The South Carolina Secession convention, day by day

Jimklag

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,886
Location
Chicagoland
#21
Folks! It would be greatly appreciated if the discussion could be steered back to the original topic of "The South Carolina Secession convention, day by day." Do not make this yet another discussion about the legality/illegality of secession. Thank You.

Posted as moderator
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#22
Keitt responds:
b4QDjmT.jpg


Mr. KIETT. I agree fully, Mr. President, in prompt and speedy action. I am ready to take this State out of the Union now and forever. I am ready to go and burn the bridges behind me. Not one of these gentlemen will go further in the prosecution of the object for which this Convention is assembled than I will go myself. But, sir, is there anything in the character of the soil here which renders it important for the honor and safety of the State that your ordinance of secession should be passed here? Will not an ordinance of secession, adopted by this body in the city of Charleston, have the same vitality it will have if adopted here? They will sneer at you if you go, and why, pray? Is it because you do not go away and pass in hot haste a great measure, through all its stages? It is because, when the Convention is assembled, you do not, in fifteen minutes, carry out its ordinance of secession? Will it, because this Convention, consulting its own high sense of propriety, chooses to pass this ordinance in its own way, exercise an injurious effect upon our sister States? How, it may be asked? Do we doubt ourselves what we mean to do? Is there a doubt in the mind of a single member of this Convention that this body will, ere many days roll over, withdraw the State from the Union? Is there any doubt in our sister States that we will do it? Are we to lose a thousand votes in Georgia by postponing the ordinance of secession until to-morrow? Are we to decide this matter in hot haste? I, sir, am ready, when it is necessary, to risk my life. If you will tell me why I should remain here, I am ready to do it. If you tell me by staying here I will secure the success of this movement and by going to Charleston I will forfeit its chances, I will stay here and brave whatever perils and sacrifices may be necessary to maintain it. [Applause] But because I am ready to brave all necessary perils, am I also to brave unnecessary ones? Because, if it were necessary, I am ready to make these sacrifices, shall I make them when there is no necessity? I have heard it said, suppose we make an appeal to the God of battles, and the argument is that persons will run these risks now. Yes, sir, if the cry were "to your tents, O Israel," and be the issue so put, I will be in a comfortable bed the night before. [Applause] My friend and colleague from Charleston says pass the Ordinance of Secession and then adjourn. But there are a hundred things to be done to vitalize an Ordinance of Secession. It is not going to live in mere form. You have to carry it out by proper legislation, and by a parity of reasons you will have to stay here to attend to all that. If you stay here for the Ordinance, then stay here to carry out all these other transactions. But, sir, how long will it take you to get through with this Ordinance? According to your own showing, do you expect to adopt it to-morrow? You will have to appoint a committee: and there will be ten, fifteen, or twenty plans, all reaching the same end, but differently worded, presented to that committee. If this Convention adjourns to-night, to meet in Charleston, at four o'clock, how much time will be lost? If you will have lost anything in the way of time, then the question, in the aspect in which it is mainly presented, loses all its force. I confess, sir, the question of secession is a very important matter. YOu are to pull down one structure and raise another. You propose to drive a ploughshare through this Federal edifice and build another. Has anybody had an elaborated Constitution in his breeches pocket, or will anybody extemporise one in five minutes? We will have to work wisely and diligently, and we want the best accommodations. The Legislature is in session and will probably remain; therefore there is a lack of the best accommodations. I want all the accommodations we can have whilst we are declaring for a separate nationality. I am ready to do it immediately, and whilst I will do it firmly, I will do it deliberately. Sir, I say that nothing will be lost in time by the adoption of this resolution, but much will be gained, and I shall support it.
 

Jimklag

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,886
Location
Chicagoland
#23
Gentlemen. @Andersonh1 has started a thread on the daily activities of the South Carolina secession convention. Responses should be limited to discussing those events and activities, not the constitutionality or legality of secession. There are already a zillion threads on the subject of secession legality and we don't need more. If we can't cooperate with this request, the thread will be locked or posters will be thread-banned or both. Thank you.

