After having looked at three of the leading founders, their views on the issue of secession are brought to the front. Now, this is in no way a comprehensive look at their attitudes, for to do that, one would have to write a book, and one has to look at the other men who were involved in the debate as well.
But, having looked at their views, we can see that they saw that the Union was essential to the survival of the United States, and they formed it with the intention of it to be perpetual and indissoluble. The Articles of Confederation, which were the basis of government prior to the Constitutional era make this ideal quite clear. The Articles, in closing said that the "Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and the Union shall be perpetual." The Union that they had created was to be perpetual, not to be broken up.
Now, after several years, the Revolutionary generation realized that the Articles were not working. They did not make for a cohesive system of government and did nothing to bind the states together as a unified country, but rather kept them as a loose confederation with only a weak central government barely holding them together. Men such as Washington, Madison and others realized that something had to be done, that they government had to go through a restructuring in order for the United States to successfully continue.
That was the original intention of the Constitutional Convention; to restructure the Articles of Confederation and stabilize the government. They liked the Articles, but realized that they needed to be fixed in order to success. However, as the debate over how to do this went on, the delegates began to realize that maybe a new way of government needed to be formed in order to further solidify the United States. So, they began to draft the Constitution, which created a federal republic with a strong central government, a great divergence from the weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional debate raged, and compromises were made and hammered out to create the document that is now the basis of the government of the United States today.
Those who try and justify secession do their best to say that the Union under the Constitution was never meant to be perpetual, that a state could leave at any time that they wished. This is about as fallacious an argument that anyone looking at the era and the decades following can make. They base this argument on the assumption that the United States under the Constitution is a completely new country, and that the country under the Articles of Confederation ceased to exist. But that was not the intention of the Constitutional Convention. They met to make a better government, not a different nation. That much is stated in the preamble, when it states that "in order to form a more perfect Union" they did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Constitution was just a new method of government, not the formation of an entirely new country. The Union that had been formed for the defense of the United States against the British still existed. However, they were trying to perfect their system of goverment, in order to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." These were things that the Articles of Confederation were not doing for the United States, so they formed a new system of governing the United States. But, they did not in any way alter the country. They only altered the system that ran it. If they were going to alter the Union, there would have been a clear repudiation of it in the document. But they wrote the Constitution with a perfected Union in mind. And a Union which can be broken on a whim is not more perfect.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Monday, June 02, 2008
Washington, Jefferson and Madison, Part III
The final member of the Founders that I will exam for this three part series is James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. He is important to look at on the argument of the importance of the Union because he was so instrumental in the construction of it.
Madison was, along with Jefferson, a strong supporter of states rights, and was of the opinion that the Constitution only gave to the federal government the powers explicitly stated in the document itself. Everything else not delegated to the federal government, in his opinion, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, belonged to the states. He made this quite clear in his draft of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 when he said that "the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid [than] they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact..." However, this belief in states rights does not in any way imply that Madison was not attached to the Union and did not believe in the importance of it as a mainstay of the United States existence.
Madison was a firm believer in the importance of the Union to hold the country together and to control the forces that would tend to tear it asunder. Madison made it perfectly clear in the Preamble of the Constitution that its goal was to "form a more perfect Union." (emphasis added) He understood that the Articles of Confederation, while intended to govern the Union of the states and to ensure that the "Union shall be perpetual," did not do enough to keep the country effectively unified. Therefore, something had to be done to cement the Union together, to solidify it. The solution that the men of the Constitutional Convention arrived at was to completely toss aside the government as under the Articles and create a more centralized federal government with certain delegated powers.
Not only did Madison realize that this more centralized government would further stabilize the union of the thirteen states, but it would also do a great deal to control factions that would tend to tear apart rather than unify, and therefore end the experiment before it was even fairly on its way. He makes this patently clear in Federalist 10 when he states that one of the many advantages of a union of the states was its ability to "break and control the violence of faction." To clarify a little bit, what Madison means by a faction is a group of citizens, whether a minority or majority, who were united or motivated by a common goal that may be deemed as "adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." The best way to control these factions, as Madison saw it, was a republican form of government, and the only way to make that work was a union of the states under a centralized federal government.
