The secession movement in South Carolina, 1847-1852

Front matter

Class _]

Book

CoFfyiightF.

Preface

The i^eriod, 1847-1852, forms but a small part of the more than thirty-five years during which may be traced the course of events which found its logical fulfilment in the secession of South Carolina from the Union in 1860. Although limited in time and, in lliis thesis, restricted largely to one state, the disunion movement of this period possesses a unity and significance sufficient to warrant separate treatment. In its first phase it was primarily a Southern movement in opposition to the attempted prohibition of slavery in the territories acquired as a result of the Mexican War. It developed under the leadership of John C. Calhoun into an effort to unite the South in a demand for the e(|uality of the slave power within the Union or its independence without the Union. The difficulty of securing concerted action on the part of the slave holding states was demonstrated by the failure of tlie Nashville Convention, which, however, but for the Compromise of 1850, might have been, as Robert Barnwell Rhett believed it would be, "the beginning of a revolution."

In this first phase South Carolina had played an important l)ut not too conspicuous part. In the second phase she openly demanded the rejection of tlie Compromise and the dissolution of the Union. Her disunion majority, however, was split into two factions: one demanding the secession of South Carolina alone from the Union; the other advocating disunion, but only in cooperation with other Southern states. The victory of the latter faction and the acceptance of the Compromise by the other states prevented any precipitate secession.

The failure of the secession movement left South Carolina in 1852 still within the Union, but rather from necessity than

ni.

from choice. A decade earlier than the other states of the South she was convinced that negro slavery and the interests of the Southern states which were dependent upon that institution were threatened with destruction by a continuance of the political connection between the slave holdino- and the non-slave holding sectio7is of the Union. That South Carolina did not secede in 18r)2, or even a year or two earlier, was due solely to the fact that she could not confidently expect even the cotton states to join her iu the formation of a Southern confederacy. She remained within the rnioa until thest> states by 1800 had advanced ro her |)Osition.

It is perhaps unnecessary to say that I have attempted to frcal imj^artially this period in ihe history of my state. 1 (-annot refrain, liowever, from expressing; here mj' keen admiration for that handful of hravr imMi ulio. l.il by Joel K. Poinsetl. James J.i0uis Petigni. and insijamin F. l*erry, in this period of extreme sectional hatred and j^ariisan strife remained true and loyal defenders of the I'nion.

T wish to express m\' indebtedness to Professor \V. K. Boyd of Trinity College at whose suggestion and under whose direetifui tliis study was begun. I am also indebted to Dean Herman V. Ames, uiider whose guidance the major part of my graduate work has been done, and to Professor A. E. McKinley, of the Craduate School of the University of Pennsylvania, for their reading and helpful criticism of the manuscript.

An article l)y Professor C-. S. Boucher, "The Secessi(m and Co-Operation Movements in South Carolina, 1848 to isr)2,'' iii the W(i!<}iiuritoii Unircrsih/ Studirs, Vol. V, No. 2, appeared oidy after tlie eompleiion of the manuscript of this thesis and ha;^ (onsetiueutly been of no aid in its preparation.

P. M. H.

M^Y, 19 IB

IV.

CONTENTS oVo

PAGE

Chaptei' 1. Tlie Wilmot Pi'oviso and the Campaign of

1848 1

Chapter III. The Nashville Convention 38

( 'iuipic;- I \'. The Compromise Rejecled 62

Chajnei" V. Secession Advocated 84

Chapter VI. Tlie Campaifrn and Election of 1851 102

Chapter VII. TIk^ State Convention 120

Chapter I

"Nullification has done its work," wrote James L. Petigru, a leader of the South Carolina Unionists, in 1833; "it has prepared the minds of men for a separation of the States, and when the question is mooted again it will be distinctly union or disunion. ' ' ^ Thirteen years later the United States was at war with Mexico, and the prospect of securing additional territory from that country led to the raising of the question which Peti gru had foreseen. President Polk asked Congress for an appropriation of two million dollars to be used -by him in securing an adjustment of the boundary with Mexico, and a bill for this purpose was introduced into the House. On August 8, 1846, David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, precipitated the sectional conflict by moving as an amendment to this bill a proviso prohibiting slavery in any territory that might be acciuired from Mexico. 2 The House accepted the proviso and passed the bill thus amended, but the session came to an end before a vote could be taken in the Senate.

