South Carolina Secedes (December 1860)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

South Carolina Secedes (December 1860) South Carolina Secedes (December 1860) (Edited from Wikipedia) South Carolina was a site of a major political and military importance for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. The white population of the state strongly supported the institution of slavery long before the war, since the 18th century. Political leaders such as Democrats John Calhoun and Preston Brooks had inflamed regional and national passions in support of the institution, and for years before the eventual start of the Civil War in 1861, pro-slavery voices cried for secession. The Civil War began in South Carolina. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina, having the highest percentage of slaves of any U.S. state at 57% of its population enslaved and 46% of its families owning at least one slave, became the first state to declare that it had seceded from the Union. The first shots of the Civil War (January 9, 1861) were fired in Charleston by its Citadel cadets upon a U.S. civilian merchant ship, Star of the West, bringing supplies to the beleaguered U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter. The April 1861 bombardment of Fort Sumter by South Carolinian forces under the command of General Beauregard—the Confederacy did not yet have a functioning army—is commonly regarded as the beginning of the war. South Carolina was a source of troops for the Confederate army, and as the war progressed, also for the Union, as thousands of ex-slaves flocked to join the Union forces. The state also provided uniforms, textiles, food, and war material, as well as trained soldiers and leaders from The Citadel and other military schools. In contrast to most other Confederate states, South Carolina had a well-developed rail network linking all of its major cities without a break of gauge. Relatively free from Union occupation until the very end of the war, South Carolina hosted a number of prisoner of war camps. South Carolina also was the only Confederate state not to harbor pockets of anti-secessionist fervor strong enough to send large amounts of white men to fight for the Union, as every other state in the Confederacy did. For decades, South Carolinian political leaders had promoted regional passions with threats of nullification and secession in the name of southern states rights and protection of the interests of the slave power. 1 Alfred P. Aldrich, a South Carolinian politician from Barnwell, stated that declaring secession would be necessary if a Republican candidate were to win the 1860 U.S. presidential election, stating that it was the only way for the state to preserve slavery and diminish the influence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which, were its goals of abolition realized, would result in the "destruction of the South": If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule – it is a question of political and social existence. — Alfred P. Aldrich In a January 1860 speech, South Carolinian congressman Laurence Massillon Keitt, summed up this view in an oratory condemning the Republican Party for its anti-slavery views, claiming that slavery was not morally wrong, but rather, justified: The anti-slavery party contends that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right... — Laurence Massillon Keitt, Speech to the House, (January 1860). Later that year, in December, Keitt would state that South Carolina's declaring of secession was the direct result of slavery: " Our people have come to this on the question of slavery" (December 1860). On November 9, 1860 the South Carolina General Assembly passed a "Resolution to Call the Election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President a Hostile Act" and stated its intention to declare secession from the United States. In December 1860, amid the secession crisis, former South Carolinian congressman John McQueen wrote to a group of civic leaders in Richmond, Virginia, regarding the reasons as to why South Carolina was contemplating secession from the Union. In the letter, McQueen claimed that U.S. president-elect Abraham Lincoln supported equality and civil rights for African Americans as well as the abolition of slavery, and thus South Carolina, being opposed to such measures, was compelled to secede: I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the 2 Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins. We, of South Carolina, hope soon to great you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges and honor left us by our ancestors. — John McQueen, Correspondence to T.T. Cropper and J.R. Crenshaw, (December 24, 1860) South Carolinian