-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The plot to secede from the Union!
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
atpollard
Well-Known Member
1778?
First paragraph from the OP's link:
Origins and definition[edit]
The term was coined as an invective by John Hancock in 1778 to describe the main opponents of a proposed constitution on Massachusetts. The proposed constitution was rejected by the people; the state adopted the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780. John Adams is also frequently credited with the use of the name.[1]
Some politicians identified with the Essex Junto were Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Francis Dana, Nathan Dane, Benjamin Goodhue, Stephen Higginson, Jonathan Jackson, John Lowell, Israel Thorndike, and Theophilus Parsons.
Did groups everywhere want to secede?
Perhaps some of the above folk were snowbirds or wrote to their Southern friends describing their ire.
That's my point.
You are knowledgeable about these things.
Do you know the genesis of the South's idea to secede?
The conditions that led to the dissatisfaction are generally known.
Origins and definition[edit]
The term was coined as an invective by John Hancock in 1778 to describe the main opponents of a proposed constitution on Massachusetts. The proposed constitution was rejected by the people; the state adopted the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780. John Adams is also frequently credited with the use of the name.[1]
Some politicians identified with the Essex Junto were Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Francis Dana, Nathan Dane, Benjamin Goodhue, Stephen Higginson, Jonathan Jackson, John Lowell, Israel Thorndike, and Theophilus Parsons.
Did groups everywhere want to secede?
Perhaps some of the above folk were snowbirds or wrote to their Southern friends describing their ire.
That's my point.
You are knowledgeable about these things.
Do you know the genesis of the South's idea to secede?
The conditions that led to the dissatisfaction are generally known.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
This Essex Junto article addresses more details regarding it. But here is a key comment (highlighting added):
Many of the Junto believed that separation could be brought about peaceably. Indeed, they had a perfect right to think so for the right of secession had not been very seriously questioned at this time. The Constitution was in its infancy and no one seems to have had a very clear idea just what it could be made to cover. Secession, therefore, was not held to be an unpardonable sin. It was spoken of frequently on the floors of Congress and no one was censured for such utterances.
The Essex Junto | Abbeville Institute
Many of the Junto believed that separation could be brought about peaceably. Indeed, they had a perfect right to think so for the right of secession had not been very seriously questioned at this time. The Constitution was in its infancy and no one seems to have had a very clear idea just what it could be made to cover. Secession, therefore, was not held to be an unpardonable sin. It was spoken of frequently on the floors of Congress and no one was censured for such utterances.
The Essex Junto | Abbeville Institute
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Your own is mentioned in this link which may shed a bit more light on the issue generally:
10 Movements to Secede from the United States
10 Movements to Secede from the United States
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The OP link mentions a second, evidently less serious effort, the Hartford Convention. The Wikipedia article on that includes an intriguing slant on the issue, the idea of expelling states.
Secession
Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Otis, the key leader of the Convention, blocked radical proposals such as a seizure of the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and the other delegates took charge, the radical secessionists might take power. Indeed, Otis was unaware that Massachusetts Governor Strong had already sent a secret mission to discuss terms with the British for a separate peace.[5]:362—370[2]:48
Hartford Convention - Wikipedia
Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815; all but one leading Federalist newspaper in New England supported a plan to expel the western states from the Union. Otis, the key leader of the Convention, blocked radical proposals such as a seizure of the Federal customs house, impounding federal funds, or declaring neutrality. Otis thought the Madison administration was near collapse and that unless conservatives like himself and the other delegates took charge, the radical secessionists might take power. Indeed, Otis was unaware that Massachusetts Governor Strong had already sent a secret mission to discuss terms with the British for a separate peace.[5]:362—370[2]:48
Hartford Convention - Wikipedia
The South basis the legality of secession first of all on the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal status to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitles them...."
Thus the 13 colonies were seceding from Britian. If secession is wrong, then the U.S. is based on a wrong.
During the ratification process of the Constitution the delegates from Virginia said "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the jpeople of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." (A Theological And Political View Of The Doctrine Of Secession, Al Benson Jr., p.2)
"William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington, said: 'The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics...It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded...." (Al Benson Jr., p. 3)
Quantrill
Ok. So the legal basis was The Declaration of Independence.
But when then did they begin to discuss seriously the idea to secede?
Did you happen to look at some of the links presented here?
There were many secessionist movements before the CSA and even some continue to the present.
Earlier than the CSA even the North was threatening to secede from the South!
Discontent with the growing power of the Jeffersonian Democrats and fearing the diminished influence of the North after the Louisiana Purchase, many of the group's members began to contemplate a Northern secession from the Southern states.
10 Movements to Secede from the United States
But when then did they begin to discuss seriously the idea to secede?
Did you happen to look at some of the links presented here?
There were many secessionist movements before the CSA and even some continue to the present.
Earlier than the CSA even the North was threatening to secede from the South!
Discontent with the growing power of the Jeffersonian Democrats and fearing the diminished influence of the North after the Louisiana Purchase, many of the group's members began to contemplate a Northern secession from the Southern states.
10 Movements to Secede from the United States
I don't know what you're asking. Do you want to know who was the first Southernor to use the word secession? I don't know who the first was. Secession had been building up for years due to the constant antagonism between North and South. You can go back to the nullification crisis. You can go back to Kansas and John Brown. You can go back to the Dred Scott decision.
As far as other secession movements, I don't deny. But what is your point with them?
Quantrill
Not exactly a "point" but to show the idea existed and was taken seriously in this country before the South tried to follow through.
Do you know when the first "official" organized meeting was or the first few meetings began?
They were perhaps extremely secretive at the onset.
Georgia's Declaration of Causes was written in 1861 but that is much later than what I was thinking.
Digital History
Perhaps in the 1840's people began to get organized?
Here is something about what is happening currently or at least last year:
Current status of secession movements in the US – Red-State Secession
As i said, the first secession movement was when the 13 colonies seceded from Britain.
Secession only comes about when wrongs are being done to one side.
I don't know what the 'history' of secession has to do with anything. That it occurs and why it occurs is what is important.
The fact is that in the U.S., it is set down that secession will not be tolerated. You ask where does it say that? See 1865.
That doesn't mean secession will not be attempted. That doesn't mean secession will not be successful. It means you can expect resistance, a fight, and loss of life.
Conclusion: Only if you're willing to pay that price, should you move in that direction. And of course the times dictate whether or not it is worth paying.
My opinion is that we live in times where it is worth the paying.
Quantrill
Thank you for your response.
For me it is becoming more important to know the history of of an idea which may lead to action in the present.
Conclusion: Only if you're willing to pay that price, should you move in that direction. And of course the times dictate whether or not it is worth paying.
Would you mind showing some scripture that says it is ok to lay down your life (pay the price) for a political idea rather than for Christ?
Or do you equate the two?
Are not we already in a spiritual war?
Many, like me, would rather spend time on a "safe" forum than be willing to witness for the gospel in a hostile culture.
For me it is becoming more important to know the history of of an idea which may lead to action in the present.
Conclusion: Only if you're willing to pay that price, should you move in that direction. And of course the times dictate whether or not it is worth paying.
Would you mind showing some scripture that says it is ok to lay down your life (pay the price) for a political idea rather than for Christ?
Or do you equate the two?
Are not we already in a spiritual war?
Many, like me, would rather spend time on a "safe" forum than be willing to witness for the gospel in a hostile culture.