Posted as moderator
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#24
Inglis responds.
8FUp2MK.jpg


Mr. INGLIS. If there is any member of this body who is anxious that the Ordianance of Secession should be adopted at the earliest possible moment, that this State may be separated from the Confederacy, then I confess to be still more anxious than that member. I am ready to separate is quicker than the quickest. I therefore, in offering this resolution, have no desire to delay this important proceeding on the part of this Convention. If, Mr. President, it can be made to appear that, in order that this Convention should act in that direction, that it should face the small pox or the cannons on Fort Moultrie, that it cannot be done in any other way than that, then I am prepared to take that course. But I do not thank that we are called upon to do so. Is there any spot in South Carolina more fit for political agitation? Is there any spot more sacred to patriotism? and is that spot Columbia? No! If we may choose such a spot in South Carolina, ought not that place to be Charleston?

I anticipated the argument that would be made when I introduced this resolution, but I introduced it not merely as my own desire, but at the request of a large number of members of this body. But I confess, I cannot see the full force of it. We must pass this Ordinance so as to make it effectually an Ordinance about which no question may hereafter be raised, and about which there is no doubt as to whether it really does carry us out of the Confederacy or not. For such an Ordinance I am ready to vote, but you cannot adopt it to-morrow by remaining here instead of going to Charleston. Do we doubt ourselves, that we are in such hot haste? Has any member not made up his mind as to the result? Mr. President, because we are engaged in a great cause of this kind, are we to lose our discretion? I do not believe there is a member in this Convention but will remain here until the bitter end. [Applause]. But while it is unneccesary, why should we encounter this disease?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#25
Some hints about the mindset of these men can be gleaned from both sets of remarks. Both are ready to leave the Union right away, but both indicate that there is a right way to do it that must be followed. Keitt indicates that a new Constitution will be needed, and that will take time. Inglis has possible military conflict on his mind ("face... the cannons on Fort Moultrie") whether he thinks it's a serious possibility or not, he is aware that it might happen. Both men protest that they are as or more serious than anyone else about secession, and both indicate they think everyone else feels the same. They will ultimately be proven correct, as I believe the vote to secede will be unanimous, something unique to South Carolina.

Inglis refers to the United States as "the Confederacy", indicating that he still sees the Union as a Confederation.

Keitt:
- "I am ready to take this State out of the Union now and forever. I am ready to go and burn the bridges behind me."
- "Do we doubt ourselves what we mean to do? Is there a doubt in the mind of a single member of this Convention that this body will, ere many days roll over, withdraw the State from the Union?"
- "My friend and colleague from Charleston says pass the Ordinance of Secession and then adjourn. But there are a hundred things to be done to vitalize an Ordinance of Secession. It is not going to live in mere form. You have to carry it out by proper legislation, and by a parity of reasons you will have to stay here to attend to all that."
- "You are to pull down one structure and raise another. You propose to drive a ploughshare through this Federal edifice and build another. Has anybody had an elaborated Constitution in his breeches pocket, or will anybody extemporise one in five minutes? We will have to work wisely and diligently..."

Inglis:
- "If there is any member of this body who is anxious that the Ordianance of Secession should be adopted at the earliest possible moment, that this State may be separated from the Confederacy, then I confess to be still more anxious than that member. "
- "If, Mr. President, it can be made to appear that, in order that this Convention should act in that direction, that it should face the small pox or the cannons on Fort Moultrie, that it cannot be done in any other way than that, then I am prepared to take that course. But I do not thank that we are called upon to do so."
- " We must pass this Ordinance so as to make it effectually an Ordinance about which no question may hereafter be raised, and about which there is no doubt as to whether it really does carry us out of the Confederacy or not. For such an Ordinance I am ready to vote.... Has any member not made up his mind as to the result? "
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,033
#26
The South Carolina secession convention, or The Convention of the People of South Carolina, to give the more formal title, opened in Columbia on December 17, 1860. The proceedings were covered, transcribed by Robert Barnwell Rhett and published by the Charleston Mercury. My intention with this thread is to present the very long articles in short segments and walk through the conversations and debates that led to the adoption of the Ordinance of Secession on December 20th, four days later, with the goal being to learn what was discussed, what was adopted and what was not.

