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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
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
Thanks!
 

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

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,003
Location
Wisconsin
Here is another excerpt from De Bows, written by Townsend, of South Carolina, of how the new slave republic would be a guaranteed success. No foreign nation would interfere with the institution of slavery.

Debows, vol 30, page 120,

G.—POWER OF THE SOUTH TO PROTECT HERSELF--IN MEN, POSI-
TION, AND AGRICULTURAL WEALTH
[From the able pamphlet by Hon. Jno. Townsend, of South Carolina, entitled,
“The South alone should Govern the South,” and which should be in the hands
of every Southern man.]
What reflecting man can doubt the abundant ability of the South to protect
herself, and to attain a power which will cause her to be respected among the
foremost nations of the earth ?

The eight seceding States alone, possess a territory more than three times as
great as France more than six times as large as Prussia, and nearly six times
as large as England, Scotland, and Ireland put together; while the alliance of
the other Southern and border States would increase the territorial extent of the
Southern confederacy more than one third. Can a country like this, occupied
by a people who from their childhood have been accustomed to the most
manly exercise, and the free use of firearms—bold, hardy, restive under, un-
lawful control—and numbering within its borders 1,800,000 men capable of
bearing arms, and who, with a few weeks' warning, could be marshaled at every
assailable point in bands of 50,000 and 100,000—can, I say, such a country, and
so peopled, be overcome by any foreign foe? The idea is simply absurd.

Next: Consider her compactness within her boundaries; her inexhaustible
resources in money, and all other materials toward providing the appliances of
war; and her capacity, arising from these circumstances, of resisting, or pun-
ishing, if necessary, all aggression upon her rights. With agricultural produc-
tions the most valuable in the world, and which make them the objects of envy
to every manufacturing and commercial people, and her friendship and alliance
to be sought after by every civilized nation, she holds in her hands the very
best bonds which they can give to “keep the peace” with her. It is a mistake,
Mr. Chairman, to suppose that England, France, Germany, Russia, and the
other commercial and manufacturing nations of Europe, are hostile to our
African slavery. Nations (and even our sanctimonious North is not an excep-
tion) are not governed by sentiment, much less by sentimentality, but by their
interest; and these peoples, to whom I have just referred, are too deeply in-
terested in procuring i. raw materials, which the South, almost alone, can
supply them with, for their manufactures, to embark in a silly quarrel with us
about the kind of labor, by which these raw materials are acquired. . Not only
many millions of their people are dependent upon these raw materials for em- vº
ployment for their bread—not only thousands of millions of capital are also de-
pendent upon them for profits—but it becomes a concern of government, that
these raw materials should be supplied; since it promotes contentment to the
hungry laborer, and establishes quiet and social order, which might not other-
wise be procured, except by the terrible resort of powder and lead. The South,
then, need be under no apprehension of interference with her slave property
from these nations; but, on the contrary, may reasonably expect friendly inter-
course. Indeed, sir, no alliance would be more natural than one between these
nations and our Southern confederacy. There would be no cause of rivalry
and jealousy. We, the agricultural people, would grow the raw material, and
they the manufacturing and commercial people, would work it up and send it to
their customers of the world.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016932376;view=1up;seq=130
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
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.
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
However, this article is in response to a book published that suggested expanding the Confederacy suggesting a sentiment to expand to which Debow objected to.

Link
These reflections have been elicited in part by the stirring events at the South, which occupy all men's thoughts and attention, and in part by the perusal of a small work on Cuba by Dr. R. W. Gibbes, of Columbia, South Carolina. The only thing in this admirable book with which we do not concur, is the suggestion that it is desirable that we should own Cuba. Spain, Brazil, and the South are the only slaveholding countries. If Cuba were detached from Spain, the cause of slavery would be weakened, not only by the loss of one of the great powers of Europe as its friend, but still more, by converting that rising nation into its irreconcilable enemy.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Here is another excerpt from De Bows, written by Townsend, of South Carolina, of how the new slave republic would be a guaranteed success. No foreign nation would interfere with the institution of slavery.

Debows, vol 30, page 120,

G.—POWER OF THE SOUTH TO PROTECT HERSELF--IN MEN, POSI-
TION, AND AGRICULTURAL WEALTH
[From the able pamphlet by Hon. Jno. Townsend, of South Carolina, entitled,
“The South alone should Govern the South,” and which should be in the hands
of every Southern man.]
What reflecting man can doubt the abundant ability of the South to protect
herself, and to attain a power which will cause her to be respected among the
foremost nations of the earth ?

The eight seceding States alone, possess a territory more than three times as
great as France more than six times as large as Prussia, and nearly six times
as large as England, Scotland, and Ireland put together; while the alliance of
the other Southern and border States would increase the territorial extent of the
Southern confederacy more than one third. Can a country like this, occupied
by a people who from their childhood have been accustomed to the most
manly exercise, and the free use of firearms—bold, hardy, restive under, un-
lawful control—and numbering within its borders 1,800,000 men capable of
bearing arms, and who, with a few weeks' warning, could be marshaled at every
assailable point in bands of 50,000 and 100,000—can, I say, such a country, and
so peopled, be overcome by any foreign foe? The idea is simply absurd.

