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

Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,146
SC knew they were going to be joined in secession by other slave states.
1. If secession had been successful, DC would no longer be any kind of a concern for the new slave republic.
2. Reading Debows periodical in 1860-61 shows that there was no intention for the new slave republic to include any of the US territories.
3. Also in Debows, there was a feeling that the border slave states in the new slave republic would provide a buffer zone to hopefully capture runaway slaves.
4. Again in Debows 1860-61, there was an assumption that because of the importance of cotton, both the USA and other nations would bend over backwards to establish trade agreements with the new slave republic, and overlook the nature of their labor system.
Very much obliged for sticking to the OP with these fine observations.

I am very surprised that fire-eater De Bow said what he did about U.S. Territories in 1860-61. I haven't read that but I'll take your word for it. I wonder if he meant to include SC in that disavowal.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,146
Certainly what SC thought about the advantages of secession with respect to protecting slavery is interesting. How would it work in practice is the more interesting part of James' question.
You got my point exactly! Thanks for the fine focus.

In my way of thinking they jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I started this thread to explore what I might be missing, that maybe they did have at least a rational dream or aspiration even if it was totally impractical which it certainly proved to be.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,146
1. Unless the Confederates capture DC and control Maryland, the Republicans have the votes to abolish slavery in DC. That becomes an immediate drain on slavery in Virginia and Maryland.
2. One of the stated goals of the Confederacy was to overturn Congress refusal to allow the extension of slavery into the territories. '
As soon as they withdraw from the US, the Confederates can only expand westward if they overcome armed resistance.
3. Buffer or not, the FSA was created with the support of the entire slave polity. Once the secessionists withdraw the free line moves to the Ohio River, as the FSA is either modified or becomes a dead letter.
4. The United States is going to ally with Britain on the high seas. Ships that stray into international waters will be stopped and inspected. On the Ohio River, and the Mississippi as far south as Cairo, slave trading will be stopped. You fail to demonstrate how Britain or France will protect slave trading in the interior of the US.
Debow was a knowledgible agronomist, but he was not going to be able to influence US policy if secession prevails.
Every characteristic that the secessionists disliked about the US, especially its cooperation with Britain in suppressing the Atlantic slave trade, becomes a bigger problem after secession.
Make that "Like very much."

And they did attempt to expand westward right away. Not until a few years ago had I ever known what was going on in AZ and NM. All the focus was on the East, when it was the western territories SC and the other copycats were screaming bloody murder about. Then they created the state of AZ and sent reps to Richmond. If that wasn't expansion and actions exponentially louder than words, I don't know what was.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,146
Secession is about politics, not war battles.
And, would you agree, that Secession was basically about land? Isn't that all that politics is after all? Primarily LAND? Wasn't it new LAND (and new men), after all, that would preserve slavery and sustain secession? Was it not the roughly 800,000 square miles of territory that the Confederacy ran off with, plus what it expected to add to the heist, that would save both slavery and sustain Secession? That's how I see it. What do you say?
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
775
Location
Dixie
Every characteristic that the secessionists disliked about the US, especially its cooperation with Britain in suppressing the Atlantic slave trade, becomes a bigger problem after secession.
And yet they had gotten almost everything they wanted as regards slavery expansion in the territories, tarrifs, and continued slavery where it existed, through much democrat legislation, negotiation, and compromise. They gave it all up for a more central, intrusive, and more authoritarian government.
Certainly what SC thought about the advantages of secession with respect to protecting slavery is interesting. How would it work in practice is the more interesting part of James' question.
It didn’t work. They were not thinking logically. They were hot under the collar and acted out of heighten emotion. That is why James’ question, asked with the benefit of 150 years of hindsight, cannot be answered with cool heads and logical thinking.
The point being that they did not think. When they did think it was with exaggerated superiority. Although SC knew other states would most likely follow, I believe they , the fire eaters, thought SC could carry her own weight if independent.