View attachment 218224

Rhett first describes the scene:
View attachment 218225

Business began at noon.
View attachment 218226

After a few motions, including the appointment of a temporary secretary, the President of the convention spoke.
View attachment 218227


Gentlemen: We have met here under circumstances more solemn than any of us have ever been placed in before. No one, it seems to me, is duly impressed with the magnitude of the work before him, who does not at the same time feel that he is about to enter upon the gravest and most solemn act which has fallen to the lot of this generation to accomplish. It is no less than the fixed determination to throw off a Government to which we have been accustomed, and to provide new safeguards for our future security. If any thing has been decided by the elections which sent us here, it is, that South Carolina must dissolve her connection with the Confederacy as speedily as possible. In the progress of this movement, we have two great dangers to fear, overtures from without and precipitation within. I trust that the door is now forever closed to all further connection with our Northern confederates; for what guarantees can they offer us, more strictly guarded, or under higher sanctions, than the present written compact between us? And did that sacred instrument protect us from the jealousy and aggressions of the North, commenced forty years ago, which resulted in the Missouri Compromise?

Did the Constitution protect us from the cupidity of the Northern people, who, for thirty-five years, have imposed the burden of supporting the General Government chiefly on the industry of the South? Did it save us from Abolition petitions, designed to annoy us and insult us, in the very halls of our Federal Congress? Did it enable us to obtain a single foot of the soil acquired in the war with Mexico, where the South furnished three-fourths of the money, two-thirds of the men, and four-fifths of the graves? Did it oppose any obstacle to the erection of California into a free-soil State, without any previous territorial existence, without any defined boundaries, or any census of her population? Did it throw any protection around the Southern settlers of Kansas, when the soil of that territory was invaded by the emissaries of Emigrant Aid Societies, in a crusade preached from Norther pulpits, when churchmen and women contributed Sharp's rifles and Colt's revolvers, to swell the butchery of Southern men? And has not that Constitution been trodden under foot by almost every Northern State, in their Ordinances nullifying all laws made for the recovery of fugitive slaves, by which untold millions of property have been lost to the South?

Let us no longer be duped by paper securities. Written Constitutions are worthless, unless they are written at the same time, in the hearts, and founded on the interests of a people; and as there is no common bond of sympathy or interest between the North and the South, all efforts to preserve this Union will not only be fruitless, but fatal to the less numerical section. The other danger to which I referred, may arise from too great impatience on the part of our people to precipitate the issue, in not waiting until they can strike with the authority of law.

At the moment of inaugurating a great movement like the present, I trust that we will go forward, and not be diverted from our purpose by influences from without. In the outset of this movement I can offer you no better motion than Danton's at the commencement of the French Revolution: "To dare! and again to dare! and without end to dare!" [Applause].








So obviously, the convention was not called into being to discuss the advisability or wisdom of secession but to Secede.












So obviously, the convention was called not the discuss the adviseabilyty
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
197
#29
I agree, the end result was not in doubt. The purpose of the convention was not to decide if secession would happen, but to follow the proper legal procedure for secession, and withdraw from the Union in the same way that the state had entered it. Note the concern in the first speech that the people might "precipitate the issue, in not waiting until they can strike with the authority of law". The president was concerned that they stay ahead of the popular mood and get this done properly and legally.

