Some Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 By ROBERT ROYAL RUSSEL M. A., University of Kansas, 1915 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HISTORY IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, 1922 URBANA, ILLINOIS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 \ https://archive.org/details/someeconomicaspeOOruss / 3 Ja i 3 iAP . . Some Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 By ROBERT ROYAL RUSSEL M. A., University of Kansas, 1915 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HISTORY IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, 1922 URBANA, ILLINOIS ■ : M f|- TABLE OF COiTTEETS Chapter Page Preface - -- -- -- -- -- — - — — — - - - — _ Y Introduction: The Bases of Southern Sectionalism - — - - vi I Agitation in Favor of Direct Trade with Europe, 1837-1839 - 1 II Agitation in Favor of the Establishment of Cotton Manufact- ures, 1840-1852 — - - - — - -- 22 III The Relation of Economic Discontent to the Southern Move- ment, to 1852 — _ — — _ _ 57 IV Discussion of Plans for Establishing Direct Trade with Europe, 1847-1860 — - — - — 87 7 The Southern Commercial Convention, 1852-1859 - 120 VI Attitude of the Southern People toward Protective Tariffs and State and Local Measures to Encourage Industry, 1840-1860- - -- -- -- - -- -- — ____ _ __ 154 “ II j-ne Relation of — ccnomic Discontent to the Disunion Move— VIII IS X ment , 1852-1860- - — — - — — - — _____ ]_Q7 factors which Tended to Allay Economic Discontent in the South, 1850-1860 - - - — _ _ 208 evidences ox economic Motives for Southern Sectionalism dur- ing the Secession of the Cotton States, 1860-1861 — - - 244 Evidences of Economic Motives for Southern Sectionalism in the Formulation of the Early Economic Policies of the Confederacy and in the Decision of the Border Slave States-270 -RRFACE '■’ lle ail3J ' eot cf «.ia thesis was suggested to me while I was preparing a ■taster’s thesis on the subject, Early Projects for a Railroad to tie Pacific, under the direction of Professor F. H. Rodder, of the University of Innsas. The prepara- tion of the study was begun, 1916, -under the supervision of Professors 3. B. Oreene and A. 0. Cole and completed under the surervision of Professor I. 0. Pease, of the University of Illinois. I an indebted to each of these men for very valuable crit- icisms and suggestions. I alone am responsible for all errors of fact and all er- rone on s conclusions. The unity of the work has suffered somewhat from frequent interruptions in its preparation. The lack of time has prevented the utilisation of much avail- ; P-per, paupnlet, -aid manuscript material of considerable value. The works naued In the bibliography and footnotes were found, with a few exceptions, in the ibrary of the University of Illinois., or ths .library of Congress. In view of ths fact that this thesis deals with matters which even today, in a measure, arouse tha passions of men, a statement of the author's antecedents may not be irrelevant. I am a Kansan by birth end continued residence. Hy father ■■as bom in Kentucky; one of his parents had e®e from Pennsylvania, the other from ennessee. They migrated to Illinois and tttmee to Kansas Shortly after the Civil ar, whale my father was a lad. %■ mother’s parents, who seem to have sympathized ■■ith the north, brought her virile still a child to Kansas London, England. Robert R» Russel* . , Introducti^: The Bases of_ Southern Sectionalism. The most significant fact of American history from about 1820 to 1875, at least, was sectionalism. The section which was at all timos most clearly de- fined mas the South . The tens .South , however, did not have the seme connotation at all timee and to all men. Until about 184? the term Southwest was frequently employed, especially in the East, to designate a vast region including all the then settled portions of the Mississippi valley. The word South was, prior to that date, more commonly applied only to the South Atlantic states. The states of the lower Mississippi valley were gradually brought under the term as slave- holding was more and more made to stand out as the chief eharacterietic of the section, and as economic end social organization and conditions generally in the states mentioned approximated those in the old South and differentiated from those of the states of the upper part of the valley. For Southern sectionalism had bases in several distinctive features. Foremost was the existence of slavery. For reasons, chiefly geographical, slavery had never flourished in colonial days above Mason and Dixon's Line as it bed below it; and the institution had been abolished there during or shortly after the Revolutionary War. Into the Old Northwest, also, slavery had not been extended; while into Kentucky and Missouri and the region to the south, it had Eone, in the same form as in the South Atlantic states. To be sure, the slave population was not evenly distributed throughout tbs South. The vast majority Of the slaves were to be found in the eo-oalled black belts, which corresponded roughly to the areas best adapted to the cultivation of cotton, tobaoco, sugar cans, rice, and hemp-there the plantation prevailed over the farm-and the con- centration became mere pronounced as the Civil War approached. Outside the black belts the south was upon an essentially free-labor basis, and farming predomina- ted over planting. But the eleveh.ldi„ g planters „„ the ^ South society; the peopl6 of the fMming districtg had ^ - th6y f0U " d "■*»*« the^ W' 8 Products chiefly in the ■ •: ■ i » vii regions. The institution of slavery came to be regarded as absolutely essential to Southern prosperity. Consequently Southern men defended it as right, shaped their political policies to protect it and secure its extension, and demanded that attacks upon it cease. There was basis for sectionalism, also, in divergent economic interests and conditions. To what extent the divergence was due to geography, to what extent due to other factors, including social organization, it is not necessary here to inquire. The planting states, however, were engaged chiefly in the production of a few great staples, cotton, tobacco, and sugar, not produced in other states of the Union. Of these staples only a small proportion was consumed at home; much the greater part was exported either to the North or to Europe. The portion ex- ported abroad constituted considerably more than half the nation* s total exports. Manufacturing and mining had made, and were making during the period under sur- vey, little progress in the South compared with the same industries in other sections. The exports of the South were exchanged in part for agricultural pro- ducts of the West but chiefly for manufactured goods of the East or Europe. The ocean commerce of the South, whether coast-wise or foreign, was carried almost altogether in Northern or European vessels; foreign goods for Southern consumption J caDie largely by way of Northern ports. Only a small percentage of the Southern population was urban; the cities and towns of the section were few and small com- pared with those of the East or even those of the growing Northwest. The banking capital of the country was largely concentrated in the East. The South was not financially independent. The divergent eoonomic interests occasioned advocacy of different policies, on the part of the Federal government, as regards tariff, taxation, navigation laws, and the amount and objects of government expenditures. The disparity of the sections in industry and commerce was to many Southerners an evidence of lack of prosperity in the South commensurate with that of the North and consequently, was a cause of dissatisfaction, and was galling to Southern ' '(• ■ • 1 ’ • ' : ► v ■ . • ■> v -*> * . . . ■ • viii pride. The causes of Southern "decline” were sought for; it was variously attri- buted to geography and climate, qualities of the people, misdirection of private enterprise, mistaken policies of the state and local governments, and the unequal operation of the Federal government, but not, generally, to slavery. Remedies were proposed, corresponding roughly to the causes, as analyzed. Other bases for sectionalism were of much less importance. Because of early j conditions of settlement, and, especially, because later immigration was mostly into the non-slaveholding states, there were slight differences in the racial types of the sections. The sparsity of population and the social organization in the South were accountable for backwardness in general education and cultural development. Sarly conditions of settlement, agricultural pursuits, slavery and the plantation system, and sparsity of population largely explain the variation from other sections in political ideals and methods. It is the purpose of this study to attempt to discover to what extent Southern sectionalism had its basis in divergent economic interests and condi- tions. The study is primarily a study of public opinion. It will require an examination of the opinions of Southern men as to the divergence of economic in- terests and the extent of the disparity of economic development in the sections, the causes of suoh disparity, and the proper remedies therefor. Actual economic conditions and changes will be described and explained only in so far as such de- scription and explanation are essential to an understanding of Southern public opinion. It is hoped, however, that incidentally some additional light may be thrown upon the economic st atus , of the ante-bellum South, and some conclusions may be drawn as to the justification for Southern discontent. Frequent references will of necessity be made to the sectional quarrel over slavery; and the attempt will be made to maintain proper proportion between the minor aspects of sectional- ism herein treated and the major issue of the sectional struggle. In seeking to analyze Southern opinion relative to the matters mentioned » ■ • - . “ * * ' . . ■ . . ix above, several movements in behalf of the economic regeneration of the South will be described, and the accompanying discussion examined. Evidence of economic dis- content can be found in the discussion of some of the outstanding political ques- tions of the day; and euch bodies of discussion will, therefore, be analyzed. In the years 1837-1839 a number of direct trade conventions held in the South Atlan- tic states gave earnest consideration to direct trade with Europe as a remedy for Southern decline. During the 1840's, especially the latter half of the decade, there was much discussion of the practicability and desirability of developing manufactures in the South, especially cotton manufactures. The political crisis of the years 1847-1852 furnished the occasion for considerable consideration of the economic relations of the sections. During the l850’s direct trade with Eu- rope wee almost constantly a subject before the public. Between 1852 and 1859 a series of Southern commercial conventions met in various cities of the South, whose original object was to deviee measures for effecting the economic regenera- tion of the section. The tariff question was not dead during the period studied; and during the 1850-s policies of state and local protection of industry were proposed and discussed. The agitation of the late fifties in behalf of secession, as well as the movement for the revival of the foreign slave trade,of the same period, gave evidence of discontent with the economic position of the South. Finally every phase of Southern sectionalism was brought out by the actual disso- lution of the Union end the necessity of inaugurating- Confederate governmental policies. Time and the scope of this wo rip have not permitted adequate considera- tion of the sectional bearings of two important problems of the ante-bellum South, namely, the building of railroads, especially into the Northwest and to the Paci- fic, and the establishment of a satisfactory banking and credit system. 1 It is not believed that the omissions will vitiate the conclusions reached in any mater- ial degree. The period covered_b y _this.study_has.been_rather arbitrarily limited, not included. Early Projects" for n h p *’! lllr0 * d P rofcleia ka8 been prepared but is published master' s ?hesii of t^ autho“ C Railr °^ *“ the sub ^ ° f - »»- ' ■ < . ' , '♦ :>i ■ . * i . i „ . . . T •A CHAPTER I. Agitation in Favor of Direct Trade with Europe . 1837-1839. In colonial days the exports and inports of the Southern colonies com- pared very favorably in amount with those of the Northern; but shortly after independence from Great Britain was achieved, it became apparent that the im- porting business of the nation was being concentrated in Northern ports. As the years went by the concentration became more and more pronounced. while the exports of the staple producing states grew at a phenomenal rate, the value of the imports into Southern ports remained almost stationary or grew very slowly. This was particularly true in the case of the Atlantic ports. In the case of New Orleans, for long almost the sole outlet for the commerce of the rapidly filling Mississippi valley, there was early in the last century phenom- enal increase in both exports and inports; but after about 1835 the latter in- creased very slowly, while the former continued to grow at the same remarkable rate. Prior to the Civil War the imports of the Northern states greatly exceed- ed their exports. In the Southern states, the reverse was the case. A compari- son of the exports from all Southern ports with those from all Northern ports shows that after about 1830 the former always exceeded, and sometimes greatly exceeded, the latter. The imports of the Southern ports, however, were only a fraction of the imports of Northern ports, and became proportionally less as the 1 years went by. If the growing superiority of the North in population be remem- bered, and the comparison be made on the basis of population, the disparity is still striking. It indicates that either the people of the South did not consume their proportionate share of the nation* s imports, or that Northern merchants imported largely on Southern account, or both. 1. See appendix, table I. ' 2 A study of the growth of population of Northern and Southern seaports like- wise reveals a growing disparity in favor of the former. 2 The ante-bellum South had no large and growing ports except New Orleans and Baltimore, the latter of which was on the line between the two sections. The available statistics of the shipping built or owned in the two sections again reveals a disparity in favor of the North as great or greater than that in the value of imports or the population of the seaports. If the comparison be limited to vessels engaged in the foreign trade, it is even more to the advantage of the North. -1 These facts would seem to indicate that the foreign commerce of the Southern states was carried largely in Northern or foreign vessels, and that the coasting trade of the South, if large, must have been conducted largely in Northern vessels. The comparative growth of Northern and Southern seaports, the tendency to concentration of the importing business of the United States in Northern cities, especially New York, and the disparity between the shipping industries of the two sections, in short the "commercial dependence" of the South upon the North, were matters which received considerable attention in the ante-bellum South, not only from citizens of the seaports themselves but from the section as a whole. Southern men quite generally looked upon commercial dependence as an evidence of the failure of the South to prosper as it should. They gave consideration to the relation of commercial dependence to the comparatively slow accumulation of mov- able capital in the South and to the inadequacy of credit facilities, because of which they were handicapped in their efforts to construct internal improvements and to develop the varied resources of the section. They canvassed commercial dependence as a cause for the slov/er increase of population in tne South than in 2. See appendix, table II. 3 » See appendix, table III. • ' • • -V • H , . \ • « * » * . . - .. » , * , 3 the North — a matter of much concern because of its bearing upon the sectional struggle over slavery. The causes of commercial dependence were sought, there- fore, and efforts were made to devise and apply remedies. The whole subject was first thoroughly discussed and the first efforts made to effect a revolution in the manner of conducting Southern commerce by a number of direct trade conventions which met in Georgia, South Carolina, end Virginia in 1837, 1838, and l839» The first suggestion that an effort be made to restore direct trade with Europe seems to have been made in 1836 by William Dearing, a banker, of Athens, Georgia.^ While the financial crash of 1837 deranged the currency, exchange, end credit operations of the country, it seems not to have affected the old South as disastrously at first as it did other sections of the Union.-' It was seized upon as affording a good opportunity for attempting to effect the establishment of direct trade and a change in the method of marketing cotton. William Dearing and other gentlemen of Athens issued a call for a con- vention to meet in Augusta in October, 1837- The call stated that a crisis had arrived in the commercial affairs of the South and Southwest, "the most favorable that has occurred since the formation of the American government, to attempt a new organization of our commercial relations with Europe/*. 6 The first Augusta convention was followed in April and October, 1838, by a second end a third end, in April 1839, by a fourth, in Charleston. Each of this series of conventions was composed of from one hundred to two hundred delegates, elected by local meetings. The great majority in each case were from Georgia and South Carolina, but there were scattering representatives from North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida Territory; and an attempt ** ' BSfUA'fc-y > LV, 43,188. The delegates of the third Augusta convention presented William Dearing with a silver cup in recognition of his part in inaug- urating the direct trade conventions. 5« Charleston Courier. Oct. 7, 1837. 6. Ibid .. Aug. 14, 1837. - * - 4 was made to enlist as many Southern states as possible. Although the state rights, anti -tariff men gave tone to the proceedings, the conventions were bi- partisan in composition; they were not got up for partisan purposes; and party politics played a minor part in their deliberations. Among the deligates were bankers, merchants, and planters, as well as men active in politics. The lists of deligates included such well known names as Robert Y. Hayne, A. P. Hayne, George McDuffie, James Hamilton, Ker Boyce, James Gadsden, Colonel Blanding, F. H. Elmore, H. S. Legare', J. H. Hammond, J. E. and J. A. Calhoun, Chancellor Hur>er, and C. fi. Memminger, of South Carolina, Thomas Butler King, A. H. Stephan* George W. Crawford, J. M. Berrien, 0. B. Lamar, Judge A. B. Longetreet, Aebury Hull, and Joseph H. Lumpkin, of Georgia, A. J. Pickett, of Alabama, end Spencer Jarnaghin, of Tenneseee. John C. Calhoun was not present in any of these con- ventions, but their purposes met with hie approval. 7 The presence and active participation of such men are sufficient to indicate the deep interest of the states represented in the objects of the conventions. Numerous local meetings and the accompanying press discussion give testimony to the same effect. add- ition to the debates and resolutions and the newspaper comments, the views, ob- jects, and plans of the conventions were set forth in several quite able address- es and reports. The report from the committee of twenty-one of the first conven- | tion was read by George McDuffie, chairman. 8 He was made chairman of a commit- tee to address the people of the South and Southwest upon the objects of the con- vention, and wrote the address.? At the second convention the report of the gen- * oral committee was read by Robert Y. Hayne, chairman; and a committee, of which I A. B. Longetreet was appointed chairman, was instructed to prepare an address to j the people. 10 At the Charleston meeting Robert Y. Hayne read a report upon di- 7. Calhoun to Sidney Breese, July 27, 1839, Calhoun Correspondence . Charleston Courier . Oct. 24, 1837. 9« DeBow’s Review . IV, 208 ff. (• i 5 rect trade, which he had prepared, and which was adopted by the convention; 11 and F. H. Elmore read a report from a committee composed chiefly of merchants from interior towns, appointed to ascertain whether goods had not been imported and sold at Southern seaports upon as good terms as they could be procured from the North. ^ Three delegates from Norfolk, Virginia, attended the second Augusta conven- tion and took a prominent part in its proceedings. Upon returning to Virginia they set the ball in motion there, and a direct trade convention was called to meet in Richmond in June, 1838. This meeting was followed by another in Norfolk in November. Besides these two large conventions there were a number of more local gatherings which discussed the same subjects. The great majority of the delegates at Richmond and Norfolk were from Virginia, but several came from North Carolina. As were those in Georgia and South Carolina, these gatherings were bi-partisan in composition; but they did not succeed so well in keeping partisan politics out of the proceedings. Among the delegates were such prom- inent men as John S. Millson, J. M. Botts, James Caskie, Francis Mallory, Edmund Ruffin, H. L. Kent, Myer Myers, and W. C. Flournoy. At Norfolk, John Tyler pre- sided. These conventions, too, left several ably written reports, notably, the report of the committee on commerce of the Richmond convention,^ a report pre- pared and submitted to the same convention by Francis Mallory but withdrawn be- cause of the opposition it encountered; and the report of the general committee 6 * ’• «. ^8. The ad- Miles ’ Register. LV, 4Qf. ^ 6 * ~ l » l838 »* a. Review, XIII, 477-93; 11 * DeB ° W ’ ISdustr^al Resources of the South and West. Ill, 92-111. 12. DeBow’a. .Review, iv, 493-502. 13* Richmond En oui rer. June 22, 1838. pamphlet form!’ JUn8 1338 ' JUne 19 * Ma H° r y's report may also be found in ; . ■ .l : j i \ { < i * 6 of the Norfolk convention, read by John S. Millson."^ There was substantial agreement in all of the conventions in regard to the manner in which Southern commerce was conducted, the evils attendant thereon, and the benefits to follow the establishment of direct trade with Europe. The etaple growing states were described as being in a "state of commercial depen- dence, scarcely less reproachful to their industry and enterprise than it is incompatible with their substantial prosperity." a What would be more natural than that those who furnished the nation's exports should also receive its im- ports. Yet, while the South furnished two-thirds of the exports, she received directly only one-tenth of the imports of the United States. Francis Mallory estimated that nine-tenths of the exports went direct to Europe, while five- devenths of the imports from abroad came indirectly by way of Northern seaports. The direct imports of Charleston were said to have amounted to several millions in 1807 ; by 1333 they had dwindled to one-half million; since that time they 17 had gradually increased, but were still insignificant. 1 The same was said to be true of Virginia: At the time of the Revolution exports and imports had been equal; from that time to 1831 imports had steadily declined; since 1831 there l3 had been some, though not marked, improvement. Though Southern exports went « directly to Europe, the business was not conducted by home merchants, but chief- ly by agents of Northern and English firms. Southern seaports were described as mere appendages of Northern seaporte, "places where their agents and factors do 15 • Richmond Enqu i rer , Nov. 30, 1333. In addition to xne reports already mentioned were a "Report on Manufactures", and a "Supplementary Report on Manu- factures," both adopted by the Richmond convention. Richmond Enquirer. June 26. 1833. 16. Charleston Courie r. Oct. 24, 1837, the report of the general committee of the first Augusta convention. 17 • Savannah Daily Repu blican. April 7, 1338. Report of the general commit- tee of the second Augusta convention. 18. Richmond Enquirer . June 26 , 1338, Mallory's report. e *■ ■ • . . . 7 business, and, who having but little local interest, withdraw from them after a few years residence, with all their gains, to swell the wealth of the place of their early affection and attachment.'* W in Virginia, Northern steamboate often went up the rivers buying and selling directly to the farmers, the lumbermen, and country merchants; the cargoes were paid for by bills on New York, and the money never entered Virginia. Interior merchants purchased their stocks in New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore without the intervention of jobbers, even, in Southern ports.^ Tne profits Northern merchants and shippers made from conducting Southern commerce were believed to be very great, and to account in large measure for the prosperity of Northern cities; while the loss of those profits explained the impoverishment of the cities of the South. The address issued by the sec- ond Augusta convention, after estimating at $630,000,000 the duties paid by the Southern states since the establishment of the Constitution of the United States continued: tv mi-mo™ th ° ? 16 g00ds upon * hich the 3ix hundred and thir- duti^ 1 levied > t0 have been but four times the value of the duties, it amounted to $2,500,000,000. How were these goods brought to this dlstr ^ buted ’ The northern merchant has come hither and bought from the southern planter produce of equal value, abating from the pr^ce all the WCt «" d incidental of translation. 0 He has insured thL in rn !t C6 !; “}* 3bipped theffl abroaa in his vessels-sxchanged them at aa H for foreign merchandise-brought it home— paid one-fourth its Ld U ?i« 8 L°t 80 r r ^ ant - a ' id8S that ro0unt expense f ^importation ^le ihe Jn,w y ?8 e Tl t0T his pr,>fit8 - t0 tha ^ and exposed it°for heavy eIeen8a-Wht er ' m- a8 T"' S ° n8 *° ^-lingered the summer through at to southed oorte 8 ^L!e P + rtl r °J s00ti3 > re9hi PP ed then in northern vessels to southern ports— added twenty-five per cent, more to the price to cover hi. •tent" m^rin P this tS 7 and 3 ° ld th8 “ t0 * h8 90uth9rn Plater? All the disburse- alT toelront! .ir^. 38 ’ °T 8U ° h “ are made abroad - are ®tong northern men; item in the endless e + i S ° uthern mere. hant ' s, are made by northern men. Every sidered a voluntary tri^tf from thHit' IJ* g0V9rnment dues » be con- the north- for tw lie, 7 oitisens of the south to their brethren of porting and importing.'* 21 X *** S ° n6 ° ° Ur 0Wn people had we done °ur own ex- 19 • Ibid . 2°. Ibid . 21. Niles' Hej^st^er, LV, 41. * ’ 8 At Charleston Robert Y. Hayne quoted a report of a committee of the Alabama legislature, in which it was estimated that over one-third the price of cotton went to New York agents and shippers. Hayne, himself, was content to put the oo tolls at 10 or 15 per cent.*" George McDuffie thought the "voluntary tribute" pi paid annually to the North for carrying Southern commerce amounted to $10,000,000. A Virginia delegate said the state could save $1,000,000 annually by importing 24 directly. But this direct annual drain was not the only loss occasioned the Southern people: there were also the "consequential losses", that is, the capi- tal which would nave accumulated had the South conducted her own commerce. Com- mercial dependence had operated to prevent the accumulation of capital in the South, and the deficiency of capital had handicapped enterpriee. The greatness of New York City was picture#--all said to have been built upon Southern staples and Southern trade. "You hold the element," said the ad- dress of one of these conventions, "from which he derives his strength, and you have only to withdraw it to make him as subservient to you, as you are to him." You have but to speak the word, and his empire is transf erred to your own soil, and his sovereignty to the sons of that soil. "25 But the benefits were not con- fined to New York: The virtual monopoly of Southern commerce had "either direct- ly or indirectly made the whole of the North and Northwest what they are,", accor- ding to the call of the first Augusta convention . “ 6 Because of it, "the one people had risen like the rocket, and the other had fallen like its stick.— their positions must have been reversed, if the southern people had maintained their foreign trade.", 2 7 Glowing descriptions were given of the prosperity of 22. DeBow, Industria l Resources. Ill, 93 . 23. Charleston Courier, Oct. 24, 1837 , Report, first Augusta convention. 24. Richmond Bn qui re r . June 15, 1338. 25. Miles* Register, lv, 43 , second Augusta convention. 26. Charleston Courie r. Aug. 14, 1831. 27* Mile s* Register, LV, 43 tl *i : ii\ f * ' W* ' . f 9 Southern states «nd cities after direct trade should be restored. Were direct trade established, according to the address calling the second Augusta convention, ther^ would be an end to the unequal barter of which we have spoken. The dole- ful cry for northern funds would be hushed. The speculators upon southern dis- tress would cease, ""he disorders of the currency would be healed. The relation of the commercial agency would be changed. They would be acquaintances and friends, identical in feeling and interest; enjoying mutual confidence, and inter- changing mutual favors. The fountain and the streams of commerce lying all within our land, would enrich it to an extent that none can foresee. Our works of internal improvement would receive a new and ever-accelerating impetus. Our drooping cities would be revived - our creeping commerce winged; and all the blessings, physical, moral, and intellectual, which invariably accompany affluence end independence, would be ours.'* .28 In regard to the censes for the "decline" of the shipping end the import trade of Southern ports, the conventions exhibited differences of opinion. First, there was the view that for many years the North had possessed great advantages over the South for these lines of business by reason of its superior wealth and larger accumulations of capital. Not only must shipowners and importers be men of large capital, but they must have the backing of wealthy communities, tad men of the South Carolina, school, the followers of Calhoun end McDuffie, who predom- inated in the Augusta and Charleston conventions, were ready with explanations for the more rapid accumulation of capital in the North than in the South. It was, they said, because of the unequal operation of the Federal government. The tariffa had long enriched the manufacturing sections at the expense of the agri- cultural. Furthermore, while the people of the South had paid their proportionate share of the Federal revenues, they had been disbursed chiefly in the Northern 28. Ibid ., LV, 43. C£. Riohmond E nquirer . June 26, 1838. ' " ■ i ' • * ‘ - ' * , •• * . t , . , '• , ' " ■ , • ' f : . , 0£ . , 4V , • ■ ■i ... a t H I .. *} . . . . « . * • • . « - 10 cities; and this process, going on year after year, had transferred a staggering total from the one section to the other. A minority report in the Richmond convention rehearsed the old story of the assumption of the state deots by the Federal government and the refunding of the national debt carried out under the guidance of Alexander Hamilton. The refunded debt had been distributed between the North and South in the ratio of three is to one; and, because of this inequality of distribution, had acted as a mortgage of the one section upon the other, great sums having been transferred from the South to the North in the form of interest paid to Northern bond holders from the common treasury, into which the South had paid its proportionate share of the 29 taxes. It was claimed, too, by men in these conventions that for long the funds of the Federal government had been deposited almost altogether in Northern oanks, thus giving Northern business men a decided advantage over Southern in the ability to secure assistance from banks. Those who held these views of the causes of Southern decline saw basis for hope for revival in the gradual reduc- tion of the tariff, according to the provisions of the Compromise Tariff law of 1833, the recent extinguishment of the national debt, the destruction of the United States Bank, and the evidence of a new policy in distributing deposits of the public funds. Another alleged cause for Southern commercial dependence, closely related to the one just mentioned, was the inadequacy of credit facilities. An examination, however cursory, of business methods in the South in that period makes it clear that a successful importing firm would have to command very great resources of capital or credit or both. It was proverbial that the planters lived each year upon the prospective income from the next year's crop. The country merchants, who extended them long credit, could not buy, therefore, except on long time. Importers, who bought on sixty or ninety days time, had to sell to the merchants 29. Richmond j&qui rer . June 26, 1838, Mallory's report. _ -f • ■ ' - ■- ; ‘ v : v ■ •. \ ' * * J .... ' • - ' - i >' * v r ' , I ' j , - ■ » ; ■ . - • ra 11 upon from six to twelve or sixteen months. Country merchants were sometimes un- ! willing to give negotiable notes: they considered a request to do so a reflection 30 upon their business integrity. Southern importers and jobbers did not, unaided possess the means, and Southern banks were unable to lend them sufficient support, to enable them to extend to retail merchants the long credits which the latter received in the North. A correspondent of the Charleston Couri er attributed the loss of foreign trade to the fact that country merchants began to buy of Northern jobbers because 31 of the longer credits obtained. Robert Y. Hayne enumerated long credits as one of the oanses of the decline of Southern commerce. McDuffie said he confi- dently believed that, if the planters would "adopt the system of expending, in the current year, the income of the year preceding, it would dispense with one- half of the capital that would otherwise be necessary for carrying on our foreign commerce by a system of direct importation." 33 One of the questions dividing public opinion in Virginia in that period was the policy of authorizing an in- crease of bank capital in the state. It was the subject of animated debates in both the Richmond and the Norfolk convention. Those favoring the increase thought the unwise policy of the legislature in refusing the authorization largely respon- sible for the decline of direct trade in Virginia. It is to the credit of the men of these conventions that they recognized j other causes for Southern commercial dependence than the action or nonaction of the Federal and state governments. They recognized that agriculture had in the past proved more attractive to capital than the shipping or mercantile businesses; 30. IMd., June 22, 1838, .remarks of Mr. James and Mr. Caskie. Ibid.. June 26, 1838, Mallory’s report. 31. Oct. 17, 1837. 32. Debow, Industrial Resources. Ill, 98. 33. DeBow’ s Review. IV, 221. • x '■ . ■ . • . •- - . ■ ' i i. - ' .. it . 12 land and negroes had been considered the best investments. The existence of a prejudice against other pursuits than agriculture end the professions was admit- ted. Some were willing to credit the people of the North with habits^ noT posse ss- ®d b >* thsir people and with superior commercial enterprise; they spoke of the "voluntary tribute'* which the South paid the North. The able report cf the gen- eral committee of the Norfolk convention, read by John S. Willson, traced the de- cline of Virginia's foreign commerce to a very early date. Before the Revolution, the report said, business was conducted by British capitalists, and even then the resident merchants were foreigners. At the time of the Revolution British capi- tal was withdrawn. True, the same thing happened in the North, but to a less de- gree; end the North was better prepared to take the place left by the British. Furthermore, agriculture became unprofitable in the North at an earlier day than m the South, and capital had been diverted to other industries. The committee further candidly admitted that "the decline of a considerable portion of our for- eign import trade may be accounted for in the fact, that we now derive from the Northern states many of those articles that we formerly imported from abroad/* Such a diversion of trade was not a subject for regret. 34- A committee in the Charleston convention likewise reported that the consumption of domestic goods had | 35 increased greatly, was still increasing, and was estimated by merchants to extend already to one-third of the whole consumption. The committee believed, however, the quantity of foreign goods consumed in the South was sufficient to justify merchants in Southern seaports embarking in the importing business end to enable them to compete with Northern importers, who, of course, supplied a larger demand? It was generally denied that Northern seaports possessed any natural or phys- ical advantages over Southern seaports for conducting foreign commerce. The di- rect course of trade was the natural^ course, and the indirect the unnatural. Direct 34. Richmond Enquirer ,. Nov. 30, I 83 Q. 35. Review, IV, 495, Elmore's report. 13 tr»a e would savs one set of jobbers- profite, the cost of shipping coastwise from New York or other port, the difference between the discount of Southern notes in New York and Charleston (or the coot of whatever other mode of payment was employed), and the expenses retail merchants incurred in going north to lay in their stocks. Southern harbors were said to be as good as Northern. However that may be, it is certain that ocean going vessels entered Southern harbors to receive their exports. These ships often came in ballast; and, it was reasonably argued, would be willing to carry imports at low freights. Shipping was consid- ered^adequate, though there was recognition that regular packet lines were need- ed. The South was said to he.ve timber for ship-building; but, in the thirties, not much was said about the desirability of promoting ship-building or ship- owning-the big object was to save the "importers' profits." Now and then some- one suggested that the importing business in Southern cities was rendered pre- carious by visits of yellow, or"str«ngere ", fever; but it was not good form to speak of this, end residents of the South were ready to defend their coast cities against the prevalent belief that they were unhealthy.37 Various plans and measures were auggeeted for promoting direct importations of foreign goods. Some were intended to overcome the obstacle to direct trade which lay in the lank of mercantile houses with sufficient capital to enable them to embark in the importing business. The first Augusta convention took the view that while individual merchants were not possessed of resources necessary, the requisite capital could be got together^ associations of individuals; and to traded 0^10^0^^!” bfh"'’* 00 “ ,e ' ltaI '> r - however, that much of the import being tranship;e1% n h:r\\ ma ^ 8 ^ e i r “^ 9 V hr0Ugh *>- ca, I? 7 67 , m> 9fl; ^"Shmn. Slave States of s..h- fever of her history to that tin!« tlle costly epidemic of yellow to the conditions resulting from the P rept V f nty ° f , the e P ideci ic was partly due ton Mercury Se p t . 13> 0c ?f £ £! ^ Y v ' , r * t • . ' . ! ' ' ,, , . * e « .‘rij,; . n noo'tt < - ’ > ( ‘ * * < r 14 that end appointed a committee to memorialize the state legislatures in behalf of limited co-partnership laws. In response to the committee’s memorials, the legis- latures of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia., Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida Territory enacted the desired legislation; and subsequent conventions urged men of means to avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded.’ 8 The opinion was expressed that there was an overproduction of cotton in the South, end that planters could profitably invest a portion of the proceeds of their crops other- wise than in land and negroes. If for a few years the planters would apply one- half their net income to commerce, abundant capital would be supplied to conduct the whole foreign commerced This suggestion, however, could not carry great weight; for, though subject to fluctuation, it was not until 1839 that there was a marked decline in cotton prices; and the average for the years 1835 to 1839 was fourteen cents, a higher average than that of any equal period since 1820 to 1824-40 : ^ qU6Sti0n ° f capitea > ™ considered, would be a serious one only while the revolution in trade was being effected; for, once established, the pro- fits of direct importations would supply the capital requisite for their contin- uance. 1 Other. recommendation, of the direct trede convention, dealt with the great obetaCj.es to direct trade which lay in the inedequacy of credit facilities in the South. The second Augusta convention was especially detailed in it. recommend. atione. It requested benke to fens European connection, that they might be able to assist importers with letters of credit .__It recocsended that the bank, in the 189. 3 The Ch arl e at on^onv ^ti on^ adop ted ^ re solu-tio^^di LV > 43 ' appoint committees and designate thL r * u 30lut J; 0n Erecting the chairman to meetings of the peo^e 8 P heres » duty it should be to call capital in limited partnerships with m° r , iem + ' tc inveat a portion of their surplus their respective statH. Chnl-lel^ ™ erc kants, in trading centers and towns of v wavw stages. Charleston Courier . April 19, 1839. 39 Ihid^. , Oct. 24 , 1837 ; DeBow’s Review. IV, 222 . 40 * E * J * Donne11 * History of C otton, passim. 41 . Savannah Republican. April 10, 1838. 15 seaports discount paper from the interior for the importing merchante-as well paper for longer periods than six months as for shorter periods. The benks of the interior were requested to co-operate by collecting and remitting the pro- ceeds of such paper to the coast with as little delay as possible. "It is not to be concealed that without the aid and support of the banks, the difficultieo in our way will be greatly multiplied. It will depend upon them, in great meas- ure, to determine the fate of our great measure. »« The banks had suspended spe- cie payment in May, 1637, end were beset with great difficulties. The convention devised a plan for equalizing the domestic exchanges and keeping up the credit of the banks during the period of suspension. In substance the plan was that the banks of the principal Southern cities receive each other's notes and adopt some sort of a clearing house system; and that other banks maintain the value of their notes and keep down the rates of exchange by redeeming their notes at the sea- ports. A committee was appointed to urge the banks to adopt the plan. 4 - 3 The Plan had good points, but was too complicated to be adopted at the time. The banks did make a more or less concerted effort to resume specie payments in 1838, but after . few months were again forced to suspend, October 1839. The Virginia conventions contented themselves after hot discussions, with passing resolutions asking the legislatures of Virginia end North Carolina to authorize increases of banking capital. 44 Many other suggestions designed to promote direct importations were made. In- dividual citizens were urged to be more enterprising. It was declared a sacred duty to buy of those merchants who traded direct in preference to those who bought foreign goods from Northern jobbery InterWmerchants were requested not to go 42 * Savannah uap.ly a April lo, 1838. 43. Ibid . . April 6, 1838. freet^n" 19 ’ ^ l838 ' states did not have . . ' * . * , ■, Jb#i rf * « ■ ' - , v . - . < * ♦ <* , . ■ • 16 North for their stocks until they had investigated the possibilities of making their purchases in their own seaports. A local Virginia convention, in 1838, recommended the organization of an association of retail merchants pledged to deal, after September 1, 1839, with the importing merchants of Virginia cities only, "provided those merchants would sell as cheap as the Northern merchants"; and sixty or seventy oitizens actually signed a pledge not to patronize any merchant who would not join the association* The pledge system was advocated in the Norfolk convention, but the convention refused to recommend it*^° Complaint was made that the tax laws of the states discriminated against com- meroial capital in favor of land and slaves. Some Southern states and cities taxed sales; port and wharf charges and fees were said to be too high. 48 The Charleston convention adopted a resolution requesting the state legislatures to repeal discriminatory taxes. A motion introduced at Norfolk to ask the legislature of Virginia to exempt direct imports from taxation was defeated. 50 The prejudices of the people against mercantile pursuits were deplored: "The commercial class must be elevated in public opinion to the rank in society which properly belongs to it." It was recognized as an evil that the great majority of the merchants, commission merchants, and factors in all the seaport cities of the South (and interior towns too, for that matter) were either Northerners or naturalized citizens. Commercial education was recommended to train 45. Richmond jhquirier. Nov. 13, 1838, acoount of a meeting in Elizabeth City County, Oct. 6, 1838. 46. Ibid. . Nov. 20, 1838. 47. Charleston Co urier, April 17, 1839, "Report on the Taxation of Commer- cial Capital," submitted by Mitchell King in the Charleston convention. 48. De-Bow* s Revi ew. IV, 496. 49. Charleston Courier. April 19, 1839. 50. Richmond Eaquirier. Nov. 23, 1838. ■ . ■ » ' iX , v tqj . ■ . 17 Southern youth to enter the field. Robert Y . Hayne advanced to hie eon, William C., the capital necessary to enter into a partnership with one of the old import- ers of Charleston. His purpose, he wrote, was to "try what can be done to rear up a young brood of Carolina merchants, which I believe to be indis rJ en sable to put our Southern America on a right footing. "51 Manufacturers and exporters of foreign countries were asked to establish agencies in Southern cities for selling their goods, as they had done in New York and other Northern seaports. The Nor- folk convention considered this quite important; it appointed a committee of sev- en to get in communication with European firms. 52 The direct trade movement of these years was very closely related to efforts being made in the South Atlantic states to establish connections by railroads or canals with the Ohio valley. South Carolinians were the chief promoters of a great project, which ultimately had to be abandoned, to build the uouisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad. 53 The State of Georgia had undertaken the construction of a trunk line, the Western and Atlantic , from Atlanta to the ennessee River. Virginia had chartered the James River and Kanawha Cenai Com- pany, which, as the name indicates, was intended to provide continuous water com- munication between the seaboard end the Ohio. 55 All of the direct trade conven- 51. Hayne to J. H. Hammond, Jan. 18, 1839, J. H. Hammond Papers. 1830 HI. 100; Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 20 30 hii l83 \ 0 f° r S e McDuffi9 ™ in England in the interart of a plan of I, , ^ P F upon their purchases in this wav. McDuffi* +n t h Hammond. March, 31, 1839 (Mancherter, England). J.H. Halondkoar” “* 53* This project is discussed at length in U B Dhiii-iria u* + - _ JBortnti .cn in the Eastern Cotton Be^t tv , „ -hillips, o X Trans- and ~ ~ ~~~ ***** Chap * IV; and T * D * ^rvey, Robert Y. Havne 54. Phillips, 0 £. sit. , ch. VII. 55. 0. H. Amblar, jec&onalim in Vi rginia fron 1776 to 1361. p. 182. ( 18 tions very heartily endorsed these projects for connecting the South and West as most promising measures for securing direct trade. The West sold to the South, it was said; if it could also buy in the South, such a demand for goods would be created in Southern seaports that there could no longer be any question of their ability to import directly. ”' n e must contend for the commerce of the West," read Mallory’s report, "the section that gets that commerce will get the commerce of the country.'* A reeclution adopted by the Norfolk convention declared inter- nal improvements to be the foundation of an import traded The general commit- tee of the Second Augusta convention said that direct trade was inseparably con- nected with the extension of intercourse to the West*. "And when the great West shall find a market and receive their supplies through the seaports of the South, a demand will be furnished, the extent and value of which cannot be too largely estimated."*? Calhoun, who took a deep interest in botfr projects, believed that direct trade could not be established until railroads had been extended to the Ifet. On the ether hand, discussion of the establishment of direct trade with Europe would stimulate interest in projects for connection the seaboard end the Ohio valley. Many of the members of the direct trade conventions were closely associated with the internal improvement projects; and, though it would be incor- sav that the former were got up to give impetus to the latter, that was undoubtedly one of the objects of the conventiona. The relation was made very clear in the message of Mayor Pinckney, of Charleston, August, 1838. During the previous year, he said, Charleston had held meetings, "giving a decided impetus to those great enten>rises, the Cincinnati railroad and a direct trade with Eur- ope, of which the latter will supply the former with its life blood, and of which the united operation will assuredly achieve the commercial Independence of the Soutn, and, with it, the permanent prosperity of our beloved city. "55 c." Hicnmond Enquirer . Nov. 20, 23, 1828. 57 . |saaa& JSmfclisaa. Apm 9, 1838. l841 > SsjUmn Correapo^dftL« reeae> JUly 2? ’ l839; to James Edward Calhoun, Nov. 1 , if 19 Although the money panic of 1837 was the occasion for the convening of con- ventions which proposed to attempt to change the course of Southern trade, the movement cannot be considered the outgroxvth of depressed economic conditions. In 1837 and I 838 it was believed that business had received only's* temporary, al- though sharp, check, and that enterprise would soon be in full swing once more. As were the rapid building of railroads, canals, and turnpikes, the direct trade movement was a manifestation of the spirit of progress and enterprise which had seized upon East, West, and South alike. The movement came to a temporary close when general stagnation of business settled upon the country in 1339 and contin- ued for several years thereafter. 60 It is noteworthy that these direct trade conventions were concerned almost exclusively with economic conditions and means for improving them. The slavery question, which was being given considerable prominence aoout tnis time both in Congress and out by reason of the debates in Congress upon the exclusion of ab- olition literature from the mails and the treatment of abolition petitions in Congress, was rarely mentioned. A decade later no direct trade convention could be held, no plan for achieving commercial independence proposed, nor, for that matter, for erecting a cotton mill, building a railroad, opening a mins, or in any way promoting the material progress of the South, without consideration of ~ its relati °“ *• «<• sectional struggle over slavery and the extension thereof. The argument would then without fail be advanced that the South must develop her strength and resources and achieve commercial and indust- rial independence in order to be prepared to defend her rights and honor in the Union or, if worst came to worst, her independence out of it. George McDuffie 60» The Charleston conventi Xo40 ; the meeting did not occur, meot in Raleigh, North Carolina meeting of the convention. on adjourned The Norfolk in November, to meet in Macon, Georgia, in May, convention arranged for another to 1^39; there is no record of the * ( , - - ( , r - • : 20 j did indeed allude to the existence of causes, tariff and slavery, which made the j dismemberment of the confederacy "one of the possible contingencies for which it is the part of wisdom to provide'’; 01 but as yet such considerations were very infrequently advanced, at least in public* The direct trade conventions of the thirties were in the main what they purported to be, namely, bona fide efforts on the part of Southern men to promote the prosperity and progress of their states and section and, particularly, their seaports. Several reasons may be advanced to explain the comparatively little interest displayed in the direct trade movement outside the three states of Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia* North Carolina had no seaport which was considered to have the requisite natural advantages for becoming a great Southern emporium. Most of her exports and imports were made by way of Virginia and South Carolina. Her population was conservative and comparatively devoid of state pride. Alabama and Louisiana had seaports in Mobile and New Orleans. Both states were young and were growing rapidly in population. Their agriculture had been prosperous. Just before the financial panic of 1837, both had enjoyed several years of speculative prosperity, which had been fully shared by Mobile and New Orleans. The rapidly rowing population of the two towns consisted largely of immigrants from the North of Europe; civic pride had not yet developed. The crash nf 1837 was more severe in the Southwest then in the older Southern states; and the time was not auspicious for interest in any new movements. The direct trade conventions accomplished no tangible results in the way of changing the course of Southern commerce. Thqy afford evidence of discontent in the older states of the douth with their material progress. They show that the be' lief was held, and no doubt they contributed to its spread, that commercial depen- dence was an evidence, and, at the same time, a cause of "Southern decline." It 61. DeBow’ s Revi ew. IV, 219. ' m . * 21 ia unnecessary to point out the common element in the view that the East was being enriched at the expense of the South because of the commercial vassalage of the latter, and another quite prevalent belief, namely, that the operation of the Federal government had been unequal in its effects upon the material pro gress of the two sections. The direct trade conventions were another manifest- ation of the economic discontent of which evidence had been given during the nullification controversy. ' : • • . ' * . . . . • . . ... * CHAPTER II . 211®. Miration in F avor of the Establishm ent of Cotton Manu f acturea,. 1840- 18,52. The industrial revolution was not well under way in the South until almost a generation after the Civil War. While the ante-bellum South was not complete- ly devoid of manufacturing and mining, the progreaa of those induetriea did not Keep pace with the progreee of agriculture. Southern industry was scarcely more diversified in 1360 than in the earlier decades of the century. In this respect the south presented a contrast to the North, where the industrial revolution was proceeding apace. Elsewhere in this thesis statistics are given which illustrate the comparative industrial progress of the sections. During the 1340s Southern agriculture suffered a long and quite severe de- pression. During the same period cotton factories were being establiehed at a more rapid rate than in the decades immediately preceding or following, end there was unusual progress in a few other lines of industry. The profit, of manufact- urers seem to have been large in comparieon with those of planters. These condi- tion, were chiefly responsible for the beginning of a more or lose organized agi- tation in favor of the establiehment of manufactures. As the agitation developed, social and political arguments were adduced to support the economic. The argu- ments of the proponents of diversified industry did not go uncontroverted, however ?0 * : t a ‘ VAlysi * tMs discussion shed light upon the subject of econ- omic discontent in the South before the Civil War. An essential similarity will be noted between some of the ideas at the basis of the agitation in behalf of manufactures and ideas which animated the direct trade movement described in the preceding chapter. The decade 1140-1350 brought the severest depression to agriculture, partic- ularly to cotton culture, that the South experienced prior to the Civil War. Dur- ' . , ......... ■ ' I * , ‘ ' . 5 ' ; •• . * * * ' * 23 ing tne preceding decade cotton prices had averaged 12.6 cents, and the induetry was profitable. During the l840e, however, the average price wae about 8 cents, and the cotton planters were greatly disheartened. The decade opened with cot- ton between 8 and 9 cents; the following year prices were slightly higher; but after 1841 prices steadily declined until middling upland sold for 5 cents in Mew York, January 1, 1845, the lowest price ever paid for American cotton. 1 A contributor tc the Southera guart^ Re^ew wr0t9: « At n0 period of her hiotory> from the year 1781, has a greater gloom been cast over the agricultural prospects of South Carolina, than at the present time." 2 John C. Calhoun wrote his son-in- law: "Cotton still continue, to fall. It. average price may be said to be about 4 cents per pound. The effect will bo ruinous in the South, and will rouse the feeling of the whole eection.»3 Fo r years, 134? was remembered as the year of the great cotton crisis. The depression in agriculture was not confined to the cotton belt. Edmund Ruffin wrote fm™ * ™ rron v i r Smia that prices were so low that ag- riculture could scarcely live.* Similar reports came from the Northwest, which still depended largely upon the cotton belt for a market for grain, pork and ba- con. and live stock. The replies to Secretary of the Treasury Walker's circular (1845) requesting infomation upon which to base recommendations for a rev ision Of the tariff, even after due allowance has been made for partisan bias, testify to the low state of agriculture in the South and West .3 A North Carolinian re- ported that for three years the profits of agriculture in this state h* not been mere than 3 per cent., because of poo^crop.