In South Carolina little attention was paid at first to the proviso. A few of the newspapers were mildly alarmed. The Camden Journal ^ saw indications of a coming struggle which would convulse the Union; the Greenville Mountaineer* feared that territorial conquests would raise issues vital to the exist-

1 J. L. Petigru to H. S. Legare, July 15, 1833, in J, B. Allston, "Life and Times of James L. Petigru," in Chas. Sunday News, June 3, 1900. 'Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1217. » Quoted in Pendleton Messenger, Oct. 16, 1846. * Oct. 30, Nov. 13, 1846.

ence of every Southern state ; and the Pendleton Messenger,^ reputed to be Calhoun's organ, though at first inclined to dismiss the AVilmot Proviso with the opinion that it would have failed in the Senate and ought to have done so, declared a little later, in view of the general disposition of both parties in the North to court the abolitionists, that beyond the Missouri Compromise line the South would not yield an inch. These were but scattered warnings. Even in the South Carolina legislature, which was in session during November and December, 1846, the question of slavery extension into the territories caused no discussion.

Congress reassembled in December, and within the next few weeks it became clear that the principle of the Wilmot Proviso had received the indorsement of the people of both parties in the North and would be insisted upon by their representatives in Congress. The realization of this caused alarm in the South. The gravity of the situation appeared so great to John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina and foremost champion of slavery, that he wrote: "What is to come of all this, time only can disclose. The present indication is, that the South will bo united in opposition to the Scheme. If they regard their safety they must defeat it even should the Union be rent asunder. . . . We never had a darker or more uncertain future before us."* Yet Calhoun thought that the contest would not arise until the expected territory should actually be acquired. This likewise was the view of South Carolina's most influential state rights paper, the Charleston Mercury, which declared that the South would firmly insist upon her fair share of the proposed acquisition. "^

'Calhoun to Mrs. T. G. Clemson, Dec. 27, 1846, €alhoun Correspondence, 716.

, ' A settlement of the question of slavery in the territories along the line of that made by the Missouri Compromise would, at this time at least, have been satisfactory to South Carolina. ^ But the defeat of an amendment to the Oregon territorial bill, proposed by Representative Burt of South Carolina, which would have committed Congress to this principle, ^ and the adoption by the House for the second time of the Wilmot Proviso, ^° convinced the press of the state that any division of the spoils of war between the two sections would not willingly be granted by the North. A storm was brewing, they warned their readers, which would shake the Union to its centre ; the Republic was in danger ; the ruin of the South had been decreed, and she must be prepared to meet the issue. ".

Calhoun had been ' ' waiting for developments. ' ' On February 19, 1847, four days after the House had adopted the Wilmot Proviso for the second time, he presented in the Senate his views on the question at issue in the form of a series of resolutions prefaced by a speech in which he denounced the proviso and called upon the South to resist. His resolutions, soon termed "The Platform of the South ' ', were as follows : —

"Besolved, That the territories of the United States belong to the several States composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and common property.

"Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and representative of the States of this Union, has no right to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly, or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States of this Union, by

8 Chas. Evening News, quoted in Pendleton Messenger, Jan. 29, 1847; Greenville Mountaineer, Jan. 22, 1847; Pendleton Messenger, Jan. 22, 1847; Mercury, Feb. 20, 1847.

» Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 187.