This was the fifth convention of the people of SC, I believe, following the ones in 1788, 1832, 1833 and 1852. There is a Google Book of the "Journals of the Conventions of the People of South Carolina held in 1832, 1833 and 1852" published in 1860 by the General Assembly that has some useful information in it concerning the earlier conventions.
Thanks very much for your comments (and this thread in general!).

I hope this isn't off-topic, but I was also really struck by the wording regarding the concern that people might precipitate action before the Convention had an opportunity to formalise secession. It must have been a turbulent and revolutionary environment in which these men had to operate.

It makes me wonder to what degree did those in the Convention control events or were controlled by events (I suspect it was a fair bit of both at times). It really makes me want to do a much deeper dive into some of the social elements surrounding secession.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,139
#31
More resolutions and an opening prayer followed the speech:
View attachment 218228
Dear Anderson,

You have done us a wonderful service with this post and thread. This business has been on my agenda for some time now, and you have simplified my work. I take my hat off to you, the Tom Brady of Civil War threads.

Below I have itemized 20 reflections of my own on these words you have made a lot easier for us to digest. Please understand that my comments are not directed to you but to the dead Seceshers. They are things I would say to them, if I could call them up in a seance. At the same time I am certainly posting them to elicit comments from others. They are simply things that readily came to mind, as I read these words --and hopefully with mostly only antebellum data in my own frontal lobes.

I repeat: A great post.

James

Secession of South Carolina

1. What junior journalist Rhett omits in his flawed, if not fake, news is how these delegates got to Columbia (and how they got to Savannah not long before that). Short answer: By the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. What were delegates talking about on their train rides to and from Columbia from Charleston?

2. Note the location of the convention. It is in the First Baptist Church of Columbia which, by the way, is still standing and where the ephemera (tables and chairs, etc.) can still be seen. Note that Baptists were something both the North and South had in common. Note, too, that it was the Baptists who split over slavery fifteen years earlier in nearby Augusta --through which the Memphis and Charleston Railroad ran and probably (note: probably, NOT certainly) carried Baptist delegates also. Baptists, both North and South, professed a belief in the Bible. In the Bible John the Baptist told soldiers not to (1) be content with their wages; (2) to do harm to no man (Hmm . . .); and (3) not to lie about their enemies. Let us see if there are any lies, half-truths, or truths-and-a-half in the rest of of this document by the red hot fire-eater Rhett.

3. "Act which has fallen . . ." Like Henny Penny's sky? From where did it fall? No actors brought it about, it just fell into their laps? Wording is everything.

4. "To throw off a government" --and no expectation of blowback? Come now and let us reason together. And what about the Baptist proclamation to be in submission to the powers that God has ordained to be? If Secession is all this is about, why wouldn't the wording be " . . . And just walk away from the federal government"? What is this "throwing" business?

5. "Must dissolve"? Why convene, if that was the case?

6. "As speedily as possible"? What's the hurry? Is the North about to get the transcontinental railroad and bury South Carolina and her sister states for good? Haste makes waste.

7. " . . . the progress of this movement . . ." Oh? There is context to it? How much context? 1860-61? 1850-1860? 1832-1861? Lots of ambiguities in this discourse.

8. " . . . two great dangers to fear . . ." What happened to the vision of a glorious future? So all they want to do is get out of a bad marriage? No thoughts about the next one? What businessman goes out to start his own new company based on fear rather than glorious expectations that he will kill off his competition? Is that coming in later expressions? If glorious expectations, as there should be, where are they?

9. "The door is forever closed to all further connection to our confederates"? Oh? Where was the Baptist eavesdropper, if not participant, who protested with the caveat, "OK, maybe, but shouldn't we always be ready for reconciliation in every dimension of our lives?" Isn't this finality like a demand for "unconditional surrender"? These fellows have already burnt all bridges. That is stupid.

