The war of 1812.
Next in the march of events comes the war of 1812.
This war was undertaken with the avowed intention of protecting the commerce and the seamen of
New England from the domineering encroachments of the
British sea power, yet the moment that the stress of war begins to be felt what is the result?
The Northern States, having adopted the
Constitution mainly for promoting their commercial interests, became restive as soon as their trade was interfered with by war, even though that war was entered upon for the purpose of protecting their commerce, and though their carrying trade was only temporarily decreased during the continuance of hostilities, with a view to their own ultimate benefit.
Ministers of the Gospel in the
Eastern States denounced the war of 1812 as ‘an unholy war.’
When the armies of the
United States were invading
Canada, in the churches of
New England they prayed ‘that all invading armies might be cut off,’ and ‘that they who take the sword may perish by the sword.’
It is hardly necessary to call attention to the fact that the reverend gentlemen who led these vindictive prayers and the congregations who joined in them, put themselves beyond the pale of Christianity, for Christians may not lawfully pray for the destruction even of their bitterest enemies.
During the war of 1812, more than at any other time, the
New England pulpit, press and representatives in Congress reiterated their intention to secede, and still their declarations passed unchallenged as an unquestioned right.
The Rev.
[
20]
Mr. Gardener, in a sermon preached in
Boston, July 23, 1812, says: ‘The Union has long since been dissolved; it is full time that this part of the
United States should take care of itself.’
This is only a specimen of many exhortations to secession.
The press teemed with similar sentiments: ‘My plan is to withhold our money and make a separate peace with
England.’
From the
Boston Advertiser.
“That there will be a revolution if the war continues, no one can doubt, who is acquainted with human nature and is accustomed to study cause and effect.
The Eastern States are marching steadily and straightforward up to the object.”—
Federal Republican.
These are only specimens from the leading newspapers.
The citizens of Newberryport, Mass., memorialized their Legislature as follows:
We call upon our State Legislature to protect us in the enjoyment of those privileges, to assert which our fathers died, to defend which we profess ourselves ready to resist unto blood.
No more violent sentiments can be expressed by the most hotheaded secession convention.
We will not pay our continental taxes, or aid, inform or assist any officer in their collection.
This resolution, passed by a mass meeting at
Reading, Mass., is less violent than the resolutions immediately above, but it shows a more determined, though less noisy, spirit.
Said
Cyrus King, of
Massachusetts, in a speech in Congress:
Yes, sir; I consider this administration as alien to us, so much so that New England would be justified in declaring them, like all foreign nations, enemies in war, in peace, friends.
The
Federal Republican has it: ‘On or before July 4 next, if
James Madison is not out of office a new form of government will be in operation in the eastern section of the
Union.’
These are completely parallel, in most respects identical, with the utterances of the most extreme secession politicians and newspapers of 1860, except in the very important respect that even the most violent southern secessionists deplored the necessity which forced them to their course, and rested the grounds of their action on principle and right, whereas the northern secessionists of 1814 never alluded to principle, but merely writhed and roared when the ‘pocket nerve’ was touched.
Grave and distinguished Southerners actually shed tears at the
[
21]
sad necessity of separation in 1861.
We hear of no such evidences of feeling in 1814.
The Eastern States were bound to rule or ruin; they must have full pockets or no Union.
