hath God Wrought,  400, Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009)  369.

Posted in From The Desk, Nullification, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on States’ Rights in New England and South Carolina

Why Westerners and Southerners Agitated for the War of 1812; Why South Carolina Wanted to Nullify a Federal Law in 1828

Posted on January 27, 2013 by “Caius”

Why Westerners and Southerners Agitated for the War of 1812

The representatives from the non-mercantile inland, the West and the South voted for the war.  Many of the representatives who had passed Macon’s Act No. 2 were not re-elected in 1810.  Young new leaders, Henry Clay and John Calhoun, replaced the old guard.  Representative John Randolph dubbed them the “war hawks,” and they prevailed.  They hoped the United States would conquer Canada.  Indian raids in the West would end.  Vast new territories in the Louisiana Purchase would open for American settlers.[1]

Throughout the mercantile centers of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston, ship owners were against the war, but resistance in New England was strongest.  Reverend Jedediah Morse, preaching politics from the pulpit, blamed James Madison.  Radical Federalist newspapers in New England viciously attacked the president, calling the conflict with Britain “Mr. Madison’s War.”  The papers advised their readers to refuse service if they considered “Mr. Madison’s War” to be unconstitutional. Rhode Island and Connecticut objected to calling out their militias in service to the United States, and suggested that residents refuse to subscribe to government loans. Incensed, Mathew Carey wrote to Madison, “[These events are] open rebellion and insurrection against which the government must act in its own defense.”  He suggested Madison send a Rhode Islander and Republican writer, Jonathan Russell, to Boston to defend the Union’s interest.  Madison ignored Carey. [2]

Why South Carolina Wanted to Nullify a Federal Law in 1828

Fast forward from the War of 1812 to 1828.  During the early years of the nineteenth century South Carolina’s planters made large profits growing cotton.  Over the years cotton exhausted their soil.  Ambitious planters moved to Mississippi and Alabama, growing large quantities of cotton in fertile new territory.  With that, supply increased and the price of cotton fell.  South Carolina’s planters could no longer make a profit on soil that produced less cotton per acre.  South Carolina’s population did not increase, and the wealth of its planters declined.[3]

In 1828, Congress passed a protective tariff, promoted by Mathew Carey and Henry Clay.   South Carolinians quickly labeled it the “Tariff of Abominations.”  They argued the tariff favored Northern manufacturers at their expense.  The tariff and money for roads and canals were only taxing schemes to better the North at the expense of the South. [4]

In 1828, John Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition presenting an argument for nullification of federal laws.  First he quibbled about Congress’ power to enact duties.  He argued a duty for revenue was different from a protective or prohibitory duty.[5]

Next he outlined how a state could assert its rights interpreting the Constitution.  He suggested a state convention could declare a federal law null and void.  That resulted in the term “nullification.”  State conventions ratified the Constitution, he argued.  Sovereignty arose from the citizens of the states.  It did not come from citizens collectively, as a nation.[6]  Clearly, Calhoun based his arguments for nullification on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

When Jefferson wrote his Kentucky Resolution in 1798 he argued the Constitution was an agreement among states.  When the federal government overstepped its limits a state had the authority to decide that a law was void within that state.  He called the action “nullification,” but Kentucky’s legislature deleted the term from the resolution.[7]

Madison’s differed with Jefferson about a state legislature’s role in nullifying federal acts.  He believed the citizens of states held the sovereign power, but state conventions, not state legislatures, had the authority to decide constitutional issues.  He argued the states ratified the Constitution, and sovereignty came from the citizens of a state. [8] Madison also used an ambiguous term, “interpose.”  His resolution  could be interpreted as a state having the authority to intervene or the ability to interrupt by protesting a federal law.

 

Next: How the New England States Asserted their Rights to Madison; How Madison Reacted to South Carolina’s Assertion of States’ Rights during the Nullification Crisis

Look for it Monday, February 4.

 

 

 

 

[1]Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry  Steele Commager,The Growth of the American Republic, Vol 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) 402-3.

[2] Edward C. Carter, II “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 89 No. 4 (Oct. 1965) 401-403.

[3] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 475.

[4] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 475-6

[5] Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought, The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2007) 397.

[6] Howe, What Hath God Wrought,  397

[7] Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009) 269.

[8] Wood, Empire of Liberty, 269-70.