^and low prices; horses and mules were W 7 ha Ootton Trade 18 «- satton, ussr^rsr it Ha^^ 9 . bus** 2 * VIII, 118 (July, 1845). 3. Calhoun to Thomas C. Clemson, Dec. 27, 1844, CgLhoun Co rresnondsnes- 4. Ruffin to Hammond, May 17, 1845, Hammond p.u.-, Wi f?! ng " 1 Ses9 - No - 5- A *** of the replies is in i , ' ■ 1 . ,r ■ l ; •> , • ’■ t, ► 24 imported from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and western Virginia, and pri- ces were one-third lower than they had bean during the ton years preceding. Simi- lar replies came from south Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Replies from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri represented the profits of agriculture to be from 2 to 5 per cent. Scarcely a response was optimistic about the outlook for agri- culture. The grain growing states were the first to experience a revival of prosper- ity. In 1846 the crop failure in Ireland and large deficiencies in Great Britain and in many parts of the Continent created an extraordinary demand for foodstuffs, »hich, together with the repeal of the English Corn Laws the some year, led to a remarkable increase in the exports of provisions from America in that and the fol- lowing year. 6 other factors soon entered into play, and Western agriculture en- tered upon a period of remarkable prosperity unbroken until 1857.? The revival of prosperity in the cotton industry was delayed for two or three years. The crop of 1846 was short: whils the very conditions which caused a great increase in the prices of provisions prevented a considerable rise in the p&ce. It was * 3 * yinS in the S0Uth that “ ear bre,,il in meant cheep cotton. The crops of 1847 and 1848 wars large; breadstuffe continued high in Great Britain; Europe, in 1843, was in revolution; and cotton prices remained low. In the fall of 1849, however, cotton was high. Pacification of Europe, revival of business in France, find harvests and consequent cheap bread in England, the exhaustion of old stock! Of raw cotton, and the belief that the new crop was short, caused the season to open with cotton at 0.5 to 11.5 cents at New Orleans. The average for the year was between 11 s„d 12 cents, and the price was maintained the following year. Though tne price fell again in 1851-52, it never again, before the War, fell to 6. Census of i860, Agrl cujLt^re, exli 25 the level of the 104Oe. The average price for the decade 1850-60 wae 10.6 cento. The depressed condition of agriculture during the fifth decade occasioned much discussion of causes end possible means of improvement. The lev price of cotton was variously attributed to the tariff, to speculation, and to overproduct- ion; and corresponding remedies were proposed. Some thought ell would be well were the tariff repealed, others suggested reform of the system of selling cot- ton. Schemes were brought forward for limiting production. More practical men, perhaps, proposed that agriculture be diversified, end that other crops than cot- . 01 , be produced. Finally, manufactures were recommended as a more profitable in- vestment for capital than cotton culture, in which toe much capital wae already inve sted . As cotton prices fell the older cotton states were the first to find its culture unprofitable. Their lands could not compete on equal ts ras with the new- er lands of the Southwest; and they faced not only reduced prices and diminished returns, but also loss of population through emigration. As early as 1841, J. H. Hammond, of South Carolina, in an address before the State Agricultural Society, showed a thorough grasp of the situation and proposed the remedies which were so fully discussed during the following years.? In the past, he said, the production of cotton could not keep pace with the demand, but now production premised to out- run consumption. Already the price had been forced dear, to a figure, 8 cente, at which cotton culture in South Carolina was profitable only on the richest soils. As remedies Her, . end proposed, first, improved methods of cultivation and diversi- fication of agriculture. The planters must_ grow grain in sufficient quantities to trade^ere™^ Mci “t^ “ C ° tt# " & ST.E ******&.' MaS-ins. See 9« Fil* 20, 219, J . H« Hgj’nmonri Papers . . ■ ' . . < ■ f ♦ 26 supply the home demand; they must raise live stock end save the "immense sums which are annually drawn from us in exchange for mules, horses, cattle, hops, sheep, and even poultry.” Tobacco, indigo, sugarcane, and grapes might be intro- duced. But these remedies would not suffice: capital must be diverted from agri- culture to other pursuits. The state had mineral resources which could be devel- oped. "Already furnaces, forges, bloomeries, end rolling mills have been put in pperation with every prospect of success at no dietant day." He hoped coal would be feund near the iron. The state possessed splendid resources of water-power. A beginning bed been made in cotton manufacture. Manufactures should not be foster- ed by legislation at the expense cf ether industries; but -here they grew up spon- taneously they were undoubtedly a great blessing, increasing population, providing a home marks, for agriculture, and saving large sums which otherwise would be sent out of the state. An industrial revolution was inavitabla; and the change could be effected with less anxiety and loss if begun early and judiciously conducted. Hammond regretted the revolution in industry and in "manners and probably the en- tire structure of our social system" which the failure of the old system wes like- ly to occaeion, but saw no grounds for apprehension. It is worthy of note that these remarkably broad views were expressed by a man who hed been a nullifier in 1832, as governor of the state, in 1844, was ready to lead in separate resist once to the Tariff of 1842, and who, shortly after, wrote the famous Utters on ^dressed to Thomas Clarkson. E sau ire . In the following years the discussion increased in volume. The Charleston Patrioi published, 1842, a series of articles in which it was maintained that than, was an ove >T roducticn of cotton end the people of South Carolina were urged to abandon in part the raising of that staple and tun, their attention to manufactur- ing. Georgia newspapers were recommending to their people to do the same. 11 10. Niles* Register . LXII, 71. 11 * Ifrld .. LXII, 71. , . < ( « , 27 Profeasor M'Cay, of the University of Georgia, v/ho for many years reviewed the cotton trede for Hunt.* b Merc .hearts 1 Magazine, warned planters that production was outrunning consumption . 3 2 In February, 1845, a convention of cotton planters was held in Montgomery, Alabama, to organize the planters of the cotton belt for the purpose of limiting production and forcing prices up. 1 ^ The committee on agri- culture of the Southern and Western Convention, at Memphis, 1845, complained that interest in agricultural improvement had given way to interest in internal im- provements and politics, and that there was an overproduction of cotton. The com- mittee recommended that planters grow less cotton and produce their own bread and #eat; that scientific agriculture be encouraged by the establishment of agricul- tural societies and agricultural journals, and by state legislatures; and that capital be diverted from cotton planting to manufacturing . 14 There was still talk, however, of possible competition from India if prices should rise; 1 * and the low prices were frequently attributed to speculation in cotton and to e combination of English .actors with the Manchester buyers. 3 ^' It was in South Carolina that a serious attempt to arouse the public mind in favor of the diversification of industry was first Bade. The situation there wee unusual. Not only was the depression in the cotton industry most severely felt, but the peculiar political bias of a large element threatened, in 1844 and 1845 , to lead to another crisis similar to that of 1832 and 1833. W>en the Tariff of 1842 was enacted, the South Carolina legislature had been content to pass resolu- tions denouncing it end declaring that it would be endured as long as there was hope of repeal by the Democratic party^aft.r tne next election. 1 ? In the next Con- 12. HunVs Merchants ' M^azine, IX, 523. 13. Niles ' Register. LXVIII, 4 . 14 * ~- urnal , . c .£ the Memphia Convention . 41-55. 15« Donnell, History of Cotton, 276. i 6 . New Orleans gee, Mer.2, 1844; 17 . Ibid..LXITT 212-235 344.5 Mies’ Register, LXVI, 38 . ” J * 28 gress, 1843-45, the Democrats were in the majority in the House; but an attempt to pass a tariff bill, the McKey oill, was defeated, May, 1844, by an alliance of twenty-seven Northern Democrats with the Whigs. This desertion by Northern Dem- ocrats and, shortly thereafter, the publication of the celebrated "Kane Letter", in which the Democratic candidate for the presidency cleverly "straddled" the tar- 19 iff question, caused many in South Carolina to abandon hope of relief from the burdens of the tariff through the instrumentality of the Democratic party. Mean- vfaile the blocking of the annexation of Texas by representatives from the non- slaveholding states had occasioned the cry of "Texas or disunion" in South Caroli- na and other Southern states. Under these circumstances a group of South Carolina politicians, led by R. B. Rhett, Armistead Burt, and I. E. Holmes, with the sup- port of the Charleston Mercury and several other papers of like stripe, and the sympathy of Governor J. H. Hammond, George McDuffie, and langdon Cheves, declared, in the summer of 1844, for state resistance to the Tariff of 1842 and attempted to lead the state to adept that policy. 20 It was with some difficulty that John C. Calhoun, F. H. Elmore, and other leaders checked the "Bluff ton Movement", as it was termed, 21 and caused saner counsels to prevail. Governor Hammond, indeed, in 18. Cong . Globe . 28 Cong., 1 Sess. , 622. 19. National Intelligencer . July 25, 1044. 20. I. E. Holmes to Hammond, July 23, 1844, J. H« Hammond Papers : Hammond to Capt. R. J. Colcock, Sept. 12, 1844 (asking for the plans of the Citadel); George McDuffie to Hammond, Sept. 22, 1844; General James Hamilton to Hammond, Oct. 4, 1844; R. B. Rhett to Hunter, Aug. 30, 1844, Correspondence of R.M.T. Hunter; Charleston Mercury, an account of the dinner given to R.g’. Rhett at Bluffton, South Carolina, July 31, 1844* where the movement was launched and whence it got i name; hoi _ ci . , Aug. 9, editorial, "Our Position and Our Pledges" (By A. J. Stuart, senior editor); Niles* ^Register. LVI, 369, quoting letter from I. E. Holmes to the Charleston M ercur y; ioid. , LVII , 148, quoting letter from Judge Langdon Cheves to the Charleston Mercury. 21. F. H. Elmore to Calhoun, Aug. 26, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence. "The excite- ment in a portion of Carolina has gradually subsided, and will give no further trouble. I had to act with great delicacy, out at the same time firmness in re- lation to it." Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, Oct. 7, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence Cf. James A. Seddon to Hunter, Aug. 19, 22, 1844, Correspondence of R.M.T. Hunter : Nil . es/ Register, LVI, 434, account of the big Charleston meeting of Aug. 19, 1844. s ' ■ '• ' •* ' ‘ }l ■* * • • :o!.!>;or ■ i '■£ ** I >tr; a . . , ' his message to the legislature, November 26 , 1844, arraigned the tariff, express- ed the opinion that no relief could be expected from the incoming Polk adminis- tration, and urged the ] egislature to take such measures as would at an early day bring all the state's "moral, constitutional, and if necessary, physical resources in direct array against a policy which has never been checked but by her inter- position.' 1 22 But the legislature tabled all resolutions for resistance, and by a large majority voted confidence in the Democratic party. This action was taken just after the notorious Twenty-first Rule of the House, prohibiting the receiv- ing of abolition petitions, had been defeated at Washington.^ The leaders of the Bluffton Movement credited their defeat to the presidential aspirations of John C. Calhoun, and complained very bitterly of what they termed his desertion. 24 The resistance faction, as well as anti-tariff men who still placed reliance in the Democratic party, attributed the crisis in the cotton industry to the tar- iif. They thought the view that there was an overproduction of cotton unworthy of consideration. 2 ^ England, they said, could not consume cotton because the Tariff of 1842 had deprived her of the American market for manufactured goods. I. E. Holmes professed to believe that the operation of the tariff would in a few years render cotton planting entirely profitless, and that no other industry could be found to which labor could profitably be turned. 26 Rhett and McDuffie warned tar- iff men in Congress that South Carolina might be "driven" to manufacture for her- 22 • Miles ' Register . LXVII, 227 ff. , r ,?* J® McDuffie, Dec. 27, 1844, J > . H. Hammond Papers : F. W. Pickens to Calnoun, Dec. 28, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence: Niles ' Register . LXVIII, 347 Uug. 16, 184„), quoting from the Charleston Mercur y, a letter from "Bluffton Pol- 2 See!!? ’ 7 dated on the anniversary of the Bluffton dinner; Cong. Glob e, 28 Cong. 24. Hammond to McDuffie, Dec. 27, 1844, J. H. Hammond papers . better of Judge John P. King, Charleston Mercury . Nov. 5, 1844. LXVI ' 369 ’ qU ° ting the Charlefrt ° n ItoMWSHstW. In- . 30 self. x 7 Calhoun wrote: "The pressure of the tariff begins to be felt , and under- stood, ufoich will lead to its overthrow, either through Congress or the separate 28 action of the South.” Against these convictions, the Whigs and many Democrats took issue. The 29 Charleston Courier declared without equivocation for a moderate tariff. A pemphleteer, replying to a letter of Judge Langdon Cheves, declared that free trad< would not save the state. The ruin of the state was due to the lack of stimulus which manufactures would give to agriculture and commerce; and it was the hostility of politicians which prevented manufactures from being established. 30 R.W. Roper, a rich planter, generally aligned in politics with the Hammond or anti— machine fac- tion of the Democratic party, came out for the policy of encouraging domestic manu- factures as an amelioration of the tariff. In an address before the State Agricul tural oociety, Novemoer 1844, he traced the depression in the cotton industry to overproduction, and declared for diversified agriculture and the encouragement of manufactures and commerce, not only as a remedy for economic ills but also as a means of becoming independent of the North. “As long,” he said,”as we are tribu- taries, dependent on foreign labor and skill for food, clothing, and countless nec< 31 saries of life, we are in thraldom.” Roper’s address was virorously attacked in t series of articles in the Charleston Mercury under the caption, ’’Shall we continue to plant and increase the overgrowth of cotton? Or shall we become manufacturers of cotton stuffs?” In the opinion of the author of these articles, there was no over production of cotton; but the ills of the South came from overtaxation. South Carolina, he said, could not develop diversified industry with her systan of labor, 27. iL qng. G l o be , 28 Cong. ,1 Sess.,648; App.108; Hunt’s Merchants ’ Magazine. X. 406. 28. Calhoun to Thomas G. Clamson, Dec.27, 1844, Calhoun Correspondence. 29. Quoted in the National Intelligencer. Aug. 6, 1844. 30. haply , to the Letter of the Hon . Langdon Cheves . By a Southerner. 31. Roper to Hammond, Oct. 28, 1844, J.H. Hammond Papers : Niles * Register. LZVIII, 103, 120. The address was reviewed in the So . Quar . Rev. 7111,118-148 (July. 1845). ' * . • • " - ' £ . . ' : ■ . . . • * V. . . . . *• t> % I ; - , • •• , . . . ' ' ' 31 and it was not desirable that she should. 32 L*te in the year 1844 there appeared a series of articles headed "Essays on Domestic Industry; or an Inquiry into the Expediency of Establishing Cotton Manu- facture, in South Carolina/- by Wiliam Gregg, of south Carolina. The article, first appeared in the Charleston Courier. Upon request they were reprinted in pamphlet form. They attracted wide attention throughout the South, being repub- lished in nearly all the newspapers of Georgia, Alabama, and other states. 33 They constituted the most elaborate argument for the diversification of Southern in- dustry that appeared before the Civil War. Already a cotton manufacturer, Gregg later increased his interests. He was known until after the Civil War as the most successful cotton manufacturer in the Southern state, and the ablest advo- cate of the policy of developing manufactures in that section. 34 Gregg described the depressed condition of agriculture in the state and the tendency of capital and enterprise to migrate to more fertile lands. The causes he found to lie not in the tariff hut in lack of energy, want of diversified agri culture, 8 „d dependence upon the North for numerous articles of manufacture which aiSht he produced at home. He called attention to the rapid progress then being in cotton manufacturing in the neighboring states of Georgia and North Caro- lina, and advised the people of South Carolina to simulate the example. He showed that the requisite capital was available. As for a labor, supply slaves could be used and in many respects would be preferable to whites; but he did not overlook the possibility of employing the thousands of poor whites, who as a class were an unproductive element in society. Later he bec„e an eartest advocate of the em- Ployment of this das. both on econoj»ic.«nd_ philanthropic grounds. Gregg under- 32- Mss' Register. LXVII1, 54, 103, 120. 33 • DeBowr* a Review X 3 49 m. _ _ DeBow’ e Review Vttt vj/i a/T . ssays are, in a somewhat abridged fnrm ■; r 34. DeBow’s Review x —> , - jf • , for a short sketch of Gregg’s career. * ' . > . ‘i . . • •. - . ■ ( • ♦ , 32 stood the difficulties which infant industries would have to meet. He, therefore advised the establishment of factories by joint stock companies rather than by in- dividuals, and confinement for several years to the manufacture of only coarse goods, thus taking fullest advantage of the ability of Southern mills to command cheaper raw materials than Northern mills. It seemed politic not to uhauly\anta- «I onize the wrti -protection! at sentiment of South Carolina. Gregg assured his read- ers that no laws would be asked for the protection of the enterprises in which it was proposed to embark. He did not believe that manufactures would ever predomin- ate over agriculture in the state, and those who advocated diversification did not wish such a result. At the next session of the South Carolina legislature, November, 1845, chart- ers for several companies to erect cotton factories were applied for. At the time corporations were somewhat unpopular in the South, and opposition was met. Gregg thereupon wrote a pamphlet entitled An £& guirjj, into the Expediency of Granting LhaEters of Ijico^qraUon for M^uX^A^ilS. Purposes in South Carolina. Copies were distributed among the members of the legislature. After a sharp struggle the charters were granted by large majorities. 35 The Graniteville company, in wnich Gregg was a large stockholder, was one of those chartered. Only the most substan- tial citizens were permitted to take stock. 36 Gregg was made manager; and the fact- ory was soon built and put in successful operation. He was allowed to carry into practice his philanthropic ideas in regard to the poor whites. Cottages were built and rented to the operatives, free and compulsory education established, a church ! constructed, and intemperance forbidden. No negroes were employed. The factory was one of the few in the South that continued to pay dividends during the hard years of 1850-54.^ 35. B*BasU fcsiss. X, 351. 36. Ker Boyce to Hammond, Dec. 127W5, 37. BsSmli ggn&i. x, 351; X?III, 78yf.; Hunt * 3 Merchants' Magazine. XXI 671 SI- Ingle, Southern S idelig hts . 85 . — ~ AJU > 0,1 , ' • - , , • • • V ■ I 33 Many other,, following the publication of Oregg's essays, came forward to ad- vocate the diversification of Southern industry, particularly by the erection of cotton factories near the cotton fields. Oovemor Crawford, of Georgia, urged the legislature to adopt some plan to restore the fertility of the soil and foster manufactures. 33 The Tennessee House of Representatives appointed a select commit- tee to report on manufacturing resources. 33 The state of Alabama engaged Mr. Tuoay professor in the State University, to make a survey of the mineral resources of the state. The Richmond Whi* published in 1846, the Lett ers fr o m the Hon. A b- kW.rence. to the Hon. S&iliam C. Rive_s of Virginia, - which, while primarily a Plea against the repeal of the tariff, hailed the movement in the South for dive* sification of industry, and urged the people of Virginia to manufacture and devel- op the state's mineral resources. «■ DeBow'.s Review, the first number of which ap- peared in January, 1346, lent its influence to the cause. 42 Numerous articles in the Review testify to the growing conviction that there was an overproduction of cotton, and that the South should diversify agriculture and divert capital to othe: industries. In South Carolina, 1849, an organization styled the "South Carolina Institute for the Promotion of Art, Meohanical Ingenuity, and Industry” was formed, This organisation was a direct outgrowth of the movement for diversification of Southern industry. 43 The interest in cotton manufactures spread to the Ohio valley. One of the 38* Register, LXIX, 162. 39. Ibid ,. LXIX, 400. his First S-\^ias5. 404 - **“* later *«" ^logist and issued 41. Aleo published as a pamphlet, 1846. was begun, ^which «s\“uel 43 * fieBow'.e Review, VIII, 276; X, 123. , 34 moat active advocates was Hamilton Smith, a wealthy lawyer and business man of Louisville, Kentucky, who had acquired large holdings in coal lands near Cannelton Indiana. In 1047, he wrote a series of articles for the Louisvill e Journ al demon- st rating the advantages of coal over water power in cotton factories, and the ad- vantage of the Ohio valley over the East as a seat for such factories by reason of proximity to the cotton fields. His articles were widely copied in Southern and Western newspapers, and some of his letters were inserted in the Manchester, Eng- land, G uardi an. In the following year, Smith and several other public spirited citizens of Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, and Louisiana, being desirous of prov- ing their faith by works, organized a company which constructed a model factory at Cannelton. Charles T. James of Rhode Island, the most successful builder of steam cotton factories in the "nixed States, was interested in the project, and superin- tended the ereetion of the factory, a journal, the Cann elton Economist, was es- tablished to conduct a campaign in the behalf of manufactures. 44 The agitation in behalf of building cotton factories received encouragement from the fact that considerable capital was actually being invested in the new branch of industry and seemed to be yielding good profits. All through the 1040s the journals of the South recorded at frequent intervals the establishment of fac- tories, especially cotton factories, in that section. In 1843 the Baltimore Am- erican stated that in North Carolina a revolution had been effected in the trade o cotton yarns within a few years/Vus. Renter, in 1345, remarked the number of cotton factories being erected along side the cotton fields, and prophesied that 44. 8«Bo£j. Se&SK, 90 ffj VI, 75 f. : VIII, 456-61; Weetem Joum.T -nd ImL, II. 139; Hamilton Smith, The Relative Oo_st of Ste» and Water Power , the 111 - inoi, .Coat. Field,, end tto Advantage, offered bj, the We^ , particularly on the ' Pl’Tv . -Ohio, for Manu f act u ra a . 45* Quoted in Niles » Register, LXIV, 72. . • ' , « . ' , * ■ , , . • • . . , , 1 t •- ' , . , 35 in a few years the Southern states would supply coarse cotton clothing for mil- 46 lions. In the tariff debates of 1344 and 1846, congressmen from North Carolina arid Geor-ia, particularly, invited attention to the rapid development of cotton and other manufactures in their states. 4 ^ The numerous acts incorporating manu- facturing companies passed during these years by the legislatures of states which had not yet enacted general incorporation laws would seem to testify to a develop- ment of manufacturing. During the last few years of the decade and the first few years of the next, the accounts of new factories, built or in process of building, became more and more frequent; and the development began to attract notice in the North. Said Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, 1849: "We seldom take up a paper publish- ed in the Southern and Western States of the Union, that does not contain some new development of their manufacturing enterprise .”48 By 1849 the movement to “bring the spindles to the cotton" had become popular in all quarters of the South. According to DeBow's Reviev/, every month added more and more to the interest shorn in manufactures. The next year Hamilton Smith wrote: “For the last two years, one of the most prominent topics of discussion in the newspapers of the South and West has been, not whether cotton mills could or could not be operated at home, but when, where, and by whom, they should be put in operation.”^ 0 The people of the South became firmly convinced that their section had rare 46. Niles 1 aasi.Bj.sr, LXVIII, 87, April 12. 47. gon£. Olsbe 29 Oong., 1 Sess., 991, Jonss of Ga., in the House: 28 Cong, ie’’of P S*'n the H ?""* 2 - 1 Appx, 108, Mo- , 512, Berrien, of Ga., in the 1 Se Du f fie, of S. C., in the Senate; 28 Cong., 1 Se Senate. 48. XVIII, 227. the South and West h ( 1850 ). C^. XXIII, 247. «*The progress of manufacturing industry at as been very rapid in the past two years.” Ibid . . XXII, 646, 49 o VII, 454. 50. geBow’s Review f VIII, 550, 36 advantages for the manufacture of cotton goods, and could compete successfully with New England. Statements were frequently made and rarely contradicted that mills already in operation were earning profits of from 15 to 20 per cent. The representations of Gregg, Hamilton Smith, and others, relative to the advantages possessed by the South, seemed sound. The most authoritative statements were those or General Charles T. James, of Rhode Island. James claimed to have super- intended the erection of more than one-eighth of the cotton spindles in the United States. He had shown his faith in the South and West by taking stock in the steam factory at Charleston, South Carolina, and the one at Cannelton, Indiana . 51 Lead- ers in the diversification movement appealed to him to give inforaation which m might help to arouse interest and educate the people in the subject. In response he wrote, 1349, a pamphlet entitled Practical Hints on the Compar ative Cost and P roductive ness of the Oultuj£ of Cotton .and the Cost and Product iveness of its MaSHfeture, etc. The pamphlet was widely read and quoted, as were a number of articles which he wrote. He compared the great profits of cotton manufacturers with planters' profits; undertook to demonstrate the superiority of steam-power, which the South must use, over water-power; and dwelt upon the advantages the Soutl possessed in having fresh raw material at hand and the saving in freight charges to be effected by establishing the factories near the fields. He gave the assur- ance that no great reserve of capital was necessary to embark in the business. Fac tories could be started on credit, end capital would accumulate - just as had been the case in New England. No fears need be entertained in regard to labor supply: if the factories should oe opened the labor and skill would be at hand. The South would not experience the difficulties in effecting this revolution in its industry which New England had encountered thirty years before; for she could start with the best machinery, and could avoid the mistakes made in the North . 52 51. Review, IX, 671 f .; Hunt '_s Merc hants ' Magazine. XXII, 453 . Published 8 J .90 i n DeBow' 9 Review VII 171-6- 77n-->. vttt -inn n / 556-60. The eub.tence ie £££& xk ^-5^2- ' ^ . ’ ' < . • • < • D 1ft ft* o • 1 ' . ' ’ < :- ■■■,’> ' C tr •/, ‘ • ' ' . • • ;■ qi .! -• -- • . v: .7. < • • • ; - . , • .. ■ : • • or. - 7 t ■' «• '• V- ... j, * ' i •; 0 .:.' * ' ; ... ) ' , . Jr t • • :• , , ' < •• 37 James' s statements were violently attacked in the New England press. 53 A warm debate was conducted by James and Amos A. Lawrence, a prominent Massachusetts cotton manufacturer, through the columns of Hunt » s M^hanta' Magazine. Lawrence said the South could not manufacture because she lacked capital, and factories could not be successful if built with borrowed money. He contended that James had underestimated the profits of cotton planters and overestimated those of cotton manufacturers. He controverted James's statements in regard to the superiority of steam-power over water-power. William Gregg and Hamilton Smith joined in the con- troversy in support of James. 5 4 The Southern press thought Lawrence's articles were dictated by self-interest, and that James had completely prostrated his re- viewer. The New England raanuf acturers were represented as being hostile to the new enterprises in the South. James himself wrote; -For years the Northern press has been loud and frequent in recommendations to the South, to enter the field of enterprise end manufacture her own staples—; but Northern Manufacturers have of- fered no encouragement - - - ,"55 But the wide spread interest manifested in manufacturing during these years and the welcome given every evidence of industrial enterprise were not due solely to the prevalent belief that there was an overproduction of cotton, and that spin- ning the yarn and weaving the cloth would yield a higher profit upon capital in- vested than did the production of the raw material. Manufactures were approved as promising an avenue of escape from an ill-balanced economic system and its atten- dant evils, social and political. In the first pluoe, hone manufactures would free the South from dependence upon the North for numerous articles which might be produced at home; just as di- 53. DeBow^s Review, IX, 553 , quoting the Mew York Herald . JScPff . XXI ’ ° 28 " 33i XXTI ' 26 ‘ 35 * 184-95; 290-311; 107-8; XXIII 55. Hunt ' s . XXII, 309. * . ‘ ' . , n . ; oil. , • . ; ■ • ‘ • > ;o . ■ • • . fl _ » , ; . - , 38 versified agriculture would free it from dependence upon the West for horses, mules, pork, and bacon; or as direct trade would free it from commercial dependence upon the East. Dependence upon other sections of the Union wa 3 felt to be "degrad- ing vassal age ", a subject for mortification and humiliation; and because of it the North was being enriched and the South impoverished. Nortnern men were constantly boasting of the superiority of their section of the Union; every foreign traveller drew a picture of contrast. The wealth and population of the North, the size, prosperity, and attractiveness of its cities and towns, the mileage, cost, and efficiency o' the railroads and canals, the man- ufactures and mines, ships and shipping, the farms, the price of land and the me- thods of agriculture, the homes, shops, and places of amusement, the schools and colleges, number of students and percentage of illiteracy, newspapers and their circulation, the development of literature and art-all were contrasted with those of the South, and almost invariably to the advantage of the North. It was pointed out that Southerners depended upon Northern shipping, bought Northern manufactured goods, flocked to Northern watering places, sent their sons to Northern colleges, read Northern literature, and admired Northern art. The conclusion was that the North nad reached a higher degree of civilization, prosperity, and comfort. The disparity was generally credited to superior industry and enterprise in the North and to the blighting effects of slavery in the South. ^Southern people admitted the contrast— it was impossible not to do so. They generally, by no means without ex- ception, admitted that the North was more prosperous. When John Forsyth, in his lecture on "The North and the South," asked the question, "Why is it that the North has so far outstripped the South in commerce, the growth of its cities, internal eve^opment, and the arts of living?", ^6 he but made an admission that Southerners commonly made. J. H. Hammond wrote: "It has so often been asserted, that in popu- lation and its ratio of increase, in wealth, aggregate and average, and the facil- 56. DeBow* s Review . XVII, 365. < • , • . . ( t K < f c 1 < , t ( . < ' , 1 * ' « * . hcoi f t •- i . ' » . . . 39 i-fcy of its accumulation, in industry, intelligence and enterprise, the North ie vastly in advance of the South, and by consequence that it is the strong and pro tecting, while the South is the weak and dependent section — all these things have been so long and so generally asserted in the South as well as the North, that they have gained almost universal credence."^ Now this was not a situation to be viewed with equanimity in any case by the loyal and progressive Southerner, and his discontent was augmented because of his belief that the North was prospering at the expense of the South. The feeling of a large element in the South in regard to the matter is well illustrated by the following typical quotation from an Alabama newspaper: it f0 r A !i,r^+ nt ' thS i N ° rth fattens and Srows rich upon the South. We depend upon it for our ent.ro auppUeo. we purchase all our luxuries and neoes.aries fron L, North. . . . with us, every branch and pursuit in life, every trade profession and occupation is dependent upon the North; for instate, the Mo rth^ners abuse’ n + Un °! Sl T ry md slaveholder s, yet our slaves are clothed with Northern and other*** ?°° 8 ’ Morfchern hats md sho0 s. work with Northern hoes, ploughs r3rr- Ki srws-stroS 8 places, . . . The aggressive acts upon his rights and his orocertv vessels 11 his^product^are^arried^i^m^^et^^^^^tt 01 ^^ W^'SSrtE™ j his sugar is crushed and preserved by Northern mac hi ner^- 8 Northern S in * by Northern steamboats, his mail s . ® hd ?® ry ’ hl8 rivers are navigated fed with Northern bacon beef flour A-.fi" U in r ^ nern . 8i:ase3 » his negroes are axe, and a Yankee clock’sits unon hi« « hlS i.® 14 is cleared with a Northern ern broom, an^ is covered l v “ tel - p } ace i hia floor is swept by a North- Northern looking] n4 .. * a Nortnern carpet; and his wife dresses herself by a ter receives her «oliah It ’ ’w^+v, 8011 13 educated in a Northern college, his daugh. medical college his schools ®f them f e “ in «fyi his doctor graduates at a Northern nished with^Northern i:v , ::i 1 8 o n ^ e an 5 nou1n:^58 NOrthera Some of those who preached diversification of industry not only affimed, as anti tarift men for that matter, that the North was growing prosperous, wealthy, and powerful at the South's expense, but demonstrated why it would contin- Simm sf^aTr^O 2 |f i Apr Z ^’r 2 ,j 5 '„ Cf ' H- Hwamond to 7/m. Gilmore , a 7, tv, Apr. b, I 049 . J. H. Hammond Pacers . aeiivered defers the CiAUene of • . ► < < < 40 ue to do so as long as the latter persevered in her unwise application of labor. They laid down the general propositions that an agricultural people is always ex- ploited by an industrial people, and that wealth tends to flow toward industrial canters. In the opinion of M. Tarver, it wa9 because she parted with her staples prime cost and purchased almost all of her necessary supplies from abroad at cost plus profits, that the South was "growing poorer while the rest of the world is growing rich, for it is easy for the world to enrich itself upon such a cus- tomer on such terms. "59 Governor J. H. Hammond, who in hi 3 address before the South Carolina Institute set himself the task of showing philosophically why a people of one occupation can never attain prosperity and influence, thought one industry was not enough to absorb all the genius and draw out all the energies 60 oi a people. According to the Richmond Enquire r. "Commercial and manufacturing nations levy a heavier tax on their dependents than any despot ever exacted from subject provinces. Labor employed in commerce or manufactures, in the general, nays t^ree or four times as much as farming labor, and in the exchange of one for the other, the fanner gives the manufacturer three or four hours* labor for one."^ Similar was the reasoning of F. A. P. Barnard, of Alabama State University: "The kinds of labor in which the element of skill most predominates are the moat pro- ductive. Therefore, the wealth of a people depends as much upon the direction given to labor as upon the amount of labor employed. An agricultural people might be rich but only in the case Nature is lavish in her bounties; but "riches thus bestowed, while the means of greater riches remain unemployed, will never give con- tentment ."62 But no matter how the North reaped profit from Southern industry, there could J. 59. DeBow* a Review. Ill, 203. XJliiL* » VIII, 503ff . Cf . Hammond to H. Hammond Papers. 6l. Quoted in DeBow* s Review, XX, 392. William Gilmore Simms, Dec. 20, 1849, See aho Fi , Socictey^ fo v rha C-* c , ‘jffi?. ffi/TT < * . *| Q f « * • , [ ■■ . ’ , • ' . . .\i u‘ ; " •v . . . 41 be no doubt of the advantages of retaining the profit at home. Everything that manufactures had done for the North and for England, they would do for the South. Her stagnant cities would grow, and new ones spring into existence. Surplus cap- linl no longer would be under the necessity of seeking investment elsewhere. Rail- roads would be built, and steamships launched upon the rivers; dykes would be built, and marshes drained; and capital would be forthcoming to develop the miner- al resources, which the people of the South were beginning to realize she possess- ed. For the planter and the farmer a home market would be provided, not subject to the fluctuations of the foreign market. Diversified agriculture would be stim- ulated; and the planter would no longer have to resort to distant states for his mules, pork, com, and h«y.^3 Nor did the proponents of diversification overtook the social benefits to ooce with new industries. With the development of manufactures, towns and village would spring up among the scattered population. More and better schools could be est ibliehed, for, after all, the chief reason for backwardness in educational pro- gress in the South was the sparsity of population. Churches could be brought with- in .he ranch of a greater number. Colleges could be supported at home, ar.d South- ern parents would no longer be under the necessity of sending their sons north for a good college training, with the increased wealth and population which manufac- ture, would bring, the South could adequately support her cm press end literature, Said Hammond, after having given a glowing description of the revivifying effects of manufactures upon his state: '•! am not conjuring u P ideal visions to excite ths imagination. All these things have been actually done. They have been, in our own times, and under our own eyes, carried out end made legible, living, self-multiply- ing and gi ant-growing facts in Old England and New England; and they have been mainly accomplished by the incalculable profits which their genius and enterprise haVe real ized on the product of our labor." 4 article, "Should the Loom ^w.eTo* th^CotUn^rthe^C^t 8 ^® 1 * ' “■* ™ d m Sin Journal and Civilian. T. 319-™?. * Cott<,n 00 to the Loom," West- ■ , . ' . ' ■ ) I ’ ! . , . . i : ■ . ■ ; • i \ • . S . 42 But the prophets of a new order met prejudices against manufactures which the} could not wholly dispel. Politicians had too often described the cities and fact- ory towns of the North notbeds of poverty, ignorance, vice, crime, and unrelig- ion, the seat of abolition and the numerous isms with which the land was afflicted, Manufactures had been too frequently described as incompatible with liberty, free- dom, culture, and virtue; and agriculture glorified as the only industry capable of producing a 1 iberty-lovir.g and chivalrous race. 6 * Often the proponents of di- versification considered it necessary to give the assurance that no large towns, but only vi l age s , woulo be created; and that there was no danger of manufactures ever predominating over agriculture in the planting states. 66 /too, it must be no- ted, there was a feeling all too prevalent in the South that manual labor, and par- ticularly mechanical labor, was degrading and beneath the dignity of white men. Young men of intelligence find ability, who might have become skill fed mechanics, managers, or superintendents of factories, felt that they would lose caste by en- tering a cotton factory. Such employment was less becoming gentlemen than agricul- ture, the professions, or even the mercantile business. The dignity of labor had to be proclaimed. Few more scathing denunciations of Southern social standards, as well as of the inertia, lethargy, and lack of foresight of Southern men, can be found than some of those uttered by Southern men who were trying to point the path of progress end urge their people along it. 6 ? One argument in behalf of manufactures by no means infrequently used was that they would give employment to the "poor whites-* The poor whites were the non- 64. DeBowls Review, VIII, 516™ ZVllZ'nUtofr, 0*. Cit.., Chs. XIX -XV. 65 - Ibid., VIII, 503; XI, 127; XIII, 49; XVII, 178; So. Cu.ar . Rev., VIII, 142. 66. EeBow^e Review, VIII, 522; XI, 130, 132. sssra.. 43 slaveholding whites of the black belts, the hill country, and the pine barrens. Some of them, upon worn out and abandoned plantations or their small hill farms, engaged in agriculture in a feeble competition with the planters. Others obtained a precarious subsistence by doing occasional jobs for the planters, by hunting and fishing, by begging or stealing from the slaveholders, or by trading with the slaves end inducing them to plunder for their benefit, '’’hey were not enployed by the planters to work in the cotton fields, and would have been unwilling to work with the slaves had opportunity been afforded them. As a class they produced less then they consumed, and thus were a burden upon society. Their ignorance was as general as their poverty; vice and crime were common among them. The number of poor whites is difficult to estimate. In 1849 Governor Hammond estimated at 50,Q0( the number of those in South Carolina whose industry was not "adequate to procure them, honestly, such support, as every white person in this country is, end feels himself entitled to." 68 William Gregg put the number at 125,000, more than one- third of the white population of the state. 69 The number in other Southern states was probably somewhat less in proportion to population. Char#, T. James said there were thousands of poor whites. 70 James Martin, of northern Alabama, spoke of a "large poor population almost without employment." 71 Hunt’s Merchants ’ Magazine referred to them as a "mass of unemployed white labor .”72 Mmy of the advocetee cf manufactures believed the employment of this olaas o: unfortunates desirable from every viewpoint. They were said to be more than glad to avail themselves of the opportunity to work, ever, at most moderate wages, e.t la- bor deemed respectable for white person.; and, when ao employed, to quickly assume the industrious habits of Northern operatives. By employment in factories, they would be brought together in villages, where the influence of church and school could reach them. In this way and only in this way could they be elevated from 68. DeBow^ geview, VIII, 518. '""^'.'ibid., XI , 133. 70 . I£id., VIII,- 558. 71. Ibig^ xxiv, 383 . 72t 44 their degradation to a state of comparative comfort and independence end social responsibility. From the viewpoint of the prosperity end power of the community at large, the employment of the poor whites would be of incalculable benefit: it would transform thousands of non-productive into productive citizens and enormous- ly increpse wealth of the region. The number of this class in some states was said to be sufficient to work up into goods all the cotton grown therein. This product would be a clear gain; for the employment of the poor whites in factories would withdraw little or no labor from the production of the raw materiel. How, it was asked, could the South keep pace with the North in the race for power and wealth, when so large a part of the total possible labor force was comparatively idle?73 Many thoughtful Southerners regretted that all the capital, enterprise, and in- telligence in the South was employed in directing slave labor to the almost com- plete neglect of a large part of the white population. 74 Thomas P. Beveraux, a large slaveholder of North Carolina, thought it the great evil of slavery that it rendered a mass of white producing ability more than unproductive; and there is ev- idence indicating that many shared his opinion. 7 > But whether slavery was respon- sible for the existence of the poor white class or not, its opponents in the North end elsewhere charged it with that responsibility; and it would seem that the de- fenders of the institution should have welcomed every opportunity for remedying the evxl and proving the charge unfounded. Too many slaveholders, however, opposed manufactures on the very ground that they would aid in developing a class conscious ness among white labor, which would be hostile to slavery. In fact it was already evident that such a class consciousness was developing, particularly in the cities end towns. It manifested itself in a movement to drive 7^. As notes oB-h., 74. DeBow * s Review. XI, 135, T^Dever^tOfHemmono, April 17, 1850, J. H. H gnmond Papers. Of. So. jjgg.. ‘ ■■ • : i t Mt' + L, • • * * ■ ’ - ' • ,s • I j 3 W , If •'-■■■ : , ! - , 1 .0 ' ■ ' • ' t • . ' 1 ' 1 ■ ■ ( 1 . " • ' : / . * * . . • • , 45 the slaves from the oities and from mechanical employments, and restrict them to agriculture. In 1849 C. G. Memminger wrote Hammond that the opinion wa 3 gaining ground in Charleston and even in the low country, that slaves should be excluded I from mechanical pursuits, and their places filled by whites; and that there would soon be a formidable party on the subject . 70 Several years earlier, a bill had been drafted and presented to the North Carolina Legislature to limit the employment of slaves in mechanical callings, but had been met and defeated by the objection that it interfered with the rights of the slave owners; an act of the Georgia Legislator December 27, 1845, forbade negro mechanics to make contracts . 77 In the cities there was constant friction between the white stevedores, porters, draymen, and mechanics 78 70 and the negroes. Sverywhere there was opposition to slaves learning trades. The slaveholders feared this self assertion of white labor; for, as Memminger put it, were the negro mechanics and operatives driven from the cities, whites would take their places, everyone would have a vote, and all would be abolitionists Those urging manufactures, he thought, were aiding and abetting the free labor party, which was the only one from which danger to slavery was to be apprehended . 80 General A. H. Brisbane, who was leading in the agitation in behalf of manufactures in South Carolina, and who was instrumental in founding a mechanics institute in Charleston, complained of the opposition he met at every turn from the slaveholders of Charleston and the seaboard.^ On the other hand, some slaveholders thought more danger was to be apprehend- ed from the poor whites under existing conditions than if brought together in cot- 76. Memminger to Hammond, April 28, 1849, J. H. Hammond Papers. 77. Bevereaux to Hammond, April 17, 1850, ibid. 78. DeBow* s Review. XXVI, 600(extract from the Report of the Committee on Negro Population of the South Carolina Legislature) ; ibid. . XXX, 67-77. 79. F. L. Olmsted, Cotton Kingdom. I, 98; Lyell, A Second Visit to the United States, II, 36, 81-83. And see below, pp. 230-232. 80. Memminger to Hammond, April 28, 1849, J. H. Hammond Papers. 81. Brisbane to Hammond, Oct. 8 , 1849, ibid. : cf. Gregg to Hammond, Dec. 1, 1848. . * 1 ' ■ . Y - . . . . • - :: u . . . . ' • : j >, * •- . * k. - . . . » 46 ton factories with constant employment and adequate remuneration. In the latter case they v/ouid see that their occupation depended upon the preservation of a sys- tem necessary for the production of cotton. In the opinion of Thomas P. Devereaux, if a notion should arise among the poor whites that slavery barred them of a mar- ket for their produce end hindered the advancement of their children, the slave- holders would have an enemy in their midst greatly more to be feared than abolitior preachers. * Brisbane believed it better for white labor to develop in the South, where it could see its dependence upon black labor, than in the North, where it could not, and would, therefore, be the fanatical enemy of slavery. Over against the discussion of the desirability of providing employment for the poor whites most be set the discussion of the practicability of employing slave) in factories. During the period of overproduction of cotton there was a belief that slave labor engaged in producing the staple was redundant, and that it was de- sirable to divert some of it to other industries. The division of slave labor be- tween the factory end the field would increase the profits of agriculture and en- hance the value of slaves. slave labor was tried in several cotton factories, no- tably the DeKalb end the Saluda factory, both of South Carolina; and the alleged success of the experiments was cited as demonstrating that, should agriculture be- come oversupplied with labor, manufacturing would open channels to draw away the 84 surplus. From some of the comments made, it is hard to escape the conclusion that many Southerners were interested in manufactures only so long ae it appeared pos- sinle to conduct them with slave labor; when experience finally demonstrated the superiority of white labor, their interest abated. Other men opposed from the star -on n? V D r B f eaU J Hmond » AP ril 17, 1850, J. H. Hammond Papers; cf. W. B. Fodg. Bow's Lv 7 % ’ N ° V * 2 °’ l85 °’ m*- S£V., XXVI 447; De- goy's Review. Ill, 188 . VIII, 25 . 83. Richmond J7hi£, Sspt. 1 ?, 1851; DeBow's Review. XII, 182-5. mumSSZtern Si; aja- j-aygiff- - »• m 47 the employment of slaves in factories. It would weaken slavery; for, ea one said, •'Whenever a slave is made a mechanic, ho is more than half freed . . , H ®5 More- over, were slaves employed, white could not be; for whites would not work side by side or in competition with slaves. The movement to bring the spindles to the cotton was almost synchronous with the period of acrimonious sectional controversy over the extension of slavery which began with the annexation of Texas and continued until the general accept- ance of the Compromise of 1850 gave a temporary respite. Southern men were becom- ing dismayed at the growing strength and vigor of the attacks upon slavery. The growing disparity of the sections in numbers and power was too striking and too ominous not to excite most serious concern. The old political alliance of South and West could no longer be depended upon, and especially not in the case of the slavery issue, to thwart the antagonistic policies of the North. Leaders, from * the great Calhoun down, caet about for means of maintaining Southern rights and preserving Southern equality in the Union. A large minority of the people in the South, in one state a majority, were convinced by 1850 that the Southern states should withdraw from the Union. Widespread discussion of secession caused consi- deration to be given to the preparedness of the South for separate nationality. The intemperateness of the sectional quarrel and, especially, the necessity for augmenting the political power of the South, whether to maintain her rights in the Union or her independence out of it, gave a powerful impetus to all movements for promoting the economic development of the South, indluding the encouragement of manufacturing. The arguments in favor of encouraging home manufactures which were suggested by political necessities or purposes took several forms. One frequently employed was well illustrated by an editorial in the Richmond Dispatch . After one of the 85- DgWa Review, VIII, 518 . Cf. Barnard, o£. cit., 23. ' , •. . f , * ' « * . , t , . » - . , c , < * . 48 instances of interference with the execution of the Fugitive Slave law by the peo- ple of Boston, the Dispatch estimated the value of the Boston-made shoes used in Virginia, and suggested that Virginia people should manuf acture the shoes used in the state. "That it is time for Virginia to think of doing some such thing the high handed measures lately adopted in Boston sufficiently prove. As long as we are dependent upon these people they will insult ua at pleasure. Let us cut loose from them thus far at least." The reasoning was weak: If Boston people insulted the Virginians while yet the latter were good customers, would they not more read- ily do so should the Virginians cease to patronize Boston shoe factories! More logical was the reasoning of J.D.B. BeBow and others who, while recog- nizing that Southern enterprise might not convince the enemies of slavery, said it would p repare the South for the crisis which they professed to believe was inevit- able. BeBow wrote: "We have long ago thought that the duty of the people consist- ed more in the vigorous prosecution of their industry, resources and enterprise, than in bandying constitutional arguments with their opponents, or in rhetorical flourishes about the sanctity of the federal compact. This is the course of ect- ion which, though it may not convince, will at least prepare us for this crisis^ which it needs no seer's eye to see will, in the event, be precipitated upon us by the reckless fanaticism of ignorant zeal of the 'cordon of free States' surround- ing us on every hand. 'Light up the torches of industry/ was the advice of old Dr. Frenklin to hie countrymen, on discovering that all hope from the British cab- inet had fled forever. Light up the torches, say we on every hill top, by the side o.i every stream, from the shores of the Delaware to the furthest extremes of the Hio Gronde-frcm the Ohio to the capes of Florida. 86. Quoted in DeBow's Review. XI, 8l. 87. Ibid., IX, 120. Cf. ibid . . IV, 211; XI, May 10, 1850, Whitemersh B. Seabreck Papers; 680; William Gregg to Seabrook, Richmond Whig. Feb. 12, 1851. T 49 Another and more frequently used argument was that diversified industries would be favorable to a more rapid growth of population in the South, and popula- tion was necessary -to political power. The North had been growing more rapidly in population and political influence, it was said, because immigration from abroad had gone almost exclusively to that section. This was not because slavery had re- pelled immigration, but because the South had offered no inducements. Southern Agriculture was ill- adapted to European labor. And what other industry hart the South? The construction of railroads had attracted a few Irish and German labor- ers; but the demand was insufficient to bring a great number. Let industry by di- versified, however, and the South would get a share of the influx from abroad. Northern people might come South. Emigration from the Southern states would be checked. The population of the North would then increase less rapidly, that of th< South more rapidly; the relative political strength of the South would thus be , 88 preserved . Not all, however, considered immigration desirable. Many feared that immi- grants would be hostile to slavery. The divereificationiats attempted to overcome these fears- The immigrants could be assimilated and converted into defenders of Southern institutions, they said. In proof of this view they pointed to many men who had come from the North and were among the staunchest defenders of the South. They further contended that a large foreign element in the North was a greater menace to slavery than such an element in the South would be; for there it would become convinced of the necessity of the institution. 85 Just as does the fear a- mong the slaveholders of the development of a class consciousness among the native white labor, this fear of immigration illustrates the difficulties in the way of 88. Barnard, Oration Delivered before the Citizens of Tuscalo osa. Alabama, i8|L 29; DeBpw* e Review . VIII, 558-60; XI, 319; Hunt’s Merchants' Mag . . XXI, 498. — — — ' 89 . Barnard, _ioc_. cit; A. H. Brisbane to J. H. Hammond, Oct. 8, 1849 J. H. Hammond Papers . — — 50 creating a public sentiment in the South favorable to progress along other lines than agriculture . During the secession movement of 1849-1852, which has been alluded to, many Unionists supported the efforts to develop Southern manufactures, promote direct trade, construct internal improvements, and otherwise build up the South in an ee- onomic way, as a substitute for disunion. Their position wa 3 based upon two chains of reasoning: 1. Economic regeneration of the South would tend to preserve the political equilibrium of the sections and thus enable the Southerr. states to maintain their rights without forsaking the Union. 2. The basic causes for the war being waged against the Union were economic discontent and the belief that the Union had been unequal in its material benefits. The Unionists, in so far as they admitted Southern "decline, 1 * attributed it to causes not connected with the oper- ation of the government or the Union. Successful programs of economic improvement would allay discontent end prove their contentions in regard to the advantages of the Union. This aspect of the political basis for the agitation in behalf of man- ufactures will be discussed in somewhat greater detail elsewhere. Although the discussion of the desirability of diversifying Southern industry by no means ceased about 1852, as we shall see, the active agitation in behalf of bringing the spindles to the cotton'* may be said to have come to an end about that date. The explanation of this lies partly in the fact that the comparative prosperity of cotton during the 1850s weakened the force of the economic arguments for diversification ybut chiefly in the fact that the agitation no longer was en- couraged by reports of large profits and the erection of new factories. Accounts of new enterprises continued to appear throughout 1851, and then ceased almost aoruptly. In their stead there began to appear reports of reduced profits, failures, and, later, explanations for the sudden collapse of a movement so auspiciously begun. It was not until the later years of the decade that the press again spoke optimistically of the progress of cotton manufactures in the - : i » , ■ t « ' : ■ ■ . i • . v ■ - ' , ; ■* .