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.
"Southern Commercial Convention" -What a fraud to claim this represents the South
"The opposition by persistently quoting every...expression of the fire-eating press of the South, and by republishing the local resolutions of public meetings of the same character, keep up the idea that such is public opinion there, and thus foster these sectional prejudices from which both parts of the union are now suffering. Very many at the North, who have the opportunity of reading but one side, actually believe that the noisy zeal displayed by the turbulent spirits who now and then hold conventions to consider the condition of the Southern States, are a reflex of public sentiment at the South...
...The recent convention held at Vicksburg, which is cited as evidence of public sentiment meets with the most determined opposition at home. We quote from several of the most influential papers of the South, the expression upon this subject:
....
From the Mobile (Ala.) Advertiser.
The self-styled 'Southern Convention,' now in session at Vicksburg, seems to have been mainly engrossed with discussions upon the chimerical and ruinous project, the special bantling [bastard] of a Mr. Spratt of South Carolina, which occupied so much of the time to so little valuable purpose of previous Conventions. According to the astute and enterprising gentlemen who are amusing themselves and trying to startle the country at Vicksburg, the revival of the African slave trade is the grand panacea for Southern wrongs and ills--the one thing wanting to elevate the South to the loftiest pinnacle of human power and influence....
With one or two exceptions we discover the name of no man of much distinction or influence at the South among the delegates to the Convention, most of whom hail from Mississippi.
From the Savannah (Ga.) Republican.
Only 81 [88] delegates attended the Convention at Vicksburg, Miss., and 55 of them were from the State where the Convention was holden. Rather a slim turn out. The following is the numerical representation of each State: Mississippi, 55; Texas, 1; South Carolina, 11; Georgia, 9; Tennessee, 4; Alabama, 1; Louisiana, 5; Florida, 1; and Kansas 1.
....
From The Charleton (S.C.) News
It is stated that the Southern Commercial Convention at Vicksburgh has adopted a resolution that the laws prohibiting slave trade should be abolished. That this is also meant to recommend the actual opening of the trade does not appear, but is to be inferred. It is to be presumed that the laws referred to are those of Congress. But nearly all the Southern States, ten at least, have laws against the introduction of African negroes. That these laws, Federal or State, will ever be abolished cannot be anticipated. This action of the Convention then is but another indication of the folly of these irregular and windy bodies....few beside the slave trade agitators take now any interest in their meetings or constituency...
From the New Orleans Picayune.
It is a consolation to know that it is likely to have little or no effect upon the public mind in the slave States. These States are but partially represented, and in some instances the States nominally in the Convention have only one delegate.
It is a very good escape valve for impracticable politicians, and a report of its doing is only important as showing the Quixotism of a few Southern men.
The Weekly Wisconsin Patriot (Madison), 11 June 1859
~
"The following were among the toasts at the 4th of July celebration in Chester, S.C.:
'The Southern Commercial Convention--A misnomer--a perversion of terms. We regard it as a humbug and a nuisance.'
Banner of Liberty (Middletown, N.Y.), 20 July 1859
~
"There is one feature in these conventions which satisfies me that they do not reflect the popular sentiment, and that is the monotonous character of their composition. From their inception down to the present time they are made up of almost the same elements. I have recognized at the last Convention almost the same class of men who attended the Memphis and Charleston Conventions several years ago, and their attendance at all the intervening assemblages of this character has been uniform and unfailing. The only marked changes I have observed in the late Convention is the falling off in numbers, the class of men who continue to attend being almost the same I have seen in the palmier days of these now almost-defunct Conventions. I take it, therefore, that these men constitute the main forces of the disunionists in their respective localities....There is evidently not enough of this class of men to admit of rotation in the selection, and hence this monotony in the character and caste of the elements which compose these Conventions."
New York Times, 26 May 1858
~
"The next Southern Commercial Convention, does not promise to amount to much. We see it stated that the Governors of Louisiana and Georgia have refused to appoint delegates to the Convention; and many of the southern papers pronounce it a humbug and a farce."
Weekly Gazette and Free Press (Janesville, Wisconsin), 20 May 1859
__________________ 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 first Southern Commercial Convention was held in 1837; the last one before the Civil War was held in 1859, with another scheduled for 1860 but cancelled because of the uproar of the election and secession. Between 1837 and 1859, fourteen such conventions were held. They were held annually from 1853-1859, and usually lasted a week or so.
They dealt with a wide variety of topics. Do you know what they were? Do you understand the importance these topics had to Southerners? Do you realize why they were covered so extensively and discussed avidly throughout the South? If not, why not?
The means of selecting delegates changed over the years. Not all states attended in all years. But by 1858, the means of selecting delegates had been formalized and specific. Do you know what it was? If so, please describe it for us and discuss your point about delegates in relation to it.
While I personally don't regard many of the delegates well, I also note that they included many of the same Fire-Eaters who led the splitting of the Democrat Party in Charleston in 1860 at Charleston, the secession of the South, the formation of the Confederacy, and the movement to the Civil War. Clearly, subsequent events proved many of the snippets you just posted were wrong to heap scorn on what those people were saying and to dismiss their importance as a representation of Southern feeling and opinion so cavalierly. But they at least had the excuse of not knowing what would actually happen. You have no such excuse, and your use of them here is just more misdirection and deception.