religious leader James Henley Thornwell also espoused a similar view to McQueen's, stating that slavery was justified under the Christian religion, and thus, those who viewed slavery as being immoral were opposed to Christianity: The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake. Other religious institutions in South Carolina also expressed support for slavery. The Southern Presbyterian of S.C. declared that "Anti-slavery is essentially infidel. It wars upon the Bible, on the Church of Christ, on the truth of God, on the souls of men." An Unelected Convention On November 10, 1860 the S.C. General Assembly called for a "Convention of the People of South Carolina" to consider secession. Delegates were to be elected on December 6. The secession convention convened in Columbia on December 17 and voted unanimously, 169-0, to declare secession from the United States. The convention then adjourned to Charleston to draft an ordinance of secession. When the ordinance was adopted on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first slave state in the south to declare that it had seceded from the United States. James Buchanan, the United States president, declared the ordinance illegal but did not act to stop it. A committee of the convention also drafted a Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina which was adopted on December 24. The secession declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring 3 of secession from the Union, which was described as: ...increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ... — Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina, (December 24, 1860). The declaration also claims that secession was declared as a result of the refusal of free states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts. Although the declaration does argue that secession is justified on the grounds of U.S. "encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," the grievances that the declaration goes on to list are mainly concerned with the property of rights of slave holders. Broadly speaking, the declaration argues that the U.S. Constitution was framed to establish each State "as an equal" in the Union, with "separate control over its own institutions", such as "the right of property in slaves." We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. — Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina. A repeated concern is runaway slaves. The declaration argues that parts of the U.S. Constitution were specifically written to ensure the return of slaves who had escaped to other states, and quotes the 4th Article: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged
Recommended publications
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    THIRTIETH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1847, TO MARCH 3, 1849 FIRST SESSION—December 6, 1847, to August 14, 1848 SECOND SESSION—December 4, 1848, to March 3, 1849 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE M. DALLAS, of Pennsylvania PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—DAVID R. ATCHISON, 1 of Missouri SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ASBURY DICKINS, 2 of North Carolina SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—ROBERT BEALE, of Virginia SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—ROBERT C. WINTHROP, 3 of Massachusetts CLERK OF THE HOUSE—BENJAMIN B. FRENCH, of New Hampshire; THOMAS J. CAMPBELL, 4 of Tennessee SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NEWTON LANE, of Kentucky; NATHAN SARGENT, 5 of Vermont DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—ROBERT E. HORNER, of New Jersey ALABAMA CONNECTICUT GEORGIA SENATORS SENATORS SENATORS 14 Arthur P. Bagby, 6 Tuscaloosa Jabez W. Huntington, Norwich Walter T. Colquitt, 18 Columbus Roger S. Baldwin, 15 New Haven 19 William R. King, 7 Selma Herschel V. Johnson, Milledgeville John M. Niles, Hartford Dixon H. Lewis, 8 Lowndesboro John Macpherson Berrien, 20 Savannah REPRESENTATIVES Benjamin Fitzgerald, 9 Wetumpka REPRESENTATIVES James Dixon, Hartford Thomas Butler King, Frederica REPRESENTATIVES Samuel D. Hubbard, Middletown John Gayle, Mobile John A. Rockwell, Norwich Alfred Iverson, Columbus Henry W. Hilliard, Montgomery Truman Smith, Litchfield John W. Jones, Griffin Sampson W. Harris, Wetumpka Hugh A. Haralson, Lagrange Samuel W. Inge, Livingston DELAWARE John H. Lumpkin, Rome George S. Houston, Athens SENATORS Howell Cobb, Athens Williamson R. W. Cobb, Bellefonte John M. Clayton, 16 New Castle Alexander H. Stephens, Crawfordville Franklin W. Bowdon, Talladega John Wales, 17 Wilmington Robert Toombs, Washington Presley Spruance, Smyrna ILLINOIS ARKANSAS REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE John W.
