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.
In the Charleston Southern Standard, June 25, 1853, editor Leonidas W. Spratt, published the essay, "The Destiny of the Slave States." This essay was Spratt's clarion call for the reopening of the African slave trade.
In this essay, Spratt demanded that Southerners confront the moral contradictions of their slaveholding society as well as the social dilemma of Southern white class turmoil threatening to plunge the South into anarchy.
The main idea was that the South had to reopen the African slave trade in order to insure that the few, wealthy slaveowners were not the subject of a rebellion of nonslaveholders, locked into a position of social nonadvancement due to the high price of slaves.
From the book, A Pro-Slavery Crusade, The Agitation to Reopen the African Slave Trade, by Ronald T. Takaki:
"The radical demand for the importation of African slaves was soon extended beyond editorial debate and into the political structure of South Carolina. A year after Spratt offered his vision of the Southern destiny, the Grand Juries of Richmond and Williamsburg announced their support for the reopening of the African slave trade. The editor of the Abbeville Banner applauded the members of the Richland Grand Jury for their singular good sense and independence. He found it "refreshing" to see men in high responsible positions daring to think for themselves...Two years later in his 1858 message to the South Carolina legislature, Governor James H. Adams gave the prestige of his office to the demand for the reopening of the African slave trade...Governor Adams officially recognized the proposal and recommended the reopening of the African slave trade as a legitimate policy of government. Thus the Governor had transformed Spratt's demand for slaves into a political issue...
...Concerned about the agitation of Spratt and Adams, Congressman Emerson Etheridge of Tennesee asked the House of Representatives to declare that the proposal for the revival of the African slave trade was "shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of mankind," and that Congressional action "conniving at or legalizing the horrid and inhuman traffic" would warrant "the reproach and execration of all civilized and Christian people throughout the world." After a long emotional debate, the House of Representatives adopted the Etheridge resolution by a vote of 152 to 57. In umistakably moral terms, Congress denounced the new radical demand for the reopening of the African slave trade.
But Spratt and Adams were not discouraged. Of the 71 Southern Congressmen who voted on the Etheridge resolution, 54 voted nay...Meanwhile, advocates of the African slave trade were successfully beginning to politicize their radical proposal in many Southern states, and to draw increasing Southern support for the agitation to reopen the African slave trade..."
More to follow,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
From the book, A Pro-Slavery Crusade, by Ronald T. Takaki:
"A profile analysis of African slave-trade advocates can uncover new clues to help us understand the pro-slavery extremism of the 1850's. This study has analyzed biographical data for 97 advocates in order to provide information about the sociology of the African slave-trade agitation and insight into the nature of the pro-slavery defense and the Southern secession movement.
The 97 advocates represented all sections of the South--Border, South Atlantic, Gulf, and the Southwest. Several leading advocates like John Mitchel, Edmund Ruffin, and George Fitzhugh resided in the border states. Most of the advocates, however, lived in the cotton states, primarily South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. Mitchel, editor of the Knoxville Southern Citizen, a publication almost exclusively devoted to the promotion of the African slave trade, noted this pattern. In a May 1859 letter to Edmund Ruffin, he wrote: "The circulation of the Citizen is not yet more than 300--but that it goes all over the South, throughout every State more or less, but its largest ciriculation in in S. Carolina, Georgia, Ala. & Miss."
...An analysis of the occupations of 54 advocates shows that they were chiefly lawyers, editors, and planters. Many of the planters were extremely large slaveholders. Richard T. Archer owned 221 slaves; A. S. Atkinson, 68 slaves; P. S. Catchings, 42 slaves; John A. Jones, 43 slaves; C. C. Herbert, 47 slaves; John Townsend, 272 slaves; R. B. Rhett, 190 slaves; John S. Palmer, 200 slaves; J. A. Calhoun, 135 slaves; James H. Adams, 197 slaves; and John I. Middleton, 318 slaves. No doubt many critics of the African slave-trade agitation also held numerous slaves; and James Hammond, more that 300 slaves; W. L. Sharkey, 65 slaves; and James Hammond, more than 300 slaves. Nevertheless, and the Mobile Daily Register correctly observed in 1859, "among the advocates of the re-opening of the slave trade are some of the largest slaveholders in the country..." Since slaveholding was the basis of their wealth and prestige, these men had definite vested interests in the peculiar institution. Some important African slave-trade advocates like Spratt owned no slaves. But as lawyers, writers, and editors, and as members of a professional class, they identified themselves with slaveholders, especially the planter class--the possessor of status and power. As Southern writers and editors, they felt a special responsibility to formulate and ideological defense of Southern society and the institution of slavery. To an important extent, therefore, the agitation to reopen the African slave trade was composed of wealthy, literate, and professional men.
The agitation to reopen the African slave trade also had political leadership. At least 43 of the 97 advocates were political officeholders. A breakdown according to state and federal offices reveals that at one time or another 39 of them were members of state legislatures, 3 were governors, 8 were United States Congressmen, and 3 were United States Senators."
More to follow,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
From the book, A Pro-Slavery Crusade, by Ronald T. Takaki:
"A profile analysis of African slave-trade advocates can uncover new clues to help us understand the pro-slavery extremism of the 1850's. This study has analyzed biographical data for 97 advocates in order to provide information about the sociology of the African slave-trade agitation and insight into the nature of the pro-slavery defense and the Southern secession movement.
