Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The following is the paper the five commissioners from South Carolina delivered to President Buchanan, which became the basis for the "gentlemen's agreement" about the forts in Charleston harbor: ===== To his Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN, President of the United States:
In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention, and we hope and believe not until an offer has been made through an accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the federal Government, provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present.
JOHN McQUEEN,
WM. PORCHER MILES,
M. L. BONHAM,
W. W. BOYCE,
LAWRENCE M. KEITT.
WASHINGTON, 9th December, 1860.
=====
1) What, exactly, is it the government of South Carolina is committed to do, or prohibited from doing, by this document? Please point out to me evidence of what the commitment is.
2) Since the South Carolina Secession Convention voted to secede on December 20th, is this "pledge" still in effect on December 26th when Major Anderson moved his troops? If so, please point out to me evidence of why that would be.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Just to bring this old thread back to the front for those who haven't seen it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Reminds me of Anderson's reply to a demand to surrender Ft. Sumter, when he agreed to set a date for his surrender "if" he did not recieve differing instructions from his superiors, and we know what the confederate messenger's thought of that agreement.
Reminds me of Anderson's reply to a demand to surrender Ft. Sumter, when he agreed to set a date for his surrender "if" he did not recieve differing instructions from his superiors, and we know what the confederate messenger's thought of that agreement.
What the South Carolina representatives says is that these men had "strong convictions" that the South Carolina government was not about to "either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention", and that they hoped not without making an offer first. The letter actually does not commit the South Carolina government to any course of action at all.
Even then, the "strong convictions" are null and void once the Secession Convention acts on December 20th. Now we are reduced to these gentlemen hoping their state government would not do anything.
Yet the same people feel that the US government has somehow made a firm commitment not to reinforce the forts in the harbor or move troops about, and are outraged when Anderson moves his troops to Ft. Sumter six days after the Convention votes to secede.
Seems like the South Carolina people saw commitments where there were none, and were unwilling to bind their state in return. IMHO.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The South Carolina Commissioners' "pledge" 
Linear Mode