    [Show full text]
  • Marlboro County RESOURCE GUIDE
    Marlboro County RESOURCE GUIDE Bennettsville Blenheim Clio McColl Tatum Wallace ii Purpose The Marlboro County Resource Guide was created through the “It’s Good To Be Home” campaign, a partnership of the Marlboro County Economic Development Board and Marlboro Electric Cooperative. It is designed as a resource of information about Marlboro County for 8th grade teachers in the county and to promote the positive attributes of Marlboro County. UPDATES TO THE GUIDE CAN BE FOUND AT visitbennettsville.com 2 Table of Contents 3 History of Marlboro County 5 · Historic towns 6 · Bennettsville Historical sites 9 · Historical markers in Marlboro County 15 · Important sons and daughters of Marlboro County 15 · Fast facts about Marlboro County 16 Government 17 Economic development 18 Education 19 Healthcare 20 Civic and community involvement 21 Culture 22 Recreation 23 Genealogy research 24 Resources 25 Glossary 29 Activities 33 Acknowledgements 3 HISTORY History of Marlboro County IT’S GOOD TO BE HOME IN MARLBORO COUNTY! With an historic past and promising future, Marlboro County is proudly called home by many people. Beautifully restored homes and downtown Bennettsville, quaint neighborhoods, close communities and diverse industries make Marlboro County the place of choice to live, work and play. Marlboro County is made up of eclectic towns and communities that include the county seat of Bennettsville as well as McColl, Clio, Blenheim, Tatum and Wallace. Cotton made this a wealthy part of South Carolina prior to the Civil War and up to the early 1900s. Today, Marlboro County is part of the “Cotton Trail”, a heritage tour that Downtown Bennettsville in the 1800s.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Rutledge • John Rutledge
    South Carolina’s Founding Fathers www.carolana.com © 2018 – J.D. Lewis Little River, SC Terms of Use: Any or all parts of this slideshow may be used by anyone for any purpose free of charge – with one stipulation. The user must cite “www.carolana.com” as the source and may not alter any material used. 2 Table of Contents Topic Slide No. Quick Lookback at Representative Gov’t 4 SC Quick Lookback (1629 to 1775) 10 The American Revolution (1775 to 1783) 32 SC Joins the United States (1783 to 1790) 92 Sources 140 Appendix A – Founding Fathers From 143 Each District / Parish 3 Quick Lookback at Representative Government 4 Ancient Democracies, Republics & Constitutions • Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state of Athens. Spread to other city-states. • It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. This was not considered to be a “representative government,” however. • To vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, i.e., not a foreign resident, a slave, or a woman. • Leaders elected at random by citizens. • Solonian Constitution drafted in 594 BC. Greek Senate c. 450 BC • Indian City State of Vaishali functioned as what would be called a Republic. There were other similar city-states, all in northern India. • Decision making by voting of two primary groups: Martial or warrior class Trade guilds/agriculturists class • Code of Manu issued in 3rd Century BC. North Indian Assembly c.400 BC • Two Consuls – executive leaders • Senate comprised of 300 upper class citizens • Tribune comprised of 10 lower class citizens • Citizen Assemblies (adult males only) • Two-party system – Patricians & Plebians • Leaders elected lower members • Considered to be a Republic • 12 Tables (constitution-like) codified in 450 BC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fire-Eaters, the South, and Secession. (Volumes I and II)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1988 The irF e-Eaters, the South, and Secession. (Volumes I and II). Eric Harry Walther Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Walther, Eric Harry, "The irF e-Eaters, the South, and Secession. (Volumes I and II)." (1988). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 4548. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/4548 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. U M I film s the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted m aterial had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections w ith sm all overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
    [Show full text]
  • K:\Fm Andrew\31 to 40\31.Xml
    THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1849, TO MARCH 3, 1851 FIRST SESSION—December 3, 1849, to September 30, 1850 SECOND SESSION—December 2, 1850, to March 3, 1851 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 5, 1849, to March 23, 1849 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—MILLARD FILLMORE, 1 of New York PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—DAVID R. ATCHISON, 2 of Missouri; WILLIAM R. KING, 3 of Alabama SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ASBURY DICKINS, of North Carolina SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—ROBERT BEALE, of Virginia SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—HOWELL COBB, 4 of Georgia CLERK OF THE HOUSE—THOMAS J. CAMPBELL, 5 of Tennessee; RICHARD M. YOUNG, 6 of Illinois SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NATHAN SARGENT, of Vermont; ADAM J. GLOSSBRENNER, 7 of Pennsylvania DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—ROBERT E. HORNER, of New Jersey 9 ALABAMA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA SENATORS SENATORS SENATORS William M. Gwin, 10 San Francisco David Levy Yulee, St. Augustine William R. King, Selma John C. Fremont, 11 San Francisco Jackson Morton, Pensacola Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Wetumpka REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE 8 Jeremiah Clemens, Huntsville Edward Gilbert, 12 San Francisco Edward C. Cabell, Tallahassee George W. Wright, 13 San Francisco REPRESENTATIVES GEORGIA William J. Alston, Linden CONNECTICUT SENATORS Henry W. Hilliard, Montgomery SENATORS J. Macpherson Berrien, Savannah Sampson W. Harris, Wetumpka Roger S. Baldwin, New Haven William C. Dawson, Greensboro Samuel W. Inge, Livingston Truman Smith, Litchfield REPRESENTATIVES David Hubbard, Kinlock REPRESENTATIVES Thomas Butler King, 14 Waynesville Williamson R. W. Cobb, Bellefonte 15 Loren P. Waldo, Tolland Joseph W.