In 1859 Captain George Pickett almost started a war with Britain over a dead pig. There is seldom anything logical about war and unconventional, irrational thinking by one or more belligerents is usually the order of the day.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,838
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
3. Also in Debows, there was a feeling that the border slave states in the new slave republic would provide a buffer zone to hopefully capture runaway slaves.
That is more or less how it worked in the antebellum period. The wrinkle is that slaves from the border slave states have an easier time to escape, driving down slave prices and encouraging sales of slaves South. Until there are too few slaves to maintain a Slave State Status.
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,068
Location
Wisconsin
1. Unless the Confederates capture DC and control Maryland, the Republicans have the votes to abolish slavery in DC. That becomes an immediate drain on slavery in Virginia and Maryland.
2. One of the stated goals of the Confederacy was to overturn Congress refusal to allow the extension of slavery into the territories. '
As soon as they withdraw from the US, the Confederates can only expand westward if they overcome armed resistance.
3. Buffer or not, the FSA was created with the support of the entire slave polity. Once the secessionists withdraw the free line moves to the Ohio River, as the FSA is either modified or becomes a dead letter.
4. The United States is going to ally with Britain on the high seas. Ships that stray into international waters will be stopped and inspected. On the Ohio River, and the Mississippi as far south as Cairo, slave trading will be stopped. You fail to demonstrate how Britain or France will protect slave trading in the interior of the US.
Debow was a knowledgible agronomist, but he was not going to be able to influence US policy if secession prevails.
Every characteristic that the secessionists disliked about the US, especially its cooperation with Britain in suppressing the Atlantic slave trade, becomes a bigger problem after secession.
1. If secession had been successful, the confederates had no interest in DC.
2. According to Debow, the new slave republic would only extend as far west as Texas and some of the Indian territory (Oklahoma). He wrote that the cotton states would be self-sufficient.
3. Once the confederates have complete control over their slave trade, it doesn't matter if a few escape to the country to the north.
4. If you read Debow, you'll see that the confederates deluded themselves into thinking the British and French were so dependent on southern cotton that the Europeans would basically provide naval protection free of charge in order to ensure the continued shipping of cotton.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,838
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
SC knew they were going to be joined in secession by other slave states.
1. If secession had been successful, DC would no longer be any kind of a concern for the new slave republic.
2. Reading Debows periodical in 1860-61 shows that there was no intention for the new slave republic to include any of the US territories.
3. Also in Debows, there was a feeling that the border slave states in the new slave republic would provide a buffer zone to hopefully capture runaway slaves.
4. Again in Debows 1860-61, there was an assumption that because of the importance of cotton, both the USA and other nations would bend over backwards to establish trade agreements with the new slave republic, and overlook the nature of their labor system.
Any references?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,039
No. One relevant and the other not relevant. One pertaining to a question at hand (secession under consideration), the other pertaining to a question answered (secession already in place).
We don't look to comments on, say, the battle of the bulge to address questions about the causes of WW2.


You are still discussing The SC Declaration of Causes and Stephen's Cornerstone Speech, right?

Are they not both after the event(secession) explanations of it(the event)?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,039
w either e
Make that "Like very much."
And they did attempt to expand westward right away. Not until a few years ago had I ever known what was going on in AZ and NM. All the focus was on the East, when it was the western territories SC and the other copycats were screaming bloody murder about. Then they created the state of AZ and sent reps to Richmond. If that wasn't expansion and actions exponentially louder than words, I don't know what was.

I think in historical terms, confederate interest in NM and AZ was a matter of the Texas tail, wagging the confederate dog. To the extent, that the confederacy(or, apparently SC) had any thoughts of any policy West of the Mississippi, at all, it seems to have centered South to Mexico, rather than West to California.

There certainly seems to be little or nor historical evidence that SC had any such ambitions in either direction. Apparently they were slavishly following the lead of Texas.


P.S. Texas was notorious in N.M. for its numerous attempts at grabbing N. M. territory at every opportunity, long(relatively) before even secession.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,581
Location
Denver, CO
1. If secession had been successful, the confederates had no interest in DC.
2. According to Debow, the new slave republic would only extend as far west as Texas and some of the Indian territory (Oklahoma). He wrote that the cotton states would be self-sufficient.
3. Once the confederates have complete control over their slave trade, it doesn't matter if a few escape to the country to the north.
4. If you read Debow, you'll see that the confederates deluded themselves into thinking the British and French were so dependent on southern cotton that the Europeans would basically provide naval protection free of charge in order to ensure the continued shipping of cotton.
If that is what they thought, it reveals that what they said about these issues was symbolic. If you are right, they were thinking that slavery could shrink, and that US policy would align with British abolition policy, and slavery would nonetheless survive.
At least in South Carolina, there was no genuine interest in extending slavery into the territories. It was all a symbolic fight over who was going to control the federal authority.
With respect to slavery in DC, once it is abolished there, the US is dedicated to abolition, and by military or economic means they will be implementing that policy.
With respect to the slave trade, it is a vast denial which goes on to this day, but the people in the Atlantic slave states were connected to the Southwest via the slave trade brokers.
The protection of slavery in Missouri, and the FSA, were both parts of a compromise. Each compromise was passed on a narrow majority. If what you say is true, then they thought that neither were necessary for the protection of slavery, and were merely symbolic assertions of power.
If people in South Carolina thought that, OK.
But people in the five border areas, and in Washington, D.C. knew that slavery was protected by a minority based mainly on the 10 states involved in cotton production. Without those states the political attacks and planned raids on slavery would be irresistible.
Thanks for responding. :D
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,581
Location
Denver, CO
@James Lutzweiler did ask multiple questions, which have been addressed.
As people post answers, we should be able to see how unconvincing the secessionist arguments were in Baltimore, Charleston, VA, Louisville, and St. Louis. Most businessmen in the border states already had evidence that a downturn in the US economy was bad for business.
But the same problems may have existed in places like New Orleans or on the Texas frontier.
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,664
Please give a quotation from Lincoln which shows he said: "Do anything you want as long as you pay your taxes." I am not aware of any time when he said that was the Union's only requirement, but if I am wrong I would like to know it.
March 4, 1861 Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to government (four Federal Tax collection forts}, and to collect the duties and imposts (import tax), but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." Paragraph 21