Posted in From The Desk | Comments Off on Why Westerners and Southerners Agitated for the War of 1812; Why South Carolina Wanted to Nullify a Federal Law in 1828

Why New Englanders Opposed the War of 1812

Posted on January 19, 2013 by “Caius”

 

On June 16, 1812, the British suspended their economic sanctions, but it was too late.  Two days later, well before the news reached Washington, Congress declared war on Great Britain.  Declaring war theoretically favored New England’s shipping interests:  Continuing impressment, the British Navy’s use of the United States’ territorial waters, their blockade of enemies’ coasts, and economic sanctions.[1]

Actually, those reasons did not honor the concerns of New Englanders.  They opposed the war.   Seventy-five percent of America’s ship owners were located in New England.  They reaped enormous profits from the conflict between Britain and France.  More than half the congressmen from New England and eight senators opposed the war.  Most senators and representatives from the Mid-Atlantic States also opposed the war.  The farmers they represented profited from the export of flour and other foodstuffs to the Caribbean and Europe.[2]

Secession 2012; Nullification 2013

The White House has responded to the secession petitions.   In a response entitled “Our States Remain United,” Jon Carson wrote that “…as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.”

National unity is precious and cannot be taken for granted.  Our president, like President Madison, is ignoring or minimizing the importance of the protests coming from those who oppose him.

There are rumblings of nullification coming out of Texas over the debate on gun control.   Texas is not the first time a state has threatened to nullify federal laws.  South Carolina tried it during the Nullification Crisis beginning in 1832.

Our president and his administration face two challenges.  First, the debate is being framed morally.  “Guns are bad.”  Whenever a debate is framed morally, the ability of both sides to reach an agreement acceptable to both comes to an end.  To make effective changes, the concerns of both sides must be honored.  Demonizing the opposition leads to conflict.  It threatens national unity.  Will the administration honor the concerns of its opposition?

Second, will our president and his administration implement its agenda according to constitutional procedures?  Or will expediency dictate that it circumvent those procedures, as Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase?

Even if constitutional procedures are followed, if a significant minority opposes the measures, defiance of the law will result.   In New England, merchants smuggled goods during Jefferson’s embargo.  During prohibition, bootleggers smuggled alcohol.  Liquor was consumed in speakeasies.  Alcohol was produced domestically as bathtub gin and moonshine.

If guns were to be totally outlawed and confiscated, those intent on mass murder would use bootlegged guns or improvised explosive devices.  The debate is not just about guns.  It is also about how to identify those capable of mass murder and how to prevent them from committing it.

Next:  If New Englanders opposed the war, and their interests were not honored, who voted for the war and why?  Why did South Carolina want to nullify federal laws?

Look for it Monday, January 28.

 


[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. 1, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1962 )402.

[2] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 402.

Posted in From The Desk, Nullification, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why New Englanders Opposed the War of 1812

How Napoleon Lured President Madison into a Trap

Posted on January 13, 2013 by “Caius”

By 1806 Napoleon had conquered or formed alliances with every country that mattered on the continent.  Napoleon dominated the land; Britain dominated the sea.  Lacking the forces to invade Britain, and unable to conquer Britain’s formidable Navy, Napoleon resorted to economic sanctions to cripple Britain’s trade.  It was known as Napoleon’s Continental System.

Napoleon’s Berlin Decree of 1806 outlawed trade with Great Britain to his allies and the countries he had conquered.  Britain retaliated with the Order in Council of 1807.  It  prevented French trade with Britain, neutrals such as the United States, and Britain’s allies.  The British Navy was also ordered to enforce a blockade of French ports and European ports under French control.

Napoleon’s response was to up the ante with the Milan Decree in 1807.  All neutral shipping, such as America’s merchant marine, that used a British port, or paid a tariff to Britain, was subject to seizure.  His objective was to sever Britain’s trading ties with the United States, the West Indies, and other colonies.

Portugal refused to comply with Napoleon, causing the Peninsular War. Napoleon invaded Portugal in 1807 and Spain in 1808.  He tried to wage a naval war by capturing the Portuguese fleet, and occupying Portugal’s ports.  With the help of the British navy, the King of Portugal eluded him, sailing with his fleet to Brazil, where he set up his court.  The Portuguese revolted, and the British intervened in their defense.  Napoleon pressured the Spanish King and his family to resign.  He installed his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as the new king of Spain.