" Pendleton Messenger, Jan. 1, 1847 ; Chas. Evening News quoted in ibid., Jan. 15, 1847; Mercury, Dec. 24, 1846, Feb. 9, 24, 1847.

which any of them shall be deprived of its full and equal rights in any territory of the United States acquired or to be acquired.

"Resolved, That the enactment of any law which should directly, or by its eflfects, deprive the citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating, with their property, into any of the territories of the United States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore, be a violation of the Constitution, and the rights of the States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union itself.

"Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional right to form and adopt the government which they may think best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness ; and that, in conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the Federal Constitution on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that its Constitution shall be republican ; and that the imposition of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which our political system rests." ^-

Calhoun did not press his resolutions to a vote as he had planned. The principles they asserted were intended to form the constitutional basis for Southern opposition to the Wilmot Proviso, and for this purpose the presentation of the resolutions in the Senate was sufficient. A few days after their introduction the Senate rejected the Wilmot Proviso ; the House receded from its position ; and the adjournment of Congress postponed for the time being the threatened sectional conflict. There could be no doubt, however, that the effort to prevent the further ex-

'" Calhoun, Works, IV, 348; Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 455.

pansion of slavery would be renewed. The speeches of Northern representatives in Congress, the agitation of the question in the newspapers of the North, and the approval of the Wilmot Proviso by the people of the non-slaveholding states, expressed in the resolutions of public meetings and of state legislatures, were sufficient evidence of this.

On the side of the South the first state to take an official position was Virginia. On March 8, 1847, her legislature adopted resolutions which expressed, even to a certain extent in the same words, the doctrine of Calhoun's resolutions regarding the rights of the states in the territories. In addition they asserted the determination of the people of Virginia, should the adoption and attempted enforcement of the Wilmot Proviso force the issue upon them, determinedly to resist ' ' at all hazards and to the last extremity." They called upon every man, in every section of the country, if the Union were dear to him, to oppose the passage of the proviso ; and, in the event of its passage, they urged every slaveholding state and all citizens thereof, as they valued ''their dearest privileges, their sovereignty, their independence, their rights of property, to take firm, united and concerted action in this emergency." ^'^

In South Carolina the newspapers vigorously denounced the Wilmot Proviso, and urged the South to speak out in defense of her rights. As was to be expected, the resolutions of Calhoun and of Virginia met with a decided approbation. On the evening of March 9th, an enthusiastic meeting of the citizens of Charleston was held to welcome Calhoun who was in the city on his way home from Washington. The resolutions adopted by the meeting reiterated verbatim the Virginia resolutions; asserted that the question at issue was paramount to all considerations of party and temporary policy ; and declared that

^^Laws of Virginia, 1846-47, 236; H. V. Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, 245-247.

submission to the proposed exclusion of slavery, beyond what had already been yielded by the Missouri Compromise, "would be unwise, dangerous, dishonorable, and debasing." A report accompanying these resolutions expressed the conviction of the citizens of Charleston that the developments of the past year required "the most grave and earnest consideration of the whole people of the slaveholding States." The introduction of the Wilmot Proviso and its acceptance by the House in August, 1846, the passage by the House of the Oregon bill without the Missouri Compromise and with the Wilmot Proviso, the second passage of this proviso in the House during the last session of Congress, the whole temper of the Northern press, both Whig and Democratic, in sustaining this action, and the resolutions of the legislatures of nine Northern states denouncing slavery and protesting against its further extension, convinced them of the fixed determination on the part of the non-slaveholding states that slavery was not to be allowed to exist in any of the territories of the United States and that no other slave state would be admitted to the Union. The report furthermore asserted that slavery must be preserved or the South would be ruined, and that to preserve slavery the South must jealously watch her rights under the Constitution, insist upon her proportionate influence intended by the compromises of that compact, and above all must maintain at all hazards her equality in the Union. ^*

