The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American RevolutionStark, James Henry
History
The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the American Revolution
Stark, James Henry
American loyalists -- Massachusetts; Massachusetts -- Politics and government -- 1775-1783
The presidential election of 1860 showed the South that they had lost
control of the government and that the free states were increasing
enormously in wealth and population, and that, following the example of
Great Britain, it would be only a question of time before they would
insist on abolishing slavery. Then it was that the Southerners decided
to do what their fathers had done eighty-five years before, secede and
become Dis-unionists. They could not believe that there would be any
opposition to their leaving, especially from Massachusetts, that place
that had always been foremost in disunion sentiments. Besides, had not
the Abolitionists said repeatedly in Faneuil Hall, "The Cradle of
Liberty," that if they would leave the Union they would "pave their way
with gold" to get rid of them, and did not the New York Tribune, which
had been the organ of the Abolitionists, and which now declared that "if
the cotton states wished to withdraw from the Union they should be
allowed to do so"; that "any attempt to compel them to remain by force
would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and to the fundamental idea upon which human liberty is based," and that
"if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the
British Empire of three million subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it
would not justify the secession of five million of Southerners from the
Union in 1861." This was quite consistent with the remark of a leading
Abolitionist paper in Boston that "the Constitution was a covenant with
hell." The South also contended that even if they were not justified in
becoming Dis-unionists in 1776, they had established their right to
independence by force of arms and that when they had entered into a
confederation with the other seceding colonies, they had never assigned
any of their rights which they had fought for, that they were sovereign,
independent states, and that the bond that bound them together was
simply for self-protection and was what the name signified "United
States," and not a nation. In proof of this they stated that when the
convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, for the purpose of adopting
a constitution for a stronger form of government, the first resolution
presented was, "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that
a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme
legislature, executive and judiciary." This was followed by twenty-three
other resolutions as adopted and reported by the committee in which the
word "national" occurred twenty-six times. Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut
moved to strike out the word "national" and to insert the words
"Government of the United States." This was agreed to unanimously, and
the word "national" was stricken out wherever it occurred, and nowhere
makes its appearance in the Constitution finally adopted. The prompt
rejection of this word "national" is obviously much more expressive of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account