After repealing the Embargo, Congress once again passed a non-intercourse act, with a pledge the United States would resume trade with the first nation to repeal its harmful policies toward American commerce.  Jefferson’s successor, James Madison, tried diplomacy, working with the British minister in Washington to draft a treaty, but the British foreign minister rejected both the diplomat and the treaty.

Both Congress and Madison were at wit’s end.  Madison failed to provide leadership.  Congress then passed Macon’s Bill No. 2, which allowed merchants to resume trade with France and Britain, pledging the United States would stop intercourse with enemy of the first power that recognized its rights to neutrality.  Once again, shipping in New England boomed.

Napoleon realized that he had an opportunity to lure Madison and the United States into his Continental System.  In 1810 Napoleon revoked his economic sanctions, with a lie that the British were repealing their Order in Council.  The United States’ savvy ambassador to Russia, John Quincy Adams, advised Madison that Napoleon was setting a trap forcing the United States into war with Britain.  Nevertheless, Madison fell for Napoleon’s ploy.  Despite many reports of French depredations on American shipping, Madison stubbornly resisted resuming trade with Britain.[1]

How a delay in communications affected the United States, and how New Englanders reacted.

Look for it Monday, January 21

 


[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic Vol 1 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1962), 401.

Posted in Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Napoleon Lured President Madison into a Trap

Why Mathew Carey was Alarmed that Secession and Civil War were Imminent

Posted on January 6, 2013 by “Caius”

 

In an influential Democratic-Republican newspaper, the Aurora, William Duane favored use of federal forces in New England.

Mathew Carey, alarmed that secession was imminent, read everything he could on the history of civil wars.  He found that citizens were “indifferent” or “blind” in the period before the outbreak of war.

“I had devoured…nearly all the Histories of Civil Wars to be found in the Library – Divilla’s of France – Guichardini and Machivel[li]’s of Italy, Clarendon’s of England, & various others.  I say, on what is the Same thing in its results, I fancied I saw a Strong family likeness between the embrio of the Civil Wars by which the fairest portions of the earth have been ravaged.  I found the same dull indifference or willful blindness that characterised the mass of our citizens and our rulers, pourtrayed in those countries, where they were on the verge of an explosion.  I shuddered at the dire infatuation that So universally prevailed, and which I could not help regarding as the harbinger of impending destruction.”[1]

                                                                             Mathew Carey

Carey estimated he wrote at least a dozen letters to President Madison urging him to do something to prevent a crisis.  He reasoned that a few radicals proposed secession, but most New Englanders wanted to stay in the Union.  He suggested that Madison write a pamphlet countering the arguments of the radical Federalists in Boston.  He offered to print and distribute it using his own funds.   He proposed forming a Washington Union Society, and bringing Federalists into Madison’s administration.  Madison stubbornly ignored all of Carey’s suggestions.[2]

 

Next:  How Napoleon lured Madison into a trap.

Look for it Monday, January 14.


[1] Mathew Carey, Miscellanies II, ms. (c. 1834) private collection, 292.

[2] Mathew Carey, Autobiography, (Brooklyn:  Research Classics, 1942) 119, Edward C. Carter II, “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch’ 1814-1818, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, V. 89, N. 4 (October, 1965) 402.

Posted in Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Mathew Carey was Alarmed that Secession and Civil War were Imminent

How Jefferson and Madison Reacted to Threats of Secession

Posted on December 30, 2012 by “Caius”

Responding to howls of protest in New England, Congress hastily passed a bill repealing the Embargo.   Jefferson signed it three days before the end of his term, on March 1, 1809.  In its place, Congress passed a Non-Intercourse Act. While it did open trade with other nations, it continued to ban American vessels from carrying cargo to Britain or France.  It promised the United States would resume trade with the first of those two nations to repeal its economic sanctions.

When Madison took office, New Englanders continued to be enraged.  The new Non-Intercourse Act did little to address their concerns because the Enforcement Act of 1809 remained in effect.  Courts in New England did not sentence smugglers.  The state legislature in Massachusetts condemned the Enforcement Act as unconstitutional.  A rabble of angry New Englanders took to the streets damaging federal property.   William Duane, editor of the Democratic – Republican Party’s newspaper, the Aurora, proposed use of federal force in New England, and accused New Englanders of treason.  Early in 1809, Carey criticized Duane of war mongering, and urged a moderate course of action.[1]

“Yankee tricks” of smuggling continued because Jefferson and Madison ignored the economic interests of a powerful group of merchants, clergy and judges in New England, a stronghold of opposition to their Democratic-Republican Party.