The issues being discussed so avidly at these conventions are the same ones *you* try to throw up to show that secession was about something other than slavery. You cannot have it both ways: either they were important and representative when they were discussed at the conventions, or they were not. If not, you must also throw out your own arguments about "money" and "tariffs" and many other things as being unimportant and unrepresentative of Southern opinion before the Civil War. Choose one and tell us which it is.
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.
Attendance 1855 New Orleans………...120…………….……….……...10 states 1859 Vicksburg……………..88 (55 from one state)…………9 states (including Kansas)
“The only marked changes I have observed in the late Convention is the falling off in numbers, the class of men who continue to attend being almost the same I have seen in the palmier days of these now almost-defunct Conventions.” –New York Times (1858)
"It is a consolation to know that it is likely to have little or no effect upon the public mind in the slave States. These States are but partially represented, and in some instances the States nominally in the Convention have only one delegate." -NewOrleans Picayune (1859)
"With one or two exceptions we discover the name of no man of much distinction or influence at the South among the delegates to the Convention, most of whom hail from Mississippi." -Mobile Advertiser (1859)
It's a fraud to claim this is representative of the South.
__________________ 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."
... It's a fraud to claim this is representative of the South.
Unfortunately, the topics discussed at the conventions, widely publicized and repeated in newspaper accounts, turn out to be the same ones used in secessionist arguments -- the same ones *you* have advanced in claiming the secession was about something other than slavery in many cases. Is that what you are trying to say? It is the obvious conclusion, and you will not answer direct questions.
ONCE AGAIN: The issues being discussed so avidly at these conventions are the same ones *you* try to throw up to show that secession was about something other than slavery. You cannot have it both ways: either they were important and representative when they were discussed at the conventions, or they were not. If not, you must also throw out your own arguments about "money" and "tariffs" and many other things as being unimportant and unrepresentative of Southern opinion before the Civil War. Choose one and tell us which it is. 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.
The first Southern Commercial Convention was held in 1837; the last one before the Civil War was held in 1859, with another scheduled for 1860 but cancelled because of the uproar of the election and secession. Between 1837 and 1859, fourteen such conventions were held. They were held annually from 1853-1859, and usually lasted a week or so.
They dealt with a wide variety of topics. Do you know what they were? Do you understand the importance these topics had to Southerners? Do you realize why they were covered so extensively and discussed avidly throughout the South? If not, why not?
You and others did not bring this subject up to discuss railroads...but slavery and claiming it represents the South's view on the subject. It's a fraud. Why can't you admit it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The means of selecting delegates changed over the years. Not all states attended in all years. But by 1858, the means of selecting delegates had been formalized and specific. Do you know what it was? If so, please describe it for us and discuss your point about delegates in relation to it.
Looks like this "formalized selection" was based on whoever bothered to show up-
"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 means of selecting delegates changed over the years. Not all states attended in all years. But by 1858, the means of selecting delegates had been formalized and specific. Do you know what it was? If so, please describe it for us and discuss your point about delegates in relation to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Looks like this "formalized selection" was based on whoever bothered to show up-
Please answer the question: The means of selecting delegates changed over the years. Not all states attended in all years. But by 1858, the means of selecting delegates had been formalized and specific. Do you know what it was? If so, please describe it for us and discuss your point about delegates in relation to it.
If you don't know, just say so.
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.
You and others did not bring this subject up to discuss railroads...but slavery and claiming it represents the South's view on the subject. It's a fraud. Why can't you admit it?
Actually, Battalion, the entire "fraud" subject about Southern Commercial Conventions was invented by you. No one else brought it up. If there is a fraud here ...
Many subjects were discussed at these conventions, because their purpose was to address what Southerners saw as the shifting balance of the economy in favor of the North -- and how they could change that. RRs were a major issue within that, particularly the transcontinental RR, which is why it was discussed throughout the 1850s at these conventions. (The actual plan put forward looks like it would be a failure, but then I assume they would have modified it if it became a reality. It is very similar to what Jefferson Davis was backing in the War Department and later in the Senate during the 1850s, and the reason for the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico.)
That RR plan was also essential to plans for the expansion of slavery into the Southwest and California, and was tied in to expansion into parts of Mexico. These were major issues for Southerners in those days -- or do you deny that as well? If so, why?
Many other issues (including, for example, tariffs, the repeal of Fishing Bounties, etc.) associated with secessionists were serious topics at various conventions. Are you saying that all the rhetoric you put out on such topics being the reason for secession are all a fraud? That these discussions are not representative of ante-bellum Southern interests? If so, please reply clearly and explicitly so we will know where you stand. Do not post another useless evasion; answer the question.
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.
In addition, the Southern Commercial Convention (the biggest annual meeting in the South) had become a major political meeting by the 1850s.
It was political alright...but to describe it as a "major" and the "biggest annual meeting in the South" are gross exaggerations.