10. "What guarantees can they offer us?" How about the footprint of a TRR? Wouldn't that action speak louder than words? Were more words the only solution to this difficulty? As William Barney said, "I defy [read: DEFY] anyone to show me that the South would have seceded, if Congress had given it the first footprint of the TRR." So do I defy. These Seceshers were pretty myopic, not even seeking a solution. All they did was proclaim what the solution would NOT be. ZZzzz. These people have reached a conclusion and will refuse to entertain any factors that would overturn that conclusion. They have to see everything now through rebel-tinted glasses.

11. " . . . the industry of the South"? What? Growing cotton? Where would that cotton be without Massachusetts?

12. " . . . a single foot of soil . . ." Now there is a real gripe and the crux of the matter: western territory. That is Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, etc. Isn't it funny how there are posters out there who would say, "But the Seceshers never mentioned Arizona, etc." But is Arizona in this Declaration? Of course it is. So is the TRR even though it is not verbalized per se. What was SC going to do with Arizona except to cross it, hopefully with more than the offspring of Jefferson Davis's camels. Or are we to think that these SC Seceshers who rode to the First Baptist Church in Columbia on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad did not give a thought to the forthcoming connection of that highly significant railroad with the Memphis, El Paso and Pacific Railroad, terminating in San Diego? Or if we do not have that thought in writing by a couple of them, does that mean it was not hot in their frontal lobes?

13. " . . . millions of property . . ." I have no handle whatsoever on the value of slaves lost to the North. If someone does, please school me. Is this true? That sounds to me like at the very least $2 million, if not more, of slaves lost as a result of the failure of Northern states to comply with the FSL. True?

14. "Let us no longer be duped." So, the Seceshers thought that written documents were not worth the paper they were written on either? And I should be judged harshly (on other threads) because I don't think SC's Declarations were worth the paper they were written on? Is this a one-way or a two-way street? I agree with the Seceshers that the Constitution was only a scrap Editred. However, I also think that of their Secesh scrap.

15. " . . . And as there is no common bond of sympathy or interest between the North and the South . . ." No? Baloney! Edited. Earlier I began a thread to discuss all the things the North and South had in common. You don't even need to check it to know how wrong this is. This statement is a libel on reality. They had far far far far more in common than they had differences. Oh, so the folks in Charleston did not like Boston beans for lunch? Wow! So different labor systems exhausted their similarities? Not in my book. Just in their fevered imaginations. And a great thing they had in common was white supremacy. They could not have asked for more.

16. ". . . all efforts to preserve this Union will not only be fruitless, but fatal to the less numerical section . . ." Oh? How did the writer know this? And what is this vague "numerical section"? People? If so, the writer was certainly right on this score.

17. " . . . too great impatience on the part of our people to precipitate the issue . . ." Why this impatience? Edited.

18. " . . . they can strike . . ."? What? And no blowback? This is a peaceful Secession? They are just taking their toys and going home? What need is there to strike, if all they are doing is leaving? I hear conflict. I hear war in these words. But what is a grammarian supposed to hear?

19. "A great movement"? South Carolina seceding alone is great?

20. "To dare"? And "To dare Again"? "The French Revolution"? And with these words I am not to expect bloodshed, lots of it? Gotta take me a tutorial in remedial revolution. I thought that one was bloody. Maybe it's late.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#32
Final discussion of the early session:

- The same rules as the 1852 convention were adopted, interestingly.
- a vote to invite Howell Cobb was agreed to, and men were appointed to invite him
- apparently there was no delegation from St. Matthew's Parish, so an election to select a delegate was needed
- and then it was time to take a break
0OLNoI6.jpg
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#33
The evening session begins. Right away, the first resolution: "It is the opinion of this Convention that the State of South Carolina should forthwith secede from the Federal Union, known as the United States of America."
KxzdTkn.jpg


The commissioners from Alabama and Mississippi arrive to applause, and James Elmore, representing Alabama, is given the floor to speak. He's a former South Carolinian, interestingly.
3jDFT2J.jpg