“Yankee tricks” was a phrase that disparaged New Englanders for their devious business tactics.  In December 1809, Mathew Carey published   “A Miserable Prejudice—Yankee Tricks.”   He wrote, “…when I first visited [New England] I was a slave to the miserable prejudices that so generally prevail respecting its inhabitants.  I imagined that a large proportion of them were sharpers, solely intent upon deception and fraud.  I have lived to see the extent of my error…I have beheld with delight the decency, the neatness, the elegance of their dwellings—the order, the decorum, the propriety, the urbanity, and the hospitality of their manners…the yeomanry of New England are the pride and glory of the United States.” [2]

Technology may change rapidly, but human nature changes slowly, if at all. Sections of the country are characterized in much the same way today.  Citizens in the South are “stupid” while those in the East are “arrogant.”  Can we solve problems and remain unified if we demonize opposing sections with uninformed prejudice?  Does ignoring the interests of the opposition create willingness to compromise?

Next:  Why Mathew Carey was alarmed that secession and civil war were imminent.

Look for it Monday, January 7, 2013

 


[1][1] Edward C. Carter II, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814,” PhD. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 306; Letter by Matthew Lyon to Carey, 19 Feb. 1809, Lea and Febiger Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in Carter, “Political Activities,” 306, ff. 52.

[2] [Mathew Carey] “Yankee Tricks,” The Port Folio,  (1809) 533, reprinted in M. Carey, Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I, (New York:  Burt Franklin, n.d.) 376-8.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Jefferson and Madison Reacted to Threats of Secession

How New Englanders Used Jefferson’s Arguments to Defy Him

Posted on December 24, 2012 by “Caius”

 

On June 21, 1807, the British frigate Leopard fired on the USS Chesapeake near Norfolk, Virginia.  The British killed three sailors and injured eighteen.  The British then boarded the Chesapeake impressing three Americans.   Citizens throughout the United States expressed outrage.

In response, Jefferson urged Congress to pass the Embargo Act of 1807.  It prevented American ships from sailing to foreign ports, and engaging in trade with Britain or France.   Its purpose was to stop impressment and force Britain to respect America’s neutrality.   While the Embargo addressed the dangers of their merchant marine, New Englanders detested it.   It affirmed their suspicions.  Jefferson blatantly ignored  New England’s economic interests.  His crippling policy devastated the profitable trade merchants risked so much to achieve.   The act was impossible to enforce.  New Englanders refused to comply, smuggling their goods to Canada.

Responding to New England’s resistance to the Embargo, Congress passed an ‘Enforcement Act’ in 1809.  Without a warrant Federal officials confiscated goods bound for foreign ports.  New Englanders considered enforcement unjust and severe.

As New England suffered through its fourteenth month of embargo, even the Democratic-Republicans in New England revolted.  Howls of protest came from town meetings.  New Englanders looked to their state governments for redress.  Federalists controlled the state legislatures.  They used Jefferson’s and Madison’s reasoning behind the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions to defy the Embargo.

In 1798, Jefferson devised a political argument called the Kentucky Resolution.  His argument concerned the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed when John Adams was president.   The Acts targeted Irish and French immigrants and newspaper editors.  Immigrants suspected of fomenting a French-style revolution were aliens and newspaper editors critical of the Adams administration were seditious.  Jefferson argued state legislatures could declare Congressional acts unconstitutional if the Constitution did not authorize them.  Madison wrote a similar document for Virginia’s legislature in 1799.  The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions set forth arguments for states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

In February 1809, angry New Englanders proposed a convention to nullify the Embargo.  They openly discussed secession.[1]

It has been several weeks since secession petitions were sent to the “We the People” White House site.  President Obama has not responded to them, although understandably, he responded to a number of petitions on guns and gun control.   Can he be excused from not responding to the secession petitions because the fiscal cliff looms?  Will he ignore the secession petitions, as Jefferson ignored angry New Englanders?

Next:  How Jefferson and Madison Reacted

Look for it Monday, January 31.