Calhoun, addressing this assembly, declared it his conviction that a large majority of both parties in the non-slaveholding states were determined to appropriate to themselves all existing and future territories of the United States. Anti-slavery sentiment, he said, was growing, and he was convinced that unless the South met the issue promptly and decidedly, the two sections

" Calhoim to Duff Green, Mar. 9, 1847, and to T. G. Clemson, Mar. 19, 1847, Calhoun Correspondence, 718, 720; Mercury, Mar. 10, 1847.

of the Union would soon become so thoroughly alienated that no course would be left to the South but abject submission to abolition or a severance of the bonds of the Union. The action that he urged upon the South was the destruction of all party distinctions and the formation of one Southern party having as its sole object the defense of slavery. Such a party Calhoun believed would hold the balance of power in the nation, be able then to put a stop to anti-slavery agitation, and thus save slavery and save the Union. ^^

Though Calhoun not only hoped but expected that the slavery agitation would break up the old party organizations, ^° the time for this had not yet come. Outside of South Carolina both parties were strong, and while the proposal of a Southern party met with some approval, the majority of the people of the South considered the existing party system sufficient for the protection of Southern interests. Even within South Carolina, where the Whig party was insignificant and Calhoun's influence was paramount, there were some who realized that the formation of a Southern party on the slavery issue would force the North to do the same and thereby destroy those bonds of party which yet aided in holding the two sections together. Calhoun they suspected of presidential aspirations, and his Charleston speech they privately declared to be a bid for the vote of the South. Ex-Governor James H. Hammond, nullifier and long an advocate of disunion, feared that outside of South Carolina this would be so clear that "our cause" would be thrown back. Virginia has started the ball, he wrote to William Gilmore Simms, and, as the state best able to rally the South and lead to victory, she should be kept in the lead. ' ' South Carolina under present

"Calhoun, Works, IV, 382-396.

" Calhoun to T. G. Clemson, July 8, 24, 1847, Calhoun Correspondence,

735, 736.

auspices," he continued, "can do nothing if she puts herself foremost but divide the South and insure disastrous defeat." ^^

During the summer of 1847 Calhoun 's friends in Charleston directed their efforts towards arousing the South. An extra edition of the Mercury containing the Wilmot Proviso, the resolutions of ten Northern states favoring it, the Virginia resolutions and the Charleston resolutions opposing it, and a leading editorial by Franklin H. Elmore, President of the South Carolina State Bank, was widely distributed in the slaveholding states. Efforts were made towards the establishment of a Southern press at Washington. Letters and subscription lists, soliciting support for this enterprise, were circulated, but except from Charleston and its vicinity little financial aid was received. ^^ The Mercury took the lead in the newspaper agitation and urged the South to make clear to the North its determination to meet the issue, should it be presented, on the forum or on the battle field. ^® The agitation directed from South Carolina was not without its effect. Throughout the South various papers began to take alarm, and the old proposal of a Southern convention was again advanced. It was not, however, until a number of papers in various Southern states had urged the assembling of such a convention that the Mercury, wisely having thought it best "that the initiative for the attainment of this great object should be taken by others," gave its specific approval to the suggestion. 20

Calhoun, in his private correspondence, was doing his part

"Hammond to Simms, Mar. 21, Apr. I, 1847; Simms to Hammond, May 1, 1847, Hammond MSS.

"H, W. Conner to Calhoun, Aug. 23, 1847, Calhoun Correspondence, 1128; I. W. Hayne to James H. Hammond, Mar. 31, 1847; I. W. Hayne to Soule, Aug. 25, 1847; A. P. Aldrieh to Hammond, Aug. 30, 1847, Hammond MSS.