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SOUTH CAROLINA SECESSION CONVENTION and EXECUTIVE COUNCIL of 1862 Eric Lager Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 12-2008 RADICAL POLITICS IN REVOLUTIONARY TIMES: THE SOUTH CAROLINA SECESSION CONVENTION AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF 1862 Eric Lager Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Lager, Eric, "RADICAL POLITICS IN REVOLUTIONARY TIMES: THE SOUTH CAROLINA SECESSION CONVENTION AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF 1862" (2008). All Theses. 508. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/508 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RADICAL POLITICS IN REVOLUTIONARY TIMES: THE SOUTH CAROLINA SECESSION CONVENTION AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF 1862 A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History by Eric Andrew Lager December 2008 Accepted by: Dr. Paul Anderson, Committee Chair Dr. Rod Andrew Jr. Dr. Alan Grubb Abstract This thesis examines the political culture and behavior in South Carolina during the secession crisis and first two years of the Civil War. Historians have analyzed antebellum politics in South Carolina but few recent attempts have been made to trace those issues to the larger narrative of state politics during the Civil War. I argue that serious political divisions existed in the Palmetto State during the sectional crisis over the proper method and procedure of secession. Once secession became a reality South Carolina politicians attempted to bury these differences for the sake of unity, but ultimately the pressures of war caused them to appear once again, thereby jeopardizing the harmony and unity that so many politicians in the state hoped for.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting for the Speakership: the House and the Rise of Party Government
    Fighting for the Speakership: The House and the Rise of Party Government Jeffery A. Jenkins Department of Politics University of Virginia Charles Stewart III Department of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chapter Outline Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. The Evolving Roles and Responsibilities of House Officers in the Antebellum Era Chapter 3. Organizational Politics under the Secret Ballot Chapter 4. Bringing the Selection of House Officers into the Open Chapter 5. Shoring Up Partisan Control: The Speakership Elections of 1839 and 1847 Chapter 6. Partisan Tumult on the Floor: The Speakership Elections of 1849 and 1855-56 Chapter 7. The Speakership and the Rise of the Republican Party Chapter 8. The Organizational Caucus Institutionalizes, 1861–1891 Chapter 9. The Organizational Caucus Persists, 1891–2011 Chapter 10. Conclusion Chapter 1 Introduction The U.S. House of Representatives is organized by whichever political party holds a majority of its seats. This fact has consequences. Controlling the organization of the House means that the majority party decides who will preside over its deliberations, who will set the policy agenda, and who will dominate the workhorses of the chamber, the standing committees. Organizing the House does not mean the majority party will win all battles, but it does give the party a leg-up in virtually any question that gets considered by that body. There is nothing in the Constitution that rests the organization of the House in the hands of the majority party. The practice has evolved over the past two centuries, to the point that party organization of the House has become routinized.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume XXI July 1942 Number 1
    Florida Historical Quarterly Volume 21 Issue 1 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol 21, Article 1 Issue 1 1942 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 21, Issue 1 Florida Historical Society [email protected] Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Historical Quarterly by an authorized editor of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Society, Florida Historical (1942) "Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 21, Issue 1," Florida Historical Quarterly: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol21/iss1/1 Society: Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 21, Issue 1 Volume XXI July 1942 Number 1 The FLORIDA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY CONTENTS Castle St. Mark and the Patriots of the Revolution Albert Manucy and Alberta Johnson Spanish Colonial Contacts with the Ais (Indian River) Country Charles D. Higgs Philip Freneau on the Cession of Florida Lewis Leary From a Remote Frontier Mark F. Boyd The Florida Historical Society The annual meeting: Program Minutes Report of the president Report of the treasurer Members in attendance The library Local historical societies Notes and Comment Index to Vols. XV-XX SUBSCRIPTION TWO DOLLARS. SINGLE COPIES FIFTY CENTS (Copyright 1942, by the Florida Historical Society. Entered as second- class matter November 13, 1933 at the post office at Tallahassee, Florida, under the Act of August 24, 1912.) Published quarterly by THE FLORIDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY St. Augustine, Florida Published by STARS, 1942 1 Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol.
    [Show full text]