Since union was so important in Madison's view of controlling faction and perpetuating unity of the states, what of the idea of secession? Did a state have the right, in his view, to leave the union if it so desired, for any reason? Madison saw two secession movements in his lifetime. Once was during his presidency, when the New England states proposed at the Hartford Convention to leave the Union, and then during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33. Of the first of these, Madison is strangely silent. With the states of New England threatening to secede in the midst of the second war with England, one would assume that he would make a move to head off this movement towards dissolution, but he says very little about it, though he was very critical of their refusal to aid in the defense of the country, keeping their troops in their respective states, and not sending them to aid the others.
It was not until late in his life, as the elder statesmen, that his view of secession came out. With the Nullification Crisis embroiling the United States and South Carolina threatening secession, he spoke out and let his views on the issue be known. In a letter to William C. Rives, Madison makes his pointed statement on nullification of laws and secession. He says: "One thing at least seems [too] clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains in the Union, it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution and the laws of the Union." He follows this with his opinion that the only way that a state can withdraw itself from the Union is by a vote of the states as a whole to give consent to the departure of the state and/or states. But it is up to the states as a whole, and one state cannot just unilaterally up and withdraw itself from the Union and its laws.
In his final days, Madison wrote a short letter which he titled Advice to My Country. This was a short work of only two paragraphs, but it speaks volumes to his wish to see the perpetuity of the Union that he helped to create. In his letter, Madison says that the "advice nearest to my heart is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy of it by regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise." This statement of enmity toward any person or persons who would attempt to destroy the United States makes it clear his wish to see the Union carry on for years. He did not mean to see it eventually break apart into city-states, or separate countries, but as one country, forever united. For Madison, secession was not an option. For Madison, it was the Union forever.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Washington, Jefferson and Madison, Part II
After looking at Washington, the Father of Our Country, one must now look at the man who wrote the document that so profoundly set the groundwork of this nation and stated the ideals that the United States was to be founded upon.
Many who claim secession to be a right claim that Thomas Jefferson set the basis secession and that it has been a part of American political tradition since the beginning. However, those who attempt to give credence to this argument do a great disservice to Jefferson, and propogate what at best can be described only as a half truth.
The United States was indeed founded on the basis of secession, for that is exactly what the thirteen American colonies did: they seceeded from the British Empire, declaring themselves to be a free and independent people, free of what they saw as a tyrannical government 3,000 miles away in which they had not an ounce of representation. However, this is where the similarities between the Revolutionary era and the Civil War decade come to an end. Where Jefferson gave credence to secession, he set specific parameters for it. In the Declaration of Independence, he states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends [liberty], it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness."
So, when a form of government becomes destructive to liberty, then secession is allowable. But Jefferson would not be one to use it as a first resort, but more as a last, fail safe option. In the case of a repressive government, when all other options have been tried and have failed, it is okay. But what if it is just a matter of political disagreements and partisan strife? Would Jefferson had said that okay, since there isn't any agreement, nor is there likely to be, is secession a viable option? It can be posited that no, he would not have said that secession was an acceptible recourse of action. He made this quite clear in a letter to John Taylor of Caroline in 1798.
Taylor, a prominent Virginia politician, had written a letter to Jefferson, voicing his frustration over the success of the New England and the recent passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. In his frustration, he makes the suggestion that Virginia and North Carolina should secede from the Union and throw off the yoke of New England. Jefferson writes back, admonishing Taylor and urging caution. He says that in a "free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties [i.e Republicans and Federalists] and violent dissension and discords; and one of these...must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time...But if on a temporary superiority of one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist." To put it simply, Jefferson is saying that party system is a natural result of a republican form of government, and if because one party is more powerful than another, it is no reason for the lesser party to threaten to leave and form its own country. To split the Union because of party differences was to show the world that the great experiment in self government had been a total failure. Jefferson uses the idea of common heritage, just as Washington does, to get his point across. In his First Inaugural, he says that "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
So, how would Jefferson have handled secession? Jefferson was the first president to have this thrown at him, when debate over the Louisiana Purchase caused threats of secession from the New England states. To anwer this question, one need only look once more at his First Inaugural, when he said that if there were "any among us who wish to dissolve the Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson, it seems would try to talk to those disunionists, and try to reason with them to get them back into the Union. Jefferson was, after all, an idealist, so he was not one to use forceful coercion in order to get a person or a group of persons to see things his way.