... ...An analysis of the occupations of 54 advocates shows that they were chiefly lawyers, editors, and planters. Many of the planters were extremely large slaveholders. Richard T. Archer owned 221 slaves; A. S. Atkinson, 68 slaves; P. S. Catchings, 42 slaves; John A. Jones, 43 slaves; C. C. Herbert, 47 slaves; John Townsend, 272 slaves; R. B. Rhett, 190 slaves; John S. Palmer, 200 slaves; J. A. Calhoun, 135 slaves; James H. Adams, 197 slaves; and John I. Middleton, 318 slaves. No doubt many critics of the African slave-trade agitation also held numerous slaves; and James Hammond, more that 300 slaves; W. L. Sharkey, 65 slaves; and James Hammond, more than 300 slaves. Nevertheless, and the Mobile Daily Register correctly observed in 1859, "among the advocates of the re-opening of the slave trade are some of the largest slaveholders in the country..." ... To an important extent, therefore, the agitation to reopen the African slave trade was composed of wealthy, literate, and professional men.
The agitation to reopen the African slave trade also had political leadership. At least 43 of the 97 advocates were political officeholders. A breakdown according to state and federal offices reveals that at one time or another 39 of them were members of state legislatures, 3 were governors, 8 were United States Congressmen, and 3 were United States Senators."
More to follow,
Unionblue
Hmm. It looks like they didn't have enough power to get their desire pushed through at a national level, and anything at a local level would be a violation of US law. Looks like a building movement, with no way to know how powerful they might have ended up being in those states. Clear evidence, though, of important and significant support for re-opening the African slave trade in the South.
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.
Hmm. It looks like they didn't have enough power to get their desire pushed through at a national level, and anything at a local level would be a violation of US law. Looks like a building movement, with no way to know how powerful they might have ended up being in those states. Clear evidence, though, of important and significant support for re-opening the African slave trade in the South.
Regards,
Tim
BS
The writer has obviously read to many abolitionist pamphlets...and takes them as gospel.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The writer has obviously read to many abolitionist pamphlets...and takes them as gospel.
I haven't seen the book and so can't tell you much about what he might or might not have read. However, I have read documents by several of the men named, all Southerners who advocated re-opening the Atlantic slave-trade. I have even posted documents from some of them here before for you to educate yourself with -- so how come you don't recognizze them? On what I can verify, I'd have to say the author is making a reasonable point.
Also, in the passages UnionBlue just posted, I see references to the Charleston Southern Standard, the Mobile Daily Register, and the Knoxville Southern Citizen. All of those were noted for their association with the Southern Fire-Eaters, IIRR. Which ones are you calling "abolitionist pamphlets"? Or is that just you tossing made-up statements about for effect, with no idea what the facts are?
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.
Mr. Spratt and the few (relatively speaking) true believers in a 'real' slave empire, were doomed to be disappointed by the majority of the southern leadership, who had done little or no deep thinking about the realities of actual independence. Developing a coherent rationale for the confederacys existence, other than preserving slavery and keeping their slaves resale price as high as possible.
That part raised a question in my mind as well. Cheap slaves to increase the population of slave-owners would, as well, reduce the value of slaves for those using them as collateral or counting on being able to sell them downriver.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Exactly right, there was no chance that slave owners were going to deliberately depress the value of their slaves, even if only temporarily.
As far as looking ahead to the future of a confederacy of slave states after independence, the southern leadership did not really get past the formalities of secession.
Mr. Spratt and the few (relatively speaking) true believers in a 'real' slave empire, were doomed to be disappointed by the majority of the southern leadership, who had done little or no deep thinking about the realities of actual independence. Developing a coherent rationale for the confederacys existence, other than preserving slavery and keeping their slaves resale price as high as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
That part raised a question in my mind as well. Cheap slaves to increase the population of slave-owners would, as well, reduce the value of slaves for those using them as collateral or counting on being able to sell them downriver.
It's an interesting point, but not all that clear-cut.
There was in some parts of the South a theory that it was "better to buy than breed" on slaves. This was usually in places with high death rates for slaves (difficult country, often lots of disease, in the phase after the land had been initially cleared: high production of cash crop) Louisiana was one of these; South Carolina was another. In some parishes of LA the average life span of a field hand after purchase was said to be seven years.
Naturally, the slaveowners doing the buying wanted the price of a slave to be low, and those doing the selling wanted the price to be high. As a result, the more establised Upper South (in particular VA, a net exporter of slaves) wanted no competition and had another reason to oppose the Atlantic Slave Trade. OTOH, the Deep South (the Cotton Belt) was rapidly expanding into new lands and wanted lots of slaves; that is where you find most of the interest in re-opening the Atlantic Slave Trade.
There was also a socio-political issue involved. In the late 1850s, you can find documented cases of Fire-Eaters advocating re-opening the Atlantic Slave Trade as a means of creating more slave-owners through cheaper slaves. For example, Pollard of VA advocated this in his pre-Civil War book, and he and Rhett of SC have an exchange of letters on this subject in 1858. Ruffin, the other big VA secessionist, was another supporter of that. Why? These men were afraid of a class-war developing between rich slave-owning whites and poor non-slave-owning whites. Helper's book struck at this fear, which was a major reason for the uproar over it.
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.
Exactly right, there was no chance that slave owners were going to deliberately depress the value of their slaves, even if only temporarily.
As far as looking ahead to the future of a confederacy of slave states after independence, the southern leadership did not really get past the formalities of secession.
Depends. If you were a large slave-owner like Hammond of SC (Northern-born, but an unprincipled scoundrel who someone should have killed in a duel), you had a different view. He treated his slaves ... well, poorly doesn't cover it ... abysmally might. Many died, and he had to buy new ones steadily. He was one of the "better to buy than breed" group. He wanted prices to be low because he was usually buying them -- if he'd been selling, he'd want prices to be high.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