SPEECH OF MR. ELMORE
Gentlemen of the Convention of the State of South Carolina:

I appear here before you as a representative of the State of Alabama, commissioned by the Governor of that State to advise and confer with the Governor of the State of South Carolina and the Convention of this State upon the grand questions which are now before the country. I congratulate myself that my labors are but few, for I find I have nothing to do when I come back and present myself a representative of Alabama before the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina. [applause]

It is unnecessary for me to go into a history of the causes which are now operating upon the country. In one of the memorable debates which occurred in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Calhoun warned the North, and the whole country, that unless the incendiary spirit which animated the North should be stopped, it would result in making of the two peoples of the North and South entirely distinct and separate peoples, and ultimately place them in deadly and hostile conflict. What was a warning then - a prophecy - has become a fact.

In addition to the other aggressions, the election of Mr. Lincoln, with the avowed declaration on his part, and that of the leaders of the Black Republican party, and of the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln, followed by his election, was an avowed declaration of war upon the institutions, the rights and the interests of the South. How is this issue to be met - the very issue that was predicted by Mr. Calhoun?
I do not ask how it is to be met - for, by the old creed of States Rights, the little State of South Carolina, small in extent, but great in intellect, and moral power and resources, has answered that by the assembling of this Convention. [Applause]

Another question has been mooted in the South in regard to the mode of opposition. It pleases me to say in regard to the mode and measure of redress, that the State of Alabama, which I have the honor to represent, entirely coincides with the view entertained by the State of South Carolina. [Applause.] That mode can only be the resumption by the sovereign States of the powers separately delegated to the General Government, under the Constitution of the United States. Although that right has been denied, yet I may say, without entering into the argument any farther, than that with this thing of States Rights, of which we and every man in the Union has talked since the foundation of the Government, would be a mere myth - a nonentity - if the right to resume the powers delegated did not belong to the States separately. Where would be the protection otherwise? And, gentlemen, I say this unhesitatingly, that if they are deaf to the voice of reason and insensible to the facts of history, we are brought to an issue, and we are prepared for it. The State of Alabama is, and I know that the gallant State of South Carolina is. We are prepared to argue that question, if necessary, with arguments of plated steel. [Applause]

There has never been a doubt in the minds of the friends of States Rights and the rights of the South, as to the course of South Carolina. We have had a more difficult labor in Alabama than you have had here. We have been fighting this question since 1850, a small band, not numbering, as we discovered by elections, not more than two thousand votes: defeated, overwhelmed, but whenever the occasion presented, proud to strike a blow, although making nothing by it. And we have struggled and fought until now Alabama is prepared to stand by South Carolina. [Applause] Yes; Alabama, although not with the unanimity presented by your body, and the people of South Carolina. I announce to this Convention - I announce it not only as my opinion but authoritatively, by the express direction of the Governor of the State of Alabama - that Alabama will certainly secede upon the meeting of our Convention on the 7th day of January. [Loud applause.] We are prepared for this issue. I could not have said this a few months ago, but I know that our people are entirely prepared for it; and I announce that out of one hundred delegates to our Convention, we will be able, unquestionably, to carry secession by a vote of forty majority. [Great applause]

