On June 16, 1812, the British suspended their economic sanctions, but it was too late. Two days later, well before the news reached Washington, Congress declared war on Great Britain. Declaring war theoretically favored New England’s shipping interests: Continuing impressment, the British Navy’s use of the United States’ territorial waters, their blockade of enemies’ coasts, and economic sanctions.[1]
Actually, those reasons did not honor the concerns of New Englanders. They opposed the war. Seventy-five percent of America’s ship owners were located in New England. They reaped enormous profits from the conflict between Britain and France. More than half the congressmen from New England and eight senators opposed the war. Most senators and representatives from the Mid-Atlantic States also opposed the war. The farmers they represented profited from the export of flour and other foodstuffs to the Caribbean and Europe.[2]
Secession 2012; Nullification 2013
The White House has responded to the secession petitions. In a response entitled “Our States Remain United,” Jon Carson wrote that “…as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.”
National unity is precious and cannot be taken for granted. Our president, like President Madison, is ignoring or minimizing the importance of the protests coming from those who oppose him.
There are rumblings of nullification coming out of Texas over the debate on gun control. Texas is not the first time a state has threatened to nullify federal laws. South Carolina tried it during the Nullification Crisis beginning in 1832.
Our president and his administration face two challenges. First, the debate is being framed morally. “Guns are bad.” Whenever a debate is framed morally, the ability of both sides to reach an agreement acceptable to both comes to an end. To make effective changes, the concerns of both sides must be honored. Demonizing the opposition leads to conflict. It threatens national unity. Will the administration honor the concerns of its opposition?
Second, will our president and his administration implement its agenda according to constitutional procedures? Or will expediency dictate that it circumvent those procedures, as Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase?
Even if constitutional procedures are followed, if a significant minority opposes the measures, defiance of the law will result. In New England, merchants smuggled goods during Jefferson’s embargo. During prohibition, bootleggers smuggled alcohol. Liquor was consumed in speakeasies. Alcohol was produced domestically as bathtub gin and moonshine.
If guns were to be totally outlawed and confiscated, those intent on mass murder would use bootlegged guns or improvised explosive devices. The debate is not just about guns. It is also about how to identify those capable of mass murder and how to prevent them from committing it.
Next: If New Englanders opposed the war, and their interests were not honored, who voted for the war and why? Why did South Carolina want to nullify federal laws?
Look for it Monday, January 28.