Jefferson saw American as having been built upon the idea of political liberty and the right of the people to voice their dissent if they wanted to. He was not for the suppression of ideas, and he would not, without just cause or provocation, try to force anyone back into the Union. We will never know how he would have handled secession if it had happened, because the threats that were made during his time as Chief Executive were empty and came to nothing. But he would not have stood idly by, that is for certain. Secession, in Jefferson's mind, was only a last resort option, one to be taken only when all other recourse had been attempted. Jefferson, like Washington, believed in the efficacy of the Union.
Next: James Madison
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Washington, Jefferson and Madison: Part I
When the Southern states seceded from the Federal Union in 1860-61, they based their case around the idea of their cause being a Second American Revolution, and that they were acting in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. They fought in the memory of Washington and Jefferson, declaring their independence, and fighting for it. Yet, it would seem that the men they sought to honor through their so called War for Southern Independence was one that the Founding Fathers spoke against and would have been alarmed to hear their names connected to a war that sought to tear apart what they had worked so hard and bled so much to create. Here, I will seek to look at three men who were instrumental in the founding of the United States. George Washington served as general of the Continental Army, presided over the Constitutional Convention, and served two terms as the first president of the federal United States of America. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, giving credence to the fight for independence, and later served as the third President. And lastly, James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, framed the document which is the basis of our government (and the Southern states attempted to tear apart) and served as the fourth president. There are many more to look at, but these men are without a doubt the most important three to take a look at, as they are revered above many others.
George Washington: The Father of Our Country.
The first person that we shall look at is George Washington. A Virginian, he served in the French and Indian War, was general-in-chief of the Continental Army during the War for Independence, delegate and President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and first president of the United States. During the Civil War, he was revered above all other Virginians, and his name was on many a southrons lips. Jefferson Davis' inauguration as President of the Confederate States was held on his birthday, next to his statue in Richmond. Yet, Washington would have been appalled that his name was being connected to this rending of the nation he had fought so hard to create and hold together in his eight years as President.
Washington understood the importance of the union of the thirteen original states and the others that were most assuredly to follow. Following the ending of hostilities in 1783, Washington send around his Circular Letter of Farewell to the Army. In it, he tells his men what was essential to sustaining the nation that they had fought and bled to create. The first of the essentials was, in his words an "indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal Head." Right here he sees that there needed to be one person, presiding over a federal goverment (he does not say what kind of federal government) and that this Union was to be unbreakable. This in and of itself should clearly establish that Washington was against anything and/or any person who would attempt to break apart the union of the states. He tells his men that "whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or to contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of those treated accordingly." Washington understood that union of the states was essential to the security of the new nation, and even a loose confederacy of states was bound to fail. And they did.
Throughout his years as president, Washington made remarks here and there pertaining to the importance of the union of the states, but it wasn't until his Farewell Address in 1796 that he made his most poignant argument for the sanctity and permanency of the Union. In his address, he points out three reasons as to why the union of the states was essential. The first of these reasons is that it is necessary for the wellbeing and happiness of all Americans. He said that "it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness...discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Here, once again, as in his Circular Letter of thirteen years prior, he shows his belief of how important the union is to the preservation of liberty. In fact, he states that it should be considered as the "main prop of your liberty, and that the love of one ought to endear you to the preservation of the other." The Union solidified the idea of Americans as one people, free and independent.
Washington also points out that the union is also in the best interest of the people. It provides security, since through the union there is greater strength in both resources and manpower, what he called the "united mass of means and efforts." He saw that as a united nation, there was less of a chance of a foreign, i.e. European, nation attempting to take over the United States. Along with providing security, the union would also enhance the fledgling nations prosperity. A formal union of the states, as opposed to a loose confederation, would offer more economic advantages, creating trade opportunities and allowing commerce to flourish. Unrestrained trade between the states and the trade advantages each could give the others would make for an "indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation."
The bedrock of this union was the Constitution. This was what connected the thirteen states and was important to the "efficacy and permanency of Your Union..." This was the supreme alliance of the states, binding them together. No other political alliance, "however strict between the parts can be and adequate subsitute." With this argument for the Union, Washington clearly stood for an indissoluble union of the states, unbreakable and necessary for the survival of the nation he fought so hard to establish.
Coming next: Thomas Jefferson.
George Washington: The Father of Our Country.