You are simply doing the same thing the Republicans and Abolitionists of the North did in the 1850s by playing up the importance of the meetings. They for political capital, you for debating points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice (previous)
The re-opening of the slave trade was an annual debate there, with committees established to make proposals on the matter. In 1858, there was a famous debate on the matter in front of a packed crowd in the convention hall (actually a warehouse used for the occasion) between Yancey of AL and Pryor of VA, both Fire-Eaters. They were appointed to the reopen-the-Atlantic-slave-trade study commission by the previous year's Convention. Spratt was chairman of the Committee. The motion to petition for the re-opening was turned down that year, but brought up again in 1859 and passed.
It appears the passage of Spratt's proposal was due to the growing disinterest and disgust of the proceedings of the conventions.
In 1859 the Convention became a meeting of a fringe group within a minority political faction of the South.
Even then Spratt's "bantling" received only 50% of the votes of the delegates (vote: 44-19).
Convention.........................."Delegates"... .....Spratt proposal
1858, Montgomery, Ala..............300+..............voted down
1859, Vicksburg, Miss..................88................passed
"The next Southern Commercial Convention, does not promise to amount to much....many of the southern papers pronounce it a humbug and a farce."
Weekly Gazette and Free Press (Janesville, Wisconsin), 20 May 1859
__________________ 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."
It was political alright...but to describe it as a "major" and the "biggest annual meeting in the South" are gross exaggerations.
OK. Either you are just making loud noises, or you have some facts here. What other regional meetings in the South do *you* say were more major or bigger? If you have none, doesn't that say I am right and you should admit it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You are simply doing the same thing the Republicans and Abolitionists of the North did in the 1850s by playing up the importance of the meetings. They for political capital, you for debating points.
Nope. The Southern Commercial Conventions were big because Southerners, in general, thought they were important. I simply don't care about debating points. I am much more concerned with developing an accurate understanding of how Southerners thought and acted, while you ... don't seem to care about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
It appears the passage of Spratt's proposal was due to the growing disinterest and disgust of the proceedings of the conventions.
Balderdash. Rather than make wild claims, show proof ... assuming you have any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
In 1859 the Convention became a meeting of a fringe group within a minority political faction of the South.
Funny. Lots of the delegates at the conventions were elected politicians with a great deal of support. Even ones you probably haven't heard of, like David Hubbard.
He was a delegate at the 1857 and 1859 conventions. He was twice elected to the US House of Representatives (1839-41 and 1849-51) while losing 3 times; served in the AL legislature most of that time when not in Congress from 1831 to 1859; was an Elector for Breckinridge and Lane; then was a member of the Confederate Congress from TN, before becoming the Confederate Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was definitely a Democrat and a Fire-Eater -- but that was exactly the class of men who led the South into secession and civil war.
Yancey of AL (another former US Congressman who later served in the Confederate Congress) would have been at the 1859 convention (as he had been before this), but he was ill for months and unable to attend, so he contributed editorials instead. When he recovered, he was selected to head the Alabama contingent at the Democratic Convention in South Carolina based on the "Alabama Platform" (gee, a strong pro-slavery platform). There, Yancey led the stalemate and walkout that split the Democratic Party and threw the election to the Republicans.
Speaking in 1858 at the Southern Commercial Convention on the re-opening of the Atlantic slave trade (he was appointed a member of the committee to study the question at the 1857 convention), Yancey said:
"If slavery is right per se, if it is right to raise slaves for sale, does it not appear that it is right to import them?
"Let us then wipe from our statute book this mark of Cain which our enemies have placed there.
"We want negroes [sic] cheap, and we want a sufficiency of them, so as to supply the cotton demand of the whole world."
Sounds like a powerful Southern leader, a widely renowned orator, and an influential man. Most regard him as one of the two most important leaders of the Fire-Eaters. You seem to be saying men like these were "a fringe group within a minority political faction of the South". Southerners/Confederates seem to think they were important men who should be part of their national government. Please explain why you differ from the Southern voters of AL and TN.
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.
Originally Posted by Battalion It appears the passage of Spratt's proposal was due to the growing disinterest and disgust of the proceedings of the conventions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Balderdash. Rather than make wild claims, show proof ... assuming you have any.
On the opening day of the 1858 convention there were over 300 delegates with more arriving each day. Another reporter estimated about 600.
In 1859 there are less than 100. What happened?
What could be the reason?
"The Convention...became so inharmonious that the Tennessee delegates left on the third day in disgust. They declared that, from being Commercial Conventions, these meetings had degenerated into mere political clubs."
Fort Wayne Weekly Republican, 9 June 1858
"The Southern Convention.-- The next Southern Commercial Convention, does not promise to amount to much. We see it stated that the Governors of Louisiana and Georgia have refused to appoint delegates to the Convention; and many of the southern papers pronounce it a humbug and a farce."
Weekly Gazette and Free Press (Janesville, Wisconsin), 20 May 1859
__________________ 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."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
"Southern Commercial Convention" -What a fraud to claim this represents the South 
Linear Mode
