How Was South Carolina's Secession Supposed to Save Slavery?

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
Quick question: did any of the Secession declarations mention Cuba, Mexico, or Central America? I am only familiar with the ones that mention the western territories recently taken from Mexico. That would mean Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Utah and Nevada and California.
Did you knowingly leave out China as the basis for the confederacy building a great slave the Empire? Or have you yet encountered that idea?
Could you Edited. be more specific on exactly whom those confederate were and what exactly the confederate ambitions were, and any legal claims ambitions on United States Territories and Calf. ?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
A great deal of that emphasis came from South Carolina. It was in the mine up John C Calhoun, Robert Hayne, James Hammond, James Gadsden, and especially from De Bow Who, though he wrote in New Orleans, was from Charleston, South Carolina. I deal with this subject of the southern request for a glorious empire in my book. It was no idle Or scarce dream. And it was not new.


Yes, I know we also have Calhoun to thank for getting the United States involved in a war with Great Britain in 1812, also.

I have no argument denying that SC slave owners were rabble rousers and quick to take advantage those they think weaker than themselves, but, again that was within the United States. Out of the Union, I think the gov't in Richmond, might take a rather jaundiced view of SC hotspurs trying that within the confederacy. What do you think?
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,318
Yes, I know we also have Calhoun to thank for getting the United States involved in a war with Great Britain in 1812, also.

I have no argument denying that SC slave owners were rabble rousers and quick to take advantage those they think weaker than themselves, but, again that was within the United States. Out of the Union, I think the gov't in Richmond, might take a rather jaundiced view of SC hotspurs trying that within the confederacy. What do you think?
I know nothing of Richmond's concern about fire-eaters anywhere after Secession. It seems to me their work was done.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,653
Thank you.

I understand that. But why did they think that? How was Secession going to do that? What would follow Secession to preserve it? That is what my question is about.
Thanks for your response.
As I have said before, I cannot justify their actions except by accepting that they did what they thought was best for preserving and expanding slavery. They exercised their God-given right to be wrong.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,318
Thanks for your response.
As I have said before, I cannot justify their actions except by accepting that they did what they thought was best for preserving and expanding slavery. They exercised their God-given right to be wrong.
Thank you.

I understand this, but what I am driving at is precisely just what it was that they "thought was best." What were those thoughts? I grant their God-given right to be wrong about their thoughts. But what were their thoughts?

Thanks to a previous poster who told us about Starobin's book, I now have some specific answers to my question from an 1860 aristocratic Charleston planter. Stay tuned and I will post his answers to my question --answers, incidentally, that parallel my own.

As you probably know, Stephen Channing (my friend) wrote a book (The Crisis of Fear) that rooted Secession in fear, the fear of a slave revolt. I read no fear in the words of Starobin's 1860 planter but words of hope and optimism in re: SC's secession. If for no other reason --but there are many-- the words of this planter alone, words called to my attention by a very thoughtful poster, have made the whole thread worthwhile.

I will get around to posting them. Right now I am watching my Chargers getting schooled. But for those with Starobin's book, see pages 87-89.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,318
Thanks for your response.
As I have said before, I cannot justify their actions except by accepting that they did what they thought was best for preserving and expanding slavery. They exercised their God-given right to be wrong.
Here is how planter John Townsend thought Secession would preserve slavery:

1. SC's secession would prompt maybe eight other states to join it.
2. The addition of those eight states would give the South a land mass to be reckoned with --another way of saying, "The South will then be the big boy in the block so no one (read: the federal government) will be able to push us around.
3. Secession will give the South a monopoly on the most valuable products in the world (I gather planter Townsend had never taken a field trip to the Midwest which others at the time viewed as having the most valuable products in the world).
4. Secession would cause the North to crumble for the want of raw materials.
5. Secession would result in commercial, financial, and manufacturing prosperity --though he does not spell out how this would happen.
6. Secession would get rid of abolitionists once and for all. Just how he does not say.
7. Secession would bring recognition from England, France, Germany and Russia, none of whom could care two hoots about slavery as the source of their products.

This is the oversimplified summary. Fear of a slave revolt, so far as I can see, was not an important part of his thinking, if it was a part at all. In short, he saw Secession as a very positive contribution to Southern success and commercial hegemony.

Interestingly, Townsend had once been an opponent of Secession. He regarded the prospects of SC's unilateral Secession as "defunct." Secession should only be as a bloc --but starting with Charleston.

Just as interesting, one of the components of Townsend's plantation was a vast exotic garden, the masterwork of no less than a Chinaman named Oqui whom Matthew Perry had brought back from his 1850s expedition to the Far East. Already Charleston was benefiting from contact with China, a fact routinely disputed by someone on this thread.

I am curious to know if Channing cited Townsend in his book. I can't locate my copy right now. If someone knows, please advise.

Also it is quite interesting that Townsend says nothing about the western territories that Charleston's Seceshers stated was a concern of theirs. Those properties were not cited by Townsend, at least not in the material Starobin quoted.

All of which is to say that I consider Townsend and Starobin faithful posters to this thread.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,318
Fellow posters,

I just started a new but related thread to this one about South Carolina's Secession as it relates to debt repudiation. I hope many of you will join me there.

As I see it, debt repudiation by the planters and other Southern businessmen would immediately free up some pin money to fund the fledgling new slave empire. One cannot start a new business without some hard cash, and I would assume one could not start a new country to save slavery by seceding without some cash on hand.

James
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,318
Fellow Posters,

I just came across the following yesterday. It is on p. 439 of Theodore Jervey's biography of Robert Hayne (the Hayne in the Hayne-Webster debates) which biography is online. See:

https://books.google.com/books?id=i...nepage&q=robert y hayne and his times&f=false

This quote answers the question of what John C. Calhoun believed to be the method that would preserve slavery. In short: the railroad (highlighted emphasis in the quote is mine). At length, Calhoun meant the transcontinental railroad, which at the time this quote reflected was something Calhoun, like St. Paul, only "saw through a glass darkly." But by 1845 Calhoun and James Gadsden and James D. B. De Bow and Jefferson Davis saw it as sharply as Asa Whitney ever did in January of that year. Calhoun even became a surveyor for railroads leading to the West; and Robert Hayne died in 1839, not as the U.S. Senator, SC Governor, and Charleston Mayor all of which he had been, but as the president of the Western Railroad Company that he believed was a way to save slavery, if indeed it could be saved at all (something he personally questioned).

So, this post does NOT answer the specific question of HOW secession would save slavery; however, it does answer a critically important corollary to that question in the mind of a mover and a shaker, namely, "What could save it?"

"Calhoun's plan was to make the South commercially independent of the North, and to closely connect South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas together by rail, thus uniting South Carolina with Texas, which would practically force into the closest intercourse with the combination Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. The slave holding states would then be strong enough to hold their own in the Union or out of it. He was not striving to take them out. He was for the Union, but for a Union in which the South might be commercially independent of the North, --too strong to be interfered with, and with 'a substratum of population' [slaves], 'the best in the world.'"
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top