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, an I have no inclination to do so." Paragraph 4

So if you believe Politicians, like the secessionists, you have to believe Lincoln. If Southerners had paid their Taxes, Slavery was Safe. To think the Republicans would of done anything to decrease their Tax Base is Folly. Secession was the threat to Slavery.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,936
Location
Midwest
You are still discussing The SC Declaration of Causes and Stephen's Cornerstone Speech, right? Are they not both after the event(secession) explanations of it(the event)?
Stevens was elocuting as Vice President of the Confederacy. Secession was a done deal by the time the Confederacy was in place.

Anyway this is to make far too much of a casual comment that citing something from the future is not a particularly logical or strong way to explain deliberations that took place in the past. There's no mountain to die on here. There's no slam-dunk right or wrong, and nobody's reputation is being challenged. So I agree with Green: Chill.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,581
Location
Denver, CO
Regardless of President Lincoln's intent in March of 1861, his intent could change. The policies of the British and the US free soilers to limit slavery and put pressure on Maryland and Missouri to adopt a no exportation plan were well known.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,581
Location
Denver, CO
It was very clear that by 1860 the engineering means existed to rapidly extend the railroad network of the US westward.
Secession, separated from war, cannot interfere with that attempt. Thus Lincoln could intend to leave slavery alone where it existed, and still intend to extend Republican and Free Soil Democratic influence westward and make slavery more and more powerless within the US.
Separation and secession concedes that the cotton 7 states are mainly powerless in the US, at the cost of risking that the US will not concede secession.
 

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
591
March 4, 1861 Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to government (four Federal Tax collection forts}, and to collect the duties and imposts (import tax), but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." Paragraph 21

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, an I have no inclination to do so." Paragraph 4

So if you believe Politicians, like the secessionists, you have to believe Lincoln. If Southerners had paid their Taxes, Slavery was Safe. To think the Republicans would of done anything to decrease their Tax Base is Folly. Secession was the threat to Slavery.

I agree that this is as close as Lincoln came to saying he cared only about taxes. However, the statement starts with "hold, occupy and possess." Keeping in mind that southern states had illegally occupied post offices, armories where weapons were stored and fortifications, his first responses are related to property and weapons. From the actions of the seceding states, it seems clear to me that the Confederacy was preparing for war. After addressing his major concerns, Lincoln also talked about duties and imposts. I believe Lincoln. He said he had no interest in interfering with slavery where it existed.

Does any government want to decrease its tax base? One of the first things the Confederacy had to do was to impose taxes to support that government. It imposed a tariff as part of raising taxes. Nothing in Lincoln's statement indicated taxes as a primary issue. As far as I know, he never made a statement that taxes were the main issue.
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,068
Location
Wisconsin
Here is Debows concerning item 2 above, concerning a compact slave republic extending only as far west as Texas and some of Oklahoma.

Debows, volume 30, page 34, early 1861:

The Southern States, rounded off with the Indian territory,
will constitute a splendid empire. Let us bend all our ener-
gies to improve this territory, and endeavor to keep at peace
with the outside world. Charleston, Savannah, Pensacola,
Mobile, New-Orleans, and other ports in the cotton States,
after disunion, will easily and naturally supersede and exclude
the Yankees and English in the Cuban and other West In-
dian, Mexican and South American trade.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016932376;view=1up;seq=44

Regarding number 4 above, here is another article in Debows early 1861, that assumes the British and French will bend over backwards to protect the new slave republic.

Debows volume 30 page 93, early 1861, "The Secession of the Cotton States."

...while England and France would send
powerful fleets to insure its peaceful maintenance. The men of the West
would not only instantly pause in any hostile course toward it, but
they would demand that their great section should be united political-
ly, as it would be commercially, to the new confederacy.
...
The first demonstration of blockade of the Southern ports would be
swept away by the English fleets of observation hovering on the South-
ern coasts, to protect English commerce, and especially the free flow of
cotton to English and French factories.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016932376;view=1up;seq=103
 



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