19 Mercury, Aug. 9, 1847, and issues of August and September, passim.

The Wilmot Proviso and the Campaign op 1848 9

to promote unity at the South in defense of slavery. In this connection it is important to note his opinion of the question of slavery in the territories as expressed in a conversation with President Polk in December, 1846. He agreed with Polk that slavery probably never would exist in the territories that were to be acquired from Mexico. He further stated, if Polk's account may be accepted as correct, that he did not desire to extend slavery, but that the attempt to prohibit slavery in the territories would involve a principle against which he would vote. -^ Calhoun evidently changed his mind about the possibility of the existence of slavery in the South-west, and he certainly did desire its extension, '^or the fact that the Northern section of the union was outstripping the Southern was his chief grievance and the chief cause for his fear that the South would soon be unable to protect slavery within the Union. \ But it is true that he attached less importance to the Wilmot Proviso per se than numerous others who took part in the Southern movement of this period. At least he took a broader view of the controversy between North and South ; he considered the Wilmot Proviso but one of the numerous issues affecting slavery which should be settled; and he looked more to the ultimate political than economic results of its adoption. It is not too much to say that the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso gave to Calhoun the opportunity of forcing the whole issue of slavery upon the North. If he had not desired it and did not w^elcome it, at least he was not slow in seizing it.

Nothing makes clearer the position that Calhoun took in 1847, and furnishes a better key to an understanding of his activities and his purposes during the next three and final years of his life, than a letter he wrote at this period to a member of the Alabama legislature. In reply to a request for his opinion as to

"James K. Polk, Diary, II., 283-284.

what steps should be taken to guard the rights of the South, Calhoun wrote: "I am much gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur entirely in the view you express, that instead of shunning, we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is our duty — due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be

dangerous indeed Such has been my opinion from the first.

Had the South, or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the

South acts as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso may be made

the occasion of successfully asserting our equality and rights, by

enabling us to force the issue on the North But in making

up this issue, we must look far beyond the Proviso. It is but one of many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and palpable With this impression, I would regard any compromise or adjustment of the Proviso, or even its defeat, without meeting the danger in its whole length and breadth, as very unfortunate for us. It would lull us to sleep without removing the danger, or materially diminishing it." The letter then continued with a denunciation of the personal liberty laws of Northern states, and anti-slavery agitation in all its phases. Coming to the consideration of how the whole question could be met "without resorting to a dissolution of the Union," a measure which should be used only as a last resort, Calhoun proposed retaliation on the part of the South by a refusal to fulfill the constitutional stipulations in favor of the Northern states.

Specifically he suggested the exclusion of Northern ships and commerce from Southern ports. To give force to such measures and to make up the issue, he urged a convention of the slaveholding states. -' The idea of commercial retaliation was similarly urged upon his Charleston friends, in a letter to them approving the plan then under consideration, but soon temporarily abandoned, of organizing the South into Southern Rights Associations. ^^

While Calhoun was thus considering the measures that should be adopted by a Southern convention, in South Carolina a further impetus to the agitation against the Wilmot Proviso was given by public meetings held in all sections of the state. The first of these, at Edgefield Court House early in September, adopted the Virginia resolutions and expressed a willingness to cooperate with the Southern states in averting injustice and resisting aggression. -* A meeting at Darlington on October 4th declared that the South should make no concession beyond the Missouri Compromise line; it deemed the Union as dust in the balance if its preservation required submission to the Wilmot Proviso ; and it demanded that the Southern representatives in Congress, upon the adoption of this proviso, leave their seats and return home. '^ In Anderson a resolution was adopted urging the South Carolina legislature to request the representatives of the state in Congress to retire from their seats, should the proviso pass, and return home to consult regarding measures

" This letter, without date and without the name of the addressee, is given by Benton iu his Thirty Years Vieic, II, 698-700. Extracts, with minor changes in wording, also printed iu J. W. DuBose, Life of Yancey, 200-201. For the idea of forcing the issue, cf. J. H. Hammond to W. G. Simms, Nov. 17, 1848, ' * The Wilmot Proviso issue as I told you at the first was the weakest of all we could have made the fight on. ' ' Hammond MSS.

"Letter dated Sept. 28, 1847, published in Mercury, May 5, 1851.

