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.
March 11, 1861: the Montgomery convention unanimously adopted the new Constitution for the Confederacy.
March 12, 1861:Howell Cobb, president of the convention, sends the Constitution to the states for their approval. It will go into effect when five of the seven states have ratified it.
March 12, 1861: Alabama ratifies (87 to 5, or 94.57%)
March 16, 1861: Georgia ratifies (260 to 0, or 100%)
March 21, 1861: Louisiana ratifies (94 to 10, or 90.38%)
March 23, 1861: Texas ratifies (126 to 2, or 98.44%)
March 26, 1861: Mississippi ratifies (78 to 7, or 91.76%)
The Confederate Constitution was now in force.
April 3, 1861: South Carolina, after substantial debate and delaying tactics led by the Fire-Eater Rhett, ratifies (138 to 21, or 86.79%)
April 22, 1861: A week after the fall of Ft. Sumter, Florida ratifies (50 to 0, or 100%)
Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee accepted the Confederate Constitution as they seceded from the United States and joined the Confederacy.
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.
"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."
Alabama ratifies 87 to 5
Georgia ratifies 260 to 0
Louisiana ratifies 94 to 10
Texas ratifies 126 to 2
Mississippi ratifies 78 to 7
South Carolina ratifies 138 to 21
Florida ratifies 50 to 0
Total- 833 to 45
~
Opposing- 45 out of 878...not too many
Is this 45 the pro-slave trade faction?
You would have to go through them one by one to know. It isn't likely though: people normally vote based on a consensus of reasons, while relatively few people are one-issue voters. Politicians also like support on complex issues like this to look unanimous, so that final votes very often do not represent actual opinion on individual issues within a large package.
That said, go take a hard look at South Carolina and the individuals there. Compare the vote to their individual records on the slave trade question -- and the immediate support for a resolution to remove the prohibition against the African slave trade.
But since this thread wasn't about that in any way, and was deliberately posted as a new and separate thread to gain some distance from the slave trade issue, why bring it up here?
You also might like to note and include in your calculations that in those days Florida was known for following South Carolina's lead in politics, and had been ever since it became part of the United States. Florida is also the only one of these states to vote after the attack on Ft. Sumter and the start of the war -- which just might have an impact on the vote.
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.
March 11, 1861: the Montgomery convention unanimously adopted the new Constitution for the Confederacy.
March 12, 1861:Howell Cobb, president of the convention, sends the Constitution to the states for their approval. It will go into effect when five of the seven states have ratified it. . .
April 3, 1861: South Carolina, after substantial debate and delaying tactics led by the Fire-Eater Rhett, ratifies (138 to 21, or 86.79%) . . .
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
I've never focused on the fact that there was any debate in South Carolina about ratifying the CS Constitution. You'd think they'd join in a heartbeat. Is there a record of the debates? What was/were the basis(es) of opposition?
I've never focused on the fact that there was any debate in South Carolina about ratifying the CS Constitution. You'd think they'd join in a heartbeat. Is there a record of the debates? What was/were the basis(es) of opposition?
e
I don't think there is any one single place to look. Rhett's memoirs seem to be the most comprehensive of any participant. Here is a sample from what you can find at the SC university website: ===== http://www.cas.sc.edu/poli/courses/s...on_History.htm Many of South Carolina’s ideas of a good national constitution were not enthusiastically received at the southern convention. South Carolina tried and lost in efforts, among others, to prevent appeals from a state Supreme Court to the Confederate Supreme Court, to count all slaves when defining the population to apportion representation (since South Carolina had a tremendous slave population), to require state legislatures to elect presidential electors (South Carolina was the last state to allow popular election of presidential electors), and to prohibit admission to the Confederacy of any non-slaveholding state. Although the state legislature ratified the new Confederate national constitution, South Carolina did not act with the same enthusiasm as it did when seceding from the United States.[22] Robert Barnwell Rhett had been an active secessionist and was probably disappointed that he was not made Confederate president. As editor of the Charleston Mercury, he used the newspaper for a constant and blistering attack on the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis.[23] Other state leaders joined with Rhett, increasing South Carolina’s sense of isolation in an ill-conceived conflict that would only lead to military and economic defeat and to an immediate necessity to recognize outside influence. =====
The reolution of the SC secession convention on April 5 -- two days after the convention ratified the Constitution -- is probably a concise statement of their objections:
1) for voting purposes, count slaves as a whole person instead of 3/5ths of a person (thus giving more power to states with heavy slave populations, which meant South Carolina)
2) limit the tariff to 15% and restrict the ability of the government to take on debt, requiring direct taxation for anything above that.
