Why was South Carolina the FIRST state to secede?

H

history4all

Guest
#1
Among all the southern cotton states which had similar issues with the union, why did South Carolina take the lead in being the first to declare secession? South Carolina was not the largest cotton producing state, it did not have the largest port, and it did not have the most slaves (although it had the largest percentage of slaves). Yet, going back to the Nullification Crisis on tariffs, South Carolina demonstrated a pattern of challenging the union on behalf of all southern states. What distinction makes South Carolina the leader on these actions?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
458
Location
Olivet, Michigan
#2
Among all the southern cotton states which had similar issues with the union, why did South Carolina take the lead in being the first to declare secession? South Carolina was not the largest cotton producing state, it did not have the largest port, and it did not have the most slaves (although it had the largest percentage of slaves). Yet, going back to the Nullification Crisis on tariffs, South Carolina demonstrated a pattern of challenging the union on behalf of all southern states. What distinction makes South Carolina the leader on these actions?
That might answer your question already. Secession had been threatened so many times before, usually as a means to force political compromise, but maybe they felt the time for compromise was passed. Just before secession, you have Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, the Republican party was becoming more powerful (a bad omen for many southerners), more abolitionists were speaking out on the evils on slavery, there was bitter fighting over the Fugitive slave act. This was a violent period, marked with much fighting both within the house chambers and out on the prairie- the general atmosphere made many southerners nervous about their way of life- and their economy. Can't cry wolf forever, at some point you have to put up or shut up.
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#3
South Carolina had been plotting secession long before the Civil war. previously they had no support from other slave states during the nullification Crises. S. Carolina was always the agitator and trouble maker. One resident described his state as "To small for a republic to large for an insane asylum."
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
503
Location
St. Louis
#4
But what is it in their state character? Even Texas has this fully independent mind set of Texas first, then the Union, even today. But they weren't as troublesome as SC.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
7,860
Location
Pipestem,WV
#5
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
5,721
Location
Kansas City
#7
But what is it in their state character? Even Texas has this fully independent mind set of Texas first, then the Union, even today. But they weren't as troublesome as SC.
"South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum." - James Pettirgru, 1861

That pretty much sums up the character of the state at the time, and could explain their actions.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,538
Location
Texas
#8
KeyserSoze said:
"South Carolina is too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum." - James Pettirgru, 1861

That pretty much sums up the character of the state at the time, and could explain their actions.
I think the question is... WHY?

Texas once WAS an independent nation. What is it about the pre-1830s history and/or culture of South Carolina that caused them to be at the forefront of nullification and then secession?
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,253
#9
It was because the ruling oligarchy of SC was the most reactionary and, historically, was the most reluctant of all all the states in joining the Union in the first place, and whose leaders were never reconciled to remaining in the Union.
As an aside, it was no accident that the states with the largest porportion of slaves to whites ratio, were the first to secede.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,146
Location
Laurinburg NC
#10
Among all the southern cotton states which had similar issues with the union, why did South Carolina take the lead in being the first to declare secession? South Carolina was not the largest cotton producing state, it did not have the largest port, and it did not have the most slaves (although it had the largest percentage of slaves). Yet, going back to the Nullification Crisis on tariffs, South Carolina demonstrated a pattern of challenging the union on behalf of all southern states. What distinction makes South Carolina the leader on these actions?
I think the fact that South Carolina was the third wealthiest state in 1860 (after Connecticut and Louisiana) had something to do with it. Certainly the policies of the Republican Party would have undermined the political ability of the slave states to protect their economic interests. South Carolina and the other Deep South states were not about to go bankrupt over policies that would take mega bucks from their wallets, but not a dime from the coffers of the ‘high minded states’ further north.

"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." Charles Dickens, 1862,
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,942
Location
South Carolina
#11
It was because the ruling oligarchy of SC was the most reactionary and, historically, was the most reluctant of all all the states in joining the Union in the first place, and whose leaders were never reconciled to remaining in the Union.
As an aside, it was no accident that the states with the largest porportion of slaves to whites ratio, were the first to secede.
Why were they reactionary? Was the state occupied by different people than the rest of the Union?

You state they were the most reluctant in joining the Union. I say that is false. NH, VA, NY, NC, RI, and VT, all ratified after SC.
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#13
Why were they reactionary? Was the state occupied by different people than the rest of the Union?

You state they were the most reluctant in joining the Union. I say that is false. NH, VA, NY, NC, RI, and VT, all ratified after SC.
You don't think that South Carolina was reactionary?

How about it's 1822 law imprisoning free black sailors while their ships were in port. A law that defied Federal law and international treaties and was struck down by Federal court in 1823 but S.Carolina continued the practice anyway.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,253
#14
As a general rule(especially in the history of gov'ts) the more wealth, the more reactionary, socially and economically, usually reflected politically, also.
SC ruling elite were a part of the oldest and wealthies class in American society and unlike most state and the most represented in their state gov't, i.e., the gov't of SC was was reflective of its leaders.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,929
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#15
"Will you suffer yourself to be spit upon in this way? Are you submissionists to the dictation of South Carolina...are you to be called cowards because you do not follow the crazy lead of that crazy state?Herald, Wilmington, North Carolina, to anti-secessionist North Carolinians early in 1861.

"The union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of "The United States of America," is hereby dissolved."
Ordinance of Secession, issued by delegates of the South Carolina Convention, December 20, 1860.

"If we wait for Alabama, we will wait eternally."
Lawrence Keitt, South Carolina congressman, letter to South Carolina representative W.P. Miles, arguing that their state should secede, October 3, 1860.

"The prospect before us in regard to our Slave Property, if we continue to remain in the Union, is nothing less than utter ruin."
J.B. Grimball, South Carolina landowner, diary entry, December 17, 1860.

"The Southern states ought to split this glorious Union and leave Old Lincoln to preside over the white n*i*g*g*e*r*s at the North."
C. L. Burn, South Carolina, 1860.

"Our cause is righteous and must prevail."
McGowan's Brigade, South Carolina volunteers, resolution, 1865 .
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#16
Alfred P. Aldrich South Carolina legislator speaking about secession,

"I do not believe the common people understand it, in fact, I know they do not understand it; But whoever waited for the common people when a great move was to be made? we must make the move and force them to follow. this is the way of all great revolutions and great achievements."

Aldrich to Hammond November 25,1860 Hammond papers,LC
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#17
Leonidas W. Spratt, South Carolina secession commisioner to Florida, January 7, 1861 speech to the Florida convention.

..."Two societies, one embodies the social principle that equality is the right of man; the other the social principle that equality is not the right of man, but the right of equals only.."
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
503
Location
St. Louis
#18
You don't think that South Carolina was reactionary?

How about it's 1822 law imprisoning free black sailors while their ships were in port. A law that defied Federal law and international treaties and was struck down by Federal court in 1823 but S.Carolina continued the practice anyway.
Source? Because I gotta read about this.
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#20
To the OP if you are genuinely interested in this subject I would highly recommend :The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina", by Manisha Sinha.
 



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