" Hamburg Journal, quoted in Pendleton Messenger, Sept. 24, 1847.

for the protection of the shiveholding states. ^^' The people of Laurens professed a devotion to the Union, but at the same time pledged resistance to the Wilmot Proviso "although a dissolution of the Union be the result." -' A Greenville meeting adopted resolutions substantially those of the Virginia legislature. ^^ The planters of Edisto Island declared for "i-esistance in the most effective mode, ' ' ^" and those of Georgetown pledged their cooperation in such defensive measures as aggression should compel. ^"

Though for the most part these meetings, of whicli the above are representative, were unanimous in demanding resistance to the Wilmot Proviso, few of them outlined any definite measures of resistance. And when they advocated resistance by the united South, they did not specifically outline the means by which this might be accomplished. But a meeting on November 2nd in Pickens District, in which was located Fort Hill, Calhoun's home, made definite and elaborate proposals, save as to the final action to be taken should all other action fail. Calhoun apparently took no part in the proceedings, but tlie resolutions adopted express exactly his position at this time. They denounced not onl.y the Wilmot Proviso but also the action of Pennsylvania and other Northern states in preventing the execution of the fugitive-slave law, and they proposed action by the South along three general lines. They urged first, the removal of party considerations, the establishment of a Southern press at Washington, opposition to any presidential candidate not openly opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, the refusal to enter into caucus or convention with those favorable to the proviso, and the

'" Greenville Mouniainccr, Oct. 29, 1847.

^ Winyah Observer (Georgetown), Nov. 10, 1847.

calling of a convention of the Southern states to unite the South for common action along these lines. In the event of the failure of these milder measures they proposed a second step — the setting aside of the constitutional provisions favorable to the Northern states and epecially the exclusion of their ships and commerce from Southern harbors. Should this likewise fail, the resolutions of this meeting declared, "we stand prepared to throw the responsibility on our assailants, and take the final remedy into our own bauds, without fear that we in the end will be the greatest sufferers. ' ' ^^

In the up-country one of the most active leaders in opposition to the Wilmot Proviso was Benjamin F. Perry. In nullification days Perry had been a Unionist. Because of this fact and because of his later opposition to secession, his attitude towards the proviso is worthy of careful notice. In a speech at the Pickens meeting he declared that the question raised by the Wilmot Proviso was one of life or death, and that its passage would be "tantamount to a dissolution of the Union." Out of the country to be acquired from Mexico perhaps ten or fifteen states would be formed, and the effects of the Wilmot Proviso, he thought, would be to draw a cordon of free states about the slaveholding country, cut off all outlet for property in slaves, and make that property, as it increased, valueless and a fatal nuisance to the South. Perry was speaking in that district of South Carolina which contained the smallest proportion of slaves and the greatest proportion of non-slaveholders of any district in the state. The men assembled at this meeting did not perhaps feel themselves vitally interested in the question of slavery extension, but they did possess their full share of prejudice against the black race. To this prejudice Perry directed an appeal frequently met with in the speeches delivered in this section of the

^ Pendleton Messenger, Nov. 12, 1847.

state. He declared that the avowed spirit of abolition was to make the negro not only free "but the equal of his master. . . .He is to go with him to the polls and vote, to serve on juries, appear in court as a party and a witness. He is to meet the white man as an equal and visit his family, inter-marry with his children and form one society and one family ! " To defeat this spirit of abolition in the North and to save the Union the speaker proposed that a convention of the slaveholding states be held during the coming winter. It would show to the North the real temper of the South on this question, he thought, and exert a controlling influence on congress. "Let them speak firmly, coolly and dispassionately, ' ' he said, ' ' and declare that any interference on the part of the Federal Government with slave property will be the cause of an immediate dissolution of this great and hitherto glorious Union .... The voice of a single State may not be heeded but when the whole South speaks, her admonition will and must be respected. ' ' ^^