The first person that we shall look at is George Washington. A Virginian, he served in the French and Indian War, was general-in-chief of the Continental Army during the War for Independence, delegate and President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and first president of the United States. During the Civil War, he was revered above all other Virginians, and his name was on many a southrons lips. Jefferson Davis' inauguration as President of the Confederate States was held on his birthday, next to his statue in Richmond. Yet, Washington would have been appalled that his name was being connected to this rending of the nation he had fought so hard to create and hold together in his eight years as President.
Washington understood the importance of the union of the thirteen original states and the others that were most assuredly to follow. Following the ending of hostilities in 1783, Washington send around his Circular Letter of Farewell to the Army. In it, he tells his men what was essential to sustaining the nation that they had fought and bled to create. The first of the essentials was, in his words an "indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal Head." Right here he sees that there needed to be one person, presiding over a federal goverment (he does not say what kind of federal government) and that this Union was to be unbreakable. This in and of itself should clearly establish that Washington was against anything and/or any person who would attempt to break apart the union of the states. He tells his men that "whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or to contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of those treated accordingly." Washington understood that union of the states was essential to the security of the new nation, and even a loose confederacy of states was bound to fail. And they did.
Throughout his years as president, Washington made remarks here and there pertaining to the importance of the union of the states, but it wasn't until his Farewell Address in 1796 that he made his most poignant argument for the sanctity and permanency of the Union. In his address, he points out three reasons as to why the union of the states was essential. The first of these reasons is that it is necessary for the wellbeing and happiness of all Americans. He said that "it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness...discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Here, once again, as in his Circular Letter of thirteen years prior, he shows his belief of how important the union is to the preservation of liberty. In fact, he states that it should be considered as the "main prop of your liberty, and that the love of one ought to endear you to the preservation of the other." The Union solidified the idea of Americans as one people, free and independent.
Washington also points out that the union is also in the best interest of the people. It provides security, since through the union there is greater strength in both resources and manpower, what he called the "united mass of means and efforts." He saw that as a united nation, there was less of a chance of a foreign, i.e. European, nation attempting to take over the United States. Along with providing security, the union would also enhance the fledgling nations prosperity. A formal union of the states, as opposed to a loose confederation, would offer more economic advantages, creating trade opportunities and allowing commerce to flourish. Unrestrained trade between the states and the trade advantages each could give the others would make for an "indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation."
The bedrock of this union was the Constitution. This was what connected the thirteen states and was important to the "efficacy and permanency of Your Union..." This was the supreme alliance of the states, binding them together. No other political alliance, "however strict between the parts can be and adequate subsitute." With this argument for the Union, Washington clearly stood for an indissoluble union of the states, unbreakable and necessary for the survival of the nation he fought so hard to establish.
Coming next: Thomas Jefferson.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Did Slavery Kill Manifest Destiny?
I have recently been involved in a discussion in which the topic is the premise that slavery killed the idea of manifest destiny. However, after looking at the subject and thinking about it, I do not agree with this premise. Slavery, while being one of the causes of manifest destiny, was not the death of the ideal of territorial expansion. Prudence, if anything, was what ended the expansionist ideals of the mid-nineteenth century.
The term "manifest destiny" first arose during the furor over the annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1844-45. However, the ideal had been around for decades prior, even into the period before the War for Independence. But it wasn't until the uproar over Texas that the term "manifest destiny" was actually used. Daniel Howe, in his work What Hath God Wrought gives this statement, which fairly well defines manifest destiny: "'Manifest destiny' served as both a label and a justification for policies that might otherwise have simply been called American expansionism or imperialism. The assumption of white supremacy permeated these policies." Americans felt it was their right, almost a divine right, to expand and spread democracy and freedom to those peoples both to the north and to the south of the borders of the United States. Howe says that if "America had a divine mission to perform, to be a beacon of freedom...then perhaps increasing its extent and power would bring blessings to the whole world."
It is a fact that slaveowners wanted to expand American soil in order to spread slavery. It was painfully obvious to these men that if the peculiar institution was to survive, more territory was required. However, slaveowners were not the only group whose interests were vested in expansion. Land speculators saw the west as money in their pockets. Railroad men saw the vast western plains as a perfect avenue to build a railroad to the Pacific. And small farmers and new immigrants saw the west as a place to start over and make a family and a living. To them, the west was a vast, unclaimed expanse, that was theirs for the taking. Never mind the Native American tribes and the Mexicans; it was their right to take that territory and make it theirs.