We desire that this question should receive the greatest strength - that this cause should have the greatest strength and unanimity. It is, therefore, important, in the opinion of Alabama, and expressed in the opinion of the Governor to me, that all the means should be used to give strength, not only in Alabama, but in the other Southern States. I therefore, say to this Convention, by direction and authority of the Governor of the State of Alabama, that we desire the authority which I have brought with me to advise and confer with this Convention. I offer it, not as my opinion and advice, but as the advice adn opinion of the Governor of the State of Alabama, the only representative which we have at this time under the Constitution of that State; that is is important, all important, that there should be no hesitation - no faltering and no delay upon the part of this Convention representing the sovereignty of South Carolina. [Applause.] Not only that this Convention should act promptly, but that the Ordinance of Secession should not be permitted to take effect in the future, [a voice "Never!"] but should take effect at once. [Loud and prolonged applause] Not that I believe there is the slightest doubt, gentlemen - no, for we have the fullest confidence in your determination, but that delay might have the semblance of hesitation - perhaps of faltering - on the part of South Carolina, and let out the idea that she is willing and ready and wished there should be some mediation on the part perhaps of Congress or some other States - border States - some mediation to settle this question, in order that the South and North might united. [Many voices: "Never!" "never!"] Therefore, in order that there should be no semblance whatever, no doubt that this separation, which is now a fixed fact, shall appear to the world as beyond all question - that there shall be no chance whatever that the bridges shall be cut off and burned for reunion - I am instructed by the Governor of Alabama to say he desires, and that his State desires, that the action of this Convention shall be immediate. [Applause] It will give the cause strength not only in Alabama, but in the other States united with her in sentiment.

Therefore, we desire the immediate action of the Convention; and I assure you, gentlemen, when your body speaks, just as soon as her body meets Alabama will also go out of the Union, and be prepared to stand by you, side by side in any issue which may come. [Applause]

Gentlemen, having thus announced to you my purpose and object here; having conferred pretty generally with many members of the Convention; having announced authoritatively to the Convention the object and purpose of my mission, and having told you the views and opinions of Alabama, I think I may here properly stop.

I believe the State of South Carolina is now inaugurating another system of liberty which will be consummated by the union of other Southern States. And I may well say in the language of Henry V., upon the fate of the battle of Dunkirk, "This is St. Crispin's day; he that outlives this day and gets safe home, will stand tip-toe when this day is ended." [Loud applause]
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
29,071
Location
Long Island, NY
#34
The commissioners from Alabama and Mississippi arrive to applause, and James Elmore, representing Alabama, is given the floor to speak. He's a former South Carolinian, interestingly.
This seems to have been pretty common. The secession commissioners often had some connection to the state they were going to, such as having lived there.

Of course, this goes against the notion that "a man's state was his country." These folks moved around.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,275
#36
the election of Mr. Lincoln, with the avowed declaration on his part, and that of the leaders of the Black Republican party, and of the Convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln, followed by his election, was an avowed declaration of war upon the institutions, the rights and the interests of the South.
Any idea what Mr. Elmore meant by "the institutions, the rights and the interests of the South"?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,364
Location
South Carolina
#38
A number of things stand out to me in Elmore's speech. Like South Carolina, Alabama has apparently already made up its mind to exit the Union, and it's just a question of waiting for the convention date to arrive to legally formalize the secession. Elmore invokes John C. Calhoun and his prediction that the North would cause a societal rupture, another bit of evidence that the complaints go much further back than Lincoln's election, as well as another example that the Southern leaders blamed the North. And Elmore has, unsurprisingly, a firm belief in the right of States to resume delegated powers. Indeed, without that right, there is no safeguard against tyranny, according to him. Each state must retain the right to unilaterally leave the Union.

"Although that right has been denied, yet I may say, without entering into the argument any farther, than that with this thing of States Rights, of which we and every man in the Union has talked since the foundation of the Government, would be a mere myth - a nonentity - if the right to resume the powers delegated did not belong to the States separately. Where would be the protection otherwise? "

And lastly, if the right to secede is denied, Elmore says that Alabama is ready to fight for it. South Carolina should act immediately, because it will strengthen support in other states if they do.
 
Last edited:

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
5,961
Location
Center Valley, PA
#39
Folks,
Please stay on the subject which is The South Carolina Secession convention, and not slavery, its definition, origin, connection to the South etc. Plenty of other threads to discuss slavery, whether slavery was the cause of the war, the motive for secession etc. This one is about the convention.


Any irrelevant post will be deleted. Repeated attempts to derail the thread will result in thread banning.

Posted as a moderator
 



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