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

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.