• . * - . ■ ' . : J- ; . , I . ■ r . . t , :. ■ ■ ■ ,i. )’ . ; 0 * ioqn r.i.*, * • ••*■ 51 South > William Gregg, who knew more about this subject than any other man, writ- ing on the very eve of the War, stated that all the progress made in cotton manu- facturing in the oouth during fifteen years was made in "about five years - from 1845 to 1850." The meager statistics available tend to sustain thia judgment. According to the estimates of contemporary reviewers of the cotton trade the South em states consumed a quantity of raw cotton in the year 1849-50 which was not materially exceeded until 1859-60. 91 During the years 1850 and 1851 the cotton manufacturing industry was suffering a depression. It is probable that, could factories newly built or building in 1850 have operated at full capacity, the to- tal consumption for the year would have equalled that of the years immediately preceding the Civil Tar. The United States censuses for 1840, 1850, and i860 may be considered sufficiently reliable to show general tendencies. The v&lue of the product of cotton factories in states south of Maryland was Si, 912,215 in 1840, 15,665,362 in 1850, and $8, 145,067 in i860. Thus while the value of the product nearly trebled between 1840 and 1850, it increased only about 43 per cent during the following decade. The value of the output of cotton manufactures' as a whole was 146,350,453 in 1840, $65,501, 68? in 1850, and $115,681,774 in i860, an in- crease of 41 per cent during the first decade and 76.6 per cent the second. 92 The progress made in cotton manufacturing in the South during the l840i must be attributed chiefly to the unprofitableness of cotton culture during the same period and the conviction of men with capital that manuf acturing would yield a higher rate of interest upon money invested. In some cases, it is true, subscrip- tion to the stock of cotton manufacturing companies seems to have been made by pub lie spirited citizens prompted more by a desire to benefit their communities or states or to advance the cause of the South than by the desire for prcfi + . To some Southed wL^ P l83?!i86r! le IV f ° r estirc!ltes of <■«••* i" «• North, ifl*. I? * h r~ ^ en diU — ~ 36l ; Compendium of the Seventh Census. 100, Eighth Census, Manufactures . Introduction? P. vVTT 52 degree, too, the agitation was instrumental in securing the liberalization of laws affecting joint stock companies, and may have indirectly contributed to the devel- opment of manufactures. The cessation of progress about 1851 cannot be attributed to any abatement of interest on the part of the public • Some of the causes for depression and failure in the South affected New England factories as well. Oth- ers were peculiar to the South and serve to illustrate the difficulties which had to be overcome there, perhaps among any agricultural people, before new industries could become firmly established. An important cause of the depression in the cotton manufacturing industry was the sharp rise in the price of raw cotton from 7 cents in June to 11 cents in Oct- ober, 1849, double the price of October, 1848. With the exception of the year 1851-52, the price of cotton remained comparatively high until the Civil War. Wit* the rise in price the quantity of cotton taken for Northern mills fell from 503,42$ bales in 1848-49 to 465,702 in 1849-50 and 386,429 the following year, while the estimates of consumption of the South and West for the same three years were 130, 000, 137,000 and 99,000 bales, respectively.? 3 To add to the hardships occasioned by high priced raw material, there had been a general fall in the prices of cotton goods, caused partly by the recent rapid extensions of cotton manufactures in the United States, and partly, it was said, to the increased quantities of English goods put upon the Amerioan market after the Walker tariff of ]846 had become ef- fective.?^ Strangely, the factories of the cotton states seen to have weathered the first year of two of hard times better than factories farther north; end Southern men submitted tha fact as evidence of the superior advantages of those states for cot- ton manufacturing. In the autumn of 1850 Joseph H. Lumpkin, of Georgia, said that 93. See appendix, table IV. 94. HunVs M erchants * XXIII, 595ff. (Dec. 1850); XXV, *65; DeBow’s Mview, X , 93, 143. . * « * , , ' , t ■ • * . , , , ■ , . ;• q , , , "■ ■ . . , • '• f . ' ' t , * , , < , , 53 he knew of no bankruptcy in any cotton company in the South; and while seventy- one mills were reported idle within thirty miles of Providence, Rhode Island, and numerous others in the North were either idle or upon short time, some Southern companies were declaring a dividend of 10 per cent. 96 The Savannah Newg. reported that Southern factories were prosperous, while some Northern mills were closing; and added, "Tnase facts prove what we have often asserted, that we have a decided advantage over the North in the business of manufacturing yams and coarse cotton goods. Thomas Prentice Kettell, of New York, wrote: "It is the transition of the seat of manufactures from the North and East to the South end West, under which Northern manufacturing capital is laboring. "98 Bu t factories in the cotton belt did fail during the years 1850, 1851, and 1852, establishments changed hands at much less than the original cost, and the profits of all were greatly reduced. Moreover, Southern factories revived much more slowly than those of New England. •h ,! 5 ;/ irgin / a * and Maryl9rtd factories did not escape the hard times. A conven- 1 a"!! interests meeting in Richmond, late in 1850, reported that a oon ? ’ ;J s ? 1 ^ d J eB in thA-t state, 7,000 were running at three-fourths time 8,000 at one-third time, 22,000 at full time but three-fourths wages while the tinr^r ei J h Ii r idl ° ° r P racticall y 9 °; the whole averaged about one-half ™ the conditions were worse. 0? 23 factories, 8 were idle.and nl, 2 were running full time. Hun t * s Merchants * Mag .. XXIV. 262. The iron, in- ion 0ry n»J fl Wel1 ^ the cotton mwiuf ^oturing industry, was complaining of depress- ion. The reason assigned was English and Scotch competition. , » 4 ^* (From an address delivered before the South Car- olina Institute at its Second Annual Fair, Nov. 19, 1850.) As late as 1855 will IT the ex : epti “ ° ? the Salud ^ comp«ny ITe ZllTTl SoSh Carllin!? be n + r ! failur ® 8 very few embarrassed concerns (in „ Carolina), and they labored under most of the ddfecte thet I named as e i e - the t erribl^™ SSment % *5S7 f<,ilure «“ 0 ^ 6 i« fL?o“ie a during doing well 1 Zttl ™ it l8 ?° 51 • ™ »«. 1th one or two exceptions?® Manufacture,, i r £l Greg£> President of the Graniteville Co ., 1855, quoted in DeBcw'a Review . XVIII, 788. ’ — ' ” 97. Quoted in 2£BowVs Review, XI, 322. (Sept., 1851). TTll :.M 8 — !••• than 54 Many of them dragged out a sickly existence until a year or two before the war, when they again became prosperous. The example of these factories discouraged further investments of capital." Cotton factories in the South experienced difficulties other than the high price of raw material and the low prices of goods. 100 The factories were often cheaply constructed, and the best machinery was not always provided. Several of them employed steam-power, which proved too costly and put them under a big hand- icap from the start. Local pride in many cases hod much to do with raising capi- tal and, consequently, in selecting sites. As a result the mills were often injud- iciously located in respects of health, steady motive power, and marketing of goods. The labor problem was a difficult one. Negro labor required too much cap- ital, if bought; and proved unsatisfactory in any case. 101 The whites, though they worked for lower wages than the mill operatives of the North, from ignorance and long habits of indolence, were difficult to train and control. 102 Because of the unskilled labor, Southern factories required more efficient superintendents than Northern factories, but did not pay sufficiently high salaries to command them. been du^ Ind* of * he failures at Augusta, G a . There canals had of a second Lo™n VT°? ’ power 6n0U?h 8ecured to d **ive the spindles / Lowell. Factories sprang up on a large scale. A long chain of chan* f 0 ll ,°r? d - SggfflQs Kevi™, XXVIII, 483. William Lg^te° i7* 1 e ffUiUie the Augusta Mills has done more to put back the progress of ^ thS S ° Uth ±htm any ° th6r failure that has taken place!*’ Ibid .. (1) Renor/of t\ S i C r 8 i r S ° f the CaUSeS f0r failure of Southern factories see: j ) Report 2X Gre£&, Pj^A e ilt At Jfehe Granit eville Manufacturing Co. 1855 (pamphlet); also in DeBo^J XVI 1 1,' YtmT. 2SBILIBB2SEL • , XAVI EX 9? a ff f f£? ° f JmBS MoiltgorTiery ’ English manufacturer, ibid., Florence, Alab^ia, ibidf^rar^T^f A) C °! t ? n raanuf ^turer of ( c\ ; Jr 5 - 1 **' AA1V » 3o2-o. (4) Hunt s Merchants ’ Mas.. XLTT 3?6f_ in D^eBow ^ f “ FmTonT^^sti^inil^y** ,7 ’ 83 i 225-32; 494-500; 623-31; 771-8; XXX, 102-4; 216-23. 101. Robert Russell, North .jmeriajB, 295 102. See Edward Ingle, Southern Side! -i . ’ ■ • f r! •; o fflO 1 ■ ‘ . ; ' ’ • , . '■ ' . <’ . I • ’ • , ■ . . . • < . 56 capital, were in debt from the start, and maintained no reserve of cash to enable them to buy row material when the price was low and hold back the product from a depressed market. Frequent items are met in Southern papers telling of consign- ments of goods to Northern citiee. The papers of the South were inclined to boast of such incidents without stopping to inquire the reasons for their occurrence. 106 Because of insufficient capital, the cotton manufacturers of the cotton state, as were the tobacco manufacturers of Virginia, were constantly in need of advances. lllfl advances could most readily be secured by drawing upon agents in New York or other Northern cities, who sold the goods. This system meant that the goods some- times had to be sold in a depressed market to meet the drafts. Southern manufact- urers could not sell directly to Southern merchants or jobbers, because the latter bought on long credit, which the manufacturers were unable to extend. Both mill ovrners and merchants experienced difficulty in procuring loans from home banks - whether because of inadequacy of banking facilities, or, as some believed, because '! i banking policy, we will not pause here to inquire.' 5 "''"^ 106. Hunts* MSi^gnts’ to. XXI, 384. Cf. DeBow’s Review f XI, 322: F. L. Olmsted, Journey in_ the Seaboard Slave S tates . II, 184. l0 ?’ ?. n 3 o 8t ! m 0f advanc9S nnd lon K credits and the question of banking faci- lities in the South, see Chapter V. CHAPTER III The Relation of E c ono jni c ^ Pi sc o nt ent to t h e Southern Movement . to 18^2 . Discontent with the economic conditions of the South, absolutely and as com- pared with otner sections, found expression in the direct trade conventions of 183 7-39. It also was expressed in the agitation in behalf of the establishment of cotton manufactures. While it cannot be said to have been the sole or even primary cause for the Southern movement which culminated in secession, its influ- ence upon that movement was by no means negligible, especially in its earlier sta- ges. The story of South Carolina nullification, to begin no farther back, is too well known to require more than a brief summary here. About 1825 and following years, strong opposition developed in the older planting states of the Siuth, es- pecially South Carolina, to the policy of a high and protective tariff and heavy expenditures for internal improvements. The basis of this opposition lay not only in the fact that the protected industries and the internal improvements at govern- ment expense were in other sections, but also in the apparently, or really, impov- erished condition of the old planting section compared with other sections of the Union. In no state were conditions more favorable to the growth of discontent than in South Carolina. Industry was not at all diversified. The price of cotton had fallen. Land values were declining. Population was increasing slowly, if at all. Charleston was making comparatively little progress. These conditions were attri- buted in great measure to the protective tariff and the extravagant expenditures of the Federal government. Failing to secure a reversal of the objectionable poli- cies, opponents of the tariff hit upon nullification as a remedy. Upon nullifica- tion as the issue two parties developed. The State Rights party, or Nullifiers. neld nullification to be a constitutional mode of resisting palpably unconstitu- tional laws, which they considered the tariff laws to be, and thought it justified * . . < ' , t . ’ r t < r ■ ! r. 1 * < ■ ■ . • 'i < ' ■ •: t ■ • 58 by the oppression suffered under the tariff. They professed to believethat nulli- fication would result in a repeal of the tariff, but were prepared to resort to it even should war and disunion be the consequences. The Union party, on the other hand, opposed nullification as unconstitutional and certain to lead to war, which could result only in the crushing of South Carolina- Many of the Unionists, too, either denied that South Carolina was not prosperous, or, admitting it, attributed the lack of prosperity to other causes than the tariff. After a violent struggle of four years duration a convention was called, which adopted an ordinance nulli- fying the tariff laws of 1028 and 1832. While .Andrew Jackson prepared to employ force, Congress enacted the Compromise Tariff, of 1833 - Thereupon the South Caro- lina convention repealed the nullification ordinance. In other Southern states where was much sympathy with South Carolina's opposition to the tariff, and many citizens accepted in whole or in part the doctrines of the Nullifiers. This was especially true of Georgia and eastern Virginia, and to a less degree true of North Carolina and Alabama^ After 1333 the divison of the people of South Carolina into Nullifiers and Unionists was largely perpetuated, the former being in a growing majority. The Nullifiers first affiliated with the Whig party, which took form about 1834; about 1833-40 the great majority of them were led back into the Democratic fold by Cal- houn, and continued thereafter to call themselves Democrats. After this latter date the Unionists were to be found in the dwindling Whig party and in what may be termed the Jackson wing of the Democratic party. It was the policy of the leaders of the dominant faction to conciliate and assimilate the Unionist faction; this pol- icy was successful in the main. I n other Southern states, particularly the cotton states and Virginia, the large majority of those who had sympathized with the South Carolina Nullifiers in 1832 continued in their devotion to the principles of the ^on standard special works and monographs Irtwj P r i n < 'zu \au« n — - C ^ h -°- u - n; Correspondence of . . ' • : ■ i . , • - . * < ■ t • - - • » * • - • * , ; , , t . 59 nullificationist leaders. Perhapa the majority of this class (Georgia end North Carolina may be exceptions) were aligned with the Whig party during the early years of its history. Most of those so aligned, however, shifted to the Democrat- ic party, either with Calhoun during Van Buren's administration, or later, in Ty- ler's time • Of those who remained with the Whigs, some were ostensibly converted to Whig principles; others retained both their state rights, free trad© and re- form principles and their Whig affiliation until almost the end of the Whig party. o.n the Democratic party the line of cleavage between the Calhoun wing and the Jackson-Benton-Van Buren wing regained fairly distinct until the Civil War. It was the former ©lament which rallied to the support of John C. Calhoun when he came forward in 1843 as the free trade and reform candidate for the Democratic 2 nomination for the presidency. The Calhoun wing of the democratic party held extreme state rights principles. Furthermore, it had been and continued to be the conviction of this following thd (1) the government of the United States was too extravagantly administered; (2) tne Southern people paid more than their proportionate share of the revenues and received back much less than their proportionate share in the form of disbursements (3) they were compelled by government to pay tribute to Northern manufacturers, ship owners, and merchants by virtue of the tariff, fishing bounties, exclusion of toreign vessels from the coasting trade, and heavy government expenditures in the North; (4) and these continual and uncompensated drains upon the resources of the Southern states were enriching the North and impoverishing the South. No Nullifier would admit that the Southern states had the prosperity or were making m , ?’ +1* T ® im P° 33ibl * in « study of this scope to develop the statements th ® suran ? r y an^ysis of the party alignment in the South. They ar® ii ^ v J riet y of purees quoted elsewhere in other connections - spec- J1?8 S : f s£ John c. Calhoun and of the J. H. Ld ^ 6V ® th % C ^ olusions here Presented accort^~t£~m£in~ SrffwffiKhff Z ZllT L „??!•. au.Eant la tti so^ Phiiups, TTb~.V^“ SS ^. i “?l'?" b:Ler ' SSSliS&aijJSl is. a.rsisis, and Thomas Ritchi.TTt tiat. the conclusions! * Pr.B.nt.d .Issuers in this stud~ Sd.TTwbrtw • • ‘ ' ’ • • ■ • • , j _ « l m . . a . . . , ■ < ■ : -■ ■ ■ , i -.j- ■ ■ -s, ■ ' L r rn 1 . if r - ■. ' ■ •. ‘ '' ’ •• / - •; • .-tv. - ; ■ • , ■ ... v- oj • . •. / . I- J ; I ' • . , „ ■ X i * * * ■ ( , • . . . , . . 60 the material progress to which their resources, population, and the industry of their people entitled them. " Abolish custom houses," wrote Calhoun, 1845, "and let the money collected in the South be spent in the South and we would be among the most flourishing people in the world. The North could not stand the annual draft, which they have been making on us for 50 years, without being reduced to extreme poverty in half the time. All we want to be rich is to let us have what we make. "3 Such views as these were expressed in every tariff debate, in the dis- cussion of almost every rivers and harbors bill, fortifications bill, pensions bill - in fact whenever a proposal was introduced in Congress which involved the raising or appropriation of money. They were presented, as we have seen, in the direct trade conventions of 1837-1839 . They came out in almost every comparison of the progress of the North and South and in every defense of slavery; for it was necessary to trace "Southern decline" to other causes than slavery. It was the constant purpose of Calhoun and other leaders to reform the "fiscal action of the General Government." but it had early become the conviction of some oi his followers that the government was beyond redemption, and that the proper policy for the Southern states to pursue was separation from the North, The bit- ter feelings engendered and the fears for slavery aroused by the several quarrels over governmental policies affecting that institution had led many to calculate the value of the Union from an economic viewpoint who otherwise might not have done so. A consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of the Union led a number to form the conclusion that disunion was not a consummation to be dreaded and avoid- ed but a measure which would promote the prosperity, power, and happiness of the South. A n example of their reasoning may be found in a great speech against the tar- iff of 1842, which George McDuffie, of South Carolina, mode in the Senate, 1844. He warned the advocates of protection that there was a point beyond which oppress- I 3. Calhoun to J. H. Hammond, Aug. 30, 1845, Calhoun Correspo ndence. 6?0 . , < < t . * ; . , i xi ico. ■ • ftfefc i < . . * , , - . . • - , , ■ , ' • 61 ion would not be endured, "even by the most enslaved community in the world." He pictured the Union divided into three confederations - the North and Northeast one, the TVest a9 another, and the Southern states as a third. He showed that "the manufacturing states could not adhere to the protective system one year. They would have no revenue, and would be driven to direct taxation; whereas the South- ern confederation would become the importing States, receiving in exchange foreign manufactures for tneir rice, cotton, tobacco, and sugar; that the southwestern confederation would be exchangers with the southern confederation of their pro- ducts for the products of Europe; for they would never be so foolish as to buy of the New England Confederation at forty per cent, higher in price than need be paid for the same goods in the southern confederation. ... In ten years there would be such a difference that a person absent 90 long returning, would be strick with the change in the condition of these sections of the country. The west he would see grown up into a great and flourishing empire; the south the seat of com- merce and the arts; the great cities of Boston and New York rebuilt in Charleston and New Orleans, and more flourishing than in their original uncongenial climates. But in New England he would find the prosperity, comforts, wealth, etc., result- ing from partial legislation all gone: houses falling to ruin, cities deserted, urniture selling by auction, and all the indications of indigence prevailing. McDuffie was arguing for a repeal of the tariff; but others in his state used similar arguments in favor of disunion. During the short-lived Bluff ton 'ovement, to which reference has already been made, disunion sentiments were open- ly expressed. Judge Langdon Cheves in a long letter to the Charleston Mercur y made a thinly veiled argument for disunion;' and as such it was taken both South and North. 6 A few months later another correspondent of the Mercu ry, in an article headed "Reflections on re-perusing Judge Cheves 's Letter," put the case for se- cession without any indirection whatsoever. "The institutions and municipal poli- cy, and geographical position, and popular feelings and pursuits of the North and South can never harmonize as one people. Speak it out - for it is spoken sub rosi m every group of domestic and political coterie - that the sections divided by A* Conft. Globe , 28 Cong. 1 Sees., 206 ( Jan. 29). 5« Niles* Register. LXVII, 48ff. 6 * A ifeP . il . 12. ill®. tl® Ho no rable Langdo n Cheves. by "A Southerner", (pamphlet); J. tt. Adams, Memoirs. XII r 91, 62 interest can never assimilate in sentiment and national amity." 7 Both Cheves and his reviewer described how separation would promote the prosperity of agriculture and commerce in the South. The saner leaders in South Carolina, at the time of the Bluffton Movement, were insistent that any measure taken, whether secession or nullification, must be taken by a united South; and they labored under no delusions in regard to the at- titude of the South as a whole. In the spring of 1844 the cry, "Tsxb.s or Disunion, had awakened response in several Southern states; 8 but as soon as it hsj d achieved its purpose of securing the Democratic nomination for the presidency for a South- ern man who was sound on the Texas issue, the Democratic leaders proved most anx- ious to clear themselves of any taint of disunion which the Whigs tried to fix up- on them.' The Charleston Mercury admitted that other states would not join South Carolina in resistance.""” General James Hamilton wrote in a public letter: "I can- not but express my belief that South Carolina is not now ready for separate action, nor the southern states for a southern convention." He expressed the same view privately. Langdon Cheves suggested that, instead of South Carolina undertaking an active propaganda be conducted throughout the South to develop among the people a feelin g of unity and a sense of their oppression * He would have had a course 7. April 4, 1845; Nile s* Register .LXVII I T 88ff. 8. Niles' Register, LXVI, 132, meeting in South Carolina; ibid.,LXVI, 3.23 ^ rleans iMd«, 229, 312, accounts of meetings in Barnwell District, South Carolina, and Russell County, Ala.; ibid .. 312, quoting Mobile Triune. Richmond inquirer , and other Southern papers; ibid .. LXVI, 405, disunion meetings in Lawrenc e c ounty , Alabama and in several distTilts in South' Carol in a* Benton, Thirty Years * View . II, 613-619. a * 7 ^ - —' . LXVI » 313 ’ 347 ’ 369 ’ 391, 406, 411, quoting the Richmond *77 ae f e f! ying connection with "Texas or Disunion" cry and proposed Southern at Nashville; ibid., LXVI, 313, 346, and the National Intelligencer , uly 23, on the meeting in Nashville to protest against the proposed "Texas or Disunion convention; National Intel 1 i ge n c e r . July 27, Aug. 10, 11, 4o6ff . 10. Aug. 9, 1844, "Our Position and our Pledges," in Niles' Register. LXVI, 11 * — -*» LXVT » 42 °i Hamilton to Hammond, Oct. 4, 1844, J. H. Hamnond Pap era. followed similar to that pursued in the Thirteen Colonies prior to the American Revolution: "Let associations be formed in every southern, end if possible, in every southwestern state; and let them confer together end interchange views and information; let leading men through committees and private correspondence collect compare, and concentrate the views of men in their respective states, end when ripe for it, and not before, let representatives from those states meet in conven- tion, and if circumstances promise success, let them then deliberate on the mode of resistance and the measure of redress.""^ It became the settled policy of cer- tain South Carolina leaders to bring the Southern states together in convention, to break down party distinctions throughout the South, as they had largely been broken down in their own state, end to "fire the Southern heart." There was little in the course of events during the next several years to modify the views of men of the South Carolina school or to deplete the ranks of the disunionist3 . The Walker tariff, the Independent Treasury, and the veto of rivers and harbors bills pleased but did not satisfy the free trade and reform element. Then with the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso, 1846, there began an acrimonious struggle over slavery which continued almost without interruption un- til about 1852, when the general acceptance of the Compromise of 1850, and the defeat of efforts to resist it, ushered in a short period of relative calm. The disposition evinced by the majority in the North to exclude slavery from the ter- ritory acquired from Mexico and other manifestations of hostility to the institu- tion, together with the growing political preponderance and unity of the free states, caused the majority in the South to fear for the security of slavery and other substantial Southern interests. Southern leaders were put to it to know how to meet the issue. Under these circumstances disunion was fully canvassed as a remedy, immediate or ultimate. 12. Nile s 1 Register, LXVII, 48. < , , « y U(sm , ■ « ( , . . • , . * 64 The long debates in Congress, the accompanying discussion in the press and 'rom the platform, the Southern conventions at Nashville end their preliminaries, and, finally , the contests wsged in several states between those who favored ac- quescence in the Compromise measures and those who counselled resistance, afford- ed ample opportunity for a thorough discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the Union and the expediency and propriety of secession. Thb discussion re- vealed how extensively the ideas were held that the Union was a detriment to the prospex-ity and economic progress of the South and, the corollary, the South would be more prosperous and develop more rapidly were the Union dissolved. The discuss- ion also, no doubt, contributed to the spread of these ideas. It also revealed the number, and no doubt increased it, of those who, while they did not look for disunion to bring positive economic advantages, expected it to bring no serious disadvantages — in short, those who could look to disunion with complacency, for whom it M had no terrors.” Very early in the struggle over slavery in the territory to be acquired from Mexico declarations were given in the South of a determination to resist the addi- tion and enforcement of the Wilmot Proviso "at all hazards and to the last extrem- ity."^ As the struggle progressed these declarations were renewed, and extended, as the issues were presented, to include other threatened acts of Northern aggres- sion. prove that these were not merely idle threats, Southern men talked long end angrily of Southern rights and Southern honor end pictured the ruin that would be brought to the South by abolition - which they professed to believe would be the ultimate consequence of restriction of slave territory and loss of the section- al equilibrium. Many also endeavored to demonstrate that the South could safely ■take the Union upon the issue of the struggle, because the South would suffer Rein Resol ^ io * 0 ’ ^r. 8, 184?“ in Ames, State Documents on Federal ^ were first official declaration. Other state legislatures r e srLtio° s Pa ^e C r Venti r 8 ' ™ d nuraerolis meetings of cities adopted similar ’ resolutions. See Hamer, Secession Movement in S. c., 18 47-1852. p. f, 6, 11, l6f., * n < • ' , , « •' • , , , < , . - ' • • ' . .. ■> >• : . , , , , , « - . , . 65 very little, if not actually gain, from a dissolution, while the North stood to lose so much in the event that she would yield rather than permit the Union to be destroyed - "calculating the value of the Union," this was termed. After the election of 1848 and after the Taylor administration had seemed tc show anti-slavery proclivities, the task of calculating the value of the Union was undertaken in earnest. In the press, in numerous pamphlets, the possibility of disunion was considered, and its economic value weighed. In Congress, especially, during the debates on the Compromise measures, one Southern senator and represen- tative often another reinforced his threats of a dissolution in case the South were denied justice by more or less elaborate comparisons of the economic advan- tages or disadvantages of the Union to the various sections. Many of those who thus celculated the value of the Union were conditional disunionists. They pro- fessed to be ready to stake the Union upon the satisfaction of their demands. In all probability their demands would not have been so great or so firmly held, had they attached greater value tc the Union; nevertheless, they intended to preserve the Union if it could be done without too greet sacrifice. But another class was in evidence during the crisis, the disunionists per se . They favored disunion ir- respective of the character of the settlement of the pending questions of conflict. They apparently would have demanded guarantees of the North which they would have had no expectation of securing. In their opinion the interests of the two sections had become so diverse that they could no longer live amicably under one government. The Union had become a disadvantage to the South: she would be more peaceful, hap- py, and prosperous out of it. Naturally, the first manifestations of this ultra sentiment were in South Cap- olina. As early as November 2, 1848, H. W. Connor, of Charleston, wrote Calhoun that he believed "there has been and probably still is a design to revive the old Bluffton movement with the same motive and end." 14 The following February, J. H. 14. Calhoun Correspondence . Cf. Hamer, 0 £. cit., 26, , ' , ' ' •- • . ^ . . ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ■ 'JiLlirttnq J£r . * ' * ■ ; , , t " , 66 Hammond expressed to Calhoun his belief that the crisis was at hand. 1 - In the sum- mer of 1849 the South Carolina Telegraph began openly to agitate for a dissolution of the Union; anc< by early in 1850 nearly every newspaper in the state was advo- eating disunion. The Charleston Merc ury expected it. 1 ? Meanwhile Governor Sea- brook was in correspondence with the governors of other Southern states relative to what action they might be expected to take if the Wilmot Proviso or other ob- jectionable measure should be adopted by Congress. Georgia newspaper editors, in the summer of 1350, boldly inserted communications in their columns, without any marks of disapprobation, openly advocating disunion. 19 Prominent leaders like Jo- seph H. Lumpkin, William L. Mitchell, W. F. Colquitt, A. G. McDonald, and Joseph P. Brown were known as disunionists £gr se . 20 John B. Lamar wrote Howell Cobb that if it were not for Cobb’s influence Georgia would be more rampant for disunion than South Carolina ever was.*" 1 There were disunionists pe r ; se. also in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia. It was this disunion element chiefly which was responsible for the meeting of the Nashville Convention of June 1850. The idea of getting the South together in a Southern convention was an old one in South Carolina at least. 21 After the con- flict over the Wilmot Proviso had been fairly joined, Calhoun sounded the views of t e v te JV°\ o® b * 19 » 1849 » 16. nationa l int elligenc er. 17. Feb. 15, 1350. (Feb.lTri8507™ }®' W * D : Mosel y> of Fla., to Whitemarsh 3 . Seabrook, May 13 , 1849, Seabrook I do not now see any other executive to whom to address yourself besides”’**’ those you have already approached.” Franklin H. Elmore to Seabrook, May 30, ibid . ( 201 19. John H. Lumpkin to Howell Cobb, July 21, Toombs . Stephens . Cobb Correspondence . 20. So described in letter just referred to and in a letter of Oct. 5, 1350, ibid . 21. Letter of Feb. 7, 1850, Toomb s. Stephen s. Cobb Corresponde nce. Unionists had proposed a Southern convention in 1832 as a substitute for nulli- fication. Boucher, Nullification Controversy in South Carol ina. 197-203 • It was discussed in 1 35-1838, the q^on~s~ f ^oUt^^ JL™ ln C ° nsrS8a ’ and kindred questions were causing angry contro- Ih e A ^ 0Un - vf Ri T-’ N :V 7 ’ l83B * ^ Correspondence: Ambler, Tho^s Rit- A Study i& Virginia Politics, 173; Benton, Thirty Years’ View, II, 70~I~ was again mooted in 1344, particularly during the "Texas or Disunion" agitation. 67 leading men of his following, throughout the South upon the subject. 22 A. call could have been secured at any time from South Carolina; but in view of the well known disunion proclivities of that state, it was deemed advisable that it should originate elsewhere. Finally the call was issued by a delegate convention in Jackson, Mississippi, October, 1849 . If the report of Daniel Wallace, secret ag- ent of Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, may be credited, former residents of that state and disunionists were very influential in the proceedings. 2 3 In South Carolina opposition to the Nashville Convention was almost negligibl The character of the delegates elected, their correspondence, and the comments of the press leave little doubt that it was intended to use the Nashville convention to promote disunion." In moet of the other slaveholding states the cell of the convention at first met with hearty response. But opposition soon developed. Tho- mas H. Benton denounced it as a disunion plot. 2 '* The Whigs generally condemned it; they distrusted the disorganizing proclivities of some of those active in promot- ing it. '’’he compromising spirit shown in Congress in the early months of 1850 strengthened the opposition to the Southern Convention by making it appear unnec- 2MCon;t ’d) . James Hamilton to J. H. Hammond, Oct. 4, 1844, J.. H. Hammond Papers : LXVI ' 229 * 312 , 369 (accounts of meetings in~S.C. and Ala.J^Ban- ton, Thirty Years’ View . II, 613-619. v^« | Ca T? 0U AQA°7^ me! J ber ,° f the Alabama legislature, 1847, Benton, Thirt y Years ’ Viey, II, 49 8 - 7 00 ; Joseph W. Leaoane to Calhoun, Sept. 12, 1847, Calhoun Corre a- ^dejipej Wilson Lumpkin to Calhoun, Nov. 18, 1847; H. W. Connor tTc7lho~ n7v. 2, ld4d; John Cunningham to Calhoun, Nov. 12; Calhoun to J. H. Means, Apr. 13, 1849. 23. D. w. Wallace to Gov. Seabrook, June 8, Oct. 20, Nov. 7, 1849, Seabrook MSS. 24 a. H. Brisbane to Hammond, Jan. 28, 1850, J. H. Hammond Papers: National t m - l^i^cer, Apr. 20, May 18, June 5, 1850- Cf. Ham^TS? Cttl- confede^c/ r0 m e ^ ond : the Southern convention OT in fact a Southern er ’» m be ° on ® the one U seQms to me very certain is to become the oth- er. Quoted in Trent, William Gilmore Simms , 179. 25- Ma norial , Intelligence^ , M ar . 20, 1650, account of a meeting in st. Louie, Mar. 7 . * t ■ 68 2 6 essary as well as dangerous. Six slave states, Louisiana, North Carolina, Miss- ouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, failed to send delegates. In Georgia a very small percentage of the voters participated in the election of delegates. 27 Western Virginia and several populous counties in the east took no part in the e - lection of delegates; and only six delegates from the state attended the conven- tion. Only South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were represented by full delegations, ano in the two last the delegates were appointed by the legis- 1 atu re s . When the Nashville Convention met the disunionists soon saw that any action looking to immediate resistance was impossible, and, therefore, worked for a sec- ond meeting.- Several disunion £er se speeches were made, the moat notable being that oi Beverly Tucker, of Virginia .^ 0 The resolutions and the address to the peo- ple of the slaveholding states which were adopted declared in effect the compromise measures then pending in Congress unacceptable and called for the extension of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific as a sine qua non .*^ The adjourned session of toe convention met in Nashville, November 11 , 1850, with seven states represented by delegations reduced in size .^ 2 Moat of the Union men of the first session refus- ad to attend the second, and the disunionists easily dominated it.^ The resolu- 26. Cf. Cole, yfoig Party in the South . 157-62; 168-72. 27. Nati one,! Intel 1 i ,iencer . Apr. 11, 1350. 28. Ambler Sectj^jO-j^ in Vi^jjaia, 249; letters of Win. 0. Goode to R.M.T. Hunt- er, Mar. 29, Apr. 19, May 11, 1850, Corre s pond ence ojf R. M. T. Hunt er. 29. Hanmond to Win. G, Simms, June 16, 1850, J.. H. Hamnond Papers . 30. D gBjaw Rgviaw , XXXI, 59-69; reviewed in .So . Quar . Rev., XVIII, 218-23. See also Hammond to Simms, June 16, 1850, J. H. Hammond Po^. 31. The resolutions and the address are in Ames, State Docume nts on Federal Reis- 2b ->“ 9 * Proceedings in Natio nal Intelligencer. June 4-16, l350~ 32. Proceedings in ibid. . Nov. 16 . 33. P erhaps the most noteworthy incident of the meeting was the three hours oubl^vl * G !rf 9 ’ ! f S0Uth Carolin »’ advocating secession. The speech was the 1 ^ r *? a pwnphlet ond widel y used in state contests over acceptance of tne compromise measures. ^ , • .. • ’ • . I . ' J 69 tione denounced the compromise measures which Congress had adopted, end recommend- ed o congress or convention of the slaveholding states "intrusted with full power end authority to deliberate and act with a view and intention of arresting further aggression, and, if possible, of restoring the constitutional rights of the South, and, if not, to provide for their future safety and independence." This action was intended to influence the contests then being waged in four states over the Compromise of 1850. After the passage of the compromise measures spirited contests ensued in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi between those v/ho would acqui- esce end those who would resist. In South Carolina the submissionists or Union- ists were in a small minority. The real contest lay between the cooperationists and the separate-actioniste . The former believed that South Carolina should se- cede, but only in case other cotton states should take similar action at the same time. The separate-actionists wanted a convention called to take the state out of the Union, in company with others, if possible, if not, alone. They professed to believe that if South Carolina should secede and the Federal government should undertake coercion, the other Southern states would come to her support} if, as was possible, the Federal government should not adopt coercive measures South Car- olina would be prosperous and happy as an independent nation. The issue was not fairly joined until after the failure of the secession movements in Georgia, Miss- issippi, and Alabama was certain; then the contest became very spirited. At an election held October 13 and 14, 1851, to choose delegates to a Southern Congre# , which the legislature had called, the cooperaticnists cast 25,045 votes to their opponents* 17,710 and carried all of the congressional district© but one.~^ This result was interpreted as instructing the delegates to the state convention, who had been elected in February. The convention accordingly adopted e. preamble and a resolution which declared the right of secession and resolved that secession 34. National Intelligencer, Oct. 18 , 20, 21, 1851; Hamer, c£. cit.., 123 . * • < , • f. • ' . . . ;• ' . , ‘ . ■ , ■ ■ . ’’ "* v ' . • ’ r - • * « < . 70 waa justified by the course of the Federal government but that South Carolina ’’forbears the exercise of this manifest right of self-government from considera- tion of expediency only.**^ The contest in South Carolina evoked the publication of numerous long pamph- lets, several long and laborious articles in the Sout hern Quarterly Revie w, and the proceedings of meetings of Southern Rights associations, as well ns volumin- ous discussion in the press and innumerable stump speeches. Both separate-act- ionists and cooperationiste again and again represented secession not only as a remedy for Northern aggression against slavery (although that wns the chief con- sideration) but also as a measure desirable irrespective of the slavery question. The opponents of separate action demonstrated conclusively that separate secess- ion would adversely affect the prosperity of South Carolina and, especially, the commercial interests of Charleston, even should it be permitted to be peaceful; but it was a rare voice that spoke of the advantages of the Union The co-oper- ationists were charged with going beyond the separate-actio nists in depicting the 37 ewls of the Union. J.D.B. DeBow, then of New Orleans, a. strong Southern rights man, objected to moet of the papers and documents issued by the South Carolina press because "they go far beyond the necessities cf the case, and frame an argu- ment for disunion at all hazards, even were the slavery question closed up and amicably settled. In Georgia Governor Towns acting upon instructions from the legislature 35 « J ourn al o£ the State Convention of South Carolina . . 1852 . p. 18 . 36. The best arguments against separate secession are in: Speech of Mr . public meeting ojT the friends of cooperation . . . Charleston . Sept . 23 3j.~ffi.-M* » • • ; 'Letter from w7 W. Boyce to J. P. Richardson, President of a conventior of the Southern Rights Association of South Carolina held at Charleston, May , 1851,” republished in National Intelligencer . Nov. 13, i860; The Letters of Ari- £ole_, ^by Hon. Win. Elliott; Letter of Gen. James Hamilton ”To the People of South Carolina,” Nov. 11, 1850, National Intelligencer . Dec. 2, 1850. 3/. National .Intelligence r. Oct. 14, 1851, quoting the Greenville, S. C., Souther n Patriot. 38* DeBovr* s Review . X, 231. 71 called a convention to meet December 10 to consider the compromise measures* During the campaign for the election of delegates, the Union party, which favored acquiescence in the compromise, was opposed by a Southern Rights party, which counselled resistance. The great majority of the Whigs and a respectable minority of the Democrats supported the union candidates; while the majority of the Democrat entered the Southern Rights party. Under the leadership of Howell Cobb, a. H. Stephens, and Robert Toombs, the Union party won with a large majority of the popu- lar vote and an overwhelming majority in the convention. After this victory the Union party perfected an organization and entered the state oampaign of 1851 with Howell Cobb, Democrat, as their candidate for governor. The Southern Rights par- ty nominated as their candidate ex— Governor A. H. McDonald, who had presided over the second meeting of the Nashville convention. Again the Unionists won a substan- tial victory. Similar events occurred in Mississippi. Upon the passage of the Compromise measures. Governor John A. Quitman called an extra-session of the legislature which, in turn, called a state convention to meet November 10, 1851. A Union party was formed to contest the election of delegates to the convention and the regular state elections of November, 1851. It was composed of the great majority of the "higs and a minority of the Democrats. H. S. Foote was the nominee for governor. The Union party was opposed by a Southern Rights party, officially designated the Demoractio State Rights party, led by Quitman and Jefferson Davis., and composed chiefly of Democrats. The Unionists won a sweeping victory in the September elections for delegates to the convention, and elected Foote governor over Jefferson Davis by a small majority in November. The convention adopted resolutions accepting the compromise measures and declaring secession not to be a 39 constitutional right. In Alabama Governor Collier refused to call a special session of the legislature, vdiich might have called a state convention. Sentiment was clearly in favor of acquiescence in the compromise. However, Southern Rights 39. Journal of the. Convention of the State of Mississi uni. . . 1851, p. 47. 72 associations were formed, as in other states, and the right of secession was made an issue in the campaign for members of Congress in 1851 . Early in the contests in Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, the leaders of the Southern Rights parties saw that the people would not go for secession and sought to shift the issue from the expediency to the constitutional right of se- 40 cession; thereafter arguments for disunion per se . such as were used so freely in South Carolina, were used rather charily. But the people hnd opportunity to be- come acquainted with all the disunion! sts doctrines. Outside the four states named the compromise measures were acquiesced in with- out noteworthy contests. Disunionists, especially disunionists per se. were in a small minority. There were such, however, who presented the disunion arguments. There was considerable discussion of the proper policy tc be pursued in case the cotton states should secede, and considerable speculation in regard to the probable effects of separation from the North upon the economic systems of the respective states. Too, disunionists in states most likely to secede indulged in much specu- lation as to what other states would be included within the boundaries of the pro- posed Southern confederacy, and advanced arguments to prove that it would be to the interest of Virginia, Maryland, or other particular state to go with the South in the event of a dissolution. MAn in the states which were the subjects of such speculation had to taice cognizance. In analyzing the arguments of an economic nature which were used in behalf of 40 * n °^ a raere abstract question: There was still a probability at South Carolina would secede alone and the other Southern states would then be compelled to determine their course with reference to the coercion of a seceded state. Furthermore, a general recognition of the right of secession would prepare the way for future contests over its expediency. J 1 * In North Carolina the minority was rather strong. In the legislature of L-OO-51, resolutions affirming the constitutional right of secession were defeated with difficulty. In the congressional campaign of 1851 the right of secession was an issue; the opposition gained two seats in Congress as a result. Cole, Whig. , Jirfr X in S o uth , 192; Vfa. K. Boyd, "North Carolina on the Eve of Secession," in Amer . Hist . Assoc. Rep t . , 1910, p . if} . , < •' % * 1 • ■ . 0 * < , : • \ r u , a . - , , - • . ' . ‘ • • • . ' ,• 73 secession or in behalf of taking advanced ground in the sectional struggle, it is not necessary to specify whether they were used by conditional disunionists or unconditional disunionists. The arguments used by the one class differed little from t/ioae UBed by the other; furthermore, it is not always easy to classify any given individual on this basis. The mo 3t elaborate calculation of the value of the Union made during the crisis may be found in a long and well-written pamphlet, published early in 1850, entitled, "The Union, Past and Future, How it Works and How to Save It,'* 42 by Muscoe R. H. Garnett, of Virginia, a relative of R. M. T. Hunter and Henry A. Wise, and an able and influential politician of the 3iate rights school. Garnett reviewed the slavery struggle and found that the South had reached a point where she must insist upon "sufficient guarantees for the observance of her rights and her future political equality, or she must dissolve a Union which no longer pos- sessed its original character." He proposed to put before the North what she woul lose if the South should be forced to take the latter alternative. He calculated the value which the laws discriminating against foreign shipping had been to the North — an enormous sum according to his method of calculation. The operation of the tariff he analyzed in the usual anti-protectionist manner, and calculated that between 1791 and 1845 "the slaveholding States paid $316,492,033 more than their just share, and the free States as much less. . . " and this when, accord- ing to his statement, the whole amount of duties collected in the same period was $927,050,097* In the only other branch of public revenue of any consequence, the proceeds of the sales of public lands, the disproportion of Northern and Southern 42. Published anonymously in Charleston, 1850. Republished, several years la-er,^ in DeBo . w' . a Review, XVIII and XIX, passi m. The pamphlet was reviewed by E. Haskett Derby, Boston lawyer, in Hunt’ s Merchants 1 Ma£azi ne L XXITT. 3 71—83 , and in a pamphlet Realty, versus. Fiction ." B 0 at on , 13*50. Garnett answered Derby in an article in HuntJ^ XXIV, 403-431, "The Union, Past and Future. 'A Brief Review Reviewed." Derby closed the argument, Hunt’s. XXIV, 659-681. For other reviews of Garnett's pamphlet see S outhern Ouarterlj/ Review, XIX, 189-226* 2^53^9 ReZi®^ X, 132-146, article, "The IlitureYf 'the South," by Thomaa’pren- tice Kettell. < < , . ' 74 contributions had been still greater. From the subject of taxation Garnett pass- ed to disbursements. The free states had received much larger donations of the public lands. Of expenditures for collection of customs, for "bounties on pick- led fish, and the allowances to fishing vessels," for coast fortifications, for light houses, for the coast survey, for internal improvements, for Revoluti onary pensions, and even for the post office system, the South had received much less and the North much more than her proportionate share. The public debt, held mostly in the North, had been the source of yet more enormous benefits to the North. Im summary, he said: "The heads of the federal expenditures which we have examined give a fair notion of the rest; and it may be safely assumed, that while the South has paid seven-ninths of the taxes, the North has had seven-ninths of I their disbursements." According to Garnett this inequality in the operation of the Federal govern- ment as respects the sections would account for the growth of cities and the pros- perity of the North. The effect upon the North of a dissolution of the Union would oe ruinous. She would have to rely on direct taxation to support her govern- ment. The South on the other hand would pay less taxes and disburse them among her own people. She would conduct her own commeroe and that of the great Northwest. "Norfolk and Charleston and Savannah, so long pointed at by the North as a proof of the pretended evils of slavery, will be crowded with shipping, and their ware- houses crammed with merchandise." The future of Southern agriculture would be equally brilliant. By virtue of her command of the great staple of cotton, her great natural advantages, and her strategic location "midway in the new hemisphere, holding the outlets of Northern commerce, and the approaches to South .America and the Pacific, through the Gulf," the Southern confederacy would occupy a powerful position in the world. The pamphlet was concluded with a glorification of slavery and agriculture and a depiction of the demoralising influences of factories; for Garnet! would not encourage manufactures in his free trade republic. i.ore frequently quo ted^p^ rhsps, than Garnett’s pamphlet was an article in If : . ' ; yj; . " . ! ■ ■ 75 -7 the Democratic Re view . January 1350, written by the editor, Thomas Prentice Ket- tell, and entitled "St ability of the Union." 4 3 it was a plea to the people of the North not to attack an institution upon which their prosperity so largely de- pended; it was similar in strain to the pleas frequently advanced by organs of the manufacturing and commercial interests of the North. 44 Kettell said nothing about unequal operation of the Federal government, but emphasized the profits realized by the North from monuf acturing for the South, carrying her commerce, and acting as her banker. The annual pecuniary value to the North of a union wit* the South, he estimated in a t able^ontaining the following items: Freights of Northern shipping on Southern produce, $40,186,178 Profits derived on imports at the North for Southern account, 9,000,000 Profits on exchange operations, 1*000.000 Profits on Northern manufactures sold at the South, 22,250,000 Profits on Western produce descending the Mississippi, 10,000,000 Profits on Northern capital employed at the South, 6, OOP , Q QQ Total earnings of the North per annum, $88,436,728 There was nothing in Kettell* s article to indicate that the Southern people received any pecuniary advantages from their union with the North. Southern men quoted his table not only to show why the North should grant justice to the South but also what the South would save annually by a dissolution of the Union. Oi the speeches in Congress in which the value of the Union was calculated, 43- Also in DeB,ow* 3 Review. VIII, 348-363; DeBow, Industr ial Resources . ITI , 357-66. .44. See, for example, DeBow * 3 Revie w. IX, 98-100, quoting the New York C ourier and ^u_i_re_rj _ Hun t * s Merc hants* Magazine . XX, 292 ff., Letter of Colonel Alexander Hamilton, of New York. 4 5- I^o^atjvC, Review, XXVI, 13 . Quoted in Congress by Thomas L. Clingman, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 200; by Downs, of Louisiana, ibid . . App., 172; by Averett , of Virginia, ibid . , App., 395; Thomas L. Harris, of Illinois, ibid . . App.., 411 . Mr. Harris said: "But, Mr. Chairman, several gentlemen, both here and in the other end of the Capitol (Senate), have relied upon an article in a late number of the Democratic Review to show that the North is reaping upward of 000, 000 from its connection with the South, while it is careful not to show tha- the South derives any benefit from the North." See also Aaron V. Brown S peecne a, Congressional gid Politi cal, and other Writings, 302 (Governor of Ten- Feb? 0 2oi 2hSl ^~ YL Men^, Feb. 15, 1850, quoted in National Intelligencer . 76 perhaps the most notable was that of Thomas L. Clingman, Whig, of North Carolina. He dwelt upon the inequality of taxation and disbursements, and told what ample revenues a Southern confederacy could command with a tariff of thirty or even twen- ty per cent. "Subjecting the goods of the North to a duty, with those from other foreign countries, would at once give a powerful stimulus to our manufactures." He described the advantages the Southern states possessed for cotton manufacturing, and added, "We should then have that diversity of pursuits which is most conducive to the prosperity and happiness of a people." John C. Calhoun in his last great speech, March 4, 1850, did not calculate the value of the Union; he did, however, reiterate his conviction that unequal taxation and disbursements had caused that loss of equilibrium between the sections, which, he said, was the "great and pri- mary cause" of the belief of the Southern people, "that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union.” Unequal distri- bution of the taxes and disbursements had transferred hundreds of millions from the South to the North. This had increased the population of the latter by attract * in ^immigration from all quarters and sections. Had the South retained her wealth and her equality in the territories, she would have divided at least the immigra- + . 47 tion. Space will not permit an account of the contents 0 ? the numerous pamphlets and speeches occasioned by the contests in South Carolina and elsewhere over the acceptance of the compromise measures. One example will suffice to illustrate their tone and temper. John Townsend, a prominent co-operationist of South Caro- lina, in a vigorous pamphlet entitled "The Southern States, Their Present Peril and their Certain Remedy, " named abolitionism as the peril and secession as the 46. Co^.jlloJ^, 31 Cong., 1 Se89., 200-205, speech in the House, Jan. 22, 1850; Thomas L. Clingraan, Speech es and Writings , 245 ff. Clingman expressed similar ideas in a speech in the House, February 15, 1851. Speeches and Writi ngs , 275 ff. This speech was regarded in the South as the platform of the ultraeT See Nation al Intelligenc er. Feb. 1 , 1850. 47 • Works. IV, 542-74. ' , , ' ' ■ ■, •. ' . t * i . . • I 77 remedy; but it was a remedy for more than the dangers threatening slavery. In the usual 3train he told of the unequal operation of the Federal government and its effects. He described the vast resources of the South and said: "How different will be the aspect of things in the whole South, when this tide of wealth is dammed up within our own borders, and made to roll back among our own people; and when our immense capital is employed by our own merchants in establishing a direct trade, between our own Southern ports and our customers all over the world.... The arts will revive, manufactures will spring up around us; our agriculture will rear its drooping head, our commerce will expand, mechanic labor, meeting with ample rewards will pour in upon us, and emigration ( sic.) . no longer discouraged by the uninviting aspect of our country will flock to our shores.” 