So what stopped this expansion? What "killed" manifest destiny? In essence, it was prudence. During the decades of 1840 and into the 50's, expansion was a major goal. There was James Polk's idea to purchase Cuba for $100 million. There was the furor with England over the boundary of the Oregon Territory, which gave rise to the slogan "54ยบ 40 or Fight!" There were the filibusteros who attempted to take territory for America in Central America and the Caribbean. And perhaps the greatest expansionist scheme of all, the Mexican War, which gained the United States the territory which became California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and part of New Mexico. The latter was the only scheme that worked, but these were all plans to expand the territory of the United States.
So why didn't they work? Spain wasn't going to give up Cuba, and the United States wasn't about to take on a major European power, even one in its decline. They were also not about to take on Great Britain in a third war with that country in less than 75 years. And the filibusteros? They were all stopped by the countries that they tried to take territory from or they failed due to illness or not enough backing. They were seen as imprudent and unwise ventures. Slavery did not have a direct impact on their failure. Though there were many who were rabidly against the war with Mexico because they saw it as a war to expand slavery, California came in a free state and slavery most likely would not have succeeded in the rest of teh territory gained in the Mexican Cession. Oregon was well above the Missouri Compromise line and though it might have succeeded there, probably wouldn't have gotten a hold there. So slavery had little impact on a much of the territory that was taken because of manifest destiny.
One must also take into account the imperialist attitude that arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. American expansion was not done, and the territory of Alaska and Hawaii, later to become states, and the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and other islands, both in the Caribbean and the Pacific, came under United States control. So slavery, as can be seen, didn't kill these expansionist attitudes. Slavery, while it did a great deal to tear the nation apart in the 1850's, did not destroy the expansionist attitudes of the American people. Slavery did not kill manifest destiny.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Dr. Samuel A. Mudd: Innocent vs. Guilty.
I will try to post more often. I always mean to, but I forget and something else takes over.
Recently, I have begun studying the assassination of President Lincoln and the men who were behind the conspiracy. One of the men who was caught up in the whole mess was a young doctor from Charles County, Maryland by the name of Samuel Alexander Mudd. On April 15, 1865, in the early morning hours, J.W. Booth stopped at Mudd's house and had his leg set after he had broken it jumping from Lincoln's box to the stage. Mudd was later arrested, tried and sentenced to life in prison for supposedly belonging to the conspiracy to assassinate the president.
The question now becomes: was he set up, was he a scapegoat in one of the largest manhunts in American history, or was he truly a conspirator in Booth's plot? The evidence, I believe, points to the former two, rather than the latter. Much of the evidence gathered was seemingly quite circumstantial, and points, rather, to Booth, in essence, setting up Mudd.
We know that Booth's original plot had been to kidnap Lincoln, and his planned escape route was through Southern Maryland, a hotbed of southern sympathizers, of which Mudd was undoubtedly one. However, was he a spy, or a courier for the Confederacy? This is hard to prove, as evidence is scanty. No evidence has come forward to directly link him to Richmond, and the fact that he knew Samuel Cox, a known Confederate spy in Charles County isn't enough to convict, as who didn't know Mr. Cox, a very well known and wealthy man in the area?
We also know that Booth met Dr. Mudd in November, 1864, and that he stayed with the Mudd's for a night and bought a horse from one of Mudd's neighbors, which was later used by Lewis Powell (aka Lewis Payne/Paine) to escape from Seward's home after his attempt to murder the Secratary of State. There was also another meeting of the two in Washington a month later, which seems to be accidental, a passing meeting between the two. The two did exchange words, but what those words were isn't known, and could very well be just concerning a land deal Booth was supposedly trying to make with Mudd. But was Booth in Charles County to specifically meet with Mudd, or was he there to just scout out the area and develop assets, something any good agent would do?
There is also the fact that on the night Booth stopped, he wore a disguise, and did not identify himself to Mudd. When Herold and Booth stopped, Herold introduced himself as Tyson and Booth as Tyler. If Mudd was a member of any conspiracy, why hide his identity? Why not say that it was him? Mudd would surely have helped in a heartbeat, to help his fellow conspirator, rather than fulfill the Hippocratic oath he was bound to uphold? If Mudd was in on the whole kidnapping plot, which devolved to murder, then what is the need to disguise himself? There isn't any.
