On the War of 1812 point, it shows that Madison had a better
> understanding of the Constitution than Mr. Lincoln.  That was an attack on
> the US by a foreing enemy, they burned Washington DC, but you didn't see Mr.
> Madison panicing, suspending habeas corpus without the consent of the
> Congress, attempting to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States for
> disagreeing with his authority, and arresting everyone in site who
might have been associated with the British (including those New Englanders who
> considered leaving the Union in favor of becoming a part of Britan once
> again).  The War of 1812 is a good case to point out the folly of Mr.
> Lincoln's actions.  Madison was a Virginian, after all.
>
> JDS

JDS mistates the purpose of the Hartford Convention of 1814.  It was not
to achieve reunion with Great Britain -- that's just plain wrong -- but
rather to amend the constitution: to limit presidential administrations
to a single term, to diminish presidential power in foreign affairs and
trade policy (i.e. the Embargoes), etc.   Threats to secede were just
threats; the majority of New Englanders were loyal to the United States
and would not have followed radicals (even Bostonians called John Lowell
"Crazy Jack") into secession.  Was the Hartford Convention disloyal?
Sure, but it was also just (constitutionally protected) talk -- and,
after all, the Convention sent its three emissaries to Washington, not to
London.  It just is not comparable to the situation Lincoln faced with
secession, rebellion and enemy troops being raised in Maryland and other
border states.

The Tennessee senator Felix Grundy called what those anti-administration
New Englanders did "moral treason" specifically to distinguish it from
the Constitutional variety.   Others, like the editor Hezekiah Niles were
not so discriminating -- he called for mass public executions of the
opponents of war.  Ultimately, Madison did not need to pursue those
people because they were "hoist on their own petard" -- New England
federalism was so seriously discredited by the association with secession
and disloyalty that it killed the party nationally.

As for 'real' treason -- actual aid and comfort to the enemy -- the war
of 1812 supplies a number of cases of individuals selling supplies to the
enemy (some, but not all by any means were New Englanders), and of
course, the infamous "blue-lights" that Stephen Decatur claimed had
alerted the British of his departure from New London.  The blue lights
were never verified, but a number of cases came before federal courts
concerning the trade with the enemy in wartime.

David Kiracofe
College of Charleston
Department of History
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html