45 In the United States Senate, R. B. Rhett, who had been elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Calhoun, was led by an attack made upon him by Henry 3. Foote, of Mississippi , to make a long speech explaining why he was a secessionist — he was the leader of the separate-actionists in his state. He re- viewed the history of the struggles over slavery, and charged that the Northern people were animated by a desire for its final extinction. But the action of Con- gress with respect to slavery in the territories (that is, the Compromise measures) he said, was only a sequence in a course of policy inimical to the South which had been pursued many years. "If I mistake not, from the very foundation of this government to thi3 day, the operation of it in its financial and pecuniary rela- tions, has had but one uniform tendency; and that has been, to aggrandize the North at the expense of the South.” He traced the history of the tariff from the begin- ning, and reviewed the whole subject of taxation and disbursements in a manner very similar to that of Carnett's pamphlet. "Is it wonderful,” he asked, "that 48. P. 17. Other secessionist pamphlets or articles were: Wrn. H. Treaeott, 1112. PfisiUon and Cours e of the South: E. B . Bryan, The Rightf ul Remedy. Addresse d t£, the. S^vj^ol^ers of. the South; (A. G. Magrath) , Lett er on Southern Wrongs and 5S Addressed to the Hon . W. J.. Grayso n in reply to his Let ~te"r to IhS. Governo r of South Carolina on. the Pis solution o f the UnionV 49- Foote charged Rhett with having said that he expected, through the agency of the Nashville Convention, by making demands to which he knew Congress would not accede, to break up the Union. Cong . Globe. 32 Cong., 1 Seas., 96 . 78 under such a course of policy, the poorest section of the Union should be the richest, and the South should, with all her vast resources, linger in her pros- perity?” He traced the decline of Southern commerce, and estimated the value to the North of the monopoly of the coasting trade. ’’The South,” he said, ”is nothin, 50 else now but the very best colony of the North.” Rhett' s colleagues understood his speech to be an argument for secession per 51 se. Senator Cass so took it, and condemned it. Senator Mason, of Virginia, declared that his state had no sympathy with those who "preferred disunion.” 52 Senator Downs, of Louisiana, asked why discuss further the compromise measures when Rhett had himself admitted that he did not find in them sufficient reason 53 to justify the disunion movement which he had set on foot in South Carolina. In the House E. K. Smart, of Maine, replied in detail, with a yet more imposing array of statistics than Rhett had used, to the latter’s speech and to one of scmewhat similar tone which had been made in the House by A. 5. Brown, of Missis- 54 sippi. He did so, he explained, because ”1 have often thought that a fair and candid investigation of the benefits and advantages of this Government, enjoyed by the South would disarm the spirit of disunion; that our southern friends, by an examination of the facts, would be induced to demand less of the North.” Unionists did not fail to seek other causes than the quarrel over slavery and the fears for the security of that institution for the existence of disunion sen- timent in the South. F. A. P. Barnard, in an address to the citizens of Tuscaloo- sa, Alabama, said he believed there were causes much deeper than the slavery agi- tation for the war which had been waged to the knife against the Union. The agi- tators had seized upon the soreness produced in the Southern mind by the infringe- 50. Cong., Globe . 32 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx. , 42-8. 51. Ibid . . 32 Cong., 1 Sess., 146. 52. Ibid,., 32 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx., 49. 53. Ibid. . Appx., 98. 54. Ibid., Appx., 464-71 * ' 79 merit of undeniable rights as the most avilable means of accomplishing their ulter- ior designs. He retold the story of South Carolina nullification, and said the people of that state were still bitter from the old feud. A conviction prevailed, he said, that the Union had been unequal in its benefits. "Such a conviction has been, is probably at this moment, partaken by very many who feel no disposition to rush to disunion as a remedy. Indeed the impreseion seems extensively to exist, that, by the operation of the Federal Constitution, through Federal Legislation, the South has been made in some sort, tributary to the North." He told of South- ern dependence upon the North for manufactures, of the sensitiveness of the South- ern people about the matter, and their analysis of the causes of their dependence. "From this condition of things our people have become impatient to be free; and this it is... .more truly than any other existing evil, which has caused the word disunion to be of late so often and so lightly spoken among U3, and the thought of what it signifies to be contemplated with so little horror."^ The Richmond Whig thought much of the diseatisf action in South Carolina had originated in having at- tributed to the Federal government consequences which were rather attributable to the competition of fresher and more fertile states of the South, engaged in the culture of the same staple as herself.^ The Unionists in the cotton states in their contests with the Southern Right parties found their best tactics to be to defend the compromise measures, appeal to the patriotism of the masses,^' impeach the motives of Southern Rights leaders, and picture secession as a measure that would bathe the nation in blood. They 55 • Oratio n Delivered before the Citizens of Tu scaloosn . Alabama. July 4, 1851 . 56* March 5, 1851 • A similar statement is in an editorial of March 22. 57* Henry w . Hilliard said: "The value of the Union #iich binds these states to- gether is incalculable; its priceless value defies all the ordinary methods of computation; it is consecrated by battles, and triumphs and glories, which belong to the past, it secures to us innumerable blessings; it looks forward to a future still more glorious than the past." Con?;. C-lobe. 31 Coni?.. 1 Sees. Appx., 34. < ! • • « * • ' ( r - •••* — • ( • , ♦ « ' • . ; ; - ; j£gu^ ,1: W3 , 80 showed that secession meant division of the South; for the border states could not be expected to secede In particular localities they pointed out how separation would injure established commercial and agricultural interests. In general they did not find it necessary to refute at length the doctrine that the prosperity of the South suffered from an unequal, operation of the Federal government. No doubt many shared this view to some extent. Yet there was a fundamental divergence in the views of the two groups upon the economic effects of the Union upon the sec- tions. Unionists were inclined to depict the unexampled peace and progress in wealth and strength of the great republic and to consider the South a partaker 59 therein The Mobile PAily Advertiser said Alabama was never more prosperous. "Why cannot secession orators be serious?" 60 Said H. S. Foote of Mississippi: "It is sufficient for us to know that the Union is of inappreciable value to every portion of this wiuespread Republic;. ...That the general action of the government has been more or less unequal and oppressive to our local interests in the South, cannot be denied.'*'" In Georgia particularly, the most prosperous of the cotton states, was the plea effective that the state owed its prosperity to the Union. The Richmond Whig ascribed the Union victory in Georgia to prosperity — » the refusal of the people to be convinced that the Union had inflicted any injury upon them. General James Hamilton, who travelled through the cotton states in the compromise year, made a similar diagnosis. In Georgia, and Alabama the high price of cotton had neutralized the disunion sentiment, while Louisiana had "an average sugar crop and would acquiesce." 0 ^ 58. Speech of Senator Jere Clemens in Huntsville, Alabama, Nov. 4, 1850, in National Intelligencer . Ncv. 10; Letter from Joel R. Poinsett to the People of S.C. Mercwry . Dec . 5 . . .. W. J. Grayson, Letter to the Governor of South Carolina on the Dissolution ihjL Uni£r*_ p.8. This is one of the best of the*Union pamphlets. 60. Quoted in the National Intelligence r. Dec. 6 , 1850. 61. Con&., G lobe , 3 2 Cong., 1 Seas., Appx., 59, reply to Rhett. 62.Mar.5,l85l . 63. "To the People of South Carolina", in National Intellig-f ncer . Dec. 2, 1850 81 Unionists, in so far as they admitted "Southern decline," were disposed to emphasize explanations for it other them the fiscal action of the Federal govern- ment. The majority of them were Whigs, who had, in general, supported those pro- tective and fiscal measures to which disunionists ascribed the woes of the South. The Unionists dwelt upon such causes for lagging prosperity as overproduction of cotton, lack of diversity in agriculture, and the failure to encourage home manu- factures. They showed how the older states had suffered from the emigration of their citizens to the richer and fresher lands of the Southwest. Up to this time at least, the Whigs had given more earnest support than the Democrats to those movements for the diversification of industry which have been described in previou chapter s; and at this juncture they advocated it as a better method than secession for securing the rights and prosperity of the South. The position of New Orleans as an exporting and importing center for the Mis- sissippi valley plainly operated against the growth of disunion sentiment in Lou- isiana: men of that state insisted that the valley could not be divided. 0 ^ Few from Kentucky and Missouri calculated the value of the Union. Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, offered an explanation for the strong attachment of those states for the Union. There was a region, he said, where cotton and sugar did not grow, and where manufactures and navigation were not the only employments. "The interests of that people are identical, no matter whether they live in a free State or a slave State, and they cannot be induced to sacrifice their welfare or their friend- ship for the triumph of any extreme doctrine about slavery ."^Governor Crittenden expressed the same idea: "To Kentucky and other Western 'States in the Valley of the Mississippi, the Union is indispensable to their commercial interests. 64. Ante; F.A.P. Barnard, Oration Delivered before the Citizens of Tuscaloosa . Ala - lyJ-J. jj> lft5l » Cf. Cole, Whig P art y in the South , 206-211. 65 . Speech of Downs in the Senate, Cong . Globe ,31 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx., 171. 66. Ibid . . Appx., 409* 67 . Coleman, The Li_fe_ of John J . Crittenden , I, 250-2. Cf . speech of Henrv Clay m -he Senate, Cong . Globe , 31 Cong., 1 Seas., Appx., 127. .... - — — - - ---- - - ~ 82 In North Carolina th© disunion per se arguments were well refuted. The ab- sence of identity of interests between the two Carolinas was occasionally empha- sized. Said Congressman Stanley, Whig: " ws are invited to contemplate the glories of a Southern Confederacy, in which Virginia and South Carolina are to have great cities, to be supported by the colony or plantation of North Carolina?" Perhaps in no state other than the older cotton states was a greater disposition shown to listen to the unconditional disunion arguments than in eastern Virginia* But there were strong deterrent influences: trade both with the North and South; prospects of valuable commercial relations with the West when the great internal improvement system already projected should make Virginia the "thoroughfare and rendezvous of our great and united sisterhood of states"; ^and, more important, the devotion to the Union of the western part of the state, whose economic inter- ests were similar to those of other parts of the Ohio valley rather than to those of the South It will have been observed that disunion sentiment and a disposition to put a low estimate upon the value of the Union were not uniformly distributed through- out the slaveholding states. It is true that the states in which the strongest secession movements developed were those in which the ratios of black to white population were highest. (However, it is difficult to demonstrate that within such states secession sentiment was especially strong in the black belts.) But the states in which the disunion movements were strongest were also the states most dependent commercially and industrially — or, to use Calhoun’s phrase, they were the "exporting states". They were the states too in which the doctrine thet the Federal government operated to make one section tributary to the other in an economic way, had early found widespread acceptance. The evidence in regard to party affiliations is, perhaps, more conclusive as 63. Cong , fllobe , 31 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx., 409- 6?. Letter from William C. Rives, U. S. Minister to France, in National In- telligencer . May 1, IB50. 70. Cf. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virgin ia. 243 f. * . : t , . , • t • • < < • • . , . < 83 to motives. In the South as a whole the overwhelming majority of the Whig party, as we have seen, was Unionist and accepted the compromise measures without much dissatisfaction. It would seem that the disunionists of 1850, and those who con- templated disunion with complacency, were chiefly of the Calhoun wing of the Demo- cratic party; many of them had been Nulli ficationists* The Union Democrats of 1850, on the other hand, were chiefly 0 ? Jackson, Benton, and Van Buren antecedents. In South Carolina the alignment is not difficult to see. The Unionists were, in the main, the remnants of the Whig party. Of the leaders of the Union group, J. L. Petigru, B. F. Perry, Judge John Benton O'Neall, Richard Yeadon, and W« J. Grayson were Whigs, Joel R. Poinsett was a Jackson Democrat; all hod been Union men in 1832. Waddy Thompson, Whig, was the one conspicuous example of a former Nullifior turned Union. Of the separate-actionist 3 all the prominent leaders, who had figured in Nullification day9, had been Nullifiers; in this category fell R. B. Rhett, B, F. Duncan, F. W. Pickens, I. E. Holmes, W. F. Colcock, A. Burt, and Maxcy Gregg. With one exception these men had been leaders also of the Bluffton movement, of 1844. Of the co-operationi sis, of 1851, the majority of the prominent leaders had been Nullifiers; of this class were A. P. Butler, J. H. Hammond, Jame3 Hamilton, F. L. Wardlaw, and W. W. Boyce. Other prominent co-operationists had been Unionists in 1832; in this class were ex-Govemor J. P. Richardson, Daniel E. Huger, Richard I. Manning, C. G. Mernminger, and James Chesnut. L angdon Cheves had been a co-operationist in 1332. All of the secessionists named were Democrats except William S. Preston, co-dperationi at , who was a state rights Whig and former Nullifier. In July, 1850, John H. Lumpkin, of Georgia, wrote Howell Cobb: "All who are for resistance and for disunion will be found in the ranks of the democratic party; and if their history should be known, they will be found out to be old Nullifiers in 1332 . " 71 > 71. July 21. Tooraba, Stephens . Cobb Correspondence . 208 . 84 Other Union Democrats complained of those "secession views which have long been entertained try a school of Southern politicians vhich have always weakened, never benefited or strengthened the Democratic party. The Union Democrats were almost exclusively from the northern counties, which had never accepted the teachings of the Carolina school. Such prominent leaders of the Southern rights party ae C. J. McDonald, George M. Troup, Joseph H. Lumpkin, W. F. Colquitt, H. L. Benning, Will- iam H. Stiles, J. N. Bethune, and John A. Jones had long been leaders of the state rights wing of the Democratic party. However, in Georgia perhape to a greater ex- tent than any other Southern state the Whig party had retained it 3 state rights element; and this element, with exceptions such as J. M. Berrien, co-operated with their fellows in the Union movement of 1850. The latter fact probably explains why the Union Convention of 1850 did not deny the constitutional right of secessior as did the Unionists in Alabama and Mississippi: Such. state rights Whigs as A. H. Stephens and Robert Toombs believed in it. 1 "^ In Alabama the nullifying state rights faction went into the Democratic party with Calhoun about 1 G 40 ; after that time the state rights element of the Whig par- ty was comparatively small. But the cleavage between the Calhoun wing of the Dem- ocrats, led by such men as Dixon H. Lewis, J. M. Calhoun, W. L. Yancy, the Elmores, and David Hubbard, and the Jackson wing whose leaders were Wro. R. King, Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Jere Clemens, and W. R. 7 /. Cobb, etc., remained clear for years. ^ In 1845 Dixon H. Lewis wrote of the "Calhoun wing of the Parjjy." It was this wing of 72. John E. Ward and Henry R. Jackson to Howell Cobb, Feb. 28, 1852, in ibid . 73 • Cf . Hodgson, The Cradl e of the. Confede racy . 283 . 74. Ibid., chap. XI; Garrett, Remini sconce s of Public Men in Alabama . 29?. The autnor , in telling why David Hubbard, of Lawrence, a Calhoun man, never attained the senatorship, says: "The same reasons which influenced the Jackson Democracy in withholding their support in former days from the men who came over with Mr. Cal- houn, operated against him in these aspirations;...." Garrett constantly recog- nizes the division in the Democratic party. the party which formed the Southern Rights party in 1851 and sought to prepare the state for secession. The other wing not only allied with the Whigs to form the Union party but denied the constitutional right of secession. 7;) In Mississippi the situation wee very similar to that in Alabama- -T. Wil- cox, a Union Democrat elected in 1851, identified the Southern Rights men of his state, whom he denounced as disunionists, as "old-line Democrats." This term he defined as designating those whom Jackson had driven from the party in 1832-33 . Af- ter that year, ho said, they had acted with the Whigs until 1840, when they follow 7 6 ed J. C. Calnoun back into the Democratic ranks. This description is accurate with the exception that it takes no account of a small element in the Whig party which had not followed Calhoun in 1840, but which nevertheless co-operated with the Southern Rights party in 1851 . The leader of this party was John A. Quitman, a native of South Carolina, a nullifier, and a supporter of Calhoun against Van Buren in 1844. 77 In no state can the division in the Democratic ranks be more clearly seen than in Virginia. There the Calhoun men constituted a well defined group. For a number of years they acted almost as a third party holding the balance of power be- tween the Whigs and the Democrats. In 1343-44 they tried to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency for Calhoun. In 184? they were able, by taking ad- vantage of factional fights in the general assembly, to elect R. M. T. Hunter and 75 * Hodgson, 0£. cit . . 294-296. 76* Cong . Globe . 32 Cong., 1 Seas., Appx., 282-284. 77* Claiborne, Life and Corres pon denc e of John A. Qditman . 211-15, --a circu- lar written by Quitman for his political friends, 18T5. The Tact ional differences in Mississippi may be traced quite readily in the correspondence of Quitman. In 1835, he wrote: "....the people of this state are one third for Van Buren, one third Nullifiers, and one third Whigs." P. 139. In December, 1838, he wrote: "I shall co-operate freely and boldly with all genuine Republicans, be they Democrats or Nullifiers, in asserting the principles to which I have alluded." p. 167. In 1845: "In politics I hold much the same position as Calhoun and Troup In 184*+ I preferred, as I had before and do now, Mr. Calhoun to any other mail for the presidency, but I acquiesced in the nomination of Van Buren, and, until the appear- ance of his anti-Texas letter, gave him my zealous support." It f < 86 J. Y. Mason to the Senate. Thereafter they gradually tightened their grip upon the Democratic party/ ' But in 1850, and later, leaders still spoke of the "Cal- houn wing" or the "States Rights" party almost as if it were a distinct organ! za- 7° tion. Their strength lay chiefly in eastern Virginia. Their leaders were very able; among them were R. M . T. Hunter, J. Y. Mason, James A. Sefidon, Henry A. Wise Lewis E. Harvie, John Tyler, Beverly Tucker, William C. Goode, Wm . F. Gordon, Wil- loughby Newton, Richard K. Cralle, M. R. H. Garnett, and Edmund Ruffin. It was this wing that supported the Nashville Convention and furnished the majority of 80 the delegates; in this wing virtually all of the Virginia disunion! st s, and all those of disunionist leanings in 1850 were to be found. Now, to be sure , the State Rights party claimed to be champions and defenders of slavery liar ex_ce_ll_€nce . as well as of other Southern interests. But this claim was not admit tea by tneir opponents, end had no basis in actual property interest- in slaves. The Whig party held at least its proportionate share of the slavehold- ers. Whig leaders claimed, with justification It seems, that most of the large slaveholders belonged to their party, Whigs had, of course, reasons for support- ing the compromise measures originating in the party considerations: The adminis- tration under whose auspices the measures were enacted was Whig. But after all qualifications are made, no explanation of the alignment of the parties nnd fact- ions in the South upon the question of Union or disunion is complete which does not take in account the previous history and the origin of the parties. ?8, These statements are based upon numerous letters in the Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, Coiirgspondenoe of R. M. T. Hunter , and H. Hammond Papers as well as newspaper material, etc., and agree, I believe, with Ambler, Thomas Ritchie and Sectionalism i n Vi rginia . ~ ~ * £,• M. T. Hunger Papers, especially letters: James A . Seddon to Hunter, . 1q * 1 84-8 ; L. W. Tazewell to Hunter, Aug. 18, 1850; Seddon to Hunter, Feb. 7, lop2* ’ Tucker, Goode, Gordon, and Newton were delegates to the first session of the Nashville Convention, and Gordon was the only representative of Virginia in the second, 0 CHAPTER IV Discussion c f Plans for Estohli eking Pi rect Trade with Europe . I9A7 - I86 q . .Although for a number of years after the direct trade conventions of the 1830 * s no attempts were made to revive Southern commerce comparable to the efforts of those conventions, at no time did the people of the South become reconciled to commercial dependence upon the North. The suspension of the discussion of direct trade was due to the general stagnation of business and the distrust of all enter- prise which characterized a period of several years following the commercial cri- sis of 1837. In l045 and 1846 there was discussion in Congress and the country at large of the policy of adopting the warehousing system. The system permitted goods im- ported from abroad to be placed in bonded warehouses with payment of duties when the goods were withdrawn, unless withdrawn for re-export, in which case no duties were to be collected. The warehousing system met with general favor in the South, anu over enthusiastic individuals hailed it as the panacea which would restore Southern foreign commerce. 1 The cash duties system, they said, prevented Southern merchants, who generally had limited capital and credit, from importing for re- exportation, and gave the advantage tc Northern importers of larger means. The warehousing system would enable- New Orleans to become the half-way house between Europe and Mexico, and Charleston to conduct the commerce between Europe and the Test Indies. According to the memorial to Congress from the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, the want of s. warehousing system had driven the Mexican trade to Ha- 2 vana. J. C. B. DeBow thought that, if there w’as ever to be any foreign commerce in the South, such a system must have a great influence in bringing it about .3 Con- gress enacted a warehousing law, which became effective August 6, 1846/' Being a Literary Messenger , XI, 508,567,577 .584, articles by Lieut. M. F. Maury. 2. DeBow’ a Review. II, 408. 3 . Ibid., HI, 193 . 4. Acts and Resolutions, 29 Cong., 1 Sees., p. 83 . • < « < , ' ■ ) ■ ■ ( I * . * . - ‘ ’ ■ < • 88 step in the direction of free trade, it undoubtedly benefited commerce;' but, needless to say, more than a warehousing law was necessary to effect a revolution in the course of Southern trade. This discussion of the warehousing system was followed shortly by a general renewal of discussion of direct trade with Europe- DeBow, in 1847, said the sub- ject was once again receiving attention; 0 numerous long articles in his newly founded DeBow 's Review testify to the revival of interest. DeBow republished the proceedings of the Augusta and Charleston conventions and the reports of McDuffie, 7 Hayne, Elmore, and Longstreat. "We would recall those scenes and times," he said. But whereas in those times the direct trade movement tfas pretty much confined to the Atlantic seaboard, now it had spread to the Gulf ports and the entire South. Until l86l nothing was recognized with more steadfastness and unanimity as a prop. er element in the policy not only of seaports but of the South as a section than the encouragement of direct trade. It was a subject of constant discussion in the press. Conventions were held to consider plans for promoting it. Direct trade held a prominent place in oil the sessions of the Southern Commercial Con- vention, which met regularly from 1352 to l85V; and was given consideration in the less regular Cotton Planters' Convention. Plans for achieving it demanded consi- deration from chambers of commerce, city councils, and state legislatures, as well as from individuals. No doubt a chief explanation for the renewal of discussion of direct trade about 1847 was the reawakened spirit of progress in the South. The latter half of the fifth decade witnessed a great revival of prosperity and enterprise in all parte of the Union. During the period numerous railroad projects took form, and construction upon a large scale was undertaken. With the extension of our nation- 5. Lieutenant Maury wrote a few years later: "These importers (direct) and the warehousing system are recovering back for the South a portion of the direct trade." DeBow, Industrial Resources . Ill, 14, 6. DeBow' s Review . Ill, 557 . 7. Ibid., 558 . , ~ ' » l- , « , . , . V . ' 89 al boundaries to the Pacific on d the discovery of gold in California, grandioee schemes were conceived for establishing communication with the Pacific coast by rail or water. Everywhere there w as rapid recovery from the depression of the early forties. In the South one manife station of the new spirit was a revival of the direct trade movement. And all through the period under consideration the comparative progressiveness of the South caused to stand out more sharply the ob- stacles to progress for which commercial dependence was believed responsible, and intensified the desire to be free from then. The public discussion cannot be said to have contributed materially to on understanding of the causes for the superior commercial development of the North. In fact it added little to the analyses made in the series of direct trade con- ventions of 1837-1839* The discussion did contribute, however, to a better under- standing of the evils in the Southern economic system. And, furthermore , as plan after plan went awry, there came to be a better appreciation of the enormous dif- ficulties to be overcome in achieving commercial independence. In the fifties, as in the thirties, commercial dependence was believed to be responsible for the transfer of much Southern wealth to the North in the form of profits; as in the thirties, it was said that the Northern merchants and ship own- ers reaped large profits from importing for the Southern states and conducting their foreign and coastwise commerce. The estimated total of the sums subtracted from the yearly product of Southern industry in the form of importers* profits, interest upon advances, freight charges, insurance, commissions, port and wharf charges, and the expenses of Southern merchants who went North tc purchase their stocks, hod grown with the nation's commerce and shipping, and, by the processes of Southern arithmetic, had become enormous indeed. Said William Gregg: "It is a hopeless task to undertake to even approximate to the vast sums of wealth which have been transferred from the South to the North by blowing the Northern cities to import and export for us."^ Joseph Segar, of Virginia, cited the report of the 8. DeBow's Review. XXIX, 82. * , . . • r , , ' « 1 , ( , 90 Secretary of the Treasury showing the imports and the exports of the United States for 1856 to have been $314,000,000 and $326,000,000 respectively. ’’Now the com- mercial profit of this vast amount of business inures almost exclusively to the North. The South has scarcely a say in the matter. She not only surrenders near- ly all the profit on the import trade, but our productions — the basis of our ex- ports— are mostly shipped to Northern cities, and thence reshipped in Northern bottoms to the foreign market, so that she actually loses the factorage on her >■* own productions. Such a state of things is an annual lose to her of numerous 9 millions and her bitter reproach." Another Virginian calculated, in 1853, that Virginia lost $9,539 -037 *76 annually by "allowing” New York to carry her trade. ^ To such statements as these, and there were hundreds of them, it was not suf- ficient to reply, as Northern men frequently did, that what the North got was on- ly a fair commercial remuneration- True, people in the South considered the re- muneration too great because the indirect course of trade, by reason of the grey- er mileage, the extra transhipments necessary, and the mediation of a greater num- ber of middlemen, each of whom must exact a profit, made foreign geode more cost- ly to the ultimate purchasers than would the direct trade. Many, too, believed they were being exploited by Northern merchants and financiers, made the prey of manipulators, and made to pay extortionate prices. But the rather characteristic reply quoted above portrays inability of unwillingness to grasp the chief reasons for dissatisfaction in the South with the manner in which Southern commerce was conducted. As in on earlier period discussed, sc at this time it was believed tha.t Norn them seaports owed their phenomenal growth and prosperity very largely to their control of Southern foreign commerce. It waa a logical conclusion that, could this commerce be conducted by Southern seaports, they would enjoy like prosperity. 9. DgBow^s Review, XXII, 515. 10. Ibid-, XIV, 500- 11. Olmsted, The Cotton Kingdom . II, 301. * < . ' rc ! . , , c , , < • • , . ( . < * 91 And in the lo50's the people of every Southern seaport of any pretensions V'hatever had the natural and laudable ambition to make it a great commercial center. Will- iam S. Forrest in his Sketches of Norfolk rather naively related that upon Septem- ber 26, 1850, the Honorable Henry A. Wise, of Accomac, "spoke with startling elo- quence, and most convincing power of argument, of the reason that Norfolk is not already a great city, and of the means by which she may become a great Southern 12 emporium." There was much of this type of eloquence. The public had no reason to be uninformed in regard to the relative advanta- ges and disadvantages of every Southern port. The jealousy of rivals displayed in some of the cities is rather amusing, considering the inconsequence of the ma- jority of them; although it had rather important influence upon the location of railroads in the South, and possibly some small influence detrimental to the suc- cess of projects for direct trade with Europe. The citizens of Norfolk hoped much from her splendid harbor and strategic lo- cation at the entrance of the Chesapeake. Richmond, upon the James River, was a larger town, more centrally located with reference to Virginia, possessed of the advantage of being the capital of the state; and her people were determined to mase her the commercial capital of Virginia, if not of a much larger territory. Th;e people of North Carolina regretted the necessity of resorting to Charleston and Norfolk because of the v/ant of a good port in their own state; and there was discussion of the possibility of making Wilmington a great Southern emporium. Charleston and Savannah were the only ports of any consequence upon a long stretch of coast-line, and were rivals for the trade of several states. In the fifties Charleston was in many respects the most progressive city in the South. With the 12. P. 260. The same thought recurs frequently, for example: "There are many thinking, practical, and intelligent men, who believe that Norfolk, at some not very distant period in the history of the world, wall be a great city. Every per- son, who thinks upon the subject at all, knows well enough that the place is not what it ought long since to have been. P. 28l. Forrest quoted Jefferson and Madison upon the future of Norfolk. P. 296 , 297. 13. Cf. J. N. Cordoza, Reminiscences of Charleston, 1866 ; W. L. Trenholm, "’he Cen- tenni nl Address before the Charleston C hamber of Commerce . 11th Feb. 1884 . ‘ . 'K < . , , ; ; • , , , . ‘ , , « • ( < c 1 t ' . 92 exception of New Orleans, she had more citizens of wealth and better banking faci- lities than any other city south of Baltimore. Many of her merchants were natives or of long residence, and were imbued with a high degree of public spirit. Her chamber of commerce was resourceful and aggressive. On the other hand, Savannah, while she had all the drawbacks of Southern cities in general, possessed certain advantages of location from which much was hoped. She was more advantsgeously lo- cated for securing railroad connection with the West. Until the vast possibilities of the railroad for changing the established course of trade were realized, the citizens of New Orleans never doubted that thei: city was destined to become the metropolis of America, situated as she was at the mouth of a river which drains half a continent, and strategically located with 1 4 reference to the West Indies, Mexico, South America, and the Pacific. Not until after about 1850 did the people of New Orleans awaken to a realization that the greatness of the city could not be insured merely by permitting time and nature to take their courses, but that they must resort to the same methods less favored cities employed. Then the city government was reformed; radiating railroads were projected, and their construction was pushed vigorously. One, the New Orleans, Jackson, and Great No rthern, aimed at the Ohio; the other, the Opelousas and West- ern, pointed toward the west and was intended to be the first span of a road to the Pacific. Greet interest was taken in projects to establish communication with the Pacific by way of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The rivals of New Orleans were not neighboring cities on the Gulf, although citizens of Mobile regarded her as one, but cities of the Atlantic seaboard, between which and the Mississippi valley communication by railroads and inland waterways was being established. Mobile was the only other Gulf port of any consequence; her ambitions far ex- ceeded her legitimate expectations. John Forsyth told of the aspirations and the sad deficiencies of Mobile in the same breath: "Mobile is but a chrysalis of con- 14. Cf. Geo. W. Cable, History end Present Condition of New Orleans, Tenth Census, °'XLX, Pt. II, 213-95- . , « ( « : 93 merce. . ..She stands trembling at the portals of a grand destiny which she has not the courage to enter, and paralyzed by the coward fear that the splendid columns and gilded domes, the sapphire pavements and rubied windows of the temple of com- mercial grandeur, are not for her enjoyment and realization."^ This, of a town of about 25,000 inhabitants. It was, then, from chambers of commerce, boards of trade, merchants, editors, and public spirited citizens and officials of Southern seaports that projects for establishing direct trade received much, if not most, of their support. But the achievement of commercial independence was represented not merely as a measure which would promote the prosperity of individual seaports, but also as a measure which would greatly benefit the South as a whole; the interest in it, therefore, was not confined to the seaports but was general throughout the youth. The general reasons why the loyal and progressive Southerners were very de- sirous of promoting the material development of the section have been given in 16 connection with the account of the movement to bring the spindles to the cotton. It was galling to their pride that their section should be languishing and depen- dent . They wanted a denser population, cities, towns, railroads, development of natural resources, and the social benefits which they believed would follow mater- ial development. They wished to prove by the actual accomplishment that, contrary to the contentions of its Northern and British antagonist s, cities, commerce, man- ufactures, and the "arts of living" could flourish in a slave society. And, more important, they felt that the security of slavery could no longer be safely en- trusted to constitutional guarantees and adroit political combinations, but that these must be supported by the power of wealth, numbers, and economic independent e If, as was possible, the Union should be dissolved, these things would be essen- tial to national existence. 15* Lecture on "The North and the South," DeBow's Review . XVII, 377. 16. See chap. II. ' - ■ , ' . ' t - * - , < < t . . » 94 Mow direct trade and the retention at home of the "tribute'* the South paid New York were expected to supply the capital which would build cities, give a stimulus to manufactures, mining, and agriculture, make possible stronger finan- cial institutions, help finance railroads and other internal improvements, and, by consequence, invite immigration and thus redress the political preponderance of the non-slaveholding states, According to the report of the committee of ways and means of the Alabama legislature: "As the proper adjustment of our foreign and domestic trade, on the principle of economy laid down, involves the value of city, town, and county property, agricultural and manufacturing prosperity, the profits on bank, railroad, and canal stocks, as well as population and political 17 power it becomes one of the highest considerations to all classes? Furthermore, there were several evils in the Southern economic and social system for which it was believed the establishment of direct trade with Europe would be a specific remedy. One of these was the absence of a permanent mercan- tile class whose interests were identified with those of the South at large both financially and politically. The merchants of most Southern towns, interior as well as seaport, were largely Northern men or foreigners who .looked upon their abode in the South as temporary. James Stirling said two-thirds or three-fourths l3 of the commercial business was carried on by Northern men or foreigners. Most of the cotton buyers and commission merchants were non-resident s; and the South was literally overrun by agents and collectors of Northern mercantile houses. "The merchants of the South, like the nobility of Ireland," wrote Lieutenant Mau- ry, "are, for the most part non-residents . At the season when the Southern sta- ples are coming to market, these flock there from all quarters. When the crop is disposed of, they return whence they came, with their gains in their pockets, and, thus, a continued drain is kept upon that country. . 1? . DeBow l s Review. XIV, 441. 18. Letters from the S l ave, St a tes,, 320. 19* So. Lit . Mess., XI, 588. , . , t t , . . , ' 95 No city suffered more in this respect than New. Orleans. The wealthy Creoles owned the real estate and lived upon its rental. They were extremely conservative, desired to keep down taxes, and opposed new enterprises. The men who directed oommerce were strangers who had no permanent stake in the city, but preferred tem- porary gains to the future growth of the port. Their earnings were expended or 20 invested chiefly in the North. The busy season of New Orleans extended from October or November to the following spring. During this period thousands of laborers, attracted by high wages, flocked to the city from the Northern states to return thence when the busy season closed. An English observer estimated that of the population from November to May fully a fourth part was migratory. 21 Practically the whole business of Mobile, Alabama, -commerce, banking, the few manufactures,. was in the hands of Northern men. Savannah, Georgia, had a large Northern and foreign element; and Augusta was known as a Yankee town — the Yankee element was not transient in this case. Charleston suffered less from transients and temporary residents than any other Southern city or town. Virginia towns in general had a more permanent and more Southern population than those of the cotton states. The want, in so many Southern towns, of a permanent mercantile class thoroughly identified with the interests of the section deprived the South of a class which, in every community, has much to do with the undertaking of new enter- prises. It was largely responsible, too, for the small part cities played in determining state legislative policies. Then, thorough Southerners desired to be rid of the swarms of Northern agents, temporary residents, and migratory population because they were felt to be unfriendly to slavery. Their presence, it was felt, would divide and distract Southern counsels. Their influence upon native non- slaveholding whites was feared. Another feature of the economic system of the South which was greatly de- plored was financial dependence upon the East, particularly New York City. This 20. DeBow* s Review. XI, 71 ff, quoting a speech of James Robb in a Louisiana railroad convention, 1851. 21. James Richardson, A Few Months in North America. 66. Cf. Robert Russell, 11 ' *L * . . , • r * . , • • . » • • » f 96 was coming to be considered a great evil at the time of the early direct trade conventions, it was a matter of greater concern in the 1350's. The immense com- merce of New York was believed responsible for the centralization there of so much of the financial power and operations of the country. If direct trade could be established and commercial centers built up, the banking institutions of the South would be strengthened , and thus enabled to meet the financial requirements 22 of the section. The Southern people were largely dependent upon New York City for the finan- cing of the marketing of their crops. Every fall when Southern staples began to move, planters and shippers made great demands for cash and credit. Southern banks made such loans as their facilities would permit, and in the case of New Or- leans and Charleston they were by no means small; but the chief burden fell upon New York . To make this clear it is necessary to review briefly the manner in which Southern crops, particularly cotton, were marketed. Virginia products (tobacco and grain principally) consumed outside the state were sold mostly in New York, even when destined to be exported to Europe. Of direct exports, a large portion was bought and shipped by New York men. 2j Part of the cotton was sold in the ports to speculators and others many of whom were New Yorkers. The remainder, and per- haps tne larger part, was sold in the North or in England through factors and com- mission merchants representing New York or Liverpool houses. The planters or mer- chants received advances upon their cotton, or payment for, chiefly in the form of 21. (cont.) No.rth Amer ica,, 253 * During the last decade before the War, how- ever, conditions in Mew Orleans visibly improved. 22. DeBow^s Review, XIV, 441; remarks of Mr. Wheeler in the Virginia House of Delegates, Richmond Enquire r. Dec. 10, 1852; D. M. Barringer, of N.C., in the Old Point direct trade convention, ibid.., Aug. 3; H. C. Cabell, of Virginia. Hunt's Merchant *' Mag., XLII, 32 3- — 23. "Letter of a Southern man to Governor Wise of Virginia," Richmond Enaui- rer, Jan. 9, 1856; editorial, ibid . . Dec. 17, 1852. ->*S 97 sixty day sterling bills or four months New York drafts. These bills and drafts were discounted by Southern banks and forwarded to New York, where they went to pay the debts of Southern merchants and others or to secure cash with which to purchase the other bills which came flooding in as the staples went forward. Ster- ling bills were bought in New York, of course, because there came the larger pro- portion of the imports, and there normally was the demand for bills. Exchange was frequently in favor of the South (especially was this true in the case of New Orleans), and at such times great suras of specie flowed South to find their way 24 back to the North during the dull seasons of the year. It is evident that the moving of the cotton crop and, in a large measure, the price the planter received, depended upon the ability and willingness of New York to buy New York drafts and sterling bills. This wa3 strikingly proven at the time of the financial crisis of 1857 * The effect of the crash can best be stud- ied at New Orleans, the greatest cotton exporting port in America* The crop of 1857 was short, and the price was expected to be high. Factors, finding money easy, put out their acceptances with a liberal hand, expecting the crop coning in to meet all engagements. Cotton went on the market at l6£ cents with sterling selling at 109'i to lO^* On September 25 word came from New York that exchange was almost unsaleable. Money became tighter and tighter; sterling fell to 92^-- 97; and presently banks refused to take it at any price- Cotton buyers withdrew from the market. A large of the cotton crop sold for several cents less than the promised price.“' The crash brought the evils of financial dependence home to the South as 24. Kettell, Southern Wealth and Northern Profit 9 , ch. VII; Hunt's Merchants' Mag.., XXIX, 60; XLII, 313; report of a committee of the Cotton Planters' Conven- tion, Macon, 1853, in DeBow's Review . XXV, 713 f; A- H. Stone, "The Cotton Fac- torage System of the Southern States,” Amer . Hi st . Rev . , XX, 557-64. 25. New Orleans Daily Picayune. June 1, 1858; Hunt's Merch ants' Mag.., XLII, 35, from article, "Banking at the South with Reference to New York City, " by H. C. Cabell, of Virginia. s . ^ 98 they had never been brought before. Southern journals and writers pointed out that the South had not been responsible for the panic. There had been no specu- lation in the South, they 9aid. True, she had embarked largely upon railroad building, but because of the scarcity of capital the building had been sane, and economically done. The South was in a position to enter upon a flood-tide of prosperity, "and yet - and yet- almost in the twinkling of an eye, with the sud- denness of an earthquake, and unexpectedly as a stroke of lightning from a cloud- less sky, cotton was struck down and became almost unsaleable in the Southern mar- ket." 2 ^ The South lost millions of dollars— $35,000,000, said Senator J. H. Ham- mond in his "Mud Sill" speech — upon the crop of the year 1857-1858.*^ The New Orleans Picayune pointed out the anomaly of the greatest exporting port in America being "stranded because of a money panic in Wall Street" — cdtton 28 selling at 10 cents a pound while it was 18 or 19 in London.'"' The moral was drawn that, had the South direct trade, there would have been a demand at home for sterling bills, and cotton could have gone forward without waiting for the recov- ery of New York. The Picayu ne dare hope that the disturbance caused by the panic might result in direct trade for the South: "The power on which we have been de- pendent so long has at length given way, and almost without knowing it, we have come or are about to come, actually to realize in practice what has hitherto been considered by many an idle dream. And should this step .... result in our perma- nent emancipation from a system whoso advantages are far outnumbered by its disad- vantages — a system which wrings from us annually, without any return except the loss of influence and power, millions of hard earned dollars — we should think the financial crisis with all its manifold evils cheap to ua. 1 '^ 26. Hunt ' s Merch ants* Magazine . XLII , 315* 27* Cong . globe . 35 Cong., 1 Sees., 961. 28. Quoted in DeBow' s Review. XXIII, 656 f. 29. This is a very moderate statement. For a less temperate one see DeBow's Review . XXIII. 657-9, quoting the Vicksburg True Southron . 99 The immense loss occasioned the South by the crash of September, 1057 , was but o striking example of the evils of the centralization of commerce and finance in New York. The cotton states, as did the w est for that matter, experienced to a less degree the evils of centralization every fall when the crops were moved. During the idle months funds found their way to New York, there to be used in bus- iness or speculation. When the crops of the South and West began to move, there was a tightness in the money market, which operated to depress prices. And this did not signify, as some planters asserted, that Mew York financial interests were interested in forcing down the price of cotton.^ It was far preferable to be de- pendent upon the money power of New York than upon the money power of London; for normally New York wss interested in keeping the prices up. Since the Southern staple constituted the chief export of the country, and there was a quite steady demand for it in the world’s markets, it became the basis for securing credit in Europe. The cotton crop was at once an index to Northern manufacturers and mer- chants of the South’s ability to buy in the home markets and of the nation's abil- ity to purchase abroad. The solicitude with 'which the business interests of New York, especially in time of depression, looked forward to the moving of cotton and speculated upon the crop and the price it would bring, abundantly testifies to the role cotton played in keeping the wheels of credit in motion. At the time of the crisis of 1857, New York financial circles considered it essential to revival that cotton continue to move, whatever the price, end hoped the planters would be will- ing to let it go forward at the low prices shippers would be compelled to offer. 30. Kettell, Souther n We al t h and Nort hern Profi ts . 93, 94. 31. Mr. Wheeler of Portsmouth said in the Virginia House of Delegates, Dec. 2, 1852: "...the price, the worth, the market value of all we and the people we re- present own of every kind of property, is dependent upon the speculative pleasure of the Merchants, the Bankers, and Brokers of New York* And why? Because Wall Street can depress the money market when it pleases. " Richmond Enqu irer, Dec. 7, 1852. See also A. Dudley Mann, D_cBow * s_ Review . XXIV, 373* 32. T T unt ' s Me rc h an t s ' Mag . . XXXVII, 583 * Some of the cotton had not been ad- vanced upon and the planters were able to hold it; but much of the cotton did go forward. The importance of its movement to Northern business was not overlooked in the South. "What saved you!" said Senator Hammond, "Fortunately for you it was 100 The cotton planters were not the only ones who suffered fron the financial dependence of the South upon the North. All who sought to embark in business, to start manufactures, to develop the mineral resources* of the country, found them- selves handicapped by their inability to secure proper financial support at home. Most cf the railroad bonds, for example, had to be sold either in New, York or oth- er Northern cities or abroad. No wonder the people of the Southern states, at a time when there was almost a mania for railroad building, when they were becoming aware of the existence of considerable mineral resources and the possession of great advantages for certain lines of manufactures, should chafe at, and try to be free from the necessity of waiting for the favor of distant money markets before entering upon a career of expansion. Said a correspondent of the Charleston Cour - ier . 1854 : "At present our principal sources for obtaining funds are through the capitalists of the North end Europe. So long as we are thus dependent, so long may we expect to be used for their benefit, and be mode subservient to their in- terests. when they cannot find better investment they will advance to us freely, and leave us when they can find others more pro fit able .”83 A good illustration of the way in which attempts to inaugurate new enter- prises in the South were handicapped by the financial deficiencies of the section is found in the efforts which were made to establish direct trade with Europe; for commercial vassalage was effect as well as cause of financial vassalage. An ela- boration of this statement again brings into view the pernicious long credits sys- tem, and raises the question whether after all, had it not been for this system, the credit facilities of the South might not have been sufficient to perm.it the launching of many more new enterprises than were actually launched. Just as in 32. (Con't’d) the commencement of the cotton season, end we have poured in upon you one million six hundred thousand bales of cotton just at the crises to save you from sinking. That cotton, but for the bursting of your speculative bubble in the North ... .would have brought us * 100 , 000 , 000 . We have scld it for *65,000,000, and saved you." Cong . C-lobe , 35 Cong., 1 Pess., 96 I. 33. April 7, 1854. - < « : , < . < t . , , .... • < ' <* 101 the thirties retail merchants in the South bought of Northern Jobbers on long credit — often twelve months. To compete with the Northern jobbers, Southern im- porters end jobbers would also have to extend the long credits. But while the Northern jobbers could procure funds upon their long time paper, the Southern im- porters found it difficult or impossible to discount long time paper in Southern banks. The New Orleans Commie rcl al Bulletin enumerated the greater facilities of the merchants of Northern cities for the extension of long credits as one of the rea- sons why New Orleans had lost much trade in the South and West: "The twelve months credit system did the business, and attracted an immense amount of Western 34 and Southern trade to those cities, which would have otherwise gought this port. In the opinion of the Mobile Tribu ne the South was bound to the North by long ere- dits: destroy that system and there might be some chance for direct trade.”"' In fact, just asjin the period of the early direct trade conventions, the long credit system was frequently denounced and deplored, end the people were frequently urged to free themselves from it. Yet, it must be said, the people of the Southern states took long credits too much as a matter cf course, and did not adequately realize their viciousness. There was almost no other factor that operated so ef- fectively to retard the accumulation of capital in the South. The Southern people paid for these long advances and paid dearly. They paid in interest fcpon advan- ces. They paid in increased prices of articles consumed; for because of the pre- carious nature of much of the Southern trade, risks were great, and Northern mer- chants insured themselves well against these risks. They paid, often, in the sac- rifice in the prices of their staple® incurred because of forced sales necessary to procure money to meet their obligations at maturity. J. L. Crocheren, cf Ala- 34. Hunt* a Merchants ' Mag,. , XXXIII, 2o3 . 3-2* L^iL* ♦ XXXTTT , 264. The dissatisfaction with the long credits system was not entirely confined tb the South. Some New York men felt that the Southern trade was hardly worth the risks involved. Ibid .. XXXTV, 522, article, "Some Suggestions on Southern "rade." 102 bwna, seid the South put herself at the mercy of speculators by forcing one-third of her cotton into the market in two months in order to pay advonces received dur- ing twelve.-^ The financinl dependence o? the Southern states was not credited only to the absence of foreign commerce, cities, accumulated capital, varied industries. There was considerable dissatisfaction with the banking system- It was thought by some that the banking laws were too conservative in several of the states. The policiei of the banks were criticized on the score that they contributed to the centraliza- tion at New York.--? Representatives of the mercantile interests complained that banks v/ere partial to the agricultural interests. It would take us too far from the subject of this chapter to enter into a discusssion of the bank lawa and bank- ing operations in the several states. In three states, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia, it would seem that banking facilities were ebout as adequate as the demands of business would justify; there, too, the bankers pursued enlightened poli- . 38 cies. There was undoubtedly great improvement in banking conditions during the fifties. There were difficulties to be overcome before direct importations could be established other than deficiency of capital and credit, the long credits system, or the absence of a thoroughly Southern mercantile claes. One lay in the compara- tively small amounts of foreign goods consumed in the South. There is no way of calculating accurately the value of the foreign imports consumed in territory na- turally tributary to Southern seaports; but the probabilities are that it did not so greatly exceed the direct importations as Southerners generally supposed. Some 36. DeBow's Review . XXV, 39» 37* H. C. Cabell, "Banking in the South with Reference to New York City," Hunt * s Merchants ^ Magazine, XLII , 311-323? letters of "A Southern Man" to Gov. Wise of Virginia, Richmond Sr.aui rer . Jan. 9, 11, Feb. 11, 1.856; William Gregg, DeBow* s Review, XXIX, 495; Kettell, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, ch. VII. 38. J. N. Cordoza, Bernini scences of Charleston . 44 ff; W, L. Trenholm, The Cer- tenni si Address before t he Charleston Ch ember of Commerce. 