Thirdly, there is the fact that Booth did not tell the authorities himself and that he hid evidence from them. At the time that Booth left, Mudd apparently wanted to hurry back to Bryantown and tell the authorities that he had a suspicion that Booth had just stayed at his house and had just left. He wife, however, begged him not to, because she was afraid that they might return and clean up a loose end. Instead, he told his cousin George the next day, and George, a Unionist (one of a few true Unionists in Charles County), told the detectives, who came to talk to Mudd on Tuesday. On Friday, he turned over the boot, and a couple of days later was arrested as a conspirator. People say that he forgot to get rid of evidence, but in reality, he could have just been holding onto a boot for a patient to come and pick up. As a doctor, he had to cut off the boot, and, cut in the right place, a boot can easily be repaired. So might he, at the time, have thought the man would possibly take his boot, or if he left it, come back to get it, so that he could repair it?
Many pieces of evidence point to Mudd's innocence. The evidence that incriminated Mudd is all circumstantial. Was he a part of a plot to kidnap Lincoln? It is highly doubtful. Was he southern sympathizer? Most likely, as he owned slaves and some of his relatives went to fight for the Confederacy. So was he innocent or guilty? I hold to his being completely innocent.
There is much out there to read on this subject. Here are some titles that one can read, which give both sides of the story.
-American Brutus by Michael Kauffman. This book is excellent, a product of many years of research. Comes from the point of view that Mudd was innocent for the most part.
-Blood on the Moon by Ed Steers. This book is also good. It comes from the point of view that Mudd was guilty and member of the conspiracy.
-Manhunt by James Swanson. A narrative of the 12 day chase of Booth and all that happened in between. A fast, interesting read, but not quite on par with the first two.
Peruse these and decide for yourself. You can also visit the Mudd House, which is a privately owned museum in Charles county. Read and decide. Innocent......or guilty?
Recently, I have begun studying the assassination of President Lincoln and the men who were behind the conspiracy. One of the men who was caught up in the whole mess was a young doctor from Charles County, Maryland by the name of Samuel Alexander Mudd. On April 15, 1865, in the early morning hours, J.W. Booth stopped at Mudd's house and had his leg set after he had broken it jumping from Lincoln's box to the stage. Mudd was later arrested, tried and sentenced to life in prison for supposedly belonging to the conspiracy to assassinate the president.
The question now becomes: was he set up, was he a scapegoat in one of the largest manhunts in American history, or was he truly a conspirator in Booth's plot? The evidence, I believe, points to the former two, rather than the latter. Much of the evidence gathered was seemingly quite circumstantial, and points, rather, to Booth, in essence, setting up Mudd.
We know that Booth's original plot had been to kidnap Lincoln, and his planned escape route was through Southern Maryland, a hotbed of southern sympathizers, of which Mudd was undoubtedly one. However, was he a spy, or a courier for the Confederacy? This is hard to prove, as evidence is scanty. No evidence has come forward to directly link him to Richmond, and the fact that he knew Samuel Cox, a known Confederate spy in Charles County isn't enough to convict, as who didn't know Mr. Cox, a very well known and wealthy man in the area?
We also know that Booth met Dr. Mudd in November, 1864, and that he stayed with the Mudd's for a night and bought a horse from one of Mudd's neighbors, which was later used by Lewis Powell (aka Lewis Payne/Paine) to escape from Seward's home after his attempt to murder the Secratary of State. There was also another meeting of the two in Washington a month later, which seems to be accidental, a passing meeting between the two. The two did exchange words, but what those words were isn't known, and could very well be just concerning a land deal Booth was supposedly trying to make with Mudd. But was Booth in Charles County to specifically meet with Mudd, or was he there to just scout out the area and develop assets, something any good agent would do?
There is also the fact that on the night Booth stopped, he wore a disguise, and did not identify himself to Mudd. When Herold and Booth stopped, Herold introduced himself as Tyson and Booth as Tyler. If Mudd was a member of any conspiracy, why hide his identity? Why not say that it was him? Mudd would surely have helped in a heartbeat, to help his fellow conspirator, rather than fulfill the Hippocratic oath he was bound to uphold? If Mudd was in on the whole kidnapping plot, which devolved to murder, then what is the need to disguise himself? There isn't any.