 

 

 

 


[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. 1, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 396.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New Englanders Used Jefferson’s Arguments to Defy Him

How the Essex Junto and the River Gods Began to Threaten Secession

Posted on December 16, 2012 by “Caius”

 

To New England’s Federalists the Louisiana Purchase tipped the balance of power in favor of the South.  By the end of 1803, Massachusetts Federalists dubbed the Essex Junto were scheming to secede from the Union.  They were joined by a group of Federalists from Connecticut dubbed the River Gods.[1]   Federalist newspapers promoted allegiance to New England and antagonism towards Virginia and the South.[2]

The secessionists wanted New York to join the confederacy, and approached Alexander Hamilton.  After Hamilton refused to join, they approached Aaron Burr.   Burr’s political prospects were waning.  Jefferson and Burr were both Democratic-Republicans.   Each received an equal number of votes from electors during the election of 1800.  After thirty-five ballots and one all-night session, the House of Representatives elected Jefferson as president on the thirty-sixth ballot.  Burr became vice president.  Alexander Hamilton worked behind the scenes to ensure Jefferson’s victory.  Even though he disliked Jefferson, Hamilton considered Jefferson superior to Burr. After the election, Jefferson ignored Burr when he selected his cabinet and offered few government positions to Burr’s supporters.

Jefferson excluded Burr from his ticket when he campaigned for re-election in 1804.   Burr decided to run for governor of New York State against the Jeffersonian favorite, Morgan Lewis.  The New England secessionists offered to support Burr during his campaign if he would persuade New York to join their confederacy.  Burr declined their offer.  Alexander Hamilton again worked to discredit Burr during the campaign.  Lewis won the election.  Without New York in the confederacy, the New England Federalists suspended their plans for secession.

Embittered, Burr challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel.  He killed Hamilton in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804.

What do you think?  Is any group ignoring the interests of another today?

Next:  Why Jefferson’s Crippling Policies Harmed New England

Look for it Monday,  December 24.


[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, Vol. I, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962)383.

[2]Jeffrey L. Pasley, TheTyranny of Printers:  Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic, (Charlottesville:  University of Virginia Press, 2001) 255.

Posted in Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Essex Junto and the River Gods Began to Threaten Secession

How Jefferson and Madison’s Use of Newspapers Contributed to Secession Threats

Posted on December 9, 2012 by “Caius”

 Jefferson and Madison Used Newspapers to Launch Their Party

          In the Early Republic, newspapers evolved into partisan publications.    John Fenno, a journalist for the Boston Centinel, wrote a defense of the Constitution, attracting the attention of prominent Federalists.    In 1789, they backed him when he moved to New York City to publish the Gazette of the United States.  Fenno wanted his Gazette to be the nation’s official newspaper that defended Washington, his administration, and its policies.  Soon, he gained the support of Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson’s arch rival.  Jefferson worried that officials would misuse or abuse federal authority.     Jefferson recruited Philip Freneau to publish the National Gazette.    Freneau’s Gazette criticized Washington, his administration, and especially Alexander Hamilton and his financial policies.   Hiding behind pseudonyms, Jefferson and Madison wrote articles for the National Gazette.  They used Freneau’s Gazette to launch the Democratic-Republican party.  In 1800, the state of Massachusetts was split politically between Jefferson’s party and the reigning Federalists.  Roughly 20,000 voters were Democratic-Republican; about 25,000 voters were Federalists.[1]

           After Jefferson was elected president, the Democratic-Republicans set their sights on augmenting their gains in New England.   New Englanders from Jefferson’s cabinet persuaded editors to publish Democratic-Republican newspapers throughout the region.  By 1803, an observer noted that so many Democratic-Republican newspapers were emerging that he could no longer keep track of them all.[2]  The Democratic-Republican pressure in New England was too much for a group of Federalists dubbed the “Essex Junto” to bear.   They decided to take action.

What do you think?  Do you prefer impartial news reporting, or news blended with political opinions?

Next:  How the Essex Junto Responded to the Democratic-Republican Challenge

Look for it Monday, December 17.


[1]Henry Adams, History of the United States During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, 1986) 54.

[2] Jeffrey Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers:  Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic, (Charlottesville,  University of Virginia Press,  2001) 211.

Posted in Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Jefferson and Madison’s Use of Newspapers Contributed to Secession Threats