3 Iff. - 103 Southern writers made the palpably untenable assumption that the Southern popula- tion consumed foreign goods equal in value to their exports to foreign countries, that i 9 , about two-thirds or three-fourths of the nation’s exports, or imports. More reasonable was the assumption that the per c api t n consumption of imported goods in the South was equal to that of the North. ^ But even that would seem to hsve been too liberal an estimate. A much higher percentage of the Northern popu- lation was urban, end the per capita consumption of articles of commerce by an ur- brn population is greater than the per c api t. a consumption by a rural population. Southern writers made much of the number of rich families in the South who bouerht articles of luxury imported from abroad; but it is probable that the number of fam- ilies who lived in luxury was exaggerated . That the slaves consumed comparatively small quantities of foreign goods requires no demonstration. Their clothing and rough shoes were manufactured either in the North or at home. Their chief articles of food (corn and bacon) were produced at home or in the West. The large poor white element in the population consumed few articles of commerce, either domestic or foreign. The same i3 true of the rather large mountaineer element, because, if for no other reason, they lived beyond the routes of trade. Olmsted, had these classes in mind when he wrote: "I have never seen reason to believe that with ab- solute free trade the cotton states would take a tenth part of the value of present importations."^ One of the fairest of the many English travellers wrote: "But the truth is, there are few imports required for every Southern town tells the same 42 tale." That portion of the proceeds of Southern exports to foreign countries which was not expended for foreign imports was expended for the products of the North 39. For example, M. R. H. Garnett, The Union . Past and Present . How It Works and How t_o_ Save It . Cf. DeBow’s Review . XVIII, 294 ff. ~ 40. Richmond E_nquirer , April 23 , 18 5 2, letter signed "Self Dependence." 41. Cotton Kingdom. I, 27. 42. Robert Russell, North America. 290. 104 and West. The sales from the South into other sections of the Union were suffic- ient to pay for only a fraction of the commodities purchased there for Southern consumption. The value of the cotton exported was greater by far than the value of all other Southern exports combined; yet in a normal year less than one fourth of the cotton went to the North. The exports to the North end West of sugar and molasses, tobacco, rice, grain and flour, timber, turpentine, end naval stores were considerably larger in proportion to the exports of the same commodities to foreign markets; but hardly large enough in the aggregate to pay for the imports from those sections. J. H. Hammond estimated that in 1857 the South sold products abroad to the value of $185,000,000, end to the North and West to the value of $35,000,000. The latter sun is undoubtedly too small; but a liberal estimate could not place the value of the exports to the North and West e.t more than 50 per cent, of the value of the exports to foreign countries. On the other hand, there was almost universal testimony that Southern purchases of Northern and Western commodities greatly exceeded in value the direct, and indirect imports from abroad. Most of the big items of Southern consumption were furnished almost entirely by the North or West. Practically all of the boots and shoes ceme from Massachusetts coarse cottons came from New England; the agricultural implements not manufactured at hone cane from the North and West; as did harness and saddle®, carriages and coaches, wagons, locomotives, and railroad cars, engines, furniture, and numerous 43. Donnell, History of Cotton , passim. In the year 1854, for example, 737,000 bales of cotton were shipped North as against 2,528,000 exported to Europe 44. According to the estimate of the New Orleans Prices Current, in the year 1858-59 four-fifths of the sugar and three-fourths of the molasses exported coast- wise from New Orleans went to Baltimore and points north. DteBow's Review . XXVII, 4?7* Sugar and molasses were also sent up the Mississippi in large quantities. The exports of these commodities to foreign countries were not large. Of the to- bacco exported from New Orleans about three-fourths went to foreign countries. DeBow's Review . X, 448 . No other Southern products were exported from New Orleans in large quantities. 45* Cong . Globe . 35 Cong., 1 Sese., 9&1. The value of the cotton i&one ship- ped North in 1857-58 was about $32,000,000. Hanmond, Cotton Industry , table op- posite p. 358. Because of the panic of 1857 the consumption of cotton was less than normal. 105 other articlee. Great quantities of bacon, pork, lard, and corn were shipped fron the Northwest down the Mississippi to be consumed in the cotton states. The cot- ton states also bought large numbers of mules, horses, and cattle in Kentucky and Missouri, states which in the fifties received practically none of their imports, Northern or foreign, by way of Southern ports. In 1839 a committee of the Char- leston Direct Trade Convention had found that one-third of the goods consumed in the South were of Northern production; fifteen or twenty years later no one es- timated the value of the foreign goods at more than one-half that of the goods of Northern and Western production. Daniel Lord, a Northern writer, said the South imported from the North ten dollars in domestic productions for every one import- 4-8 ed directly or indirectly from Europe. The ability of the Southern people to purchase their proportionate 3hare of the nation’s imports was further diminished, of course, by the payment of those freights, profits, interests, commissions, chargee, and expenses which went to Northern men, and which the advocates of a direct course of trade were so anxious to save. Thus the very commercial dependence under which the South chafed was one of the causes for the want of demand which made the establishment of a more ration al system difficult. There was logic in the contention of the advocates of direct trade that, could it once be inaugurated, the saving effected would increase the South’s ability to buy, end the increased demand would in turn help to firmly es- tablish the system. The meagre demand for imported goods rendered it necessary for Southern im- 46. St. Louis was the distributing center for Missouri and parts of Kentucky and Tennessee. Cincinnati and Louisville were distributing centers for Kentucky and parte 0? Tennessee. In the fifties these cities received practically all 0? their foreign and Northern goods from the East by interior routes. Western Vir- ginia traded with Cincinnati and Baltimore. Baltimore was rarely classified as a Southern city by men from farther south. 47. DeBow’s Review . IV, ^95. 48. Daniel Lord, The Effect of Secession upon the North and the South (namrh- 1 let, i860) p. 15. < , , . . « , . . . . , 106 porters to keep assorted stocks and for long periods- In the North, on the con- trary, the demand was large enough to permit importers to specialize, and sure e- nough to enable them to replenish their stocks at frequent intervals. The com- merce of a port like New York was so great that it offered a certain market for any cargo and certain freights for any part of the world . ^ Frequently cargoes were sold at auction in New York and Philadelphia, sometimes at ruinous prices, against which the importers of smaller cities could not compete. But whatever the demand for imported goods in the South, the denand for Northern goods was much greater. A large number of vessels was engaged in the coastwise trade. The same vessels which carried Northern goods to the South also carried the indirect im- ports. Often Southern merchants went to Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York to lay in their stocks of Northern goods, and while there could buy merchandise of foreign origin ju9t as well.'' 0 "Every Southern merchant that comes to Charleston has a through ticket for New York in his pocket," wrote William Gregg ,$ l The question may occur, Why did not Southern seaports thrive as distributing centers for the coastwise commerce? The explanation lies in part in the fact just, alluded to: Many interior merchants purchased of Northern rather than Southern jobbers. Gregg attributed this to a preference of the people for goods from New York and to the hostility of banks to the mercantile interests — • shown by their refusal to extend the support necessary to enable the Southern jobbers to extend the long credits which customers demanded. Charleston jobbers could sell cheaper than New York jobbers, he said, and there was no adequate .reason why Charleston should not beooiae a distributing center even without direct trade . ^ Whether the banks did not support the mercantile interests because they would not or because 49» Cf. Richmond Whig , Mar. 11, 1851, editorial. 50. DeJBow* 9 Review . XXIX, 500,555 - 51- Ibid .. XXIX, ??6. 52 . Ibid . , loc. cit . / . . . . , : . ' • - . t t * , ■ c ' , < j 107 they could not, it is evident that the Southern jobber and the importer suffered alike in this respect. Another writer said the country merchant bought from the Northern jobber because he knew that the Southern jobber bought his stocks in New York, and he did not wish to pay two sets of jobbers' profits.^ But there was a deeper reason why the seaports did not grow and prosper as distributing centers: The quantity of goods to be distributed was too small. The commerce of the South- ern states was practically limited to transporting a few staples from the interior to the coast and exporting them, and to receiving foreign .-and Northern goods at the seaports and transporting them into the interior: there was little internal commerce. There was no home market for Southern products. When the first rail- roads were put in operation, there was general disappointment at the lightness of the traffic upon them. There was little to carry but cotton, which i 9 net a but - Kj article. It is noteworthy that before the Civil War there was hardly an inter- ior town in the South worthy of mention as a distributing center. In general Southerners attached too much importance to exporting and importing as factors in the growth of cities. They overestimated the part foreign commerce was playing in the progress of Northern cities, not excepting Mew York, and underestimated the rolas of domestio commerce and manufactures, including shipbuilding.-^ Today, of the 11 cities in the South having over 100,000 inhabitants each, only 3 are sea- ports, and the total population of these 3 is but 35 per cent of the total popula- laiion of the entire number. Mercantile business in the South labored under serious disadvantages, also 53 * DeBow ' s Review. XII, 300. 54. There were exceptions. See, for example, a speech of James Robb, of New Orleans, in a railroad convention, 1851 * "No city ever grew great by commerce alone. Go back as far as they might, select the most favorably located cities in the world, and they would find their prosperity was transient, evanescent, com- pared with that of towns situated in the interior, where industry and labor were cultivated and flourished...." DeBow * a Review. XI, ?8. See also Hunt's Mer chants ' MScL* * XXXI V, 137, quoting the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin; DeBow* s Review. XXIX, 630, William Gregg. 108 from the great variations, from year to year, in the ability of the planters to buy, resulting in turn from the wide fluctuations in the cotton crop and cotton prices. In the seaports it was rendered precarious by the frequent visitations of yellow fever. The unhealthiness of the ports was partly responsible for ab- senteeism and the general stagnation of business during the summer months, when many merchants went North or to the interior. Another reason for cessation of business activity in the summer was the fact that the cotton went to market in the fall and winter. This idleness during a large part of the year, together with the lack of variety and stability in the export trade, goes far to explain why the South did not support a larger merchant marine. During the cotton season ships from all quarters were impressed into service, and at its close returned to tther 57 employment . The bars in Southern harbors with the notable exception of Norfolk were shal- low, and the fast clipper ships, which carried so much of the world's commerce, could not enter. Large vessels anchored some thirty miles below Mobile, and were loaded and unloaded by means of lighters. A special type of vessel was construct 8d to carry cotton from New Orleans . ^ ' New Orleans was most persistent in appeal- ing to Congress for appropriations for improving the navigation of the Mississip- pi; but the sums granted were not a tithe of the amount necessary. Elsewhere in the South , the constitutional scruples of congressmen prevented them from demand- ing the inclusion in rivers and harbors bills of items for the improvement of 55 • New Orleans Daily Picayun e. Jan. 14, 1858. 56. Norfolk was scourged by yellow fever in 1853 . Two out of three of the whites and one out of tW6 of the whole population died. H.W. Burton, The His - tory of Norfol k (1877), p. 23* Enterprise in Norfolk received a blow from which it took several years to recover. Thir d Annual R eport of the Merchants . and Mech - anics Excha nge of Norfol k. Virgin ia. Jan . , i860* . * The same year the plague raged in other Southern towns. In New Orleans it was long reraembered as the year of the great plague. There 8215 people died be- tween May 21 and October 31 • A vivid description is in DeBow's Review, XV, 595ff . 57* Joseph P. Kennedy, The Border States . Their Powe r and Duty, etc .(i860) . P« 25. ” '270. 58. 01m3ted , Cotton Kingdom . I . 283 : Peter J. Hamilton. Mobile under Five Flags . 59 • DeBow, Industr ial Resou rce 3. Ill, 15 . ~ 109 Southern harbors. The bill of 1352 appropriated $50,000 for the improvement of Charleston harbor. The appropriation was srcepted but proved entirely inadequate President Pierce vetoed the first general rivers and harbors bill presented to him, 1854, and no others were passed before the War, largely because of the con- stitutional objections raised by Southern Democrats. In 1854 a convention at Wil- mington, North Carolina, said to be the largest convention which had been assem- bled in the 3tate, memorialized Congress in favor of an appropriation for improv- ing the bar at Wilmington. The appropriation was secured by the North Carolina delegation in Congress. William S. Ashe, a staunch Democrat, had charge of the bill in the House. ' In 1857, the City of Charleston undertook to dredge out tie 63 channel in the harbor at her own expense, but the enterprise was soon abandoned. A year later Senator Hammond wrote: "Time, I think, will show that vessels of 1000 tons are as profitable as larger ones, to carry our trade, and these can en- 64 ter our ports." The discussion of direct trade involved consideration of ways and menns to promote it. There were innumerable eloquent appeals to the Southern states and to Southern cities to "shake off their lethargy," to "rouse themselves from their slumbers," and to emulate the example of their Northern sisters. Individuals were advised to devote their time and their capital to an enterprise so well calculated 60. Senator Benjamin, of Louisiana, stated, 1854, that Virginia had not accepted a dollar of the money voted to her for this purpose during the twenty years preceding. Senator Mason, of Virginia, confirmed the statement. Cong . . Globe., 33 Cong., 1 Seas., App., 1201. 61. Report of the C^ojTmi^a^one/.s. Appo inted at the Last Session ojf the General Ag£« r »foljL Inquir e into the Feasibilit y of I mproving the Channels’ o f* the Bar "and Other Approache s of. Ch arleston Harbor . Nov . '*20. 1852. p.. £. “ ^2. Con . Globe . 33 Cong., 1 Sess., 1654. Ashe said the last legislature had unanimously instructed the North Carolina representatives in Congress to work for the appropriation. 63. Charleston Me rc ury , July 12, 1859 . 64. Ibid., April 12, 1859. 110 to promote the prosperity of their section. Commercial education was declared de- sirable, and a few professorships of commerce were established. Retail merchants and the people in general were urged to patronize those merchants of Southern sea- ports who imported goods of foreign production directly from abroad in preference to those who bought such goods in the North. A rather strong sentiment developed in favor of the imposition by the state legislatures of discriminatory taxes upon goods of foreign production imported into the respective states by way of Northern ports. " \b in the thirties much was hoped from the construction of railroads, particularly those which opened new territory or were calculated to attract the trade of the Ohio valley to Southern ports. More specific were the many projects for establishing steamship lines between Southern and European or South American ports, or the attempts to induce European interests to establish steamship lines to the South . Before 1339 only a few steamships had crossed the Atlantic. By 1350 the steamship was rapidly supplanting the sailing vessel in carrying mails, passen- gers, and the lighter sorts of freight- Great Britain had embarked upon a policy of encouraging the development of a steam marine by granting liberal subsidies, and the United States followed suite by making liberal contracts with steamship 66 companies for carrying the mails to Europe and elsewhere.' - The ports selected as terminii for steamship lines evidently had great advantage* in foreign commerce for example over unose which had to depend upon sailing vessels alone. There we re* the advan- tages of greater regularity and saving of time, and asthe mails and passengers sought the steam-lines^ it was natural that the importing business should fol- low the same routes,*^ ike mail a assd i r a ve - 1 * Needless to say, New York captured the lion’s share of the steamship lines, and thereby increased her hold upon the 65. The subjects of patronage of home importing merchants and discriminatory taxation are discussed in chapter VI. * 66. Conf- . Globe . 31 Cong., 1 Sees., i960. 67. See Richmond Yfhig . March 11, 1851. ■ . . . t < • »' ft •• VH • , t . . . . Ill nation's commerce. These facts explain why so many of the plans evolved in the South for achieving commercial independence involved the establishment of lines of regular steamers between Southern and foreign ports. No state discussed more schemes for rehabilitation than Virginia* For sev- eral years prior to 1850 internal improvements had been an absorbing topic in that state. Among the improvements projected or under construction none figured more prominently than the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, which was to run from Lynch- burg to the Tennessee line in the direction of Knoxville, and was designed to be a link in a chain of railroads from the Chesapeake to Memphis and New Orleans. An- other project was the connection of the Chesapeake and the Ohio Valley either by canal, as some advocated, or by railroad. Besides increasing the transportation facilities of the sections through which they ran, these roads were expected to bring to Virginia ports, Richmond, Petersburg, and Norfolk, trade from the Mis - sissippi and Ohio valleys, and together with foreign commerce, which they would help to stimulate, restore to the Old Dominion the commercial position she once possessed. The political crisis of 1850 served to call attention sharply to the dependent position of the South, and lent n strong impetus to movements for com- mercial independence. At this juncture the Portsmouth Pilot was led to suggest a direct trade convention to meet at Old Point Comfort, July 4, 1850. The Old Point Comfort Convention, while not well attended, enrolled among its 68 delegates some very respectable men of Virginia and neighboring states. ' The rea- sons which had brought the delegates together were made very clear by the debates. Thoms L. Preston described the advantages Virginia, possessed for securin’g Western trade. Senator Morehead, of Kentucky, assured his auditors that Kentucky was with the South in interests, feelings, and associations, and preferred railroad commun- ication with Virginia to connection with the North. Congressman Ewing, of Tennes- see, gave the warning that the safety of the South depended upon preserving the 68. Proceedings are in the Richmond Enquirer . July 9, 12, 1850. t . • * « i < . • . . . * I 112 equilibrium of the sections, which could be done by developing commerce and manu- factures in the South. R. K. Meade, of Virginia, emphasized the profits derived by the North from conducting Virginia’s commerce and the saving which would be ef- fected if the South would do her own business. The resolutions adopted by the con- vention declared it to be the duty of the Federal government to extend as much aid to a Southern mail line to Europe as to Northern lines, recommended state appropri- ations in aid of a line of steamers* and provided for a committee to memorialize Congress and the Virginia Legislature. In the closing days of the first session of the Thirty-first Congress an un- successful attempt was made to secure favorable action upon a bill providing for government aid for lines of steamers from California to China and from Philadelphia to Antwerp. A. W. Thompeon, a Philadelphia capitalist, was to be the contractor. Senator John Y. Mason, of Virginia, moved an amendment to the bill stipulating that the that A Atlantic line should alternate trips between Norfolk and Philadelphia. The amendment whs accepted by the sponsors of the bill . c5 In the short session of the same Congress (1850-51) Congressmen Meade and Bocock, of Virginia, tried to secure the passage of a similar bill based upon Thompson's plan and the memorial of the Old Point Comfort Convention^ but it was defeated ** '“’largely because of the opposi- tion of McLane, of Maryland, who was charged with fearing that aid to a Norfolk line might compromise Baltimore’s claims to government subsidy for a line of her 0vm f ' w- c ' the opposition of one or two Virginia representatives who could not over- come their constitutional scruples against government subsidies. Meanwhile Thomp- son, taking advantage of the state of mind in Virginia, had petitioned the general assembly for aid in establishing the projected line between Norfolk and Antwerp." 69 . Cong . Clobe , 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 2051. 70. Ibid,., 31 Cong., 2 Bess., 600, 6l3 , 754, 768. 71- Ibid,., 31 Cong., 2 Bess., 601; Richmond Tain . Feb. 25, 1851. McMullin, of Virginia, spoke against the bill. Cong. Clobe . 31 Cong., 2 Seas., 758 . 72. Virginia Documents . 1850-51, doc. LXVI . t < ' « < # itffi 113 He stood ready to advance two-fifths of the capital required, provided the state would loan him the use of Virginia six per cent bonds for ten years for the remain- ing three-fifths. Another proposal submitted to the general assembly about the same time was that a joint stock company be chartered, three-fifths of whose stock should be subscribed by the state, and two-fifths by municipal and private corpor- ations and by individuals.^ A select committee of the House of Delegates report- ed in favor of Thompson’s proposition, but its friends were unable to secure act- ion before the legislature adjourned, l85l. ( * In September, 1851, a well attended Mercantile Convention was held in Rich- mond for the purpose of creating public interest in direct trade and working out s plan in support of which ell interests and factions in the state could unite." It proved impossible to harmonize differences. The convention divided upon the ques- tion whether a line of steamers should be recommended or it should be left to fu- ture investigation to determine which was preferable, p line of steamers or a line of sailing vessels. The latter alternative was adopted. A resolution calling for federal aid provoked a. cleavage along party lines and had to be withdrawn. Reso- lutions offered by D. H. London, Richmond importer and president of the Central Southern Rights Association of Virginia, in favor of di aciminatory taxation of in- direct imports were tabled after an acrimonious debate by an almost unanimous vets'. The net product of the convention was a blanket resolution in favor of lines of steamers or sailing vessels to Europe and South America. In May', l8£2, the State Senate passed a bill based on A. 17. Thompson’s plan;^' but the House of Delegates allowed it to go over to the next session, when, in spite 73. Virginia Documents, 1 850-51 , doc. LXX. 74 • X^id .. 1850-51, doc. LXX; Richmond Whig . March 15, 1851 . 75* Proceedings are in the Richmond Whig. Sept. 11, 12, end 17, 1851. The re- port from the Committee of 13, William Burwell, chairman, is in Virginia Documents. 1851 - 52 , doc. I, p. 41 ff ; also in DeBow’ s Review . XII, 30 ff. 76. Richmond Enquirer . Dec. 7, 1852. 114 of the support of Coventor Johnson, Senator Mason, and on all but unanimous press, 77 it was defeated. The defeat was due to inability tc agree upon the mode and time 73 of lending state aid, end to the rivalry of the little bay ports. It was this 9ame spirit of jealousy which stood in the way of the adoption of a practicable policy of internal improvements. The net result of all the discussion and wire- pulling of three years wee practically nil as far as foreign commerce was concern- ed; they did serve in a measure the secondary purpose of securing tide water sup- port for state aid to railroads to the Yfe at . Shortly after the Old Point Comfort convention New York interests established a line of steamships between New York and the Chesapeake; and Virginians thought the action had been influenced by the movements in that state looking to the establishment of direct trade. ^ In 1851 Richmond firms began shipping flour to Rio de Janeiro and importing hides, coffee, ar.d other South American products. This trn.de had attained some importance by i860. 80 v/hile these plans and projects were being debated in Virginia, projects else- where had come to naught. The people of South Carolina late in 1850 were expect- ant of secession. The time wa.s considered auspicious for inaugurating communica- tion with Europe by a line of steamers. A number of citizens of Charleston se- cured from the state legislature a charter for the South Carolina and European Steamship Company to build two steamers to ply between Charleston and Liverpool. Subscription books were opened and the stock promptly taken. One of the steamers the South Carolina, was built— at Green Port Long Island~-and proceeded to Charles - ton. After loading it was found she could not pass the bar. The vessel was sold 77* Governor Joseph Johnson’s message of Dec. 5, 1853* Virginia Documents . 1853-53, doc. I. Letter of J. Y. Mason to D. H. London, Sept. 18, 1852. Lit. Me^. , XVIII, 591 ff. Cf . Richmond Enquirer . Dec. 7, 1852. 78. Wm . S. Forrest, Sketches of Norfolk. 296; Richmond Enquirer. Apr.3C, 1852* 79- Richmond Enquirer . Dec. 10, 1852. Cf. DeBow’s Review. XIV. 901. 8°. DeBow’s Review. XII, 312. 115 and the project abandoned. The only line of steamship lines between Charleston and a foreign port before the War was the mail line to Havana, established in 1847, and owned by M. C. Mordecai, of Charleston. The mail steamers between Hew York and Chagres touched regularly at Charleston and Savannah. The Alabama legis- lature, 1852, chartered the Alabama Direct Trade and Btohange Company with power to own ships, buy and sell produce and manufactures at home and abroad, receive deposits, deal in domestic and foreign exchange, and make advances on produoe, GO manufactures, and merchandise. Ho tangible results follows. Considerable interest was manifested throughout the south, 1852-1854, in a proposal to establish a line of steamers between some Southern port and the South of the Amazon River, and in the question of the free navigation of the Amazon. Peru and Bolivia, upon the headwaters of the Amazon, declared the river open to the oommerce of the world, but Brazil refused to allow foreign vessels to navigate it. Lieutenant M. F. Maury, Superintendent of the Haval Observatory at Washington, became interested in the subject, and memorialized Congress, May 1852, to establish a line of mail steamers between Horfolk, Charleston, or Savannah and Para. He further suggested that diplomatic efforts be made to 83 secure the free navigation of the Amazon. He appealed to Secretary of State 84 Webster to take the matter up, but Webster refused to move. A series of long articles by Maury on "Amazonia” was published in DeBow* s Review and the leading 85 newspapers of the South. Maury presented the subject in the Southern Commercial 86 Convention at Baltimore, December 1852. The subject was given consideration at the sessions of the Commercial Convention in Memphis and Charleston, 1853 87 and 1854; both endorsed the project for a line of mail steamers. Maury re- 81. A. Brisbane to Hammond, Feb. 25, 1851, J. J3. Hammond Papers i DeBow* s Review,X, 203,315;X7III,68;Hational Intelligencer .Oot.18,1851 :Richmond Enquirer. June 7,1853. 82. DeBow’ s Review. X, 445-47; XII, 318; XIV, 437-49. 83. Memorial, Western J Qumal and Civilian. VIII, 174-80. 84. Maury to Blackford, Sept. 24, 1852, M. F. Maury Pacers. 85. Also in book form. DeBow’ s Review. XVI, 231, Articles are in ibid. , XIV, 136- * . . _ a . - — — _ . _ * * ’ • - 11 6 presented that the Amazon Valley would be settled and developed, arid on immense commerce would grow up between the region and the United States. The South wae more advantageously located for such a commerce than was the North. Commerce with South America would effect the commercial regeneration of the South. It v/as this 88 possibility which awakened 30 much interest in the Amazon among Southerners. From! time to time all through the decade the opinion was expressed that the South should "look to the south" rather than to Europe in her efforts to develop a foreign com- 89 rnerce. The line of mail steamers was not established; but the Amazon was opened to the navigation of all nations, largely as a result of Maury’s efforts. One of the most grandiose schemes for establishing direct trade v.-as that con- ceived by Col. A. Dudley Mann, of Virginia. He had seen being built in England the Great Eastern, by far the largest ship built to that time. In a letter to the people of the slaveholding states, August, 1856, he proposed the establishment of e line of four of these mammoth steamers to ply between the Chesapeake and Milford 90 Haven, England. So hold a plan captivated the imaginations of the Southern people. 91 '"lie Southern Commercial Convention at Savannah endorsed it.'~ In July 1857 an en- thusiastic convention in it* support was hold at Old Point Comfort, Virginia.'^ Ex- Presioent j.yler presided. Letters from Secretary of State Cass and other members of the cabinet were read. Books were opened for subscriptions of stock. An appeal 85 . (Continued U5; 4-49-60; 556-6? ; XV, 3 6-43 - See also XII, 3 8l ff,-XVI, 231- 51* 86. Western Journal and Civilian. IX, 321-28. 87. DeB.cjy’s Review . XV, 254-74; XVI, 640; XVII, 201, 402-4. ^ 88 . Maury expected that the Southern states would soon have a redundant slave population and hoped the Amazon Valley would prove an outlet. Western Jour, and Civ, IX, 328; DeBcw, Industr ial Resources . Ill, 125. “ " ~ 89. For* example, letter of Gov. H . A. Wise, of Virginia, to a citizen of Norfoli in Barton H. Wise, Henry A. Wise of Virginia . 21 6 f ; DeBow* s Review . XXVI, 73-6. 90. Ibid., XXI, 411-25. 91 * XXII, 96. Mann was present and a member of the general committee. ^.^Proceedings, DgBow '.e. Review, XXIII, 321ff.;XXlV, 352-76'; Richmond Enouirer Aug. 1, 3, 5, 1857. — “ 117 was made to sectional feeling. With a vi6\v to secure a wide diffusion of the stock among the people, subscriber’s were limited for a period to one $100 share each. Most of the prominent men of Virginia subscribed. President Buchanan head- 91 ed the list in the district of Columbia. The Virginia legislature, almost with- out opposition, granted a charter to "The Atlantic Steam Ferry Company," March, IO59 . The thirty six directors of the company must all be residents of the slave holding states or the District of Columbia, and were to be apportioned on the ba- sis of stock subscribed. But by this time interest had begun to wane. The Commer- cial Convention, meeting at Knoxville, August, 1857, had refused to recommend the 95 Steam Ferry. Many pronounced it chimerical. It was not completely abandoned, how- 9 6 ever, until the war.' Several other direct trade projects were under way or under consideration in Virginia on the eve of the war. A convention of merchants and officials of four- teen railroads net at Bristol, Virginia, June, 1857, upon call of officers of the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, then on the point of completion, to consider the 97 subject of direct trade. William Ballard Preston, a former secretary of the navy, wa3 sent to Europe to disseminate information in regard to the demand for foreign goods in Virginia and her hinterland and to confer with capitalists, especially the owners of the Great Eastern, upon the establishment of a steam ship line. French officials and capitalists were much interested in extending the foreign trade of the Empire at the time. Preston was able to make a conditional agreement with of- ficials of the Orleans Railway Company relative to a line of steamers between Nor- o O folk and the Mouth of the Loire. ;u The Virginia legislature ratified the agreement 93 * Richmond Enquirer . Xug. 11, 17, 1857 . 94. .jets. of. the General Assem bly, 1857-3, p.125; DeBow 's Review. XXIV, 3 $2,3 75. 95* New York He raid . Aug. 11, 17, 1857 . 96. Ibi d. Mar. 19, l86i. 97. Richmond Enquirer , June 3, 1857; DeBow’s Review , XXII, 553, XXIII, 86. 98. Ibid ., XXVI, 584-5. 118 by an act of March 27, 1858 incorporating the Norfolk and St. Mazaire Navigation 99/ Company. One-half the stock was to be subscribed in America, one-half in France, the directorate also should be composed of an equal number of Americans and French- men. American interests were to subvent the company to the extent of $12,500 per round trip — this subsidy it was hoped the Federal government would grant for car- rying the mails — and the French Government was to be asked to lend assistance. A long correspondence between the president of the Merchants* and Mechanics’ exchange of Norfolk and M. Lacoutre and other gentlemen of France, and the visit of an ag- ent, John D. Myrick, to France, resulted in the trial trip of the steamer, Lone Otar, which was said to have been successful and have proved the feasibility cf 100 direct trade. By an act of February 2, 1858 the Virginia legislature chartered the Southern Virginia Navigation Company to establish a line of steamships or pack- ets between the Chesapeake and Europe Before November i860 the company had built one ship, engaged another, and had two or three others under construction. ' J< ' 0n very eve of secession the Virginia legislature incorporated a Richmond and I Liverpool Packet Company, and extended welcome to a proposal of M. Pierre and Bro- thers, of Paris, to establish a line of steamers between Virginia and France . ^ Elsewhere projects did not reach the stage of development they did in Virgin- ia. In 1857 w . C. Barney, of Washington, attempted to promote a line of steamers between New Orleans and Bordeaux^France . He memorialized Congress for the usual subsidy for carrying the mails. The House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads reported favoraoly upon it. The Boreaux Chamber of Commerce promised cooper- ation and a loan. A prospectus was got out and subscription books opened; but the 99 • Acts of the General Asse mbl y. 1857-8, p. 127- 100. Third Annual Report, of the Merchants * and Mechanics’ Exchange of Norfolk Virginia. June i860,, p . 13 . ~~ — — ' 101. Acts of the General Assembly . 1857-8, p. 187 . 102 • York Herald. Nov.. 26, i860 . 103. Act 3 of th e G eneral Ass embl y, l86l . p. 278 , 342. , . - - . , - ( . . * , . ' , < . . ' . « . * , * 119 project got no farther.^ 4 In i860 British parties proposed to establish a line of six iron steamers between New Orleans and Liverpool. The vessels were to be built in England and fly the British flag, but one-hnlf the stock was to be subscribed io5 by Americans. The project was endorsed by the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce. Thus virtually all of these projects (and several not described) for estab- lishing lines of ocean steamers came to naught. Had the Federal government not abandoned, 1859, the policy of subsidizing steamship lines, it is very probable that one or more Southern lines would have been in operation before l86l. Trans- Atlantic lines of steamships had not yet proved profitable without government aid. The failure to secure steamship lines does not signify that the direct foreign im- ports did not increase during the decade. A few lines of sailing packets were es- tablished; and the number of irregular vessels entered considerably increased, as 106 did the total value of the direct imports."' But there was no revolution in the course of Southern commerce. In fact the employment of steam vessels in the coast- ing trade tended to fix Southern commerce in its former channels. Several lines of steamships were engaged in the coasting trade between New York and New Orleans and other Southern ports in i860. Such lines had been established in response to the demands of actual commerce. The tendency of the times was toward closer com- mercial relationships between the sections, the efforts of the advocates of direct trade to the contrary notwithstanding. 104. DeBow* s Rev iew. XXII, 31^-20; 410-14, 554; XXIII, 415-13. 105. Ibid . , XXVIII, 462-4. 106. See the tables in the appendix. . , - < . ' , 3 , ■ * ' . ' * * < ■ . < CHAPTER V The Souther n Com ier cial Convention , 1853-1859 During the years 1853-1859 there met annually or oftener , in urn at Baltimore, Memphis, Charleston, Her Orleans, Ric monel, Savannah, Knoxville, Montgomery, and Vicksburg, sessions of the so-called Southern Commercial Con- vention. After the first, the time and place of meeting, and to sore extent, u he organization and program of each, was determined by its predecessor; so t ore was a degree of continuity in their endeavors. Several of the gatherings •ere very respectable in point cf numbers; in most of them, all or nearly all of the Southern States. were represented; some able and ell known men were among the delegates in every case; their proceedings were '-'at died r/ith considerable inter- est in the South, and even in the 1 forth. As their name indicates, they were sectional in character. The term ’’core ercial" does not accurately indicate their purpose, but cannot be considered a misnomer. A study cf this series cf con- ventions is conducive to a better under standing of he state of public opinion in the South during the decade before the war, particularly u on questions affecting the material progress and prosperity cf the section. The origin of the Southern Commercial Convention is not to be explained by any single event or isolated circumstance. A non-political or 3emi- poli x ical convention was by no means a new thing in the South in 1852. Although none of these assembled prior to that time was puite of -he type of the Southern Commercial Convention, several may be considered forerunners of it. Tie direct trade conventions of the late thirties may be so classed, although they were more restricted in their objects, and they were not Southern conven- tions. x Those held in Virginia were gatherings of Virginians with a few scattering delegates from border North Carolina counties. They were 1. See Chapter 1 2. Savannah Republi can , April 7, 1838. 121 interested primarily in local problems, althougn there was recognition that the cause of Virginia was in a way the cause of the South, and although the connection between them and the direct trade conventions of South Carolina end Georgia was very close. The Charleston and Augusta conventions, like- wise, were composed almost entirely of Soutn Carolina and Georgia men. Attempts to win the younger states further west to the cause failed of the accomplishment; they were urged to send delegates to each of the conventions, but did not do so. Among other reasons for this was the fact that the South- west was not yet concerned about "Southern decline." More widely representative then the direct trade conventions, but per- haps with less justification considered a forerunner of the Southern Commer- cial Convention, was the Southwestern Convention in Memphis, November, 1^45. / In composition and sentiment it was more Western than Southern, Delegates were' present from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa Territory, as. well as from states of the Southwest and South, The primary purpose of the meeting was to present the demands of the We3t for the improvement by the Federal government of the navigation of Western rivers — demands which were very insistent for several years prior to the building of railroads in the Mississippi Valley. An attempt was made to find constitut ional justification for the improvement by the Federal government of the Mississippi and its tributaries which would be acceptable to all parties in me West and South. John C, Calhoun, who understood better than any other Southern leader, the growing power of the West and the strength of the demand for improvement of Western rivers and harbors, presided over the convention. He bad not yet abandoned hopes of attaining the presidency of the United States; he was firmly convinced of the desirability of maintaining the political alliance of the South and West, In his address before the convention, and later in his 3. Proceedings are in J ournal of the Proc ee dings of the S o ut h we s t e ra , . * 122 report to the Senate upon the memorial of the convention, he went to auch lengths in meeting the views of the Western men that it was with difficulty he held his strict construct ionist followers in line, 4 5 6 7 8 It is true the con- vention dealt with other subjects. It was employed to stimulate interest in railroad communication between the Mississippi Valley and South Atlantic ports; a system of railroads w as outlined which would effectually bind together the South and Southwest. 5 xt endorsed in a qualified manner the warehousing system, which some hoped would promote the foreign commerce of Southern ports. J It gave some attention to the question of overproduction of cotton, and to diversification of agriculture and the introduction of manufacturing as remedies.' The sequel of the Memphis convention was not so much the Southern Commercial Convention, however, as it was the krp Rivers and Harbors Convention i*l Ch it± • • . * • * X 126 C. G. Baylor, Editor of the Cotton Plant, a Baltimore publication, al30 advocated a convention and later claimed to have been instrumental in nO arranging for the meeting in Baltimore in December, 1852. Finally, a number of Southern leaders, chief of whom was Senator William C. Dawson, of Georgia, who thought it time for the South to make a concerted effort to achieve commercial and industrial independent e, asked Baltimore business men to inaugurate the movement, Baltimore ms chosen because 3he was the largest city in slave-holding territory, and it was believed her name would lend prestige, 25 a call was issued by the Baltimore Board of Trade for a convention 18 to meet in that city December* 1^52, the object being, as stated in the call, to promote foreign and interstate trade, The delegates of tne Baltimore convention were carefully selected with the idea of avoiding anything a mass meeting. 27 a number of congressmen from the South and the Ohio Valley came up from Washington, Theother delegates were mostly business men. Senator Dawson was made president. Brarrtz Mayer, of Baltimore, read in 28 behalf of the Board of Trade a carefully prepared address of welcome." 23, Richmond Enquire^ Dec, 24, 1852; Memphis Daily Appeal Jan. 23, 1853, 24, DeBow *3 Rev iew XV; New York Herald April 15, .1854; New urieans Qommerc ial Bullet in , Jan. 17, 1855. 25, Memphis Daily Appeal. ^ une 23, 1853, 26. Baltimore 3un,Dec. 17, 1852; DeBow »s 'A&yi&v Xlll, 426. 27. Baltimore Sun. Dec, 17, 1852; Richmond Enquirer , Dec. 24, 1852, C.Q. Baylor *3 remarks in the convention. 28. Proceedings, in Baltimore Sun, Dec, 20, 1852/ Richmo n d _ ^n^ , uj r . re r , Dec. 24, 1852, The resolutions and Brantz Mayer’s addrsss are also in DeBow *s Review. XXV, 373-79. , I 1 < iVi He described the advantages of Baltimore, her merchants, her manufacturers, her banks, and her facilities for direct trade with Europe. Tne Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was about completed to the Ohio River, and Baltimore would soon complete with New York and Philadelphia for Western trade. The delegates were a 33 ured that Baltimore wa3 a Southern city, devoted to the Southern cause, and disposed to j oin the South in achieving commercial independence of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The way to achieve commercial independence wa 3 to make 3altimoi*e the commercial and financial center of the South. The convention endorsed all of Baltimore's aspirations* The orly inc ident which occurred to mar the harmony of the proceedings was a remark of William Burwell of Virginia that he considered Norfolk a better port than Baltimore. Some consideration was given to the Pacific Railroad, for whose construction ii> was exceted Congress would provide in the session just beginning, and to other important internal improvements in the Southern States* A line of steamships to Liverpool was recommended^ and also steam c omm uni catron 'with me Amazon Valley. The convention sought to justify itself against the c.narge of sectionalism by the following resolution: "Resolved, That while we disclaim the slightest prejudice or hostility to the v/ el fare and prosperity of any particular section or city, North or South, we would promote, as we think we reasonably might, consistent with the laws of trade, its great central position, the commercial interests and prosperity of Baltimore, as being well calculated to excite a wholesome ana beneficial competition with more Northern Atlantic cities, whicn could not fail to be particularly advantageous to the whole Southland .Vest, and, j.n fact, to the Union at large." sot/Wru/ey, The convention sat but one day and adj ourned to meet in Memphis in June, 1*53. The proceedings present a striking contrast with those of later conventions, which sat from four to six days, with their wranglings, *iery declamation, numerous committees, and innumeraoie resolutions. The Baltimore convention did not give universal satisfaction. The Richmond inquirer thought the address of welcome made too many illusions to , J • '** ’ 'I'" * « ' ■ 130 Baltimore. ’ Only Lieutenant Maury, it remarked, remembered that there was such a place ad Virginia. The press of New Orleans thought that tne movement had been got up by Baltimore to catch trade. New Orleans, they 3aid, was a better Southern city than Baltimore, and it was wrong for Baltimore to try to injure New Orleans by diverting her commerce. 30 The feeling wa3 pretty general that the Baltimore 3oard of Trade had attempted to turn what was intended for a Southern movement to her own account. 3 ^- However, a begi nning had been made. The Memphis convention was a somewhat larger body. 32 Delegates were present from fourteen states, including Mis sour i, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana, Thus, like the Baltimore gathering, ix wa3 not strictly Southern; in fact, each was officially designated the "Southern and Western Commercial Convention." Like the Baltimore convention, also, it was not marked by bitter sectionalism. Senator Dawson .again presided, and several other prominent leaders of the South sat among the delegates, notably Genera^ John A, Quitman and H. S, Foote, of Mississippi, and John Bell, of Tennessee. The objects of the convention had not yet been clearly defined. Upon taking the chair, Senator Dawson stated them as he understood them. His statements may be taken as the expression of a moderate leader who had naa a ihii't 29. Dec. 21, 1*52. <5f* jw*; . ... ", 1: , April 14, 1354. 30. DeBow *3 Review, XVIII, 354; Charleston Courier, Mar. 3,^13 54, quoting the New Orleans Delta; Memphis Eagle and Enquirer , June io, 13 53, letter from G« , Baylor, editor of the C otto n Plant , Baltimore; Mempnis Daily Appeal , June 23, 1353; New Orleans Commerc ia 1 3ulle t in, Jan. •*, 13 55. 31. The Baltimore 3un of Dec. 27, 1352, quoted a number of Southern papers as expressing friendliness to Baltimore. 32. Four hundred ninety-six delegates were present. Proceedings, in Proceed ings of the Sou thern and Western Commercial Conven t i on at_ Lempnis , Tennessee ^, in J une . 1853 (pamphlet, 64pp, )»Cf. Memphis Daily App eal , June 7* 10, 20, 1853. D eBow >3 Rev iew. XV, 254-274; Western Journal and Civilian , X, 191*. 197. 131 considerable part in the inauguration of the convention. The members of the convention were not, he said, actuated by feelings of hostility to any section of the Union; but it had been seen for years that the people of the Southern arri Western States wer e suffering from a want of the proper develop- ment of the natural resources of their section, immediate action wa3 neces- sary. The important interests of agriculture, commerce* and manufacture were all proper subjects for discussion. Better transportation facilities, develop- ment of seaports, direct trade, lines of steamers to Europe and South America, improvement of rivers and harbors, encouragement of manufactures, and, finally, the Pacific Railroad, H the great work of the age and the world," were all • 33 soecified as 3U-bject3 which deserved the cons ideration of the convention. This statement suggested a wide range of discussion; the convention went even beyond it. After considerable debate resolutions were adopted asning Congress to appropriate money to improve the c hannels of the moutn3 of tne Mississippi river, the De 3 Moines and Rock tiver rapids, and tne haroors of Charleston, Savannah, Wilmington, Norfolk, Mobile, and Galveston, Other resolutions looked to aid from the Federal government in protecting the land3 along the Mississippi from inundation. Resoxutions were adopted rej.at-s.v3 to direct trade and steamship communicat ion with Europe. Provision was made foi a committee to prepare for publication and distribution, particularly in the manuf act uring districts of Europe, a full report on the peculiar iacili-ies offered by the South and West for the manufacture of cotton. The convention resolved that Southern youth should be educated at home rather than in Northern schools* Native teachers should be employed, and text books written oy Southern men 3 hould be used. The state governments were requested to consider the establishment of normal schools. There were long speeches on the free navigation of the Amazon River - a subject which Lieutenant M, F. aury had 33; De BoW* I?* vie XV, 2*'6 fF, , , . I ' 13fc been agitating for a year or two. The projected railroad acor3s the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was endorsed, and the government was requested to hasten the negotiations with Mexico relative to the rignt of way. The New Orleans delegation was especially interested in the Tehuantepec project. A St. i^ouis project for a Mississippi Valley railroad from New Orleans to 3t. Paul via St, Louis was likewise endorsed, and Congress was requested to grant unsold lands along the route in aid thereof. If But the 3Uoject that occupied the larg§3t share of the time and interest of theconvent ion was the Pacific cait- oaa. "This," said the N eW Orleans Delta , "was the Aaron's rod that swallowed up all others. Thi 3 i 3 the great panacea, which i3 to release the South from its bondage to the North, which is to pour untold wealth into our lap; which is to build up cities, steamships, manufactories, educate our children, and draw into our control what Mr. Bell calls 'the untold wealth of the gorgeous East, ' The convention unanimously adopted resolutions which declared the road a national necessity and requested Congress, as 3oon as the surveys of routes which were then being prosecuted should be completed, to adopt sucn measures as would insure the construction of the main trunk ax the eariiesc possible period. The convention refused to suggest that the Federal govern- ment construct the main trunk; but it did declare it right, expedient, and proper for the government to make large donations of the public lands to the different states bordering on either side of the Mississippi to enanle all sections to connect themselves with the main line by branches. The convention did not recommend any particular route. The third session of the Southern Commercial Convention was held in Charleston in April, 1854. It was a much larger gathering than either of its 34. Quoted with approval in the Richmond hnquiror , June 24, 1353. 133 predecessors, 35 Senator Dawson again presided. The convention Sat six days. The debates were longer and covered an even wider range of subjects than those at Memphis. The Pacific Railroad again occupied the ceaitey of the stage; but such subjects as direct trade, the enc ourageme nt of manufacturing and mining, the remission of duties on railroad iron, and the improvement of rivers and harbors were discussed at some length. Among the other topics which received c omsiderat ion were: opening the Amazon River to the navigation of the world; the repeal of the United States tonnage duties and a ishing bounties; the admission of foreign vessels to the American coasting trade; direct shipments of cotton to the ports of Continental Europe - European manufacturers purchased their stocks in Liverpool usually — J uniform coinage cmong the nations of the earth; improved mail service in the South; milling and lumbering; agricultural exhibits and institute fairs; and education in the South. The tone and temper of the gathering were unmistakable; it was a Southern convention determined to find some means of advancing the interests of the South a 3 distinguished from the North, The multiplicity of suojects pressed upoji it for attention indicates the earnestness, at leasx, of many of the men who composed it. Several essays were made to define the objects oi the Southern Commer- cial Convention. C. K, Marshall, of Mississippi, offered a resolution to the effect that while commerce was the subject of special consideration uO uae convention, other m atters tending to the accomplishment of the general design of the development of the rights and resources of tne Southern and Southwestern states were legitimate obj ects?^ DeBow, who was unabie to oe present, wrote to the committee in charge of arrangements stating ni3 35, It was, in fact, the largest of the whole series. There were present *57 delegates from 13 states. The' proceedings are in the Charleston C£U£iei, April 11-14,17,1*, 1*54; New York Herald,, April 14 - 19 (taken m part from the Courier^ : DeBow *3 Review. XVI, 632-41; XVII, 91-94, 200-213; 250-ol, 39*-410, 491-510 (taken from Charleston papers, chiefly from the c ou rie r. DeBow »a 'Review. XVII, 91). 3-6. DeBow^ iCeview, XVII, 92 t. * • . * « , - . ' . ", • . 134 understanding of the objects of the convention. He emphasized the joint that these conventions were successors of the direct trade conventions of «he la^e thirties, the Memphis conventions of 1845 and l r <49j and the New Orleans rail- road convention of 1852. He believed these conventions had contributed largely to the great development which had been exhibited everywhere throughout the South during the several years preceding. Furthermore, they had taugho the South to see and feel with humiliation her dependence upon the North, nox only in industry and commerce but in matters not of a material character. A 3 he saw it, the task which lay before them was no less than the regeneration of the South, 3 *7 This seems to have been the view also of gentlemen who addressee the convention; and this must be set down a3 the prupose of the Southern Commercial Convention when at its best. The lengthiest debates of the session were upon a scheme proposed by Albert Pike, of Arkansas, for building the Pacific y.ailroad along a Southern route without aid from the Federal government. The legislature of Virginia was called upon to charter a Southern Pacific Railroad Company with sufficient capital to build the road. The stock was to be subscribed by the Southern states and by California, to the sum of $2,000,000 each, by cities, by private corporations, and by individuals. Texas was expected to make a liberal grant, of public land. The Cherokee, Choctaw, and Creek nations were to be invited to join the enterprise. The board of directors was to consist of an equal number from each state. The corporation wa3 to be granted power by i-* charter to negotiate with Mexico for, and to purchase if necessary, ; ± of way through her territory to the Pacific or the Gulf of Calif ornia; and to agree that the company would maintain military posts along the portion of tne 38 road which should lie in Mexico, 3?. DeBcw’s Review. XVII, 9 5 ff.J Charleston Courier, April 1C, 1854. 38. Resolutions embodying the plan, 3uB-,v. ’s '• - ■ » ’ ' t 1 \ * ■ 135 This extraordinary plan was opposed upon the floor by some of the ablest and most practical men of the convention, including Senator Dawson, Lieuten- ant Maury, Judge Niabit, of Georgia, Governor J. A. Jones ,of Tennessee, and N, D. Coleman, of Mississippi - the two latter being railroad men. According to these men the plan was chimerical, it would be impracticable to unite the Southern states upon it, it would disrupt the South, it wa3 too sectional, it savored too much of politics, definitely broke with the , este rn spates, was of doubtful constitutionality, and the constitutions of several states forbade them entering any such corporation. Yet the convention, voting by states, unanimously endorsed Pike's scheme. Pike wa3 a brilliant orator and presented his plan in a most convincing manner. ^ Some support may have been attracted among strict construct ionalists by the omission of any demand for Federal aid. But the chief recommendation of the plan was its sectional nature. Sectionalism was running ( high at this time. The Kansas- Nebraska oij.1 was before Congress, A Pacific railroad bill had been dexeated in the o/iort session of the thirty-second Congress, lft53, largely because partisans oi a Southern route feared that it gave some advantage to the North. ^ Since that time partisans of the several proposed routes had been exerting themselves to ^ne utmost to gain some advantage in the struggle. Surveys made In lft53 under the direction of Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, had shown that the best Southern route ran 3 outh of the Gila River in Mexican Terrivor,/. e x j j - a - e in the same year the Gadsden Treaty had been negotiated with Mexico, securing, among other things, the desired route. While the Charleston Convention was 39. For debate a§e fle 3sv< ?