3) eliminate the Constitutional probhibition of the African slave trade and replace it with a much weaker clause allowing Congress to pass laws about it instead of requiring them to do so.
4) to virtually give South Carolina (or any other state) veto power over admitting a "free" state.
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.
It would seem that the SC ratification debates centered more around self-serving quibbles than anything else.
Was there something in the South Carolina water that made their representatives so self-centered and arrogant? Talk about your sectionalism. South Carolina seemed to believe that the sun rose and set over its assets.
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
It would seem that the SC ratification debates centered more around self-serving quibbles than anything else.
All of these points are definitely related to what South Carolina planters (particularly the radical or "ultra" members, the Fire-Eaters among them) considered their own interests. They are not, however, quibbles because they would have had, if adopted, strong implications for the future of the Confederacy.
It is also worth noting that they are all closely related to "Power & Money". Maybe this is what Battalion has been talking about all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Was there something in the South Carolina water that made their representatives so self-centered and arrogant? Talk about your sectionalism. South Carolina seemed to believe that the sun rose and set over its assets.
Well, even other Southerners had considered the people of South Carolina nuts on the subject of secession in the 1850s.
Personally, I think it all goes back to lost glory. South Carolina had been the richest of the colonies before the Revolution; Charleston had been considered the finest and most cultured city in the American colonies, often described as a mini-London. As the nation grew, they had lost that pre-eminence. IMHO, some of them were simply jealous and wanted the prestige back. Pride of place and arrogance, hand in hand, leading to foolish actions and disastrous results, for them and for the nation -- we all paid a heavy price for their folly.
One manifestation of all that: it is often commented that Sherman's Army took on a harsher attitude when they entered South Carolina and treated it rougher than either Georgia or North Carolina. Those men felt the people of South Carolina were the ones who caused the war.
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.
I've never focused on the fact that there was any debate in South Carolina about ratifying the CS Constitution. You'd think they'd join in a heartbeat. Is there a record of the debates? What was/were the basis(es) of opposition?
e
BTW, there was also some wangling in Louisiana before the ratification vote, although I don't know the details of it.
By comparison, you'll note that Alabama ratifies the new Constitution on March 12 -- one day after the Provisional Confederate Congress approves the final version and the same day it was sent to the states for approval by Howell Cobb. (Since they were probably also in Montgomery, no necessary delay for transmittal.)
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.
Louisiana, at least, makes sense. It was a deep south state like no other. It was deeply divided ethnically and geographically with American cotton growers in the north, Cajun cane growers in the south -- and everyone hated New Orlean.
I honestly can't recommend John Sacher's A Perfect War of Politics -- he manages to write on a most interesting topic in a perfectly pedestrian and boring way -- but if you can get through the book it certainly explains the deep divisions in that state.
Louisiana, at least, makes sense. It was a deep south state like no other. It was deeply divided ethnically and geographically with American cotton growers in the north, Cajun cane growers in the south -- and everyone hated New Orlean.
I honestly can't recommend John Sacher's A Perfect War of Politics -- he manages to write on a most interesting topic in a perfectly pedestrian and boring way -- but if you can get through the book it certainly explains the deep divisions in that state.
Thanks. I'll have to think about that. Interesting but not exciting books I like to take out of libraries -- and the local system isn't showing that one.
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. 
Ratification of the Confederate Constitution 
Linear Mode