Next: Consider her compactness within her boundaries; her inexhaustible
resources in money, and all other materials toward providing the appliances of
war; and her capacity, arising from these circumstances, of resisting, or pun-
ishing, if necessary, all aggression upon her rights. With agricultural produc-
tions the most valuable in the world, and which make them the objects of envy
to every manufacturing and commercial people, and her friendship and alliance
to be sought after by every civilized nation, she holds in her hands the very
best bonds which they can give to “keep the peace” with her. It is a mistake,
Mr. Chairman, to suppose that England, France, Germany, Russia, and the
other commercial and manufacturing nations of Europe, are hostile to our
African slavery. Nations (and even our sanctimonious North is not an excep-
tion) are not governed by sentiment, much less by sentimentality, but by their
interest; and these peoples, to whom I have just referred, are too deeply in-
terested in procuring i. raw materials, which the South, almost alone, can
supply them with, for their manufactures, to embark in a silly quarrel with us
about the kind of labor, by which these raw materials are acquired. . Not only
many millions of their people are dependent upon these raw materials for em- vº
ployment for their bread—not only thousands of millions of capital are also de-
pendent upon them for profits—but it becomes a concern of government, that
these raw materials should be supplied; since it promotes contentment to the
hungry laborer, and establishes quiet and social order, which might not other-
wise be procured, except by the terrible resort of powder and lead. The South,
then, need be under no apprehension of interference with her slave property
from these nations; but, on the contrary, may reasonably expect friendly inter-
course. Indeed, sir, no alliance would be more natural than one between these
nations and our Southern confederacy. There would be no cause of rivalry
and jealousy. We, the agricultural people, would grow the raw material, and
they the manufacturing and commercial people, would work it up and send it to
their customers of the world.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016932376;view=1up;seq=130
That seems to reflect Southern sentiment. IMHO. Note the emphasis on agriculture rather than industry.
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,003
Location
Wisconsin
However, this article is in response to a book published that suggested expanding the Confederacy suggesting a sentiment to expand so which Debow objected to.

Link
These reflections have been elicited in part by the stirring events at the South, which occupy all men's thoughts and attention, and in part by the perusal of a small work on Cuba by Dr. R. W. Gibbes, of Columbia, South Carolina. The only thing in this admirable book with which we do not concur, is the suggestion that it is desirable that we should own Cuba. Spain, Brazil, and the South are the only slaveholding countries. If Cuba were detached from Spain, the cause of slavery would be weakened, not only by the loss of one of the great powers of Europe as its friend, but still more, by converting that rising nation into its irreconcilable enemy.
True, some confederates wanted to take Cuba. My point was that being excluded from the territories was a concern while in the union, but not necessarily an overriding concern when out of the union.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
813
True, some confederates wanted to take Cuba. My point was that being excluded from the territories was a concern while in the union, but not necessarily an overriding concern when out of the union.
Hawk,

Didn't I tell you you would like De Bow's Review?

You have made fine use of it. Thanks for sharing all these posts!

James
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
Cool. However the British had made considerable progress in eliminating the Atlantic slave trade.
Hugh Thomas, Simon and Schuster, New York 1997.
The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade 1440-1870.
The abolition movement which arose then was the consequence, first, of the diffusion of ideas made possible by the pamphlet and the book operating in conditions free of censorship, as was possible in Britain and North America and to a lessor extent in France; and second, the conversion to abolition of one Protestant sect, the Quakers, who had participated in the trade, and so knew exactly what it was they were against. It must be doubtful whether abolition would have carried the day when it did had it not been for the Quaker movement's capacity for organizing first their members and then others. p. 797
Mr. Thomas' overall conclusion is that the slave trade and slavery were not abolished because it did not pay. The moral objections to the physical suffering of the slaves was the consistent reason that both practices were eliminated.

The effort was conducted at considerable cost, attended by loss of life due to disease. They were not likely to reverse course.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
See also pages xli and xlii. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?#
Although the complete Confederacy did control a vast territory: the paid labor states had a much greater population density. Because the paid labor state population was supplemented by voluntary immigration, the northern population had a much larger population of military age free men, and had almost unlimited potential immigration from Canada, Ireland and Germany.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
9,931
True, some confederates wanted to take Cuba. My point was that being excluded from the territories was a concern while in the union, but not necessarily an overriding concern when out of the union.


Very true, IMO. There were many all across the confederacy, who looked to the future, with anticipations of a great slave empire. But, they were probably mostly looking South to Mexico, Cuba, Central America etc.

Almost certainly, there would have been a reckoning between supporters of an aggressive, expansionist confederate empire and more quietly agrarian culture peacefully trading its produce with the world. The empire builders, I believe were a small minority in the confederacy and would have had a tough sell to the latter majority

For all its bombast and arrogance, within the Union, in defense of their slaves, I myself tend to think that within an independent confederacy protecting their slaves, would not have discovered the charms of peace and relaxation in preference to picking fights over lands in far away places.