•:'• R^v XVII, 2 ^ 5 — 13 , A.---"- , •* v 2- o - 7 * 40. Tnis statement is based upon an unpublished study, made by the autnor, of the struggles in Congress over the Pacific Railroad. 41. Reports of the Explorat ions and Surveys , to Ascertain the Most Prac- tical and Economical Rout e for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to. tne. Pac if ic Ocean , i, 4, 29. ' * ■ ‘ , * < * , . 136 sitting, the treaty was being considered by the Senate in 3ocrat session, and, rumor jjiad it, wa 3 meeting opposition, which was attriouted to the A unwillingness of Northern men to purchase a Southern route to the Pacific. 1 *- General Gadsden himself addressed the convention in favor of a resolution in support of ratification of the treaty, and in favor of Pine's plan. Albert Pile took strong sectional grounds in his speech in support of the resolutions embodying his plan. He invited the attention of the convention to the great Northwest, which, he said, never seemed to be taken into consideration oy Southern men. This region was bidding for immigration: laws granting foreign immigrants the suffrage before they had declared their intention of becoming United States citisons were one inducement, the proposed homestead legisla- tion was another, the Kansas- Nebraska bill another. The North was increasing her political power at the South's expense. "And with this continued increase in foreign and Northern influence was it not obvious that the prospect of tne South ever getting a Pacific Railroad was put further and f urtner off every year!" The North was looking out fr her own interests,; "tne North knew full well that wherever the Pacific Railroad went, there, too, would go the power and wealth of the country." The South should look to her interests. He wanted the plan to be a "sort of declaration of independence on the part of the South." 44 After the great meeting at Charleston, the Souther Commercial convention languished for a couple of years. The session in New Orleans in January, IS 55, in DeBow's Review XVli, 408-9; letter from John R. Bartlett, one of tne 43 * ’ takins umbrage at Gadsden’s remarks m tne Mexican boundary commissioners, taking um or age convention, Charleston Courier, April 2*, ivj 1 * yy.I have followed the synopsis of his speec.ies as given in XVif, 208-12, 499-506. wh*h PiL prepared and able manner in a memorial to ^ne s*a..e ieg Ibid. XVII, 593-99. 137 was very poorly attended and attracted little attention from the Soutn ax large. 4 There were several reasons for the poor showing. The //astern . iv^rs were low. making travel difficult. Congress and the state legislatures were in session. The country was suffering somewhat from a temporary financial stringency. 45 The presence of 30 many radicals in the ^nalleston convention nai. discredited the movement in the eyes of many of more conservative tendencies.* 4 • But the chief reason for the poor showing made wa3 the attitude of the people of New Orleans and vicinity. The city council took tardy action, and the committee on arrangements did little. The governor of Louisiana neglected to appoint delegates. Several of the New Orleans newspfers were hostile, expressing the opinion that the convention had been decidedly hostile to New Orleans from the beginning. 45 A specific grievance was the refusal of the Charleston convention to adopt resolutions requesting Congress to make appropriations for the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi. On the other hand there was a feeling throughout the South that the people of New Orleans were only luke-warm for the Southern cause, ihis feeling of hostility on the one hand and distrust on the other found expression upon whe 45. Two hundred twelve delegates from twelve states. The proceedings are in DeBew’s Review . XVIII, 353-60, 520-28, 623-35, 749-60; New Orleans Commerc ial Bullet in , Jan. 10-16, 18 55. 46. Charleston Courier , Jan, 13, 1855. 47. Savannah Daily Republican , Nov. 17, 1856. LeBowJs. ^aview, XV1H, 523. Senator Eenton,of Missouri, had denounced ttae "Chariest on Convention as a disunion convention and Pike’s Plan for building the Pacific Railroad as a plan for dissolving th6 Union. Ibid . , loc. bit . 48. DeBow’s Review, XVIII, 353; NeiB Orleans C ommerc ial Eullet in, Jan. 4, 1855. "This feeling of indifference and apathy is not at all to be wondered at. All disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding, the series of Southern Commercial Conventions, commencing at Baltimore, and continued at Memphis and Charleston, were decidedly antagonistic to the interests of New Orleans; and this inimical tendency was more than once exhibited in a manner invidious- ly offensive and calculated to disturb and wound one amour propre. " Ibid,, Jan. 17, 1855. 49. DeBow ’ s Review, XVXXX, 628. t ■ floor of the convention, and visiting delegates left with the feeling that the had not been cordially received. 50 The session at Richmond, Virginia, early the following year, 1^56, made no better showing, only seven states beipg represented; but in this case the want of success seems to nave been largely due to severe weather and to the fact that, the meeting having been postponed indefinitely because of an epidemic of small-pox in Richmond, too short notice was given of the time of the meeting. 52 The chief topic .of- dis- cussion at New Orleans was the Pacific Railroad; at Richmond, direct trade. Most of the ether topics discussed at previous sessions were considered in a more or less perfunctory manner. The Richmond convention determined that a greater effort than theretofore should be made to insure a large attendance at the next meeting; a committee was appointed to address the Southern people in its behalf. 53 ^he Savannah committee on preparations worked hard. But it was the political situation which was chiefly responsible for the large attendance at Savannah; The con- vention met in December 1$56, a month after the exciting presedential cam- paign had resulted in the defeat of the "Black Republican" party. 54 The fire eating element in the Southern Commercial Convention had been gradually growing. Several members of the committee which issued the call for the Savannah convention were known to be disunionists. ^ Many friends of 50. DeBow *s Review. XVIII, 354, 624, 632, 634. 51, Proceedings, in DeBow *s Review, XX, 340-54; Richmond Enquirer. Jan. 31 Feb, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1£56> The resolutions are in Hunt's Merchants * Mag . XXXIV, 392. There were 213 delegates present, of wrhom 1^3 were from Virginia. 52, DeBow »s Review/, XX, 340. 53. DeBow *3 Review, XX, 351; XX I, 550-552 (the call). 54, Savannah Republican, Oct. 17,21,29,1^56. There were 564 delegates from ten states. 55. The Savannah Republican thought that, "aside from th6 known character and sentiment of the men who compose that committee", there was nothing in the call that cculd be tortured into a disunion sentiment. Nov. 17,1^56. Tne Repub- lican was a Union organ . 1 t 139 the Union had come to look upon the conventions witp distrust and branded the Savannah session in advance a disunion scheme. The city council of Nash- ville, Tennessee, for example, refused to appoint delegates to the convention, because they feared its disunion proclivities. 57 On the othexjhand, the New Orleans Delta, a journal v/nich had been antagonistic when the dominant purpose was the economic regeneration of the South, gave cordial supoort now that the objects were becoming political. 5 * The convention at Savannah was composed largely of politicians, and a large minority, if not an actual majority, were disunionists . 5 “‘ James Lyon, of Virginia, upon taking the chair, stated the objects of the convention a3 they had already been stated several times, He defended the convention against the cnarge of disunionism. It was commercial and not political independence the South sought. But, in a strain quite common in that day, he "looked to the future," and expressed the fear that the time might come when the South would have to defend her rights. For such a time it behooved her to be strong and ready, DU The convention considered rather perfunctorily the subjects discussed at previous sessions. Albert Pike was again able to secure endorsement of his 56, The Her ublican. Dec. 1, 1356* 57. The Republ jean. Nov, 25. 53. Quoted in the Charleston C ourier. Nov. 6, 1356. 59. The Savannah Republican . Dec, 16, 1356, thought the convention was by large odds a "conservative body" butadm.itt e-d the presence of a consider- able numcer of disunionists, A list of the delegates is in DeBow *s Review. \xil s 82 ff. 60. Savannah Republican. Dec. 9, 1356; DeBow *s Review. XXII, 36-7, 61. Proceedings, in Of f ic ial Rep ort of t ne Debates and Proceedings of tne Southern Comm ere ial Convent ion, assembled at Knoxvil le, Tennessee, augusx 10$, 1357 . Appendix: " Proceedings of the Southern Convention at Savannan ." Also in DeBow 's Review, XXII, 31-105, 216-247 307-18; Savannan Republic an Dec. 9-13, 15, 1356; Charleston Courier . Dec, 11-13. 140 plan for building a railroad to the Pacific. A. Dudley Mann's scheme for establishing a "steam ferry" between the Chesapeake and England was endorsee}, a 3 w a s also Thomas Rainey 's project for a line of steamships from New York to LaljPlata via Savannah. But the chief interest was in questions more political in character. Robert Toomb3 addressed a letter to the convention proposing that the state legislature encourage direct trade by levying an ad valorem tax upon the sale of all goods imported into their respective states except goods imported directly from foreign countries. Such a tax, Toomfci believed, would not only enable the states to dispense with direct taxation, but would also provide ample revenue to carry out works of internal improvement.'"’ Tne letter was referred to the general committee, which reported not Toombs*,? plan, but resolutions in favor of free trade and direct taxation as measures best calculated to promote direct trade. The report was tabled (by a vote of 57-24), but the subject was kept alive by the appointment of a committee to report upon it at the next session.^ 3 ft Res&utions in favor of reopening the La African slave trade, an issue raised shortly before, were introduced and debated at length, the debate turning not so much upon the propriety of considering such a question in a commercial convention as upon the expediency of reopening the foreign slave trade. This question, too, was carried over t-o tne next convention by the appointment of a committee to report at the next 62. DeBow’s Review. XXII, 102-104; Charleston Courier , Dec. 15, 1856. The plan v/as not original with Toombs. For fuller discussion, see below, Chapter VI. 63. Proceedings and debate in DeBow *s Rev iew. XXIi, ?2 f., 307-18 64. The question ms fairly launched by Governor Adams, of South Carolina, in his message to the legislature, Nov. 24, 18 56. ^narleston Courier , Nov. 26. 141 A S meeting of the convent ion. 03 Resolutions were also adopted recommending organized Southern-. emigration to Kansas; requesting Southern representatives in Congress to inquire whether their respective states had received their full quota of the public arms, and to insist that Southern ports be properly fortified; recommending the establishment of state armories; and expressing sympathy with the "efforts being made to introduce civilization in tne States of Central America, and to develope these rich and productive regions by the introduction of slave labor " - that is, with the Walker filibusters. The Southern Commercial Convention had now reached a stage where nothing could be expected from it in the way of advancing commerce and industry in the South, The committee which issued the call for the succeeding session at Knoxville styled it, rather suggestively, the "Southern Convection^' and declared its purpose to be to unite the South upon a sectional policy, "Every other purpose," said the committee, "is of trifling importance in comparison with the high moral and social objects of the Convention. They are intended to spread far and wide, correct, enlarged, and faithful views of our rights and obliga- tions, and to unite us together by the most sacred bonds to maintain them inviolate for ourselves and our posterity."' 'At Knoxville, in August, I s ! 57,^ J. D, B. DeBow, already an avowed disunionist, was made president and opened the convention with a ringing disunion speech. He admitted that tne conven- tion had built no railroads and established no steamship lines; but it had 65. DeBow 's Review, XXII, 216-224 (summary of the debate). 66. laid .. XXII, 96-102 (resolutions of the convention in full;. 67. Ibid., XXIII, 193. 6^. Proceedings, in Official Report of. the, Debates and Proceedings, of, the. Southern Commercial C o nvent i o n, assembled at Knoxville, x ennessee, August , iTofc . jftb 7 / ;" D eBow 's ~ Review, XXIII. 29S-320; Hew York Herald , 17,1' ,19 Coest report There were 710 delegates from eleven states and Arizona territci,,. Ik 1 142 caused the people of the South to understand the importance of all tnose things, and they would come in the fullness of time, It had taught the people that the South had rights a thousand times more valuable than the Union; and that she had resources sufficient to mane her important in the 6b Union or to enable her to maintain herself as an independent nation. Resolutions in regard to reopening the foreign slave trade were introduced and debated at great length. By a scale vote of 66 to 26 a resolution was adopted which put the convention on record in favor of the amullment of that article of the Webster- Ashburton treaty, ratified November 10, 1*42, which provided for keeping a squadron of naval vessels oif the coast of Africa for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade. An amendment offered by a Tennessee delegate declaring it "inexpedient and contrary to tne settled pol- icy of this country to repeal the laws prohibitory of the African slave trade' was defeated by a vote of 40 for, 52 against. 70 The amendment was almost identical in language with a resolution introduced in the House of Representa- tives, December 15, 1*56, by James L. Orr, of South Carolina, and adopted with only eight dissenting votes, 71 One delegate breached the subject of free 72 immigration, but it was not met with favor among the body of delegate?* ~ ^ was, of course, a much more practical subject. Another long debate occurred upon the resolution, offered by W. W, Boyce, of South Carolina, declaring that the system of duties on imports snould be abandoned oy xhe lectral government and direct taxation be resorted to exclusively.'- Whatever tne 65. DeBow's Review , XXIII, 225-38; Richmond inquirer, Aug. 17, 1*57. 70, DeBow's Review. XXIII, 305-10; New York Herald, Aug. 18. 71, Ibid. , Aug. IS; Cong , Globe, 34 v -'ong., 3 oess,, 125-126. 72, New York Herald, Aug. 15; DeBow's Review, XXIII, 31* 73. Ibid., XXIII, 313 ff. . < * . . 143 merits of the absolute free trade, its establishment in the Union was about 74 as impossible as was reopening the foreign slave trade. It is true, the former objects of the convention were not completely lost sight of. A. Dudley Mann’s scheme for establishing a steamship line between Chesapeaxe Bay and Milford Haven was debated and endorsement defeated, prob- r? c ably at the instigation of friends of rival Virginia projects.' J A resolution was adopted recommending the extension of state aid to 3teamsnip lines be- tween Southern and foreign ports. The Federal government Sras requested to grant to Southern steamsnip lines the same subsidies for carrying the mails a3 it granted to Northern lines. The convention recommended patronage of home manufactories, and of merchants who imported directly from foreign countries. Resolutions were adopted asking the Federal government to fortify tne haroors of Port Royal, South Carolina, Mobile, Alabama and Beaufort, North Carolina, and make them coaling stations for large government steamers. A resolution recommending taxation by the Southern states upon sales within xhe respective states of articles manufactured in the North wa3 rejected. A committee was appointed to memorialize Congress upon the subject of duties imposed by 76 foreign countries upon American tobacco; the duties impo3ea by 3ome countries were very high and it was felt that the American government had not made thd effort it might have made to secure their reduction. The Pacific failroad was not mentioned. There were the usual resolutions relative to Southern education. The disposition to call for Federal aid for various 74. The convention was not of a practical bent, A good part of two days was 3 pent debating a resolution to exclude reporters of Northern News- papers. New York Herald. Aug, 17, 1$57. 75. Ibid ., Aug. 17; DeBow’s Review. 306, 30$. 76. The memorial is in ibid . . XXIV, 291-99 - . . - - « 144 purposes is notev/orthy. In the earlier sessions of the Commercial Convent ion, there had been a sprinkling of public men of more than local prominence, and, of course, a larger number of local politicians. The majority of the delegates carne from towns and cities, but the planters had been well represented. In the earlier meetings, too, as in the later, there were editors, preachers, physicians, and - professors. But there was a large number of business men, bankers, merchants, a few manufacturers, and men interested in promoting particular railroad pro- jects, steamship lines, or other enterprises, for which they hoped to secure the endorsement of the convention. By the time' 1 of the Knoxville convention this latter element had practically ceased to attend. After the Knoxville meeting the dwindling conservative element also disappeared from the conven- tion; and it fell everywhere into disrepute except among the d isunionists, who continued to hope that it would sefve some useful purpose in making Southern men acquainted with each other, in consolidating Southern feeling, and in 77 harmonizing differences between different quarters of the ooutn. The Montgomery convention, May, 1858, was well attendee. The debates, as far as oratory was concerned, were more brilliant than those of any other convention of the series. Among the craters were Henry W. Hilliard and 170 William L, Ygnce^ of Alabama, rivals of long standing. 77. Address of the committee which called the Montgomery convention. Charleston Mercury , April 8, 1^58; DeBow *3 Review , XXXV, 424—28. me X J •**•* ville (Tenn. ) Citizen though t the call "an invitation to take counsel whether the Union can be longer maintained ofi is worth maintaining. " Quoted in Charles- to n Mercury. April 20, 18b*. 78. About delegates were present from ten states. Proceedings, in DeBow ’s Review. XXIV, 574-606; Montgomery Daily Confederation, May 11-15, l f <5* - 79. Yancey's part in the convention is discussed at lengtn in DuBose, The Life and Times of Will jam Lowndes Yancey. 358 ff. Cf. Ruff in7s Di&r^ , entry for May 13, 18 58; DeBow *s Rev iew , XXIV, 583—88 145 it. was not a commercial convention; it was a gathering ot disunion- ists. The Montgomery Daily Confederation said*. "Every form and shape of political malcontent was there present, ready to assent in any project having Ho for its end a dissolution of the Union, immediate, unconditional, final," Edmund Ruffin, of Virginia, himself an ardent secessionist, found only two Hi delegates, outside the Virginia delegation, who were not disunionist3. but the proceedings took a turn which all secessionists even, could not approve. Practically the whole time of the convention was devoted to debating the question of reopening the African slave trade* ihe debate proven tne delega.es to be hopelessly divided, not only upon the expediency of reopening the foreign slave trade, but also upon the more practical question, whether or not agita- tion for the repeal of Federal laws prohibitory of the slave trade would promote or injure the cause of disunion, Ridiculed both in a North anc^South, ‘ C ^ HO, May 1$, 1858. "When the South gets ready to dissolve the Union, all she ha 3 to do is to reassemble the Southern Commercial Convention which met ax Montgomery and give the word." Milledgeville (Georgia) Federal Union .quoted in the New Orleans Picayune, May 25, 1858. A. P. Calhoun, son of John ^ . Cal- houn, and a disunionist per se was president. 81. Ruffin *a Diary, May 11, 1858. 82. Charleston Mercury , May 15, 1858. The press of South Carolina was almost unanimous in recommending that delegates oe seni to Montgomery, tn inn- ing tne effect would be to harmonize and consolidate the South. Whea, however, the introduction of tne slave trade question served only to sow 3eeds of dis- sension, the press of the state very generally condemned it. Camden, 3.C. ; Journal, quoted in the Mont gome ry Daily Confederation, May 15, l w 58. Edmund Ruffin was very much disappointed at the turn the convention ooon, xnougn ne saw redeeming features. Diary, May 11-1 c, I "55. 83. "Was there ever sucn another gathering^ all this world as tne Vicksburg fire eaters’ convention? Let Garrison and his motley crew of old women in breeches, and would-be-men in petticoats retire from the i ield. They are tame, flat and stupid compared with these fiery, fussy, oelligerent and terrible Southern salamanders," New York Herald, May 18, 18 cv. 146 denounced by 1 be Union element in the South, and distrusted by the cooler headed disunionists, ^ the Vicksburg meeting, in May, 1859, was able to summon only a corporal’s guard, chiefly of the more radical type of disunionists. For five days this rump convention indulged in heated debate upon the great quest i cns^c onf rent ing the South, particularly the reopening of the African slave trade, adopted a string of resolutions as long as those of its pre- £ c dec 633 or 3 , and adjourned to meet again at the call of the president. - Chat gentleman cnose not to issue the call; and, thus, rather mgloriously, the Southern Commeraial Convention came to an end. There were reasons for the cnange in the character of the personnel and the perversion of purpose of the Southern Conimercial convention otner tnan the growing intensity of the sectional struggle and the aggressiveness Ci the disunion elements. With the exception of the one at Baltimore, these assemblies were prac- tically mass meetings. The task of insuring a large attendance was, in the majority of instances, left to a committee of the city council or ooaro of trade of the city in which the convention was to convene. Delegates were appointed by governors, mayors, city councils, boards of trade, and meetings of citizens, in making their selections, they were governed soiely by tnexx- own judgment; for no qualifications for membership were prescribed. Distinguished individuals were sometimes invited by the local committee; ana a general invix^- tion was always extended to editors. Not a tenth part of those designated &.3 fi4. When Georgia and Alabama refused to appoint delegates the Montgomery Daily C onfederat ion remarked: "These Southern Commercial Conventions ha\e run their course and we 3 hall hear no more of them forever." May 14, 1- 39. *5. Proceedings, in New York Herald, May 1ft, 21; DeBow ' s . Review^ XXVI, 713; XXVII, 94-103; 205-20; 360-64; 468-71 (taken largely 'from the New York Herald). 147 delegates attended. Ho one participated in the proceedings who had not been certified as a delegate; 86 but, it is evident, anyone vfoo desired to attend could readily secure the necessary credentials. Thus, there was nothing in the organization of the convention to present a change in the character of the per- sonnel. V/hen the convention failed to produce the results which its founders hoped for it, many of its early patrons confessed it a failure and ceased to attend it. This failure w 7 as due in large part to the inherent limitations of a conven- tion as a means of effecting a revolution in commerce and industry. It was unreasonable to expect, as many seem to have expected, a convention to build railroads, establish steamship lines, erect cotton factories, or open mines. Humerous examples can be cited of individual local conventions, particularly railroad conventions, held during the decades preceding the Civil 7/ar, which aided greatly in crystallizing the sentiment of their respective communities in favor of particular railroad or other projects, and in securing suoscriptions to the capital stock. A few might be mentioned vshich powerfully influenced a city or state to embark upon an internal improvements program. But a convention representative of many so widely separated communities and so many conflicting interests as was the Southern Commercial Convention could not be expected to accomplish anything so tangible in character. Hie convention failed largely, however, to accomplish what it might legitimately have been expected to accom- plish. The meetings were not well managed. Ho programs were made before con- vening, and no efforts were made to have subjects presented by those oest 86. However, the conventions sometimes invited distinguished visitors present to participate in the proceedings as delegates. ■ } 148 prepared to discuss them. There was no steering committee. The rules of the house of Hepresentat ives were followed; the chair recognized the first to claim the floor, and debate was rarely limited. The most fluent orators were able to monopolize the time of tne convention to the exclusion of practical business men, whose counsels might have been more worth ’mile. As the objects of the convention were not strictly defined, anyone with a hooby could secure a hearing. Too large a part of the time was spent in discussing panaceas, magnificent schemes like tne Pacific Railroad or the navigation of the Amazon. Things of just as great importance but appealing less to the imagina- tion, such as geological surveys, banking facilities, boards of trade, adver- tising, encouragement of homejindusiry by correction oi tne irregularities o» taxation systems or by bounties, Were not taken up in real earnest* Immigra tion, except of negro slaves, was not discussed. No considerate n was given the possibility of utilizing the poor wnite population in productive industry. No invitations were 3ent to foreign capitalists. Great faith wa 3 put in the efficacy of resolutions. All resolutions introduced were referred to a general committee composed of a number of delegates from each state, from which they were reported after due considera- tion to be -acted upon by the whole convention. Resolutions deemed important were debated at length, and the voting thereon would not have been watened more jealously had the convention been a legislative body framing tne laws oi the land. Said the New York Tribune : "The people of the South have been ft7. Voting was by states. In some of the conventions (Memphis and Charleston) each state was allowed one vote, in others a number equal to the state representat ion in Congress. This system nad 3ome incongruous result 3. often one or two delegates from a poorly represented state cast -he vote of the state, and, thus, had as much to do with determining tne o^ic re- action of the convention a 3 a hundred delegates from another state. . « 149 meeting year after year and resolving that Charleston and Norfolk 3ha^l become great cities, wnich obstinately tney refuse to do."' The convention mignt have been employed to better advantage had it collected useful informa- tion in regard to economic conditions in the Southern states and disseminated it. Such a work would at least have contributed to a better underst anding of the causes for the backwardness of the South - a useful preliminary to a prescription of the remedies. The convention left no reports or publications, however, comparable even to the reports and addresses of McDuffie, Hayne, Longstreet, and Mallory of the direct trade conventions of 1837-1839. This was due to the disinclination of individuals to contribute anything, except speeches and resolutions, to make the convention a success* Time and again reces 3 committees were appointed to investigate and report, to memorialize Congress or the 3tate legislature}”, and foi other purposes. With a few exceptions they failed to do the work assigned them,* At Memphis an able committee wa 3 named to prepare tor publication ana distribu- tion, especially in the manufacturing districts of Europe, a full rep or u oi tne peculiar facilities offered by the Southern ana Western states for the manufac- ture of cotton. Thi 3 was a very worth-while task. The committee was not supported in its labors, however, and there is no record that it made any report. The Charleston convention appointed a committee of three from each state to gather statistics and other information on mining, manufacturing, lumbering, milling, internal impr ovements , and capacities ^or trade ana 88. Reprint, , The North and yhe South . 18 54. Also quoted in Charleston Courier. April 24. 1854. "Much time is consumed in talking, and most scrupu- lous attention is paid to punctilio and the rules of debate ..... out as soon as the fiat of the convention has gone forth, the members seem to thinx that their task i3 complete." 89. DeBow *s Review, XV, 2o8, 432. 150 commerce in the South, to addre:-3 the people, urge the legislature* t o action in favor of education, manuf acturxng, shipbuilding, direct trade, and raining, and report to the next convention. The committee was divided into five sub- committee s with able chairmen. This committee, notwithstanding the immensity of the task imposed upon it, might have performed a useful service had it gone intelligently to work. At the succeeding convention four of the sub-committees had no report whatever, and the c nairman of the fifth trans- 91 mitted certain documents and a letter relative to his duties. Naturally this failure to take seriously the work assigned the committees tended to persuade practical men that no good could come from these meetings. But it car. not be expected,” said one delegate, "that a commercial convention can produce any useful result when committees appointed by it pay no attention to C p subjects committed to them, after adj ournment '• In the earlier sessions of the convention an apparently honest attempt was made to keep party politics out of the proceedings. It proved ■well nigh impossible to do 30. Politics played a very large part- in ne lif a of the South; from the very first many of the delegates were politicians, and many of the matters which legitimately came before the convention had become party questions. Whig and Democratic members of the convention watched memQe.s Of the opposite political faith closely to see that they did net attempt t^o* make' polit ical capital from the action of the convention. The more partisan journals approved or disapporoved tne convention according a3 tnei. party oi SO, DeBow's Review, XVI , 635; XVII, 325* 91. Ibid ,. XVIII, 357. S2. Ibid . , XVIII, 523, remarks of Albert Pike. 151 C o thd opposition party could better capitalize it 3 proceedings, At Memphis a political debate over resolutions calling upon the Federal government to appropriate money for the improvement of rivers and harbors was avoided with difficulty , 15)4 The opponents of Federal aid to internal improvements, led by General John A. Quitman, forced the omission from the resolutions on a Pacific railroad of a clause calling upon the government to build the main trunk, - ^ At Charleston the same questions were fought over. It was evident that a large majority were willing to ask the government to improve rivers and harbors ,^ 0 A Louisiana delegate threatened to speak all week before he would see the convention turned into a YYhig meeting. Governor Chapman, of Alabama, served notice that the next convention would see few delegates .irom Democratic Alabama if the resolution were passed, A Georgia Whig appealed to tne convention Q f7 to keep out party questions, and the resolution was withdrawn,' Thejiniro- duction of party politics discredited the convention in the eyes of many who had honed that 3 ome real good would flow from it in the way of promoting the. % material prosperity of the South, Defenders of the Southern Commercial Convention admitted the justice ^f many of the criticisms made of it both at home and in the North, They 3 ometime 3 countered, however, with the complaint tnat the fault lay in xhe failure of Congress and the state legislatures to act upon the convention’s recommends.- t ion 3 , And, with a very few exceptions, it wouldbe impossible ^0 nar.s any concrete suggestions which were acted upon. This defense overlooxs the fact that 93, Before the Charleston convention me^,the Richmond inquirer believed it would be composed of able and practical men and confidently hoped iu would take action towards securing Southern commercial independence. But some tu tne views there expressed were too "federal" to harmonize with the Enquirer — 3 strict construction principles and the convention was described a 3 "an abortion if not something worse," April 4, 14, 21, 1*54. Two years later the A^ir^v was again the champion of the convention, Jan, 2 J , oj.,1^5o« 94. DeBow's Review, XV, 265. 95 , laid ., XV, 254 ff, 267, 270 f. 96. Ibid., XVII, 261, 97. DeBow’s Review, XVII, 400; New York Herald April 19, 1354, . \ . ' 152 the convention might have served the cause in other ways than throu^i recommen- dations to legislative bodies; in fact, it is questionable how far the economic development of the South could have been promoted by legislation. But this aside. It was one of the inherent limitations of the convention that it could not legislate, but only recommend legislation. No doubt action by the state legislatures or by Congress in accordance with many of the recommendations of the convention would have greatly bonefitted the South. On the other hand the recommendations were not always well-advised, were often indefinite, and, in general, were not pressed upon the state legislatures and Congress with vigor. Defenders of the convention claimed for it important results in the way of creating public sentiment and educating the public in regard to its objects. It had aroused the public mind, they said, to the need of diversifying industry, fostering commerce, and developing the South’s natural resources. It had been the means of disseminating useful information, teaching the South the extent of their resources, and pointing the way to their utilization. These claims are true to a degree. Perhaps the judgment of the New Orleans Picayune was aS fair and as near the mark as could be made. When the movement was initiated, it said, practical men had hoped that at last the public would be aroused. To some extent this hope had been realized. The importance of commercial enterprise had been impressed upon the public mind. The necessity of manufacturing industry to local independence was generally acknowledged. The certainty of the ultimate growth and importance of Southern seaports, aided oy the completion of projected internal improvements, was perceived. These results were due in part 98 to the Southern Commercial Convention. Men of the disunionist faction vhich had dominated the later sessions 98. May 20, 1858. . i _ ♦ ■ ' . . • • • ' • . . 153 of "the Southern Commercial Convention claimed that the convention had aeon a potent means of uniting the South, conaolidat ing public opinion, an.* prepar- ing the people for the crisis. It had made Southern men more extensively acquainted with each other, and had shown that, while they might disagree as to measures, they were one in purpose. The convention had also taugnx tne people that the South nad resources sufficient to maintain herself as an independent nation. According to the Charleston Kercur^ one result of the convention was a knowledge that nothing could be done in tne Union to change the course of Southern commerce; and "To know our c ondit ion, is the first great requisite for altering it."* 9 These claims may be admitted with qualifications, "he meetings of the Southern Commercial Convention no doubt contributed to tne spread of disunion sentiment; but it was through declamation rather than argument. They were conducive to passion and resentment rather than clear thinking and sound judgment. While tney brought men from widely separate states together in a common cause, they also exposed to view the diw is ions in Southern opinion, the discordant elements, the local, jealousies, ana xne inability of too many Southern men to ri3© above petty politics. Finally, countenanced the agitation of a question, the reopening of the foreign slave trade, wnich bade fair to wreck the disunion cause altogether. The Soutnern Commercial Convention did not tend to put the disunion cause upon a high plane. Perhaps tne chief significance of the Soutnern Commercial Convention for the student of the period lies in the fact that a convention professing xne purpose which it did, met year after year, attracted a considerable degree of interest, and, as long as it retained its original pur pose of regenerating tne South, commanded the good will of a great majority of the Southern people. 99. May 16, 1858. CHAPTER VI Attitude of the Southern People toward Protective Tariffs and. State and Local Ileus urea to Enc ourage Industry. 1340-1360 The attitude of the South upon the tariff was determined in the main by the dominant economic interests of the section* The South was practically unanimous in opposition to the Tariff of 1323. One state went to the extreme of declaring it and tne amendments of 1832 null and void* There was much . sympathy with this action in other Southern states, particularly Georgia. Tne Southern delegation in Congress was ail but unanimous in voting for the Com- promise Tariff of 1333. At thi3 period the demand for protection came only from the hemp growers of Kentucky and Missouri, the sugar planters of Louisi- ana, and mining interests in Virginia and Maryland. in the early years of its existence the Haig party in the South wa3 more strongly anti-tariff than the Democratic, As late as 1340 the party, because of divisions in its rank3, went before the country without committing itself, upon the subject. In 1342. however, Southern Whigs in Congress, with a few exceptions, were whipped into line in support of the protective tariff measure of that year.'*' Again in 1344, during a presidential campaign in which Henry Clay, the champion of the "American System," was the Whig candidate, every Southern Whig member of the house of Representat ives but one voted against the McKay bill, which was supported by every Southern Democrat but one," The action of the Whigs may be attributed chiefly to political considerations : Southern Whig leaders felt the need of a broadly national conservative party, and recognized that it could be built only upon the basis of compromise. In 1. Cole, Whig Party in the South . 93,99. 2. Cong . Globe . 23 Cong. 1 Sess., 622; Wiles * Register, LXV I, 177, 3. Cole, 0 £. cit. . 1G0; National Intelligencer, Jan. 4, 1344, letter of Wm, A. Graham accepting the Whig nomination for governor of North Carolina; ibid . . Jan. 13, letter from Wm. C, Rives; ibid . Jan. 20, Feb. 15, Mar. 7, 155 1*42 the state of the public treasury imperatively demanded an increase in the revenues; so that the tariff of that year could be plausibly defended as a revenue measure offering incidental protection by discriminatory schedules,^ In 1844 repeal could be opposed upon the grounds that tne revenues were still required, and that the tariff was working well, 5 Whigs pointed to the first signs of reviving prosperity (after the panic of 1*37) as evidence that the tariff was not injuring the South, Furthermore, the Whigs welcomed the cotton factories which were springing up here and there throughout the Southern i states as a justification of the protective policy, and prophesied that soon the divergence of interests between the sections, upon which the division on the tariff issue was based, would cease to exist, 0 They charged the slow progress of manufactures in the South to the hostility of the Democratic party, and declared the absence of diversified industries to be the cause of the declining prosperity which all deplored. ^ Southern Democrats in Congress were unanimous in opposing the Tariff of 1842; but the majority at that time did not hold extreme views, in 1843' Calhoun came forward as the free trade and reform candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Finding his chances poor, he wrote, early in 1- C i44, a letter announcing hi3 withdrawal,' The section devoted to the tariff was too extreme for his friends outside of South Carolina, and at their request ms modified before the letter was published,^ The McKay bill, upon which the attempt was made to unite the Democratic party in the summer of 1*44, 5. Cong . Globe. 28 Cong, 1 Se33. 51C, 612; National ingelligencer, Aug. 6, 1*44, quoting the Charleston Courier . 6. Niles ' Register, LX 1 1, 71; LXVII, 132, quoting the V ickabur^ Whig ; Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., 512, Berrien, of Georgia, in the Senate, 7. See ante, Ch. II. ft. 'Works, VI, 239 ff , Nat ional Intelligencer, Feb, 3, 1844, 9. "But I soon found, it was altogether too high to be sustained by a large portion; in much the majority; and among them the most intelligent and devoted." Calhoun to Ja3.£dw. Calhoun, Feb. 14, 1844, Calhoun Corr. ; Calhoun to Duff Green, .(• . * • 1 . 156 was a moderately protective measure. 10 Although there was considerable dissatisfaction with it among Southern Democrats, every Southern Democrat in the House but one voted for it. 11 When a faction in South Carolina proposed to take the defeat of the McKay bill, by the defection of twenty-seven northern Democrats, and the subsequent publication of Polk’s "Kane letter," designed to hold northern tariff Democrats in line, as proof positive that no relief from the burdens of protection could be expected from the Democratic party, and sought to put the state again "upon its sovereignty," they reoeived remarkably little sympathy outside their own state. A correspondent of the Charleston Mercury wrote, "It is not to be disguised that out of South Carolina, the ,,12 whole tariff battle has to be fought over. The Walker tariff, enacted in 1846 after a sharp struggle, was by no means a free trade measure. 13 Tea and coffee were put on the free list. Raw materials used in manufactures were taxed only five per cent. Duties on most manufactured articles were high enough to afford considerable incidental protection to those engaged in their manufacture. Whereas the Compromise Tariff of 1833 had recogniz- ed the principle of a horizontal rate, the Walker tariff contained nine schedules Upon the whole the bill was satisfactory to Southern Democrats. Senator Haywood, of Rorth Carolina, resigned his seat rather than vote for it. 14 He opposed it because it abandoned the principles of the McKay bill, upon which the party had appealed to the country; it broke faith with Northern Democrats; it v/oald not meet the demands for revenue crated by the Mexican War; it did not 0 ive 9. (Continued) Jan. 15, 1844. 10. Cong. Globe . 28 Cong., 1 8ess. 369, text of the bill. 11 . ibid., 28 Cong. 1 Sess. , 622; Kile_s ' Regi ster , L*v/I, 17 : • 12. Quoted in Nile^ Register, LXVI, 435. 13. Cf. Dewey, Financial History of. the. United States , 249-52. 14. "Address of Honorable Wm. H. Haywood, Jr., to the people bf North Caro- lina," etc., in Sat, Intel,. Aug. 19, 1846; Niles 'Register, 1XK, 410. But see Diary of James K. Polk, Tj , — 157 auff ic ient notice to interests formerly protected; and together with the independent treasury constituted too great a revolution in the government *s financial policy. On the other hand, the bill was not revolutionary enough to satisfy some of the free trade members from South Carolina and other cotton states; and they voted for it only because they considered it a decided improvement over the Tariff of 1*42, and because nothing better could be secured. ^ The election of 1*44 had cut down materially the number of Southen wngs in Congress. With two exceptions in the House and one in the Senate, they voted with their colleagues of the North against the bill. 10 After a few years Southern Whigs manifested a disposition to acquiesce in the continuance of the Walker Tariff; and for several years the tariff was not an issue in Southern politics. Whigs contended that in yielding opposition to the existing tariff they abandoned none of their principles; for, they said, the duties were high enough to afford a fair degree of protection, and protective prin- ciples were recognized. From time to time, particularly from the border states, there came restatements of the arguments for a protective tariff and reaffirmations of the faith. In 1*49, when the Southern people were interestea in the possibility of developing cotton manufacturers, a suggestion from Hamilton Smith of Kentucky that the Constitution should be amended to permit, the imposition of an export duty upon raw cotton ’was received in some quarters 15. Cong.. Globe, 29 Gong., 1 3ess., 1043, W. L. Yancey- s speech in the House. 16. Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., ICoo, 1*5* » 158 17 with favorable comment," As long as the tariff was a party issue the opponents of protection were inclined to oppose the introduction of manufacturing. Men too often confused manufactures and protection, and in opposing the latter were led into hostility to the former. Calhoun, indeed, always protested that he was not opposed to manufactures as such, 1 ^ and the same may be 3aid of other leaders. But, m general, there was a feeling that the establishment of diversified industry would take the edge from the anti-tariff sentiment. 19 The advocates of diversified industry had to be very chary in asking for fostering legislation, especially in Democratic states. They frequently gave the assurance that the only thing needed in the my of encouragement was liberal incorporation laws and freedom from discriminatory taxation. It was difficulx to 3ecaiv oV_, the passage of general corporation laws. Corporations were unpopular in the forties as a result of the experience of the previous decade, -itn banking institutions in particular. In 1847-1848 the question of granting - liberal charters to corporations for manufacturing purposes became a political issue in Georgia, Governor Crawford, -Vhig, recommended such legislation. He was supported by the Whig press and a portion of the Democratic press. Otner Democratic organs, however, were persuaded that Crawford’s suggestions were parcel of a design to "quench the growing spirit of Democracy everywhere" and " ride us down b*. the Massachusetts poli c^oljl ncorpora Ud wealth, under the false plea of developing cur resources." 20 Thefeeneral inc orporat ion laws 17 " I enclose you a letter of Ex. Pres. Tyler. The only objection he makes ±(. ± enclose you *** a boun ty to foreign cotton tc my first proposition is that it «ou.o act c{ , Smith to H am- mcriup. 3 ”* 1 ViV.is'irrsitb's ™ “f* S' ^lUter.’t^oui.viXU M ^ V-ee. (the letters). The idea was amplified by o.S. Cockx j.i ., DeBov/’s Review. VII, 484 ff. IS. Calhoun to Abbott Lawrence, May 13, 1845, Calhoun Cor£ U.1HZ ,* 1 C,. Rprlater. LXVIII, 374 (Aug. 16, 1845), quoting Charleston ..-ercuffi 20. Hopkins Holsey, editor of the Athens' (Georgia) Southern Banner, to U„uj*lt(L>hb . /W 3 Ml. 7be mbs. St*P/i*ns. Cobb . B7- 7/- — — — 159 were enacted. 21 In 185C Governor Seabrook, cf South Carolina, wroxe William Gregg asking what measures he considered necessary for the encourage- me „t of manufactures. Gregg replied that he considered unnecessary and unwise any pecuniary aid from the state either in the form of loons or otherwise. The only thing needed was the "privileges and advantages granted in other states in the use of associated capital." He told hew cheaply goods were being made in the Graniteville factory; this fact, he said, should "aisarm all opposition from those who fear that we may ultimately join the northern people *•22 in a clamor for protection After the Walker tariff had been in effect a few years, and the tori.! controversy had abated, opposition to diversified Indus.. y ~ r ‘.i grounds gave way to a considerable extent, and many anti-tariff men and Jour- nals strongly supported the movement to bring the spindles to the cotton and to diversify industry generally. Typical of their reasoning was the reply of the Richmond Inquirer t o a Whig contemporary's charge of inconsistency. . 3aid the InQuirer ; "We have never denounced home industry. We have, however, steadily denounced that hot-bed system of legislation, wnoue - ■ a pamper one class at the expense of all others, and, especially to foster tr.e monopolies of the Worth, which have flourished and grown fat upon the tribute of the South. It was to benefit home manufactures and not to i«»‘» •* 21, DeBov/'s Review, XVII, 2 5V. -2 Gregg to Seabrook, May 1C, 1ft SO, IhitemareJl la. S|S&2£fe ESESS? absence* of general ineorp.r.tion_la«^^^o^^Ucl^ ^ Little difficulty was experienced in g _*> r f u n 0 f such special legislatures. The session laws of the various states are tuu. legislation. 160 we opposed the tariff." 23 There was a common element in the contention ox the free traders that the tariff benefited New England and Pennsly vania manufac- tures at the expense of the Southern agriculture and the contention of those who labored for Southern industrial independence that it was tne manufacture of Southern staples and the sale to the Southern people of numerous articles which should be produced at home which enriched and strengthened tne Nortn while weakening and impoverishing the South: Both arguments represented one section as paying tribute to the other . This common element made it easy for anti-tariff men to support efforts being made to diversify southern industry. When the desirability, from both the economic and political viewpoints, ox making the South commercially and industrially independent of the Nortn, was understood, it was inevitable that a demand should arise for the protection of heme enterprises against Northern competitors. A tariff might project American industries from European competition; but more dangerous to the infant industries of the South than foreign competition were the firmly establisnea industries of the North. In fact, in the forties several Southern states intermittently discrim- inated in their tax law in favor of home manufactures. The laws of Virginia in 1840 and a number of years thereafter exempted articles made within the state from the tax on sales. 24 3y act of 1843 South Carolina exempted from this tax, "the products of this state, and the unmanufactured products of any of tne United States or Territories thereof." 26 Alabama, also, by an ac-. of January 15, 1844, exempted articlesjranufactured within the state from the tax 23. July 23, 1850. James K. Hammond, who certainly could not be c^i a ea with protective principles, carefully distinguished between manufacturers and the protective system. De3ow*3 Review, VIII, b0< , 24. Acts of tne General Assembly of Virginia, 18.3S- -1 S , act of Var. 3, i -c 25. Nat. Intel . Aug. 10, 1844, "Precept and Practice of South Carolina. ' 161 on sales. 26 Taxation during the period was very light, and these exemptions amounted to very little. There were also as many cases of exemptions of other classes of property from taxation, for example, farm implements and mechanics* tools. In the tariff debates of 1844 and 1846 anti-tariff men from the South referred to the possibility of adopting a policy of state protection. "If the protective policy/ said a. B. Rhett, "is wise and just with foreign nations, it must be equally so between states, for there is far more inter- course and affinity than between port ions of the United States and foreign nations than between different portions of the Union." 2 ' Oeorge Ho Duffle threatened, in 1844. to resign his seat in the United States Senate, secure a seat in the South Carolina legislature, and bring forward a proposition to tax all manufactured goods brought into the state. 26 Seaborn J ones, of Georgia, also suggested that Southern states had a remedy at hand for unjust taxation in "countervailing legislation, putting excise duties upon manufac- tured articles which have not paid revenue duty to the government. during the political crisis of 1850 and thereabouts, many proposals were made South for non-intercourse with the North, discriminatory taxation of Northern manufactures, exllusicn of Northern ships from Sout hern harbors, cessation of easiness and pleasure trips to the North, withdrawal of subscriptions to to Northern newspapers, and a number of other measures of the same general character. They can be attributed chiefly to a desire to retaneie .gainst the anti-slavery party, to arouse the business interests of the North to the 26. acts of the General Assembly of. Alab am a ,. 1843-44. p.63 27. Cong . Globe, 2b Cong., 1 °ess., o- . 2ft # Niles 1 ries;i3ter , LXVI, 23C. 29 , Cong . Globe , 2& Cong., 1 3ess., *91. 162 necessity of curbing the abolition agitato.cn, and to teach the North the "money value of the Union"; out it was an added recommend at ocn tnat these measures would tend to promote commercial and industrial independence. During the struggle over the disposition of the territory acquired from Mexico, J • C, Calhoun wrote to public men throughout $he South requesting their views upon two lines of procedure for bringing the North to a sense of justice. One was the assembling of a Southern convention; the other, 30 retaliation against Northern states for unccnst it ut -tonal acts, in one of these letters he suggested that closing Southern ports to Northern seagoing vessels would promote direct trade with Europe, In the Nashville Convention, of 1*50, retaliation was supported by a minority as a proper measure to employ in case the North did not grant justice to the South, ^2 At the adjourned session, November 1850, the Tennessee dele- gation supported resolutions which accepted the recently adopted compromise, outlined the line of conduct Northern states would be expected to pursue in- the future, and recommended that, in case this line was transgressed, the people of the South wesort to the "most rigid system of commercial non- intercourse'’ v/ith all offending states, cities, and communities. The legislatures of the several states were invited to join in the recommendation. Counties, towns, and neighborhoods were asked to adopt resolutions against purchasing or using articles from offending Northern states or communities. To make it possiole to follow these recommendations, it was further re co amended ^that the states encourage their own mechanics and manufactures, ana pu3n 30, Wilson Numpkin to Calhoun, Nov, 18, 1847; Joseph V, Lesesne to Calhoun, Sept. 12, 1847; H, W, Connor to Calhoun, Nov. 2, 1848; Calhoun to J ohn H. Means, Apr. 13, 1*49, Calhoun. Correspondence . 31, Benton, Thirty Years* View. II, 698-700, quotation from a letter from Calhoun to a member of the Alabama legislature, 1847. 32, See Chapter III for a discussion of the Nashville Convention. r'3 forward their internal improvements x o the seaboard. ' In Virginia such a remedy met with consider ah Is favor, 'hen, after the passa e of the Compromise acts, of 1850, a disposition ’-as she an in x he lorth , particularly in Boston, not to acepuiese in the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, Virginians took fire, and a strong sentiment for retaliation developed. The citizens of Prince George County met for the purpose of forming a Southern rights 34 association. Resolutions were adopted lodging those present to huy in the Forth no coarse cottons or woolens, readymade clothing, carriages , "buggies, plows, axes, harness - in general, nothing which could he produced in the South or ob- tained from Europe. The resolutions furthermore pledged them to employ no North- ern teachers; to withdraw patronage from Northern schools, newspapers, and hooks; to " ake no pleasure trips to the North; to huy of no merchant or employ no mech- anic nc~ identified with, the South; and to employ no vessels owned or commanded 7 C by a Northern man or manned by a Northern crew. ° Similar associations were formed in other counties. The most important and permanent, of the Southern rights associations in the state was the Central Rights Association of Virginia, 37 which y as organized in Richmond in December, 1850,' and continued in existence until the outbreak of the Civil Tar. Some of the a lest and most prominent men of Richmond and the state at large were members. The members were pledged to "use til lawful and constitutional means in our power to arrest further aggressions of the non-slave holding states," and "to appeal to the legislatures of the state to enact such laws a s were prudent and constitutional for effecting, ultimately, 33. "atlonal Intelligencer . Nov. 16, 1850; A. V. Brown, 3 e echos. Congres - sional and Political . etc. 318-21 (text of the resolution); DuBose, Life and Times of Yancey . 248; Speech of the Hon . Lang do n Cheves in t he ashville Con - vention . p. 20. 34. Richmond Rn-giir or . Nov. 15, 1850. 35. Ibid . . Nov. 20, Dec. 10, 1350. 36. Ibid . . Dec. 31, 1850. 37. Ibid . . Dec. 10, 13, 17, 24, 31, 1850. 164 commercial independence" of such states as by laws or otherwise sought to prevent the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. 