Thirdly, there is the fact that Booth did not tell the authorities himself and that he hid evidence from them. At the time that Booth left, Mudd apparently wanted to hurry back to Bryantown and tell the authorities that he had a suspicion that Booth had just stayed at his house and had just left. He wife, however, begged him not to, because she was afraid that they might return and clean up a loose end. Instead, he told his cousin George the next day, and George, a Unionist (one of a few true Unionists in Charles County), told the detectives, who came to talk to Mudd on Tuesday. On Friday, he turned over the boot, and a couple of days later was arrested as a conspirator. People say that he forgot to get rid of evidence, but in reality, he could have just been holding onto a boot for a patient to come and pick up. As a doctor, he had to cut off the boot, and, cut in the right place, a boot can easily be repaired. So might he, at the time, have thought the man would possibly take his boot, or if he left it, come back to get it, so that he could repair it?
Many pieces of evidence point to Mudd's innocence. The evidence that incriminated Mudd is all circumstantial. Was he a part of a plot to kidnap Lincoln? It is highly doubtful. Was he southern sympathizer? Most likely, as he owned slaves and some of his relatives went to fight for the Confederacy. So was he innocent or guilty? I hold to his being completely innocent.
There is much out there to read on this subject. Here are some titles that one can read, which give both sides of the story.
-American Brutus by Michael Kauffman. This book is excellent, a product of many years of research. Comes from the point of view that Mudd was innocent for the most part.
-Blood on the Moon by Ed Steers. This book is also good. It comes from the point of view that Mudd was guilty and member of the conspiracy.
-Manhunt by James Swanson. A narrative of the 12 day chase of Booth and all that happened in between. A fast, interesting read, but not quite on par with the first two.
Peruse these and decide for yourself. You can also visit the Mudd House, which is a privately owned museum in Charles county. Read and decide. Innocent......or guilty?
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Comparison between 1776 and 1861
Many try to condone the actions of the southern secessionists by saying that they were just acting in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and following the lead of the Founding Generation. But it is a misconception that they were actually following the lead of the men who lead the nation through the War for Independence. Of course, the Declaration states that there is a natural right to revolution and that a government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. But one must look past this as well, and compare why the colonies were breaking away as opposed to why the South was seceding.
The Declaration states a long list of grievances held by the colonists and says that this is why they were breaking away and becoming and independent nation. This list is actually a concise form of a previous work by Thomas Jefferson called "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," which was written a couple of years prior and was a letter stating what the colonies saw going wrong and trying to get the King to do something about it. But these grievances are clear and they do not match up at all with the reasons the South stated for seceding.
For example, one reason Jefferson states is that the King had "refused to pass other laws for the Accomadation of Large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only." More simply, the King would not allow a part of a colony to form another colony, or a portion of a county to break away from another, unless they relinquished their right to representation in the colonial legislatures. Now when, it must be asked, did this happen in the first eighty years of the Republic? The answer is: never! Not once was any part of the United States, north or south, denied representation in Congress, or their state legislatures. If a reapportionment occured, which happens every ten years in conjuntion with the Census, representation is added accordingly if need be. So the South cannot claim that they were denied representation in this or any other matter. In fact, for a while, the Southern states attempted to deny representation to many people in their own states, allowing onlyl the propertied to vote.
Another grievance listed is the fact that when some crimes were committed, the English were "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences," and the were "depriving [the accused] in many Cases of the Benefits of Trial by Jury." Colonists were accused of crimes, such as murder, and instead of being tried in the colonies, they were being taken to England for trial, in front of, not their peers, but people who had no idea what was going on in the case, for it had no bearing on them. Certain witnesses also had to go, leaving their families behind for atleast a year to fend for themselves. Now, can anybody name a single case in which a man committed a crime such as murder in one state, say Alabama, and he was transported all the way to, say Wisconsin, for his trial? One can say pretty safely that no, that didn't happen. So the Southern states were not being unfairly tried for crimes committed in their own states.
Here is a common excuse that Southern apologists like to give: taxes. As many know, Great Britain had imposed unfair duties and taxes on certain goods, and this resulted in events such as the Boston Tea Party. In the Declaration, Jefferson states as a reason that fact that England had been "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," hence the phrase "No taxation without Representation." The colonists has nobody representing them in Congress, yet they were being taxed and they didn't have a say in the matter, and they saw this as unfair. Now, if one has a knowledge of the Constitution, they know that any tax that is imposed must be passed by Congress. Therefore, if a tax or duty is in place, it was duly voted on and approved by a majority of Congress and signed into law. It is therefore lawful and one can complain, but it will do them no good. Now Southerners could say that they didn't like a certain tax, as they did with the tariff, but they can't claim they don't have a say, because they have representatives in the House and Senate. If something they don't like passes, they had better try harder the next time to vote it down and get others to do so as well.