After all, the agitation over expansion of territory, was the result of southern fears over their representation in Congress. Out of the Union, there would be no such fears. The banner for aggressive expansion would have to be taken up by the empire builders and I would doubt that there was a very large audience in the south for imperial ambitions and wars.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Very true, IMO. There were many all across the confederacy, who looked to the future, with anticipations of a great slave empire. But, they were probably mostly looking South to Mexico, Cuba, Central America etc.

Almost certainly, there would have been a reckoning between supporters of an aggressive, expansionist confederate empire and more quietly agrarian culture peacefully trading its produce with the world. The empire builders, I believe were a small minority in the confederacy and would have had a tough sell to the latter majority

For all its bombast and arrogance, within the Union, in defense of their slaves, I myself tend to think that within an independent confederacy protecting their slaves, would not have discovered the charms of peace and relaxation in preference to picking fights over lands in far away places.

After all, the agitation over expansion of territory, was the result of southern fears over their representation in Congress. Out of the Union, there would be no such fears. The banner for aggressive expansion would have to be taken up by the empire builders and I would doubt that there was a very large audience in the south for imperial ambitions and wars.
I agree with the observations that the secessionists were "were a small minority in the" Union and had a lot of "bombast and arrogance" yet succeeded.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
9,931
I agree with the observations that the secessionists were "were a small minority in the" Union and had a lot of "bombast and arrogance" yet succeeded.
Perhaps, I did note that I believed there would be a reckoning between the two groups, if the secession had been successful. But, in any case, I do not think the impetus for empire would likely come from SC.
 

byron ed

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,607
Location
Midwest
Here is Debows concerning item 2 above, concerning a compact slave republic extending only as far west as Texas and some of Oklahoma...
"only" as far west as Texas and Oklahoma? That's thousands of square miles of additional slaveocracy, a vision of how secession was supposed to save slavery. If that vast acreage could be garnered into an allegiance other than the U.S., the depleting cotton fields of the South could gradually be compensated for in the new areas. Besides cotton, sugar cane in lower Texas and perhaps tobacco or hemp into the Oklahomas. In that time before massive ag mechanization, those were yet slave-scale crops.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
@DanSBHawk provides an instructive quote. The writer creates broad categorizations about Germany, Russia, England and France that could hardly be substantiated. In fact all those countries had recognized the United States, had relations with the US, and all of them had abolished or were abolishing serfdom, which was their form of slavery. The assertion that they had some common policy towards the US and slavery lacks any foundation.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,003
Location
Wisconsin
"only" as far west as Texas and Oklahoma? That's thousands of square miles of additional slaveocracy, a vision of how secession was supposed to save slavery. If that vast acreage could be garnered with an alternate to allegiance with the U.S., the depleting cotton fields of the South could gradually be compensated with fresher fields West of the Mississippi. Besides cotton, cane in lower Texas and perhaps tobacco or hemp into the Oklahomas. In that time before massive ag mechanization, those were yet slave-scale crops.
True. The "only" is relative to another posters opinion that the confederacy was intended to extend to the Pacific.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
See page 107. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/preliminary-report/1860e-06.pdf?#
Almost the entire ship building capacity of the US was in Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. The additional places where ships could be built were on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and the US held them or had immediate access to them.
Thus the writer is inciting the brave young men of the south to fight gunboats and ironclads. Its a good example of citing facts that are true, but distracting. The material weight to be given to the facts cited is diminished by the overwhelming fact that the paid labor states had more of everything needed to fight a war, and railroads and steamships to speed up the process.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,433
Location
Denver, CO
See page 62. The broad statement that Britain and France would intervene in the US secession crisis to protect the export of cotton was contradicted by the fact that the price of cotton in Liverpool was falling. https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/14956/RickyDaleCalhoun2012.pdf?sequence=1
The world was not starving for cotton. Instead the markets were becoming glutted due to indigenous revolt in India and China.
Great Britain was hungry for wheat. American wheat. Both British investors and British immigrants were responding the repeal of the British grain laws by importing abundant American wheat, which was shipped on railroads they had helped to build. So once again the writer is deceiving his listeners about a complex subject which they were not able to assess for themselves.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
813
Very true, IMO. There were many all across the confederacy, who looked to the future, with anticipations of a great slave empire. But, they were probably mostly looking South to Mexico, Cuba, Central America etc.

Almost certainly, there would have been a reckoning between supporters of an aggressive, expansionist confederate empire and more quietly agrarian culture peacefully trading its produce with the world. The empire builders, I believe were a small minority in the confederacy and would have had a tough sell to the latter majority

For all its bombast and arrogance, within the Union, in defense of their slaves, I myself tend to think that within an independent confederacy protecting their slaves, would not have discovered the charms of peace and relaxation in preference to picking fights over lands in far away places.

After all, the agitation over expansion of territory, was the result of southern fears over their representation in Congress. Out of the Union, there would be no such fears. The banner for aggressive expansion would have to be taken up by the empire builders and I would doubt that there was a very large audience in the south for imperial ambitions and wars.
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?
 



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