0 * Tne first petition addressed by the association to the state legislature requested the passage of excise tax laws aiscriminat ing in favor of articles of Virginia manufacture or of direct importation from abroad. Such taxation wa3 believed to be the most certain means of securing ultimately Virginis *s commercial independence and the o q safety of her property and institut ions, A year earlier Governor Floyd had suggested aiscriminat ory taxation in a special message to the general assembly. In November, 1850, he introduced the subject in the state c onst itut ional convention* ^ In his last message to the general assembly, shortly after, he again recommended it. 42 a mem ber of the legislature he championed a bill to impose a tax of five per/fcent on all good3 brought into the state for sale except direct imports* 4 *^ The Democratic press of tne state generally supported tne plan of discriminatory taxation, 44 In the opinion of the Richmond Enquirer, it wouT'd check the abolition movement in tne North, "give tone and strength to Soutnern manufactures, commerce and ail the interests of the South," and ward off disunion, 4 "* The Enquirer charged the Y/higs with inc onsistency in opposing Floyd’s proposal while advocating a higher tariff. 4 ^ The conservative press generally opposed the plan.' 11 ' They denounced it as calculated to lead to a dismemberment of the Union and as "subversive of the true interests of the Soutnern states," in the North it would not injure the abolitionists but rather the friends of the Souxn; for xne 38. Virginia Documents. 1850-51 , Doc, 60, "Petition of the Central Southern Rights Association of Virginia, and Accompanying Documents," p,5, Cf. So. Lit. Mes . XVII, 178 ff. 39. Ibid. . Doc. 60; DeBow’s Review , XII, 109. 40. Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 15, 1850. 41. Ibid., Nov. 19, 1850. 42. Io id *_ . Dec, 3, 1850; Virginia Documents. 1850-51. Doc, I. 43. Richmond Enquirer , Jan. 31,1851, 44. Richmond Enquirer. Nov. 15, 22, 1850, quoting a number of Virginia newspapers 45, Dec. 13, 1850. 46. Dec. 17, 1850. 47. Richmond Whig. Jan. 2, 22, Feb. 12, 1851; Nat i onal Intelligencer , Dec, 9, 12, 17, 28, 1850. 165 former were not engaged in commerce. It was said to De unconst it utional; the National Intelligencer called it "another form of null if icat ion. ' AU In opposing Floyd's proposal the Whigs resorted to good free trade arguments: Virginia must depend upon the North for materials with which to construct her internal improvements; she could not rely upon her own resources. >ere discriminatory taxation imposed, the North would lose a market, and both sections would be sacrificed to the cupidity of ingland. The tax would be paid by the consumer. ^ The Whigs were not, of course, animated by any feeling of hostility to the cause of Southern commercial and industrial independence. Senator . , A^errien, of Georgia, a Whig, in public speeches expressed views similar to tnose of Governor lloyd. At Macon he was reported to have said that he did not wish the Georgia Convention to propose non- intercourse nor an import tax, a 3 both wo niche uncons titut j.onal, but he thought it best to recommend a measure by which Northern goods, after they had arrived in Georgia and had oeen delivered into the hands of the merchants, shouldbe cnarged with a nigh and . discriminatory tax. Such a measure would encourage Georgia manufactures, greatlyabr idge importations of Northern goods, and arouse the North to a sense of the power of the South to protect herself. ^ In Alabama Southern rights associations were formed, and resolutions adopted similar to those adopted by the associations in Virginia," 1 in Mississippi members of the Southern rights party expressed themselves in favor of excluding, oy legislative enactment, goods manufactured north of Max on and Dixon *3 Line. 1 -' 4ft. Dec. 17, IP 50, editorial 4$ , Richmond Whig. Jan. 2, 22, lft 51* 50. Richmond Enquirer. Nov. 15, lft50. 51. Ibid., N 0 v. 22, lft5Q; DeBow, ^naust x-ial Res o ur ^ e s , *, 1J^» 52. Cong . Globe. 32 Cong., 1 Sess,, Appx. 2ft4. 166. In South Carolina, after the passage of the Compromise Measures of 1*50 public opinion was, a 3 we have seen, widely divided in regard to the proper policy to be pursued. In the hope of unifying the state, J.H, Hammond brought forward a "Plan of State Act ion, w which, although not adopted, met with consider- able favor. 20 He proposed that the state convention declare the right of secession, prohibit citizens from holding Federal offices outside tne state, refuse to accept Federal appropriations for any purpose, impose a double tax upon the property of non-residents, "as far as it constitutionally may, impose taxes upon manufactures of non- slave; holding states," encourage manufactures by granting liberal charters to companies, encourage agriculture, and wiui state funds "aid in the establishment of direct commercial intercourse with foreign nations, by steamships adapted to purposes of war, in case of need." Already (Governor Seabrook had recommended the encouragement of manufactuxes by liberal corporat ion laws ) ^ and the legislature had discussed a proposal 55 to levy discriminatory taxation upon Northern gooQ3. a bill was introduced in the North Carolina legislature, Novemoer, 1^50, to impose a tax cf ten percent upon goods brought into the state from non* slaveholding states after January 1, 1*52**^ The House of Commons adopted resolutions introduced by a Whig member which declared^ that (1) North Carolina was absolved by the abolition agitation from further obligation to protect Northern manufactures by a tariff; (2) if North Carolina industries required protection it could be "better effected by State than by Congressional Legisla- tion"; (3) the Walker tariff was high enough; (4) and requested that members of Congress from North Carolina vote against any increase. These resolutions 53. J.H . Hammond Papers. No. 2£ # 19*, a broadside printed by the Cnarleston Mercury, accompanied by a note to the editors, dated April 29, a • To Wr. dilmore Simms, April 29, 1*51; A.P. Aldrich to Hammond, May 16, Nov. xO; Hammond to Simms May 29, July 1; Mqxcy Gregg to Hammond, Nov. 14, 1*51. 54. Richmond Lnq uirer, Dec, 3, 1*50. 55. National Intelligencer, Dec. 9, 12, 1*50. 56. Richmond Eng u'ire r , Nov. 29, 1*50. 57. Richmond Whi^, Jan. 17, 1*51. 167 were adopted by votes of 105-2. 62-32. 75-16 and 64-6 respectively, Whigs as well as Democrats composing the maj orities. 5 * Even before these resolutions had been adapted, Southern Whig members of Congress, particularly from North Carolina, had defeated attempts made in the first session of the Thirty-first Congress to revise the tariff upward in the interest, chiefly, o* sylvan ia iron industry. The action of the North Carolina Whigs was indicative of a marked falling off in tariff sentiment in the South. 3o staundh a protectionist organ as the Richmond Whig, wavered in its faith, and warned manufacturers that they need not expect further protection; 0 For several years after the attempt of the iron interest in 1650 to secure higher duties, the tariff question was not before Congress or the country except for occasional attempts of Southern and Western congressmen to secure the remittance or repeal of the duty on railroad iron. North, as well as South, came to acquiesce in the Walker tariff, with the exception, in the South, of men of the South Sardinia School, wno professed to find the tariff of 1646 oppressive, just as that of 1642 had been.^1 The Walker tariff, however, proved an excellent revenue producing measure, receipts exceeded expenditures; and an accumulating surplus in the treasury finally forced Congress to undertake revision. A late attempt in the second 56 . Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sees., Appx. 206, Thomas L. Clingman, in the House, Feb. 15, 1^51. 5S ibid. 30 Cong,, 1 Sess., 72», 1612, 1951; i£i£., 31 Cong, 2 3ess., 206, Clingman f s explanation of the action of North Carolina 60. Jan. 17, Feb. 12, Mar. IS, 21, and 31, 16sl, 61. Con*. Globe. 32 Cong. 2 Sees., 35, Woodward, of South Carolina, an the House, Dec. 1C, 1^52. 168 f) ? session of the Thirty-third Congress, March, 1855, failed,' but it was generally understood tnat the next Congress must act. Contemporaneously agitation was started in some quarters of the South for the abandonment of the tariff system altogether and the substitution of direct taxation, in the Southern Commercial Convention, Savannah, December, 1*56, resolutions were reported which pronourfted the tariff to be the cause of the decline of Southern 63 commerce and declared for absolute free trade and direct taxation.-' Tne resolutions were not adopted, but were referred to a committee instructed to reported at the next convention. The Tariff of 1857 was passed after short and rather desultory debates in the House and Senate. The debates contained remarkably little of a sectional nature, and the only interests greatly dissatisfied werethe iron manufacturers and the wool growers. The bill as finally passed was written by Senator Hunter, of Virginia. As did Secretary of the Treasury, Gutnne, Hunter toon a fairly liberal attitude toward the manufacturing interests."* 1 The rates we re . some , t respect, however the what lower hose of the Walker tariff. In one A bill was more in accord A with protective principles than the former act.; for it provided raw materials where the demand was for manufactures. Cotton manufactures were favored by leaving the duties nearly as high as thos. of the Tariff of A-.-. Some objection was raised by Southern members to tne enlarged free list. The only out-and-out free trade views expressed came from South Carolina me: . Senator A. P. Butler said, "Cotton would rise to twenty cents tomorrow ... if 62. The House attached sections reducing the tariff as a rider to tne Civil and Diplomatic Bill, the Senate struck them out. Con^. Globe, 33 Cong. 2 Seas,, S14, 1088. 63. DeBow's Review. XXII, 92. 64. Cona. Glooe, 34 Cong., 3 3ess., Appx. 32ft Speecn in the Senate Feb. 26, 1857; Cong . Globe, 36 Cong., 1 oeso., al ■ > 169 had not a tariff ." 65 Representative W. W. Boyce, of Charleston, declared for free trade and direct taxation. 66 Only two Southern Congressmen voted against the hill. 67 Outside Congress there was little dissatisfaction except among the ultras. DeBow, for example, was at first inclined to fc measure as a step in the right direction, but later foun d that "the manufac- 6fi turers have again had a victory in the adroit combinations made." The free trade faction in the South followers this partial victory over protection by a general attack against every form of protection and privilege granted by the Federal government, in the Southern Commercial Convention, at Knoxville. August. 1857. W. W. Boyce again brought forward the proposal for free trade and direct taxation. A committee reported it adversely, while the debate showed sharp divisions of opinion/ 5 a Virginia delegate offered resolutions declaring that the merchant vessels of foreign nations should be 70 admitted to the United State* coasting trade upon the same footing as our own. Roger A. Pryor, of Virginia, secured the appointment of a committee to «mortal- ixe Congress for the repeal of the fishing bounties, which benefited Sew England particularly/^ lathe next session of Congress Vf. i, Boyce secured the appointment of a select committee of the House to inquire into and report upon a reduction of the expenditures of the government, the navigation • + • vo- rfutiac, 0 vo imoorts and a resort exclusively to internal, laws, the existing duties on nn/oios, 65 . Cong. Globe* 34 Cong., 3 Bess., Appx. 66. Ibid. . 34 Cong., 3 Sess,, Appx., 21 o - n , — ot \ • a I-, ox 358 (votes in ^ne House 67. Ibid., 34 Cong., 3 Sess., *=?=« a pP*., ' and Senate/. 68. PeBow *s Review. XXII, 381, 354, 69. Ibid ., XXIII, 305, 309, 310-13. 70. ibid ., XXIII, 306, Fuqua, of Virginia. 71. Ibid., XXIII, 307. The subject ~ Congress. up in previous commercial ^ the Southern Commercial Convention in e.a.. DeBow »s Review, XV 11, 204, numa Charleston. 1854. ■ - » 1 t ' 170 taxation . 73 As enairman of the committee Boyce brought in an able and elaborate report presenting all the free trade arguments.™ Senator 0. -ay, of Alabama, attacked the fishing bounties, and secured the passage through the Senate, IBM. of a bill repealing them . 74 He regarded this action as but the initial step to the repeal of the "ship-building, c oast- /. u3e monopolies now enjoyed by the Worth to the wrong of the South. "7b The policy entered upon during the preceding dec a* of subsidising steamship lines by making liberal contracts for carrying the mails was repeatedly attacked by Southern Democrats led by Senator Hunter, of Virginia .' 3 After W ' lfl f no new contracts were made, and finally, -r -- tstooer 1 , 1 -b., notice was given of complete abrogation of existing contracts . 77 The Tariff of 1857 had been in operation but a few months when the financial crash of that year occurred. Imports fell off greatly, and. shortly the treasury was confronted by a deficit; it soon became apparent that another revision of the tariff would have xo be undertaken. The discussion provoked revealed that in certain quarters of the South the same feeling against the tariff existed as had been displayed in 1832 and 1844. After the Kansas question had been temporarily put at rest in the sprias OJ l f - by passage of the English bill, Senator Hamoond told his constituents that the state could not remain in the Union "witn nonor," ne gave 72. Con,-, . Oiobe, 3b Cong. 1 3 es 3 ., 73. DeBow's Review, XXV, 1-27; Charleston Mercury June M, r - 74. ZT.U, 35 Cong. 1 dess * , 1330 ff. . *• ** ’ 35 Cong. 1 Seas 2239 • ^ J*. B «n*U betters, Cf. 75. C.C.Clay to .fa. Burwell. May 7,1 b», uEa. ^ 7 t0 DeBose, Life and Times ofJf.U Yancejj,. 368 f*., quoting i Thomas J. Orme, May 22, l* 5*. , r , . arc: s » protective system in one of its very worst iOnr.s. 77. Bates, American Isavigat ion : Its_ Rise, and. ruiin, t- subsidy legislation). H$. Sta'tu+e* 4 1 Ae.i of Jvrjti (4, itist. attempt would be made in the next s.ssien of ‘engr.” t0 incr *" # ** tari “’ and declared that the "plantation states should discard any government which adopted protection." "Unequal taxation is, after all, wait we we *9.v in this Union.-™ A. P. Calhoun i^address in which he advocated secession, also put the tariff foremost among the grievances of the South,™ In Georgia there was a group of free traders, led by John A. Jones, who were as violent in their opposition to the tariff as were those of South Carolina. The Montgomery Daily Confederation thought free trade had already "culminated into universal sanction and adoption" in the Southern states, and pronounced "woe to the statesman that should attempt f lend himself to any move to restore" the protective system* Preside nt Buchanan in his annual message. 18M, and Secretary of the Treasury Cobb in his annual report, both recommended a revision of the tanfi; , hut the Democratic caucus considered it inexpedient to mahe any change, in the' tariff during the session.* 1 In the next Congress, the Thirty-sixth, the . Republicans controlled the House. Justin 3. Morrill, of Vermont. ' bill whose level of rates was about equal to that o. the ran, i although it was constructed more in accord with protective Principles. ~ The - n a There was little bill was passed over the opposition oi tne Democ-axs. . . , . . i hp debates in fact few Southern men spoke upon the oixl. sectionalism in the aeoaxes, m 78 . Charleston Mercury, July 22, Fvj, 79 . DeSow*? Hevisw, XXVIX, 476. 80. Feb, 1, 81. Montgomery Dally C c nf els r at + on^. Fe j. 3 , - 82. Cong . Globe* 3feC 0 ng., 1 Sess., 1*33 **f. * . ..I. * - ■ ' ; « . . t • 172 Several Southern Democrats declared their willingness to restore the tariff of 1646, The Democratic Senate postponed action upon the bill until the short 3es3ion, 1660-61, when, after the secession of several Southern states had withdrawn a number of senators from the opposition, it was passed. On the very eve of the Civil War, however, there still lingered in some quarters of the South a sentiment f or a protective tariff. The Louisiana 3Ugar 0 r planters persistently demanded protection, In Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, there were interests which a^ked for governmental encouragement, iven in South Carolina 3uch men as \ichard Yeadoa, of xne Cnarle3ton Courier, and William Gregg, retained their tariff views to the end, And, in general, the South was not committed to free trade; but ratner to a tariff for revenue with incidental protection, Many Democratic leaders admitted the propriexy of discrimination in duties witnin the revenue limit. Only in South Carolina, if, indeed, in any state, would a majority have been willing to substitute internal taxation for duties upon imports. Nor can the general opposition to a high tariff, the agitation for free trade, and the concerted attack upon monopolies, bounties, and special privileges of all kinds be taken as proving the general adherence in the South to the doctrine of iaissss-faire , a protective tariff wa3 opposed not only because it fostered manufactures at the expense of the planting interests, but also because the manufactures were in the North, Likewise the fishing bounties were opposed not only because they were bounties, but also because theyfiirectly benefitted only New Lngland, The navigation lav/s 7/ere objectionable to 64. Cohg , Globe. 36 Cong,, 1 Sess,, 3167, Jefferson Davis in the Senate. Cf. Charleston Merc ury . Feb, 26, 1659 f quoting Rep, Taylor of Louisiana, 65. DeBow’s Review. XXII, 320-25; 433-36; XXVI, 461. ft 6. DeBow’s Review, XXX, 102 f,, for an expression of Gregg’s views. ' ' •- H u i • t . 173 Southern men not only because they enhanoed freight rates in ooast-wise trade, but also because the shipping industry which profited thereby was almost a monopoly of the North. If we turn our attention to local policies we find about as much disposition in the South as elsevhere to attempt by legis- lative enactments to modify the courses capital and labor might take. The policy of encouraging manufactures and direct trade by levying discrim- inatory taxes upon goods manufactured in the non-slaveholding states and upon articles imported from foreign countries throu^i Northern ports, or by offering bounties or granting exemption from taxation to home industries, was kept under advisement in the South until secession. In the Southern Commercial Convention in Charleston, 1854, General Tilghman offered in behalf of the Llaiyland delegation a resolution that the legislatures of the Southern states should encourage manu- factures and commerce *'by the granting of bounties and all such other benefits Q7 and privileges as the powers reserved and possessed by the States may permit.” His arguments were strikingly similar to those which might be employed in the advocacy of a protective tariff. The convention appointed a committee upon the subject of promoting "Southern and Western manufactures and mining operations,” and recommended the encouragement of direct trade either by exempting the goods imported from taxation or by allowing direct importers an equivalent drawback 88 or bounty. D. H. London, president of the Central Southern Rights Associa- tion of Virginia, thou^it: "If there were absolute free trade. Southern ports would soon surpass the North, not only in commerce but in industry and ants.” Since, however, it was impossible to secure free trade, he thought the state 89 legislature should place an excise tax upon indirect imports. 87. PeBow 1 s Review. XVII, 255. 88. Ibid. . XVII, 254, 258. 89. Charleston Courier. Mar. 16, 1854, D. H. London to F. W. Connor. 5 ' ' >■• - " r'.'fi .* I / 1 4 ■ ■ ■ 174 In Georgia, in 1854, a proposal was being discussed to exempt from taxation property of corporations engaged in manufacturing." At tne same Nelson Tift, of the Albany Patriot, and others, were advocating, as a purely retaliatory measure, the imposition of a tax of one hundred percent upon the sale of goods from states which did not observe their constitutional obliga- tions. 91 A Democratic party convention, 1=155, unanimously adopted resolutione requesting the legislature to enact effective retaliatory measures. 9 ? domewnat different was the proposal submitted by Robert Toombs to the Southern Commer- cial Convention in Savannan the following year." He proposed to secure direct trade -by imposing a state tax of - percent, ad valor^ <»•» a11 « el>as > and merchandise offered for sale within the state, other than those which shall be imported from foreign countries." Tne rate should be high enough to pre- vent all indirect importations of foreign merchandise .and "to raise sufficient revenue for all the wants of the state, without imposing upon the people any capitation or other direct tax whatever." "Levy our taxes on consumption,- . he said) "it can be mere easily paid; we shall then 'ill our treasury to tne extent of our wants, protect ourselves against the unjust legislation of our sister states, bring direct trade to our porte, give profitable employment to our capitol and labor, educate our people, develops all omr resources, and build up great, powerful, and prosperous commonwealths, able bo Protect people from all dangers^! thin and from without. -'ucn - exemption of direct imports, wouldbe constitutional, he said, .. .. c uld be easily collected. This plan, it will be observed, did not call for discrim- inatory taxation upon sales of Northern made goods; it would have operated as 90, DeBow^ Review, XVI I, 257. 91. IbicU, XVII, 399; Savannah Republican, Dec. 92. Phillips, Georgia and jt_ate Ri.yts, 183, , a . vytt in? ff Tbe letter was dated, Washington, Ga., 93, DeBow *s Review , XXII, 102 ri. me Dec. 6, 18 56. t . . t ’ , , t , i « . 175 hardly upon Georgia manufacturer as upon those of .lew England. Toomba •* 94 proposal way not widely endorsed.- The Southern Commercial Convention which met at Richmond, January 1-56 adopted by acclamation a resolution recommending the release of direct importa- tions fr&m license fees. 95 About the same time ex-Covernor Floyd introduced a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates, providing for an excise tax upon goods brought into the state for sale except goods directly imported from abroad. 96 Attacks ware made upon the merchants' license tax and one tax on sales, which were imposed both by the state and municipal governments." These taxes were said to act as bounties to induce retail merchants to go outside the state to purchase their stocks; for if they bought of home jobbers wno, in turn, bought of Virginia importers, the consumers paid the taxes three times, wher««if the retailers bought in states where no such taxes were levied the consumers paid the taxes only once. 9 « The finance committee of the House of Delegates was dominated by the planting interests of the tide- water region, and proposals for tax reform met little favor," A provision was, however, included in the tax bill of 1856 allowing the importing merchant a deduction from the amount of sales on which he paid license tax equal to tne value of the goods imported 6y him plus the dutieo puii u x°“ 94. Savannah Republican. Dec. 22, 25, 1856, quoting other journals. 95, DeB ow 1 ^ Review, XX, 351. 96. Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 16, 20, Mar. 14, 1’ 97 . Ibid ., Marc fo 2, 5, 1856, letters signed "Junius." 98, DeBow’g R eview, XX, 623; ibid . , XX , ill, . ore°the President of the Central Southern kigHts Associate n of -a > General Assembly. , . t w on i A So Ra-oort the Finance Committee, 99, Richmond inquirer, Feb. 20, 21, l*bo, Muscoe R.H, Garnett, Chairman. ICO. Acts of ^General Assembl y of Virginia, > act of Jan. , l-°- A similar provision was in the tax act of Mar. 30, 1 oO. , ' ■ . ‘ ..... I This was not a very considerable concession; for a sales tax upon imported good 3 sold in the original packages was unconstitutional. At*tr Harper's Ferry, October, 1889, the Central Southern Rights Association of Virginia became active again. 102 In a memorial to the General Assembly it presented commercial independence as the "means of remedy and redress" for the grievances of the South. The memorialists asxed that the pilot fees be decreased upon vessels owned in Virginia and upon vessels from foreign nations and increased upon northern vessels engaged in the coasting trade. They would give bounties for direct importations of goods most needed witnin the state. They recommended that importing merchants be reimbursed for duties paid and exempted altogether ut hern L i.te_rar j_ . . e 3 s . en^er , XaX I , 23,8; "Barbarossa” (John Scott),' The. Lost, Principle or^e.^j^nai Pt. 1, Ch. V; Cl* ne, Life and Corre- , :± 2L tSILlJ 1 * SLiil lfbiJU Ix » 18b » 7, 5. DeBow '3 Review. XXI. 543. __ _ 10. Be3oWa Kevlar , XXI, 519; XXV, 373; XXIII, 504; Ccjfc. 2i2SS» ~ 3 Cn 'K- 1 Sea 3, , 375 (Prestor, 3. Brooxs.). 192 control of its own commerce, would control tne "exchanges'* also; and thus become financially independent. The establishment of direct trade would give an im- pulse to every other pursuit: "Manufacturers would then -row up, commerce wuld extend, mechanical arts would flourisn, and in short, every industrial and every professional pursuit would receive a vivifying impulse. Of all those who speculated in regard to the proper policy of a new confeo- eracy, it is worthy of note, very few proposed that the government should be supported witnout any resort to duties on imports. It is true many spohe ot a free trade republic, out "free trade" was generally equivalent to "tarn t for revenue only." Almost all would nave had low duties; but while some xola now low they would be and emphasized tne blessings of free trade, 0Lner3 a on the incidental protection which would be afforded by a tariff for revenue only. Said Willoughby Newton, a Virginia di 3 unionist of long standing: a tariff for the s unport of the new government would give such protection to manufacturers, that all our waterfalls would orietle with machinery." Men from border states were more inclined to speak of the advantages of protection against Northern com petition than were men from the cotton states, though the latter often nela out as an inducement to Virginia and Worth Carolina to go with the Gulf states, the probability that they would supplant New England in manufacturing for the South. There were free traders, however, wno thought it might oe well to leave tne them slave states out of the confederacy lest they should demand protection for their industries. Disunionists believed that, in case of separation, the North would have to resort to direct taxation to support ner government; for they would no longer be able to import on Southern account, and they could not tax imports from the South, since they were ch'fcly raw materials. '1. DeS^w's Review, XXIX, 462. 12. Ibid, XXV, 373 (Sept. 1*5*). 13- lb id '. XXI, 541. quence 3 of direct taxation would be tne transfer to the South of much caoixal in- vested in manufactures. The disunioniete often toon a somewhat skeptical attitude toward the efforts Which were now being made to promoxe Southern commerce and industry while the Union cominued. Each failure confirmed their opinion that such efforts were fu- tile. The Charleston Mercury. said that in the Union "Direct trade with the cus- tomers of the South in Europe is an impossibility Norfolk. Charleston, sa- vannah. Mobile, are only suburbs of New York." 14 According to a contributor to DeB ,w 's Review . the process of development went or. much more slowly than in the North, and must "as long as we remain in the Union with the North to lean upon/ Disunion would call for and foster a variety of home products. Pride would de- mand protection for hone industries. Diversification would develop and unfold the wealth of the South. "True, we mi^ht, in the course of time, unfold tnis wealth in tne Union, hut not till the teeming North has •embellished all her slopes,' and of her superabundance and for lack of other lands xo conquer, emp- ties ner surplus on us, With all these aids and stimulants we must ad- vance with equal or faster steps than they ." 16 A. J. Soane, of Virginia, "Experience has demonstrated that direct trade to Southern ports cannot be estab- lisned to any consideraole extent in the Union, it can cnlj— oe a.,c oi,.lished o. the stress of the necessity which separation would creaxe." In • * s **-'*» vlle opinion was held that in case of disunion the "very necessity of her condition of estrangement from the manufacturing North would impel her to add a manufac- , 4 17 luring phase to her already innumerable sources of «alt ru As we have seen, certain south Atlantic ports, particularly of Virginia, woich was slowly building the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad, aspired to export and import for the Ohio and the upper Mississippi valleys, andW nigh expectations 14. May 20 , I* 59 * 472-474 (Nov. Ift57). $f ibid .. XXI, 177-1*6. 15 . PeBow *3 He v iev:, XaIH, 16. Ibid. , XX U, 463. 1. October 23, mp, lt.y.H*Z±L£- ' 194 Louisians, in his message of January, 1*59, said: "The position of the North- western States of the Mississippi valley, on this question (slavery) is of especial interest to us, These states are, by geographical position, commer- cially our allies, whether 3 lave or free, while many of the states on the Atlantic side of the Alleghanies arejnecessar ily hostile in commercial interest.#* It is cheering to find our commercial allies of the Northwest sustaining our Southern policy. "20 This statement is accurate in no particular, ihe value of the trade between the West and East was many times greater than the value of the trade between the" West and South. Not only did most of the foreign imports of the West come by way of the East, but by far the larger part of Western exports went that way. The travel between Sqst and West was much greater than between South and West, Much Eastern capital was invested in tne West, In politics, too, the West and East had been drawing closer together* The tariff no longer divided them as it did in the days of Calhoun. Both stood for a liberal policy in regard to improvement of river3 and harbors. Tne ooutn had abandoned her old liberal attitude on the public land3 question, ana steadily opposed homestead bills and land grants to railroads; while in some quarters the old demand for distrioution was revived. The East, on the other hand, was inclined to support the public lands policies of the Zest, On the immigration question the West agreed with the East rather than with the South; the same was true of the Pacific railroad question. On the paramount issue of slavery the people of the free states of the Northwest were rapidly losing their old indifferent attitude and becoming more hostile to the institution. Along with their pictures of the prosperity and progress which would follow the formation of an independent Southern confederacy, disunionists frequently advanced arguments to prove that it would be accompanied oy no countervailing disadvantages. Secession would be peaceful, they said, because 20. New Orleans Daily T rue Delta , Jan. 19, 1^59, t ' . . fe . ■ , ■ - ' ' 4 t 196 there was great suffering, threatening mobs , and sanguinary riots in the Worth. Northern merchants and manufacturers felt very severely the loss of *40,000,000 due them from the South and sequestered by the government of the new confeder- acy. The South suffered also from the blockade, but there were compensations in that it taught the Southern people to be independent of the North. 3oon Virginia, North Carolina, and “aryland found it no longer possible to remain neutral, and entered the war on the side of the South. Another *50.000,000 of debts was sequestered. The North did not attempt to carry the war into one border states, in July, 1868, it was reported that the imports and revenues of the North had fallen off tremendously; for the "greater part of the former importations to Northern ports and in Northern ships, was for transhipment to and consumption in the Southern states." 24 In August outbreaks and violence were reported in the impoverished Northern cities; New York was sacked and burned - a rather bitter commentary on the supposed friendship of the South and New York City. Soon the North was unable to continue the war, and a truce was made. By February, 1869, renewal of commercial intercourse and peaceful relations had given a wonderful impulse to trade and business m the South, But Southern merchants had entirely ceased aoint o .no purchase goods of any kind: "For all Northern fabrics being now subject to high duties, would thereoy be'>ch enhanced in price, that but few kinds can be sold in Southern markets, in competition with European articles the same rates of duties only - or of southern manufactures, now protected oy the same tariff law which had formerly been enacted by the superior political power of the North, and to operate exclusively cor the profit of Northern aapit.1 and industry." 25 Northern ship owners were transferring their ships to the South; Northern manufacturers were coming; and mucn Northern capital was seeking investment there. A month later, it was repo-ten 24. P. 2*3. 25. P. 31*. ■ n 197 that the ’’commercial prosperity of xhe South is growing with a force and rapid- ity exceeding any previous ant icipations of the mosx sanguine early advocates 26 for the independence of the Southern 3ta~e3," The Western states had taken but little part in the war. The South had granted them free trade and free navigation of tne Mississippi. Because of this indulgent and conciliatory treatment the people of tne Northwest nad nox tried to open direct trade with Europe but were content to trade principally with New Orleans. On April 7, 1*69, it was reported that New England and tne 27 West were at loggerheads ever tne tariif. The volume closes with a prediction that the North would soon 3plix, xne 'Western sxates, upon their own offer, going with tne South. ’’And should New England be left alone, thenceforward its influence for evil on xne soutnern states will be of as little effect, and its political and economical position 9 scarcely superior, to tnose conditions of tne present republic of Nayti. By Aoril 14, 1*69, it was reported, commercial treaties had oeen made by _ the South with European powers. No duties were to be over 2.0$. The treaties might be terminated after ten years. The tobacco growers, who nad so often in the old Union requested the government to attempt to secure a relaxation of -he heavy duties imposed upon their product by France and England, now had their pc wishes gratified. Ruffin's book was written during a political campaign, when it was well un- derstood that, in case of Lincoln's election, the cotton states would m all probability secede; but its content was only an amplification of a senes of letters published in the Richmond Enouirer in December, 1*56, and January, 1 '57, And the arguments for secession which he used were typical of the secessiomsx ger se propaganda to wnich the people of the South had been subjected for at 26 . P. 323. 27. P. 32*. 2*. ?. 33*. 29. P. 329. Gf . "Barbaro 33 a", Tne Los x Principle. l»o tf 19ft. least a decade. Southern people were strengthened in their expectations of beneficial econ- omic effects to follow secession by a class of politicians, writers, and news- paper editors wno represented Northern commercial and mercantile interests wnose business was largely with the South and Northern manuf acturing interests who either sold their products in the South or purcna3ed their raw materials snez ", or both. The best known and mo 3 t trustworthy individual of tnis class was Thomas Prentice Kettell, ment ioned before in connection with the secession move- ment of 1* 50. He was in Ift6j3i the editor of Hunt *3 Merchants * Magazine. His views carried considerable weight, especially in tne South, where his free trade principles, ni 3 sympathetic attitude on the slavery question, and his interest in Southern economic development had long been known. Early in the presiden- tial campaign of 1*60 there was published a book by him entitled, '\3ojryi&rn > Wealth and Northern Profits, As exhibited in Statistical Tracts, and Figures; Showing the Necessity of - Union to the Future. Prosperity and Welfare 0 f the Republic . " The book showed an excellent understanding of the commer- cial and financial relations of the North and South; the conclusions were backed up by tables of statistics, largely drawn from official sources, Tne buraen of the book was, as the title indicates, that the South produced wealth, but that it accumulated in the North; Capital, said Kettell, accumulates slowly in all . • 30 agricultural countries and rapidly in commercial and manuf acturing countries. He described the resources of the South, her enormous production of cotton and numerous other products, an^ier immense exports to the North as well as oo Europe. He further showed the extent of Southern purchases in the North, the value of the commerce carried for tne South by the North, the Northern tonnage so em- ployed — * in snort he discussed every form of profit derived by tne North from her relations with the South. The total profits the North derived annually 30. P. 126 . 159. from Southern wealth ne summarized in the following table: 31 Bounties to fisheries, per annum - — _ _ - - Customs, p«r annum, disbursed at the Nortn - - Profits to Manufacturers ----------- " " Importers ------------- " " Shipping, imports and exports - - - " on Travellers ------------ " of Teachers, and others, at the South, sent North - - - - - " " Agents, brokers, commissions, &c-* - » " Capital drawn from the Soutn ? - - Total from these sources $ 1,500,000. - 40,000,000. - 30,000,000. - 16,000,000. - 40,000,000. 60, 000, 000. - 50,000,000. - 10 , 000 , 000 . 30. OO P. 000.. $231, 500,’ 000. In sixty years, according to Kettell *3 estimate, $2, 770, .00, -'00 nad )een transferred from the South to the North in these ways. Such heavy drains had 32 prevented the accumulation of capital in the South, Ketteil *s arguments were addressed to the Northern people. He urged -:.em not to endanger their prosperity by the unnecessary agitation of the slavery question. The South and West were portrayed as having great naxural resources, whereas the East had few. The prosperity of the latter depended upon manufac- turing and shipping for others/ 3 He described the efforts which had been made in the South to make the section independent of the Nortn, and the progress al- ready made toward that goal; they were attributed to the anti-slavery agitation. He considered the possibility of a dissolution of the Union. In tnat case, "it is quite apparent that the North, as distinguished from the South and West, would be alone permanently injured.” As for the South, "in the long run it 31. P, 127. There is no way to check these items with any accuracy, were it worth while to do so. The fishing bounties were paid from the general rev- enues, and therefore, by both North and Soutn in proportions of their respective contributions. The second is undoubtedly greatly exaggerated. Tne average yearly receipts from customs, 1*56-1*60 inclusive, was $54,4*7,600. Assuming tnit the people of the South paid as much uer capita, as the people o _ ' which they probably did not (See ante p 103;. the Soutn paid about $21,44. annually. A part cf this at least was diatnouted in the joutn. me sixt _ item, is probably much too large. So, also, is tne last, nertnern investmen in the South and loans and extensions of credit greatly exceded m amo ~ ern investments in the North and deposits of Southern funds mNortnern banks. The item should read, interest on Southern debts to Northern citizens at least such an item, and it would not be a small one, should be included in tne taole. 32. P. 127. 33. P. 75. 200 . 34 would lose, after recovering from first disasters, nothing oy separation. Disunionists saw in Kettell 's book an argument for secession. John Townsertf, of South Carolina, cut Kettell f s estimate of Northern profits from a out hern in- dustry to less than half - $105, 000, 000 annually or $2, 100, 000, 000 in twenty years. What would not this sum. -have accomplished for the South in twenty years? he asked. '’Direct trade - flourishing cities. Domestic majnuf^^ures. woulu nave occupied every water power, and the whole South, — wealthy and equipped, and armed at every point, - would have been able to defend herself against the world.” 35 DeBow, another disunionist, in nis review of " Soutnern %a l j^ and Northern Prof its/ 1 said: "The author deserves, by nis laoors, not only on tins occasion, but during along and active career, the most substantial recognition, as one of the noblest and truest patriots, the most profound economise, and m 36 ablest statistical pnilosophers of the age." Of Northern newspapers which encouraged the Southern people to oelieve that disunion would be followed by unprecedented prosperity, hone was ko (• widely . read and quoted or wielded greater influence in the South than tb. New York Heral d. It kept close watch of events and the state of public opinion m »ne South and should have known, perhaps did know, the c- err pi ■ ■■■■ • stantly advocated a policy of meeting Southern demands and avoidance of wound- ing Southern sensibilities in order that the South might not oe compelled to resort to measures wnicn would work injury to the navigating, mercantile, an financial interests of New York, whicn the Herald represented, in case of dis- union, according to tne He rale, the imports of the Northern confederation would so fall off that it would have to resort to direct taxation, while the South would have ample revenue. Manufactures would be established in tne sou m vnh 34. P. 75. 35. "The South alone should govern the South, ^nd Africah JUBSa be controlle d bj. those only , who are friendl y m it. (A pampnie t , , - > p. 51. 36. DeBow »s Review. XXIX, 213. 201 . Northern capital. Northern shipping would rot at it3 docks. Part of the North- ern population would migrate to the South; 30 that the disproportion in numbers would cease to exist. The value of real estate in'jihe North would oe greatly re- 37 duced. The views which disunionists, and others both South and North, held in re- gard to the economic benefits to follow the iormation of a Soutnern confeder- acy did not go uncontroverted in the South, Conservative journals sucn as the New Orleans Picayune, perhaps the best newspaper in the South, the Montgomery Daily Conf ederat ion, the Reyubl ican Banner and Nashville Whig , and the Savannah Daily Republican. did not consider that the Union injuriously affected the econ- omic interests of the Soutnern states. Said the Picayune. 1*5*: "One of the most erroneous ideas, strangely obtaining considerable currency at the Soutn, is that wnich attributes apparent decay of the older, and comparative slow growth of the younger Southern 3 tate 3 , to a fixed policy of the General Government, 3& assumed to be partial to sections in which slavery does not exist." Vne Conf ederation said, 1*59: "Nor are we wanting in a proper appreciation of the value of the Union, ... We sing no anthems to it3 glories, at the 3ame time we cannot forget that under it, we have grown to be a great, prosperous and af- 39 ter all, a happy people."" Occasionally DeBow *s Review contained an article 40 o which refuted the views presented by the majority of its contrioutors . Con- servative statesmen often described the South as prosperous, and attributed k nct 37. October 30, 1*60, editorial, for example. 3*. Kay 22, 1*5*. 35. Fay IS, 1*59. A year earlier it n ad said: "We 3cout the position so of- ten assumed that we are inferior - that we are degraded in this Union ... Tnat- the North does our trading and manuf acturing mostly is true, and we are willing that they should. If we thought as 3orre seem to think on the subject, we should boldly raise the standard of secession, and never cease the scrife until cne Un- ion were dissolved." May 19, 1^5*. 40. XXIV, 431-9, e.g. 202 . 41 prosperity to the Union. Such a one was Alexander H. Stephens. Senator Sell, of Tennessee, in nis speech on the Lecompton bill, 1*5*, described the disun- . . 42 ionists per se of the South and expressed his dissent from their doctrines. Disunionists were forced to admit on the eve of the War that tne >outh was en- joying a comparative degree of psosperity, and they expressed concern lest a feeling of content with their economic condition would rake tne Southern 'eople incapable of maintaining their rights. ^ The Charleston ^ercury found it neces- sary to protest against an editorial of the New Orleans See , "an invetera e ole. Whig paper,” for intimating "that the Southern people are 30 cankered by prosper- ity as to be incapable of resisting the sectional domination of the North, and 44 • . that the Union will be continued because of this prosperity." Disumcnis c,-. found it necessary, also, to allay the fears of tno3e engaged in industry and commerce who, while desirous of Southern industrial and commercial independence, believed that the sudden disruption of established relationships which disunion might cause would prostrate their busine3 3,‘ J Much of the disunion argument seem 3 to have been designed to win over tnis clas3 of men. Some of the leaders in the various efforts made to effect an industrial and commercial revolution in the South were not convinced by the arguments of tne unconditional disunionists. James Robb, to whom more than to any other wd/'i:- uai belongs the credit for the successful building of tne New Orleans, Jackson, and Great Northern railroad, undertook to expose the fallacies of xfte secession arguments. It would be suicide for the South to abandon the Union. Tne pur- suits of the people of the South were incompatible with any considerable progress in manufacturing and commerce. The remedy for dependence upon 41. Letter to J. J. Crittenden, Jan. 2, 1*60; Address to his constituents, Aug. 14, 1^57, Toombs. St ephens . Cobb Correspondence , 415. J 42. * Cong*. Globe, 35 Cong. 1 Sess., App*. 139-4C. 43. Speech of R. B. Rhett, July 4 , 1*59, in Charleston ^ercury, July Address of Col. A. P. Aldrich at the fair of the South Caroline Institute, . 17, 1*59, ibid . . Nov. 19. 44. April 30, 1*59. 45. See, for example, A. J. Roane m Ueupw *3_ review , NX IX, 4o2. 203 . 46 •fAC North was not secession but a change of habit3. The South 1 better oe dependent upon the North than upon Europe. '"Ihe Southern rr.ina i3 c eluded in the belief that ingland and France will give to a separate Southern Confederacy, founded on Slavery, Free Trade and Cotton, their entire 3ympathie3. " If self- interest did not appeal to New England, would it to England and trance? ihe belief- xhat the withdrawal of Southern trade would ruin the East was too aosuru to merit notice. "7/here," he asked, "is the evidence of the prosperity of the Southern states being seriously endangered by a continued fellowship with New England! Cur material progress for the last fifteen years is without exav-le , William Gregg, one of the ablest and sanest thinkers in the south upon questions affecting the economic interests of the section, was not a se- cessionist cer se. 4 ' The South was not ready for independence, ne said. Ihe Southern people should make themselves commercially and industrially independent of the North before going cut of the Union. There would be no advantage in turning from the Yankees and relying upon Europe. ‘ Free trade among the states he considered the greatest bond of Union*, and at the time ne wrote, 1*60, still thought it, "if properly poised and equalized throughout our common country, will dispel the dark cloud which hangs over truth and justice . . . " K ' Yet Gre £S was not oblivious to -some of the possible advantages of disunion. If a line were drawn which would be a barrier to the importation of Northern locomotive?, for example, two years would not elapse before the South would manufacture tnerr herself. Disunion would stop the practice followed by Soutnern bamcs and money 44. Letter to Alexander H. Stephens, Nov. 25, 1*60, in a pamphlet. A South- ern Confederacy . Letters bjr, James Robb , late, a o£ New Org a na an ican in Paris and Hon. nlexa Her H. Stephens , of Georgia, pp. 477 The statements relative to Gregg's position are based upon a senes o* essays on "Southern Patronage to Southern Imports and Domestic Industry wnicn appeared in Ded,r' S mi*, 1*0. to February IStt, but all of were written before Lincoln's election. But see Victor o. Clan in ^ Buildin g of the Nation . V , 323. 4P|. DeBcv/'s Review, XXIX, 7*, '! u , 773, 49. Ibid .. XXX, 217. 204. lenders of employing their money in New York rather than at home, which was a 50 "monstrous barrier to Scutnern enterprise." Yet, after giving due weight to such Union arguments as wejhave just anal- ysed, it remains that the disunionist arguments in regard to the material benefits of their project were not adequately refuted in the South. Unionists more frequently took the course of appealing to the common history of the Amer- ican people, their common republican institut ions, the greatness of the Jnicn, its prestige among the nations of the earth, its vast military strength, the weakness and insignif icance the South wouldjhave as an independent nation, n •* inability to protect an institution condemned by the opinion of the world, and the danger of plunging the country into fratricidal war. They also found it effective to cast aspersions upon the motives of tne secessionist leaders, to represent them as restless spirits, broken down politicians, disappointed in tneir political ambitions. Northern men contributed but little to a true understand ing of tne causes. * of the disparity of the sections in prosperity and progress and of the effect which a division of the Union might have upon the great material interests of the country; such an understanding, itjis believed, would have tended to allay disunion sentiment. Northern men were not as well informed as tney should, nave been of the number of disunionists ££ se in the South nor of tne arguments they advanced. Practically all of the discussions dealing with disunion were colorec by partisan bias. As we nave seen, representatives of those business interests of the East which were closely allied with the cotton power exaggerated the val- ue of the Southern connection and the injurious effects of disunion vwcc the North. They sought to fix the guilt for endangering tne Union upon tne Northern "fanatics" who were agitating the slavery question. Republican and anti-slavery writers and orators, who, it must be remembered, were not trying to win converts 50. DeBow *s Review , XXIX, 79, 495. 205. in the South but to build up a great party in the North, dealt with dis unionism in a variety of ways. They denounced as mercernary those wno wcula calculate the value of the Union in dollars. They commonly charged that threats of dis- union were mere gasconade for the purpose cf frigntening Northern men into vot- ing for Southern measures. They often, also, as did William H. Seward in his great speecnes during the campaign of 1*60, prot rayed the magnitude of Northern productions and Northern internal commerce as compared with the products ex- changed betw.en the sections and minimized the value of the Southern trade ana Southern raw materials to the North and the injury wnich would be inflicted upon Northern interests by disunion. 51 Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, said cotton was not king; cotton made but one seventeenth part of the manufactures of the North. 52 The Republicans, and anti-slavery men generally, attributed the "decline" of the South and its dependence upon the North, chiefly to one blighting effects of slavery* they saw no hope of remedy so long as slavery con- . , 53 tinuea to exist. Perhaps the ablest and most philosophical exposition of moderate Republican- ism made between 1854 and 1861 is George M. West on 's "Progress of Slavery," work wnich it would have been well worth the while of Southern thinkers to study. We are here concerned only with those of the propositions he sought to establish which relate to disunion. He told of nullification in South Carolina and of its partisans and sympathizers in other slave s-ates. "The real cause of mis Southern predisposition to listen to the appeals of the Palmetto nullifiers, was Southern discontent at the prosperity of the North. »..* Refusing x-c see the 51 In a speech at Palace Garden, New Yorx City, Nov. 2, 1»60, je said; "New York is not a province of Virginia or Carolina, an., mo.e .nan l is a province of New York or Connecticut. New York must be tne metropolis ot tne - tinent." New Yorx H erald, Nov. 3. _ 52. Con^. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx. 169, speech ot Mar. 2u, 1 . reply to J. H. Hammond’s "Mud-sill" speech of Mar. 4. Another 53. The speech of Senator Wilson just quoted is a goo exan ^; is Hannibal Hamlin's reply to Hammond, Mar. 8, 11, 1'5 £££&• » w *’ 1 oess,, 1002-1006, 1025-1027. 54. Publi3ned in 18 5^. _ j ia ' ; ; 206 . true cause of tneir own misfortunes, and eager to attribute tnem to every cause but the right one, they insisted that they alone were the real producers of wealth, and that the North was thriving at their expense." Tnis doctrine of tne nullifiers had been steadily insisted upon during the following quarter of a century. "It has, without doubt, become the settled conviction of large num- bers of persons in the slave states, that in some way or other, either tnrough tne fiscal regulations of the Government, or through the legerdemain of trade, the North has been built up at tne expense of tne Soutn." these were. the views which prompted disunion. He illustrated the reasons for wanting to dis- solve the Union by an extract from a public address of J ohn Forsytn, of Mooile. "I have no more doubt that the effect of separation would be to transfer tne energies of industry, population, commerce, and wealth, from the North to the South, than I have that it is to the Union with us, the wealth-producing sta.es, that the North owes its great progress in material prosperity.^, . 0n±on broken we 3 nould have what has been so long the dream of tne south - cirect trade and commercial independence. Then, our oouthern cities, . . c e 30 long languished in the shade, while the grand emporia of the North nave facteoe,, upon favoring navigation laws, partial .legislation by Congress, and tne monop- oly of the public expenditure, w£ll spring into life ana energy, ana oecome tne entrepots of a great commerce." The slavery agitation was not the cause of disunion feeling but the pretext, according to Weston. The disunionists had been chiefly instrumental in getting it up: "It is quite notorious that it is not the slaveholding class at tne ocuth which particularly favors nulli f ic ation • The impoverished condition of the Soutn, which Weston considered tne source of tne disunion feeling, he thought attributable in part to slavery ana m art to "that unnatural diffusion of their population over new territories," -.^cn the Republican part, was opposing. ^ There were no internal elements of change in slave society. The slaves were held to tneir condition by force. Tne mas- ters were confined to planting by the want of flexibility and adaptability in the character of the labor which they controlled and upon the proceeds of which they subsisted. The non-slaveholding whites were degraded oy slavery wueh no 55. P. 6ft. 56. p. 65. 57. P. 5 & , « " l 'j4, 207. 5 & , hope of escape from their abject poverty. There was no hope, from any elements of such a population, of the growth of towns, of the mechanic arts, or of manu- facturing and commercial interests. "Throughout the South, towns are built up only by Northern ana European immigration, and wit ho ut^ it there would be scarcely any manifestation of civilisation. Mills, railroads, cotton presses, sugar boilers, and steamboats, are mainly indebted for their existence in the Southern States to intelligence and muscle trained in tree communities." me i coemp- tion of the South would come only with the gradual encroachment of tne free- labor system of the North and Europe and the non- slaveholding regions et tne South upon the slave belts. That encroachment had begun, or soon would begin. A 3 the slave area should be contracted the discontented area would also be diminished and the Union would be strengthened. "If the course of events in the immediate future be such as may reasonably be anticipated, no separate Southern Confederacy could possibly embrace more than a few States in tne soutn-t east corner of the existing Union; and the scheme of such a confederacy would be out down by tne good sense of the people in tnat quarter, it , indeed, their 60 patriotism would allow it to be even entertained. 5ft. P. 13. 59. P. 15. CHAPTER VIII Factors Which Tended t o Allay ac o nom.ic u c c n i e n_t in the South , 1*50-1*60 . During tne decade of 1*50 - 1*60 there were factors and conditions wnicn tended to make the people of the Soutn content to remain an almost exclusive- ly agricultural people. In the first place the cotton planting industry was comparatively., profit- able. During the decade of 1*40 - 49, the average price of cotton at Soutnern 2 seaports was 8 cents; 1 during the following decade it was 10.6 cents/ price was steadier also during tne later period. The higher price level was maintained in spite of a ratner remarkable succession of large crop3 from l-ol to 1*61. The average yearly production during the first decace was 3,xo.\ a bales, and during the second, 3,374,100 bales, 3 an increase of over 56 per cent; while the total value of the cotton produced during the latter period was about double that of the former. The crop of 1*52 - 53, the largest to that time, brought tne cotton planters nearly $150,^00,000. Tnis crop was exceeded both in amount and aggregate value by that of l r -55 - 56. A considerably smaller crop the following year brought in an even greater aggregate, which was ex- ceeded the next year, although tne financial crasn of 1*57 cost xne planters many millions. The high water mark of tne ante-bellum coxton indusxry was reached in 1*59 - 60, when a crop of 4, *61,000 bales was sold for nearly 1250, 000, 000. The tobacco and 3 ugar industries were almost as prosperous, as a *es-.lt of the development of improved varieties and setter methods of curing, tne de- mand for tobacco increased, and production in the United States grew from 200,- 000,000 pounds in 1*49 to 434,000,000 in 1*59, about 111 per cent. In Virginia 1. C. F. M 'Cay, of Georgia, in Hunt's Merchant's Magasine, XXIII, 601. De3ow *s Revi ew. XXVII, 106. Hie ioe.rea.9t ur M Joe. in part t 0 an expa-nJinj money 3*. Dbrmell, History of Cotton, £assLi_. . 