There are so many others, that it would take a book to compare all of them. The point is, the South was breaking away for one reason only: to protect the institution of slavery, which they saw as being threatened, even though Lincoln most likely would have done nothing to harm the institution. They knew that slavery was going to die. It had to eventually. The only way to keep it alive, was expansion. The Republicans were opposed to slavery in the territories. With a threat to what they saw as essential, they broke away, even though they did not have a clear right to do so, unlike the 13 colonies, who had a slew of grievances to prove that they were being treated unfairly, something it would be hard for the South to prove, considering they were pandered to constantly in the years before the war. The point is, 1776 and 1861 are not comparable. They are totally separate events, in no way alike. The South was not the 13 colonies, and they can't claim to be such.
The Declaration states a long list of grievances held by the colonists and says that this is why they were breaking away and becoming and independent nation. This list is actually a concise form of a previous work by Thomas Jefferson called "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," which was written a couple of years prior and was a letter stating what the colonies saw going wrong and trying to get the King to do something about it. But these grievances are clear and they do not match up at all with the reasons the South stated for seceding.
For example, one reason Jefferson states is that the King had "refused to pass other laws for the Accomadation of Large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only." More simply, the King would not allow a part of a colony to form another colony, or a portion of a county to break away from another, unless they relinquished their right to representation in the colonial legislatures. Now when, it must be asked, did this happen in the first eighty years of the Republic? The answer is: never! Not once was any part of the United States, north or south, denied representation in Congress, or their state legislatures. If a reapportionment occured, which happens every ten years in conjuntion with the Census, representation is added accordingly if need be. So the South cannot claim that they were denied representation in this or any other matter. In fact, for a while, the Southern states attempted to deny representation to many people in their own states, allowing onlyl the propertied to vote.
Another grievance listed is the fact that when some crimes were committed, the English were "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences," and the were "depriving [the accused] in many Cases of the Benefits of Trial by Jury." Colonists were accused of crimes, such as murder, and instead of being tried in the colonies, they were being taken to England for trial, in front of, not their peers, but people who had no idea what was going on in the case, for it had no bearing on them. Certain witnesses also had to go, leaving their families behind for atleast a year to fend for themselves. Now, can anybody name a single case in which a man committed a crime such as murder in one state, say Alabama, and he was transported all the way to, say Wisconsin, for his trial? One can say pretty safely that no, that didn't happen. So the Southern states were not being unfairly tried for crimes committed in their own states.
Here is a common excuse that Southern apologists like to give: taxes. As many know, Great Britain had imposed unfair duties and taxes on certain goods, and this resulted in events such as the Boston Tea Party. In the Declaration, Jefferson states as a reason that fact that England had been "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," hence the phrase "No taxation without Representation." The colonists has nobody representing them in Congress, yet they were being taxed and they didn't have a say in the matter, and they saw this as unfair. Now, if one has a knowledge of the Constitution, they know that any tax that is imposed must be passed by Congress. Therefore, if a tax or duty is in place, it was duly voted on and approved by a majority of Congress and signed into law. It is therefore lawful and one can complain, but it will do them no good. Now Southerners could say that they didn't like a certain tax, as they did with the tariff, but they can't claim they don't have a say, because they have representatives in the House and Senate. If something they don't like passes, they had better try harder the next time to vote it down and get others to do so as well.
There are so many others, that it would take a book to compare all of them. The point is, the South was breaking away for one reason only: to protect the institution of slavery, which they saw as being threatened, even though Lincoln most likely would have done nothing to harm the institution. They knew that slavery was going to die. It had to eventually. The only way to keep it alive, was expansion. The Republicans were opposed to slavery in the territories. With a threat to what they saw as essential, they broke away, even though they did not have a clear right to do so, unlike the 13 colonies, who had a slew of grievances to prove that they were being treated unfairly, something it would be hard for the South to prove, considering they were pandered to constantly in the years before the war. The point is, 1776 and 1861 are not comparable. They are totally separate events, in no way alike. The South was not the 13 colonies, and they can't claim to be such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