209 . and Kentucky, the leading tobacco produc ing states, the production was doubled, while in North Carolina it was tripled."" Althougn the tobacco growers contin- ued xo complain of the heavy duties imposed by foreign countries upon American tobacco, 5 there can be no doubt thal/the industry was more prosperous during the decade before the War than in any other period since colonial ximes, The sugar industry was a somewhat uncertain one. The crop fluctuated widely from year to year because of occasional early frosts another unfavorable weather con- ditions. The price fluctuated even more widely, being dependent not only upon the crop in tne United States and the tariff, but also upon the crop in Cuoa and Hayti, whence sugar was imported.'" In 1*56 the crop in Louisiana, which produced virtually all of the United States sugar, was only 73,976 hogsheads and sold for $110 per hogshead. In 1*58 the crop was 362, 296 nogsheads, and the price, $69. However, the industry seems to have been more prosperous ■ rom 1850 to i860 than during the previous decade. The average price was 4 n 3 and the average crop 273,450 hogsheads, 1*50-1860; the same ixems for 1840-1850 were n $49.75 and 165,150 hogsheads respectively.’ It was an axiom in the South that when the planting sections were pros- perous, the grain-growing and stock-raising regions were also prosperous. In the decade before the war their prosperity was enhanced by the readier access to market which improved roads and newly built railroads afforded. At the same time competition with the agricultural states of the Northwest was rendered less injurious because prices werejkept up by tne growing demand of the Last and 4. Meyer Jacobstein, Tne Tobaccp Industry ± 3 . the Unites Uxaxes, 3^-39; Eighth Census, a^r iculture , Introduct ion, p. xciii. ' 5. ‘Wbarossa? Tne Lost Principle. 176ff; Memorial to Congress, by a com- mittee of the So. Com. Conv., Knoxville, in DeBow^g. Review, XXIV, 29!-:M v, npr. 1*5*; ibid, XXVI, 315. , , A „ ,, 6. DeBow *3 Review, XIX, 353, XXII, 320-25; 433-36; Roberts oa^ A Oantns in Wort a America . **; Stirling, Letter s from tne Sla^e $££ £ * , ->• . 7. DeBow *s Review, XXIX, 524; Eighth Census, Agriculture, Introduc -i.n, xc ix. 210 . Europe for foodstuff 3. The growing degree of content with the rewards of the cotton industry was reflected in the increased frequency of expressions of fear for the security of America's monopoly of the production of raw cotton. Dr. Livingston was said to 9 have reported that cotton grew in tne Interior of Africa. Attention was given to the possibility that India might be stimulated to increased production. Muqh interest v/as taken in the Cotton Supply Association, which was organized in 19 57 by English spinners for the purpose of stimulating cotton production in In- 10 dia and elsewhere. It has always been true in the South that when cotton prices have risen pleas for the diversification of agriculture have fallen upon deaf ears; so it was during the decade before the War, The agricultural reformers in the cox ton belt pleaded with the planters not to make more cotton, but to raise their own hogs, cattle, horses, and mules, and to grow their own corn and wheat — thus they would cut down expenses and conserve the fertility of tne 3oil. The re- formers told the planters that tne high prices were only temporary, and were caused in part by the increased gold supply resulting from the opening of tne 11 California mines. Tne rise in the price of cotton was no greater tnan tne rise 12 in the prices of other things. " A.3mall cotton crop, they 3aid, and truly, of- ten grought a greater aggregate than a large one. But planters could no resist the temptation to taxe advantage of prevailing high prices oy increasing u neir acreage/** Somewhat better traraportat ion facilities between the planting and the farming regions promoted tne tendency to specialization. The agricultuie 9, Eighth Census, Agric ulture , Introduction, cxli, cxlvi-cxlix Uaoles il- lustrating growth of trade between tne West and tne East and Europe), 9, DeBow’s Review, XXIV, S'80; Donnell, History of Cotton, a % 10. ’ T6n " ne T l 7~oF. Tit ., 454,466,479; Hunt's "arc ha ms ' ~ 'avazine, , XL III, 640. 11, DeBow 's Revie w/" XIV, 290. . 12. Address of A, r. Aldrich at the Fair of the South Carolina Institute, 1959. Charleston Mercury. Nov. 19, 1959; DeBow's .E’naw, XXX, 22i. i.3. "The price oi cotton has raised tne price ot land, so there is no chance of buying you a cleared plantation now. And during 3ucn prices it woula oe o 1-1 to take nands from making cotton in Baldwin to clear the /lace in Dop^ev |o we a hall cave to let planting affairs remain m ’’status quo, John ... uamar to Howell Cobb, Feb. 7, 19 50, Toombs. Step hens. Cobb Correa -rnbence . 211 . of the planting belts was no more diversified, if as much, in 1*60 than in 1*50. The sugar and cotton planters seem to have resorted to no diminishing extent to Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and states even farther north, for horses ana mules, hay, bacon, pork, and beef, and even corn and flour, "There is no reason" wrote a planter, "why Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas should not raise all of their own horses and mule3, There is no earthly 14 reason why these states should not also raise their own corn, hogs, cows, etc."' James L. Orr described the planter of South Carolina a3 buying "his bacon and - 1 5 pork, much of his beef, and not infrequently his corn and flour". Robert Russell, an English traveller, writing of the planters of Mississippi, said: "The bacon is almost entirely imported from the North as well as considerable quan- 16 titles of Indian corn." Exoort 3 of Western produce from New Orleans to the North and Europe felj. off very raridly after the building of railroads from the North Atlantic ports to the West, but there was no falling off in the total receipts o- j/estern products at New Orleans'!: 7 Thi3 was due in part to the increased demands of New Orleans herself, in part to the increased demands of the South generally. Of 1,0*4, $7* barrels of flour received at New Orleans in l Q 59-59, 306,090 were ex- ported to Northern ports, 133,193 to foreign countries, and 165,397 to other Southern ports. 1 * The following year $ 65,360 barrels of flour were received at New Orleans, of wnich 5*, 739 went to the North, *0,541 abroad, and 247, 231 to 14. 15. 16. 17. Census, DeBow 's Review. XiX, Ibid . IX. 21 (July, 1*55 North America. 265, 290, Eighth Census, Agriculture . Intro., clvi, clvii, Tables N and 0; lentn Transportation. 699; DeBovT’s Review. IV, 391; VI, 434; X, 44^; XII, 33; XVII, 53$; XXIII, 365; XXV, 469; XXVII, 471,479. "As an outlet to the ocean for the grain trade of the west, the Mississippi river has almost ceased to be de- pended unon by merchants." "And even, at no distant date, all the western grain and flour which found a market in New York or New England was shipped to New Or- leans in steamboats, and thence around the coa3t in ocean ships." Eighth Census, Agriculture . Intro., clvii, civ. 1*. Ibid., Intro, clvii; DeBow*3 Review, XXVII, 479. 212 22 other Southern ports. 1 ' The statistics for corn, hacon, pork and other articles produced north of the planting belt show similar proportions, over, only a portion of the Western provisions shipped down "he dssissi: i reached Hew Orleans. For example, of 32,919 barrels of flour shipped fro; tin- 20 cinnati in 1860 to points “below Cairo, only 65,146 went to law Orleans. 1860 the railroads were carrying; no inconsiderable amounts oi provisions -re .21 the West and the farming sections of the South in' o the pla^ in.- j-s ~cns . A comparison of the census reports for 1850 and I860 indicates tnat t^e agriculture of the South as a whole was loss diversified in the latter than in the former year. It is sufficient to compare such Ur e it ms as cotton, tobacco , corn, wheat, oats, potatoes, hogs, sheep, cattle and draught, animals. The per caoit a production of Indian corn in the South -us ' bushels in 18-* , 32.75 bushels in 1850 and 31 bushels in 1860. The population of the South increased 28.9 per cent between 1850 and I860; during the same time the. = annual production of cotton had been doubled and of tobacco more than douLj. ■ leadin ; cotton state, Mississippi, the cotton crop was increase . 150 per can” , and the corn crop, 32 per cent. The percentages for Alabama were 73 and lb; for Louisiana 336 and 65; and for Georgia, 41 and 0. South Carolina prouaceo. less corn but 17 per cent more cotton in 1860 than in 1850. Tennessee, ..no leading corn state of the South, grew no raore corn in 1850 than in 1850, cut had increased her cotton crop by one-half. Virginia and North Carolina gained but little in corn produced, but tobacco production ad been doubled in the one and tripled in the other. During the decade the annual oats crop had declined in every Southern state except Virginia and Texas; for tno South IS. DeBow’s Be view . XXIX, 784; Eighth Census. Agriculture. Intro., civil, 20 . Ibid . . Intro., clviii. 21. PeBow’ s Be view . XXIV, 214. 22. Eighth Census, Agriculture , Introduction, pas sir. . \- : ■ . r -c 213 as a whole the falling off was over 40 percent. In 1*50 the Southern states produced 4**7 oushels of sweet potatoes £er capita; in 1 * 60 , 4.16 busnels. There ware fewer hogs in the South in 1*60 tnan in 1*50, the leading hog raising states, Tennessee and Georgia, showing decreases, while Virginia, Texas, and Arkansas showed increases. Outside Texas there were fewer neat cattle in the South in 1*60 than in 1*50. The number of milk cows, however, increased 20 percent; and the production of butter increased from 6.12 to o, 55 P our ^ 9 22L capita . The number of sheep had increased less than 10 per/cent and the wool clip but 1*. The statistics for hogs, neat cattle, and sheep may be contrasted with those for draught animals which were employed in the culture of the staples. The number of mules, oxen, and horses increased between 1*50 and 1*60 by 103,42, and 22 percent respectively. The only important food stuff of wnicn there was a remarkable increase of production was wheat . The ctop was 17,7*5,7*1 bushels in 1*50 and 31, 441, *26 bushels in 1*60, a gain of 77 percent and an increase from 2.5 to 3.5 bushels £er cagifca . The largest gains were made in _ Tennessee, North Carolina.and Georgia; they were attribute^ very largely to the building of railroads which gave access to market to tne farmers of bas-o.n Tennessee, western North Carolina, upper Georgia, and North Alabama. As the great staple industries became more profitable, a Tendency /as manifested to boast of the prosperity of the South, to proclaim ner s + rengt.n rather than her dependence, and to glorify agriculture and assert its superior- ity to other industries in every aspect - in productivity, in the development of individual character and strength, as the conservator of tne rors] aA 1 order, as a guarantee of the permanence of republican .institutions, ana as basis for the political power of a nation. Planters had long complained that they were at the mercy of the """hey power", the Bank of England, or combinations of speculator, and spinners, who took advantage of the necessity of cotton planters to realise quickly upon ■ ' ' *t . . t , « , 214 their cotton in order to pay advances they had received while tneir crop was growing. As late as October, 1*51, a cotton planters’ convention at Macon, Georgia, published a scheme for organising the planters to Keep up tne price of c ott on. 23 Later in the decade, with demand outrunning production, tne "law of supply and demand" seemed sufficient guarantee against exploitation, "Cotton has outlived the money power of the Bank of England, " wrote a contributor to "Many years since, Mr, VTa n Buren ..... said tnat a combination of tne Bank of England ’diminshed tne value of every man’s property in America. ' ihis was particularly true at the South, That plan was tried to check the rising values in 1*56 abd 1*57; but for the first time without success. The combinations of spinners are of no avail; the manufacturing wants exceed the power of the South. ” 2 ^ There were even signs of a breaking away from tne deplorable system of advance to planters; and certain it is "hat the advances came more frequently from home banks and les3 frequently from foreign factors than formerly. 25 The South was beginning to accumulate the capital with wnich to market her staples. There was reason for self-congratulation also in the way the >outh came through the financial crash of 1*57. The South was not as hard hit as the test and North, and, because of large crops at good prices, recovered more rapidly. 26 Southern merchants paid their debts in Eastern cities a3 usual in 1*5*; 27 and Eastern merchants were induced to seek purchasers in the a-ath 23. DeBow’s Review, XII, 110, 121-6, 275-*0. 24. Ibid, XXVII, 106. ’’Cotton is king. The Bank of England was until i*- 1 - eJ y 3 but the last time she tried to put on the screws she failed? J.H. Hammond in the Senate, Mar* 4, 1*5*, Cong . Globe, 35 Cong,, 1 Syss., 25. DeBow’s Review , XXVII, 106; Hunt’s Merchants.’ Magazine, XL II, 157; Charleston Courier, Nov, 5, 1*60, 26 . DeBow’s Review, XXVI, 92, 5*2, quoting the United . St a te s E^pn o mie t. 27. Charleston Mercury , Mar. 11, 1*5*, quoting the New York Herald; time's. Merchants* Magazine. XXXVIII, 5*3. v . ' t x ■tftj ! II < ' < , . < , « 215 rather than in the West, 2 * Never before had Southern banks held so large a proportionof the nation's 3pecie as in 1^5^, l p 59 and 1*60.^ This favor ao la balance may have been due in some degree to smaller purchases of Northern and foreign goods after the panic, and, possibly, to a partial carrying out of threats of non- intercourse in retaliation for the Northern "aggressions 1 ’; but the chief explanat ion lies in the unusual sums realized from the crop of those years. Formerly when comparisons had been made between the 3lave 'holding and the free states, Southern men had generally been content to trace’^outhern decay to other causes than slavery which is in fact all that saved us. 1,30 In 1^4 = all wood Fisher, of Cincinnati, in a lecture there, maintained, "in opposition to the existing opinion on the subject/ that the "South is greatly the superior of the North in wealth in proport ion t o the number of their citizens respec- tively, " 31 This proposition he sought to demonstrate by a formidable array of miscellaneous statistics ingeniously arranged. Both the thesis ana the method of demonstration were comparatively new to the South. J.H. Hammond, reviewing the lecture for the Southern Quarterly. Review, said; "It will be perceived ...» that Mr, F-isner strikes out into a bold and to most persons we doubt not an entirely new train of facts and arguments in the discussion of xhis subject. "32 He refuted some of Fisher’s arguments. Fisher's lecture, however, was well received in the South. 33 Both his conclusions and method were 2*. Charleston Mercury. XL 1 1, 70; De SowJa Review, XXVI, 5*3. 29. Hunt's Merchants.' MagaaAne . XXXJX, 459, XL II, 157; XLIII, 455. 30. J. H. Hammond Vo Calhoun, Aug. 1ft, 1*45, Calhoun Corre s c o nce. 31. Lecture on the North and, the South , before the *oun& pen's Tej^an/JJe Librar y. AaTSTSt i n qf Cincinnati . 1*49 (pamphlet? p.7. The lecture is DeBow's R ev iew, VII, 134 ff., 262 ff. 32. Southern Quarterly Review, 276. 33. DeBow's Review. VII, 134, Fisher was made editor of the 3 JrggJ . , a snort lived organ established in Washington, 1*49, by southern members o Congress, . , . < < , , « 4 216 followed with increasing frequency in succeeding years, chiefly, no doubt, because slavery must be defended, but partly because the economic position of the South seemed to justify doing so. Alexander H. Stephens defended slavery by demonstrat ing the superiority of the slave state of Georgia over the free state of Ohio in prosperity and all other respects in which abolitionists were wont to make invidious comparisons, 34 B. F. Stringfellow used Fisher’s method xn his pamphlet, "Negro Slavery No Evil"; as did many other less able defenders of the institution. The arguments of those who would diversify Southern industry were frequenxly refuted during the few years preceding the war, "For fifty years," wrote George Fitthugh, "she {the South) has been more usefully, more industriously, more energetically and more profitably employed than any people under the sun. Yet all the while she has been envying and wishing to imitate the little truck patches, the filthy, crowded, licentious factories, the mercenary shopkeeping* and the slavish commerce of the North. " 3 5 The Montgomery Dailv. Co nfede. r 'Ktion, a conservative organ, protest^ against the doctrines which found favor in t ne Southern Commercial Convention: "That the North does our trading and manufac- turing mostly is true, and we are willing that they should. 0ur3 is an agricultural people, and God grant that we may continue so. We never want to see it otherwise. It is the freest, happiest, most independent, ad with us, one most powerful condition on earth. "36 Those who attended the Southern Commer- cial Convention and interested themselves in schemes for the regeneration of the South, made much of the argument that commercial independence would augment the political power of the South and enable the Southern people to better ddfend 34. Cleveland, Alexander H. Steghena, in Publifi. ^Private, 4l(>. 32; 432-59. 35. DeBow’s Review . XXIII, 5*7. 36. May 1 , ica n. Ne^ ro Sl avery. 373-375, and chart, p. 37C. 4*. Compendium of the Seventh Census, £2aJ£i Ei ? hth Cbneue ^yula^i . 03 page im . The slave populations of St. Louis, Baltimore, and Louisvixle were «maxl. 49, Ibid . . DeBcw Review. XXX, 70, 56. C ott c n Kingdom, I, 3* n. 51 . Domestic Slave Trade , 66 e . . . * . . . 222 population declined during the decade. 58 In Virginia it increased only 3.88 per cent ; in South Carolina, 4.53 per cent; in Kentucky, 6.87 per cent; in ITorth Carolina, 14.73 per cent; and in Tennessee, hut little more. The increase in the total slave population of the United States during the decade was 23.39 per cent, of which at least 20 per cent represented natural increase. ‘ hy no means inconsiderable increment to the labor force of the planting he-ts of cotton states consisted of slaves imported from outside the United States in violation of Federal and state laws. Collins considers 70,000 a ’’moderate and 53 even low" estimate of the number 0 f slaves inpor ted between 1850 and 1660.' DuSois, in his Sunrre salon of the African Slave Trade, asserts that the laws against the foreign slave trade were "nearly nullified," and that the increase of illicit traffic and actual importations in the decade 1850-1860 may almost 54 be termed a reopening of the slave trade. 1 ' 3ut these additions to the l&bcr force of the cotton and sugar plantations were incommensurate with the demand, and could not be made indefinitely. Con- siderable speculation was indulged in as to whence would come the labor vMch would enable the cotton planters to extend their operations in the future and the South to maintain her position as the chief source of the world’s cotton supply. John M. Cordoaa, an old and reliable commercial editor of -Chariest on, saxc. the yearly increase in the cotton crop of the United States was regulated by a fixed law, namely, the increase in slave population, which was 3 per cent per annum. True, production had been increasing at a more rapid rate because of the transfer of slaves from the non-cotton states to the cotton belt and frc... poorer to more fertile lands within the belt; but this process could not go cn initely. Improved methods and labor saving machinery could be considered 52. Ui; ' t v Census, CTUfU' tlon . 59 . 53. Op. Cvg. 20. 54. Pp. 176, 183. f • . ! ' S < * < * -■'V t 223 negligible factors in increasing production. He had no fear of foreign competition. 55 J. B. Gribble, a New Orleans cotton factor who reviewed the trade for Hunt's Merchant s * Karine, believed ths.t the poor wniteS vo be induced by the high prices to labor; in fact, already a change was perceptible and soon many "small crops" would tell with some effect upon the aggregate yield. S6 Other observers thought the tobacco and grain growing states had no redundancy of labor and were unlikely to have "so long as their present pros- perity continues, "57 j he United States Economist, 1859, pictured the cotton states as prosperous and the prospects for the future of toe cottoh industry «» brilliant. With the advancing prices of slaves it would be "impossible to limit the increase of supply to the rule which now governs it, vie, the natural increase C £ of hands." Cultivation would be undertaken by whites. Suggestions that the high price of cotton might lead to its culture oy white farmers in competition with the planters, or that the exorbitant prices of slaves might lead to the employment of white labor upon the plantations, . received considerable attention from a class of Northern and English write, s who werelinterested not so much in the future of cotton as in the future of slavery. White labor, they asserted, was cheaper than negro slave l«-oc-r, and whites could work in the climate of the cotton belt. Robert nussell, tr.e most competent of the British observers, put a high estimaxe upon the advan- tages of the plantation system; but saw no bar in the climate to production 55. DeBow's Review, XXII, 337-49 (Apr. 1857). 56. XXVII, 554-61. 57. Charleston Me rc ury , May 4, 1858, article by P.A. Morse, of’ L ouis iana. Same in DeBow's Review , XXIII, 4*0. 58 . Quoted in DeBow's Rev lew. XXVI, 58 2. 59. F.L.Olmstead, Cotton Kingdom, II, 254-59, 265-7, 186; Journe y in tne. Back Country , 237, 345; Edward Atkinson, Cheap^Cot^n ££ » -* j . Cotton Manuf acturer ; West on, Progress jyL JIav . e Xy > 44 > Girling, Let Slave " ' States. 234, 3 CA; Russell, North America, 2° 4 ff. 224 ,f cotton by white labor. He remarked the considerable Mount of cotton already grown in the' pine barrens, whose climate was even warmer than that of the middle cone or uplands, where most of the plantations were located / 0 The attitude of the people of the South toward suggestions of the possibility of a large amount of cotton being produced by white labor at no distant oay can °est studied in connection with the movement to reopen the foreign slave trade. About lft 56 there was begun a lively agitation in tne cott n states in favor of the repeal of the laws prohibiting the foreign slave trade, this agitation continued until after secession. The movement for the renewal of the slave trade may be attributed in part to the demand of the planting interest for a larger ani cheaper labor supply; to the extent this may be done, the movement testifies to the prosperous condition of .Southern agriculture. The movement snd the accompanying discussion also brought out clearly two divergent conceptions of a proper Southern policy; One looked to the/diversif ication of industry, the encouragement of white immigration, ana tne ueveloorent f f rather than slave labor. In this view, the future lay with the white race, and the South had other interests than slavery. The otner concept un f ,oli.cy looked to the preservation of a slave society and the Plantation system, and was antagonistic to any changes which might endanger the existing social ana scon- omic order. A study of the movement for reopening the slave trade should con- tribute to an understanding of this deep seated division in Soutnern public opinion. A study of the movement illustrates also the growth of disunion sentiment and the existence of sectional divisions in the South, with their basis in conflicting interests. As early as 1*52, L.». Opnrtt, the editor of the Charleston Stannard, advocated the reopening of the African slave trade. Tor a few years he was 60. Worth America, 8*4, 2*5. «f. *.B. Hamoond. The gotten Industrv, »« « 225 almost alone. In the Southern Commercial Convention, New Orleans, 1855, a Louisiana delegate introduced a resolution recommending that Southern congres- men work for the repeal of the Federal laws against the slave trade; out the resolution elicited no discussion. 01 The first responsible loader to publicly espouse the cause was Governor Adams, of South Carolina. In his message to the legislature, November, 1856, he argued at length for revival of the trade , examining the subject in all of its aspects, economic, political, social, and moral. 62 The lower house of the legislature after a short but animated debate, referred the governor’s recommendation to a special canmittee, which was permitted to defer its report until the next session. Apparently only a small minority wished to agitate the subject. 63 In South Carolina as elsewhere, .. . 64 Adams’s recommendation was considered amove to advance the cause of disunion. The Savannah Republican had no idea that it was made in good faith, but only as the "handmaid and twin sister of Disunion." 65 Southern leaders in Congress hastened to correct the impression which the discussion in South Carolina was creating elsewhere, and resolutions were introduced and adopted 66 declaring against reopening the foreign slave trade. But these resolutions failed to check agitation. The subject was injected into the proceedings -®f the Southern Commercial Convention at Savannah, December, 67 1856; and the revival of the trade was favored by a very aggressive minority. At Knoxville the following year, the subject occupied the larger part of the time of the convention. 68 A resolution declaring that the joint patrol article of the Treaty of Washington, 1842, should be abrogated, was adopted. At the ses- 61. DeBow’s Review. XVIII, 628. 62. Charleston Dai l x Courier, Nov. 26, 1856. - Q 63. DeBow’s Review. XXVII, 364. Savannah Republican, Dec. 15, iy. 64. Ibid. . Dec. 5, 1856; Daily National Intelligencer, Dec. 2. 65. Dec. 6, 1856. 66. Cong. Globe . 34 Cong., 3 Sess., 123-6. 67. Proceedings in Savannah Re-publican , Dec. 9-15, 1856; DeBow’s Review, XXII, 81-105; 216-24. 68. Proceedings, in DeBow’s Review , XXIII, 298-320. 1. H 226 sions of the Commercial Convention held in Montgomery, 1858, and Vioksburg, 1859, the foreign slave trade was virtually the only subject discussed. At Vicksburg the convention adopted a resolution declaring that "all laws, state or Federal, prohibiting the African slave trade, ought to be repealed." The delegates from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas formed an "African Labor 70 Supply Association,** of which J. D. B. DeBow was made president. The avowed purpose of the organization was not, as the name may suggest, to encourage the importation of slaves notwithstanding the laws against it, but 71 to conduct an agitation for their repeal. Meanwhile the question had come before the state legislatures. The Mississippi legislature, 1857, had before it a plan, proposed by Henry Hughes, to charter the ** African Labor Immigration Company” to bring in negroes as "apprentices." 72 Ho action was taken upon it. The Louisiana House of Repre- sentatives, by a large majority, passed a bill providing for the importation of 2,500 Agrican negroes to be indentured for a term of not less than fifteen years. A select committee of the Senate reported the bill favorably. The Senate, by a majority of only two votes, postponed the bill indefinite- ly. 73 Both the Mississippi and the Louisiana measure were said to be compatible with the Federal laws prohibiting the slave trade. In the South Carolina Legislatures of 1857-59 the subject was again considered. In January, 1859, DeBow wrote: "Certainly no cause has ever grown with greater 70. DeBow' s Review, XXVII, 120. . VVTrTT 71. Letters, Yancey to DeBow, DeBow to Yancey, DeBow _s Revi e w , XXv , 231-35. 72. Hew Orleans Delta. Feb. 9, 1858; DeBp wjs Revie w, XXV, 627.^ 73. Hew Orleans Picayune. Mar. 5, 21, 27, 1858; DeBow s Revie w, . 491. ff. The report of the select committee of the Senate is in DeBo w _s_ t . fay i . e x, TYTV* 421-24* *74. Henry Hughes, "State Liberties, or the Right to African Contract .Labor,’ in DeBow’ s Review, XXV, 626-53. Report of the select committee of the Louisian^ Senlte, just cited. But see opinion of Secretary of the Treasury Cobb, House Ebcec. Docs. . 36 Cong., 2 Sess. , IV, Ho. 7, 632-o. . . vj«cl 1 22 * We cannot be too critical of the motive© either of those who favored of or those who opposed reopening the African slave trade. The prominent leaders of the movement were disunionists, and were known as 3uch before the agitation had well begun. They saw in the foreign slave trade another issue which would divide the sections, and in the certain refusal of the North to permit the revival of the trade another pretext for dissolving the Union. Vne debate turned almost as much upon the advisability of debating the question as it did upon the advisability of reopening the trade. -‘he Charleston ^preurv. oeplored the agitation of the question because it divided and distracted the -South. ' - Others answered that if disunionists waited for a united South they would never get out of the Union . 90 Thereat majority of the Unionist leaders and newspapers were opposed to raising the question. They charged that the agitation had been got up to promote disunion . 91 Advocates of reopening the slave trade made the counter charge that its opponents were afraid to debate the question on its merits. They were willing to sacrifice the interests of. the South to avoid raising an issue which might endanger the stability of the Union , 9 ~ The agitation for the revival of the slave trade may be regarded as, m a measure, merely a reaction to the excesses of the Garrisonian abolitionists in the North. J. J. Pett/gru , in his report to the South Carolina legislature said; "It is not intended to impute directly or indirectly a want of sincerity to the supporters of the measure; .... but a great many worthy persons are honestly disposed to make issue with the North from a spirit of pure comoative ns 33 , without regard to ostensible causes.' *• , XX ' *• ou0 ' S3. Ibid .. XXVII, 102. See also Olmsted, Cotton 94. Montgomery Dailx Confedept . ^ ^n. 19 1JS9; tion flHl^i^. N.C. against Mg ro mechanrcs) 95 . j.w. Moore, Hj 2 tsa»x2asa..2s£^a/ , me Carol ina on the Eve. of Seces sion, " in A^.^.JZSSSj, - 1 ■ •• 232 because of the objections of whites. Hor were all of those who favored the restriction of slave labor to the plantations working men. Others favored it to prevent a -war between free labor and slave labor in our midst," to make "bite labor -aristooratic" and invite immigration, and to obviate difficulties of controlling slaves in cities and towns. 97 Immigrants from the north and Europe were generally unfimely to slavery There were farming communities in the cotton states from which the "bites would have been glad to have all negroes expelled. 98 In several of the slaveholding states, notably Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia, there were poli- tical divisions based upon the division of eaoh into a farming, largely non--.la.ve- holding section and a planting section or black belt. The people of the faming sections were not generally hostile to slavery, but they did resent the political dominance of the planters. So the fears of Spratt and others that opposition to slavery might grow up in its very midst were not at all groundless. All of these classes hostile or potentially hostile to negroes or slavery or both, were opposed to reopening the African slave trade. If the South were to have immigration, they preferred that It be white i'-nmigration. They were joined by those Who, "bile devoted to slavery, believed it a doomei institution. If emancipation should ever occur, the South would have a quite sufficient 99 race problem with the natural increase of her existing negro population. On the question whether or not it would be to the economic interest of the cotton planters and the South to increase the labor force engaged in the produc- tion of cotton by the importation of slaves from abroad, there was a difference 96. DeBow* 5 Review . XXIV, 602. 97. Charleston Courier, Deo. 28, 1856, letter on -Policy of Planters-; So, Quar . Review, XXVI, 447. 98. Olmsted, A Journey in the Back Countr y, 336 and passim. 99. DeBow* s Review. XXVII, 219. 233 of opinion. In the opinion of the advocate, of reopening the .lave trade, the demand for cotton was growing so rapidly that production could he materially increased without reducing the price. A failure ' ne . - produce sufficient cotton to supply the demand might result temporarily in exorbitant prices which would stimulate production in other quarters of the globe, and, consequently, cause the lose of America's monoply and finally a permanent decline of prices, The cotton crop could not be sufficiently increased without fresh supplies of labor. Reopening toe JJ ~ would supply the deficiency. Further, a revival of the slave trade would lower the prices of slaves and thus reduce the cost of production. As for the possibility of using white labor some, who, as we have seen, believed it available, considered it undesirable; others, waiving the ques' ion of desirability, professed to believe it unavailable. Many seem to have believed, the assertion was so frequently made, » as one ± *"» * n " he cotton, rice and sugar regions, slave labor is not only more productive, . but is the only species of labor which can be depended upon for tne cultivation ofttese great- staples " 1C0 Those who made this assertion knew, of course, that thousands of non-slaveholding whites were engaged in a small way in the production of cotton. DeBow estimated the number so engaged in 1*50 at 100,000; JL 01 the number of slaved employed in the cotton fields he set at "00,000. great majority of the planter claee seem to have talcen little interea J in the poor whites , and to have had less faith in macing them productive member, of society. Ae for European labor, it was not forthcoming, whether for climatic, social, or other reasons. Said DeBow: "it is plain, and time and events have demonstrated the fact, that It is. not European labor which wg. gB*, that 100. A.J. Roane, of Washington, in id . , XX, ""l. 101. Industrial Resources si. the. SjnrthsEa a>£ leatern iiatee, il, J.0i. 234 labor, during so long anexper»nt, has not. taken foot hold in our limits, evidencing thus an incapacity to adopt itself to our conditions and to become amalgamated with us." 108 Naturally the planters themselves, from economic motives alone, (although this aspect of the matter was hot publicly discussed) would not invite competition from a large n^ber of white farmers whether native or immigrant. Opponents of reopening the slave trade denied that it would benefit the agricultural interests. A material increase in the cotton crop would depress prices. Cheap cotton would benefit only the manufacturer; America* position as the chief source of raw cotton was not endangered. Slaves from Africa wouio constitute a poor grade of labor, and, therefore, would not lessen the cost of 103 production, however much they might depress the price of slaves.' Advocates of the reopening of the African slave trade claimed that it would be beneficial to other industries as well a, agriculture. The*** ocstacle, they said, was lack of labor. As Jong a, cotton culture raid more for labor than other employments could afford, it was idle to attempt to divert labor to them. 104 The use of such an argument was plainly an attempt to meet the opposi- tion to the slave trade of those who were urging diversification a proper policy for the South. The argument was l*gely specious, in making it the economic argument for the slave trade was in part abandoned. Diverse i, cationists were not desirous of diverting labor to less profitable indus-ries. In their opinion, the development of varied industry would benefit all. "he , + a i av lab ox' might be used in manufactures, suggestion, which ms made, that slave mooi • 4 -,.s~h+ rt had been tried with small success. However, could not carry great **Jight. It Deen 102. DeSv^'s, Herrin, XXVII, 232. s f . Legislature, 103. J.J.Pettigru, minority report- of a c ™ : ^_® enater Bro oke of Visa. , DeBow»a Review, XXV, l66-l*b; 21 <-* >■', 3P e f the speeches ” “VickTbTrg Convention, iDid., XXVII, o60-b„ anc and papers against reopening the slave ^ra. e, 3-- ra tt M Renort on the 104. The best statement of this argument is in L . ^ - 473 „ 91 . Slave Trade" et€., Montgomery Convention, in r £^— . . . * ■ t 4 . tb efrtat bitacle to the development of diversified industry in the tout was not so much lack of labor as a deficiency of capital. There was much unprof it- ably employed white labor in the S&uth, On the very eve of the 'var, .Villiam Gregg wrote: "The idea that we lack laborers at the South, and will be under the necessity of importing wild Africans, is preposterous." He told why the immigrant did not come South. When he learn3 that "one half of our white oeople, who are willing to work, cannot procure employment — that able-bodied men are roaming about the country- glad to get work at seventy-five cents per day and find themselves - while similar labor commands a dollar or more at the North and West, is it at all surprising that he does not come to the South?"l-'^ ^agaan to the fact that many of the 3laveholding elemen 1 ' in the South including advocates of the reopening of the slave trade, feared the development of white labor and sought to prevent it by keeping the white laborers in a minority. They neither wished to employ profitably tnat already in ne m^uth or to invite immigration. Gregg and others of his way of thinking, on ^he contrary, had no fear of white labor. They wanted to put the wnites 11 ^ as well as the blacks, and they were inclined to welcome immigration from the North and Europe, They professed 'to believe that a white population, n ' ably employed, would not be inimical to slavery. They were not hostile to slavery, but they saw no necessity for subordinating every other interest to t hi* s ingle one. Reopening the African 3lave trade, could it have been accomplished, would have been a measure to perpetuate * he '-a are the South. The New Orleans Picayune took note of this fact. After describing at some length the progress being made in manufactures and internal improve- ments and the changes which were coming over the South, it said : "It is worse than folly to arrest the present direction of capital and enterprise by plans whose effect, if successfully carried into execution, w^uld restore the former . 236 1 o6 tendency of all Southern enterprise to the channel of agriculture." It could not be concealed that there was very strong opposition to the foreign slave trade ©a moral and religious grounds. L. 7. Spratt, the arch- 1^7 agitator said all the women and all the "pious" were against him, ’' The influx of a horde of barbarians, said opponents, would change Southern slavery from a patriarchal institution to one like that of Cuba where cruelty and severity were necessary to control thh slaves. 1 '^ The people of the South were very sensitive to the opinions of the world. "This proposition, if endorsed, 109 would shock the moral sentiment of Christ iandom, " said K oger A. Pryor, - The people of the border states were almos ^unanimously opposed to the agitation of the 3 lave trade proposal. They were charged (by W.L.Yancey and others) with being desirous of maintaining the high prices of slaves because 11C they held the position of sellers of slaves to the buyers in the cotton states. Virginians, against whom the charge was particularly made, repelled the charge with indignation. Virginia was prospering, they said. She had opened a - ield for 3 lave Tabor which rendered it profitable at home, *'•© douot many slave owners in Virginia and other slave selling, 3tates were interested in keeping prices up. But we need not emphasise economic motives to explain the opposition in the border states. They were the states with the largest non-slaveholding copulation, the largest foreign element (excepting Louisiana, of the cotton states)^ and the largest Northern element. In each of the border states xhere 106. May 22, 1*5*. 107, DeBow^ Review. XXIV, 592. 10*. J,J, Pettigru, Roger A. Pryor, H,.7, Hil3.iard, io in . , XX;, 289 ff ; XX^, 5*2, 592. 109. DeBow's Review, XXIV, 5*2. Russell formed a different impression. In Charleston he overheard a conversation on reopening the slave trade. "One made the remark that the South now paid little regard to what Nngland might think of the matter ... I was somewhat mortified to find how little impression ail that has been said and written about slavery has had on those whose pecuniary inter- ests are interwoven with the instit ut ion, " North A me r ic a , 162. 110. Yancey in the Montgomery Convention, D eBov; 1 :• Review, XXIV, 5*5. 111. Wm. Ballard Preston’s reply to Yancey, ibid , , XX IV , 5S5. 237 was considerable emancipation sentiment. Being nearer the North, their people were more sensitive to criticisms of slavery than the people farther south. Their institution was milder and more patriarchal and their moral repugnance to the slave trade had not been blunted by familiarity with it. It is worthy of note that although every/ c oa3t state had either laws or constitutional provisions or both against the foreign slave trade, not one of them was repealed. Not a single state legislature went so far as to pas3 resolutions demanding the repeal of the Federal laws against it. In Mississippi, where, with the exceptions of Louisiana and Texas, the movement was strongest, the Democratic party was afraid to take it up as a new political i3sue,^'' In South Carolina, after two years of agitation, only in the Charleston district was it made an issue in the political campaign of 1^5#. South Carolina leaders who found the agitation prejudicial to the cause of disunion by dividing the South were able to silence the agitation in all but two of the newspapers of the state. Sectional politics was no doubt largely responsible for the origin cfthe agitation. Once begun, however, it is questionable whether considerations of sectional politics did not operate more strongly avainst- the movement than for it. A fair conclusion perhaps would be that only in two or three Southwestern slave states was the movement strong enough to have insured legalizing the reopening of the trade had not federal laws imposed an obstacle^ 4 And the strength of the movement there can be attributed chief!, to economic causes! - .culture was expanding rapidly! Thousands of slaves were being bought for the plantations at prices so high as to absorb a large 3hare of the profits. The comparative prosperity of Southern agriculture during the decade before 112, Henry S, Foote, Scylla and_ Chary b diSj_ 2 54, 113, DeBow»s Review. XXVII, 364, remarks pf Mr, Farrow of 3.C. 113. (X. Se.e ft, A??/y\ 238 the Uar was reflected to a degree in other industries. In 1850 there were 2,004.37 miles of railroads in the Southern states constructed at a cost of §42,181,665. In 1860 the mileage was 8,946.9 representing a cost for construction 114 of §237,376,097. Unlike the railroads of the West they had not "been built 115 entirely with capital borrowed in the East or abroad. Southern promoters ex- perienced difficulty in selling their bonds in the North or in England. Public opinion demanded that the roads be built, and every expedient was resorted to to * sell the stock at home. Because of the difficulty of raising capital, Southern railroads had been economically built; and too often, cheaply constructed and poorly equipped. Traffic had proved light and dividends generally small; the mileage had been extended beyond the immediate requirements; although by 1860 there was promise of better conditions in the industry. The rapid extension of agriculture, under the influence of higher prices, naturally absorbed most of the capital accumulated from the profits of the indus- try. The building of the railroads likewise constituted a heavy drain upon the capital of the South. Notwithstanding, noteworthy extensions were being made in several lines of industry, and plants already established were prospering. The railroads brought in with them machine shops and repair shops. Several rolling mills had been established before 1860. The value of the bar, sheet, and railroad iron made in the South increased from §1,504,443 in 1850 to §2,450,119 in 1860, or 63 per cent. Railroad cars were made in a few shops; and the Tredegar Locomotive works at Richmond made 19 of the 470 locomatives made in the United States in 1860. Stationary engines were being constructed in many places. The production of coal had nearly trebled; although the aggregate was still 114. Ringwalt, Revel oioment of Transportation Systems in the U. S. , 151. 115. Hunt's Merchants * Magazine. XLII, 315; Kettell, Southern Uealth and Northern Profits . 50, 88; Powell, Notes on Southern Uealth and Northern Profits ; Con/?. Globe . 32 Cong., 1 Sess. , Appx. , 1056. 116. All the statistics given in the next few pages are taken from the reports of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Censuses mil ess otherwise specified. The term, "the South", is used to include only the eleven states which seceded. The census reports include mining and lumbering with manufacturing; and there would be no point in making a distinction here. .* ■ . . '■ 239 small, about one-ninth ot' the total production of the United States, The iron industry had notjyet been greatly affected by the coming of the railroads; in tne production of pig iron there was a decline between 1*50 and 1*60. During the years just before the war, the cotton factories, after several years of great difficulties were again prosperous. In 1*55 the Georgia factories were reported in thriving condition* A year or two later similar reports came frorr northern Alabama and western Tennessee* * ' Occasionally the building of a new factory was reported* The attention of the North was attracted to “he re- vival. 11 & General Charles T. James, of Rhode Island, again put nis services at 119 the disposal of any company proposing to establish new factories. " During tne decade 1*50-1*60 the number of cotton factories in Georgia grew from 29 to S3, the number of hands employed from 2,107 to 2, *13, and the value of the product from $1,395,056 to $2,371,207, or 69.97 per cent. These gains made Georgia tne leading cotton manufacturing state of the South, and, in part, justified her reputation as the "Massachusetts of the noutn." considerable gains weie . nc.e also in Alabama and Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina made no p- ogress *n .his industry* South Carolina showed a decline. The revival in a he cotton man- ufacturing industry came too late to greatly improve the showing tne Goutn as a whole made in 1*60. The progre33 in the South had been smaller proportionally than in the country at large, and the product of Southern factories was only one-fourteenth of the total + ’or the United states. The value of the product of Southern woolen manufactures increased 143.55 per cent between 1*50 and 1*60; the increase for the country at large was 42.14 per cent. During the same period the value of men's clothing produced in the South increased <*5.96 per cent; in the United States, 51.55 per cent, ior and shoes the percentages of increase were *9,9 and 70.27. Tne production of 117. Aunt's Merchants' "v .o:.. c, XXXVII, 111; XXX, 7 5b. 11*. Charleston Me rear., , May 2 5, 1*5*. 119, DeBcw 's Review , XXV ill, 244. 240 paper was increased almost xnree fold, and of 'Tinting ? v er seven fold. 3 up in the case of each of the items named the Southern states produced only three cr four per cent of the total output for the United States, a quantity entirely in- adequate to meet the home demand, A res^ectaole beginning had been made in the manufacture of carriages and coaches, wagons and carts, saddlery and harness, nails and srjkes, sashe 3 , d o or3 , and blinds, and in cooperage. In the maou --C - ture of agricultural implements progress had been much slower than in she United States as a whole. The South produced less than sax per cent of the total. Of the manufacture of one article, however, the South had almost a monopoly: of 57 cotton gin factories an the United States, 54 were in the Southern slates, notably Alabama. The value of the ship3 and boats built in the South in 1*60 was $7*9, *70, which sum may be compared with $11,647,461 for the United States. Cf the 631 articles listed by the census as manufactures of the United States in 3.^60, 39* were not made in the South in any quantity whatever, and many others were made only in insignificant quantities. In these two classes fell such ^ common and necessary articles as hats and cap 3, men *3 furnishing, wo me • *s clotn- ing, millinery, carpet3 and rugs, furniture and cabinet ware, earthenware, glass- ware, hardware and cutlery, tools, and stoves and ranges. Pacxed meats may also be mentioned. The Southern states made the best showing, both as regards aggregate vs lue of product and percentages of increase, in types of manufacture wnich ■•■eie closely related to agriculture, or which were comparatively simple in their -rocesses. Thus the value of the flour and meal ground increased f rom $14, ■ , and 49 respectively. Thus Richmond and Peters- burg only could be considered industrial towns. However, as commercial centers the towns cf the South reflected accurately the prosperity of the section. The South was not in the throes of an industrial revolution at the outbreak of the Civil War, and there seers to be little evidence that she was upon the verge of such a revolution. However, there were factors in the situation which pointed to a more rapid development of varied industry in the future. Capital which might be sc employed was accumulating. Southern banks had never been in a stronger condition. The railroads must soon have justified their construction by giving isolated regions access to market, increasing intercourse, and creating new wants. They were breaking down tno3e frontier conditions which because of the great extent of the section, the sparse population, and the natural difficul- ties of forests and rough land3, still lingered in much of the South. The atten- tion of Southern men had been directed to the varied resources of the land. Geological surveys had revealed the coal and iron fields of Alabama and Tennessee, lying in close proximity. Railroads were ready to penetrade them, and tne proces- ses were being developed which would makejpossible their utilization, 3t«ck had been taken of the water power, and the people were beginning to realize what a wealth lay in the forests. Small industrial towns were springing up here and there. Northern men with experience in various branches of industry were filter- ing in; Northern capitalists, who theretofore had found sufficient fields for investment in the North and West were beginning to 3 how an interest in the pos- sibilities offered by the South; a3 were also, to 3ome extent, English and French capitalists. It is conceivable that a temporary depression in the price of cot- ton at the time might have given a decided impetus to the cotton manufacturing industry just a3 it had threatened to do twelve or fifteen years earlier. These facts were not unappreciated in the South. The New Orleans P ic ayung 243. in +he autumn of 195°, said the south had been making progress, alow but posi- tive. "Like a bow in the heaven3 after the 3 term clouds have swept by, we may now see, in looking upon the results of the sectional agitations “ f the immeci- iate past, indications of the commencement of a new era for the South - an era 121 singularly marked with home progress." 3o there were factors which operated on the eve of the Civix Jifar to make the people of the South better content with their economic system and position. These may be briefly summarised. 1. The comparative prosperity of Southern agriculture. 2. A measure of prosperity and progress in other lines of in- dustry, 3. Confidence that the possession of and the ability to control a large agricultural surplus constituted an element of great political powei » 4, A growing c on 3 c iousne ss among slave holders that any consideraols diversi. i cation of industry was incompatible with the security ci slavery. j 121, Quoted in DeBcw »s Rev lev.', XXV, 590. CHAPTER IX Evidences of Economic M otives for Southern Sectionalism During the ieceso ■ rr. the Co it on States , 1^60-1^1 . After the election of November, 1&60, the cotton states made haste to out int^ execution their threats of secession in case of the election of a Republi- can ^resident. In Snuth Carolina the opposition to secession was very weak and ineffectual. The legislature met in special session, November 5. Tne members were almost unanimously for immediate, separate secession, A few voices were raised in favor of cooperation with other Southern states. The legislature called a state convention meet December 17. With few exceptions only immedi- ate secessionists were elected to it. On the fourth day the body unanimously adopted an ordinance of secession. In taking this speedy action South Carolina was not + aking a lean in the dark. Her leaders were confident that other states would soon follow. They were assured by disunion leaders elsewhere that bold action would strengthen the disunion movements in other states.'' If a conflict witn tne Federal government should ensue, there could be no douot of the deci- sion of the cotton states, at least, upon the issue, ,a3 it would then oe, of sustaining a sister state against coercion. Meanwhile vigorous contests were being waged in the other cotton states be- tween those for immediate and|separate secession on the one hand and coalitions of unconditional unionists, cobperationists, and temporizers on the other. The governors, with one exception, we r e secessionists, and the legisla ures were controlled by secessionists. Conventions were called in all the states. Brief campaigns ensued to influence the election of delegates and the action o T the conventions. These campaigns were conducted with gr& at exe;ie/rent. ernors and legislatures anticipated the action of the conventions by seizing per arsenals, and other United States property, and by taking measures to rut ineir 1, Proceedings and debates in the South Carolina Legislature. Hew lork Herald. Nov, 9 -14, 1^60. 2. Speech of Mr, Elmore, Commissioner from Alabama, before tne South Caro- lina Convention, in New York ’eml ■ . Dec. 22, l w 40. > , 245 respective state jon a military footing, Congressmen sent infl ammat or messages from Washington where Senate and house were vainly attempting to patch up another compromise to save the Union. Commissioners from one state to another lent their influence to the secession cause. Considering the tactical advantages of the immediate secessionists, their opponents showed unexpected strength in three states. In Alabama they elected 4^' of IOC delegates, and claimed to nave cast a clear majority of the vote 3 in the election. 0 In the convention they united upon a substitute proposal for a convention of all the Southern states at Nashville, and waged a bitter fight in ..ts behalf. The bitterness of the .struggle was intensified because tne align- ment was the ole. sectional one between northern (Unionist in this case) and souih- ern Alabama, The struggle did not cease when the convention adopted a secession ordinance. In Georgia the opposition cast 42 per cent of the popular vote. In the convention their substitute proposal for a convention of all the slave hold- ing states wa3 defeated by the narrow margin of 164—133; and this, notwithstand- ing the fact that Georgia was already assured the cooperation of four states. In Louisiana also the contest was hot, and the popular vote close; although in tne convention the immediate secessionists prevailed by a large majority. In Texas the tactical advantages lay with the opponents of secession; for Governor Houston was opposed to it and refused to call the legislature in 3-oecial session. How- ever, a self- constituted committee of citizens called an election for delegates to the convention. Their ction forced Governor Houston to assemble tne legis- lature, which approved tne action of the committee. The convention met and pas- sed an ordinance of secession; the people approved its action. After their defeat in the several states the cooperationist and Unionist leaders, with exceptions, 3. Remarks of W. R. Smith in tne Alabama Convention. Smith, History and Debates of -tne Conve nylon of tne Peopl e of A labama, 67 f . ; Hodgson, C radl e of the Confederacy. 502 ff. 4. Avery, History of Cecrmia. 145. expressed a determinat ion to support the course determined upon by the majority. To conciliate them and their following, the secessionist majority admitted them, to positicns/of power and trust in numbers proportionate to, if net in excess ot , their strength. On February 4, delegates from six states, soon joined by delegates from a seventh, met at Montgomery. A provisional constitution for tne Confederate States of America was adopted. A provisional government was organised. Commis- sioners were sent to Washington and to Europe, Measures were taken to provide revenue and to organise an army and navy. A permanent constitution was drafted by the Provisional Congress and submitted xo tne states for ret if icaxion. Meanwhile the secession movements in other slaveholding states had received decided checks, although aggressive fights had been waged by the secessionists in several. In North Carolina the legislature after much debate provided "or an election for delegates to a convention and the submission to tne people, at the same time, January 2*, of the question whether or not a convention should be held. The people elected 82 Unionists- and 3* secessionists, and decided against tne convention by a small majority. 5 In Tennessee, the question of holding a convention was submitted to the electorate and decided adversely by a large map.: j ority . In Arkansas the electorate approved the assembling of a convention, but elected delegates a small majority of whom were opposed to immediate secession. The action of Virginia was expected greatly to influence xnat of -he oor der slave states. The legislature met in special session at Governor Letcher's call and provided for a delegate convention. Ax tne conve tun ^.ec'.i •*», e - ruary 4, the people returned a distinct majority against immediate secession. Although the secessionists waged a hard fight in the convention, all efforts to pass an ordinance of secession were foiled until after Sumter. In Maryland and Deleware no conventions met; in the former because Governor Hicks refused xo call a special session of the legislature. Governor ^ffin. of Kentucky, re- - fo Avivnifll C! V C T_ fTD edia, I, 53*. 247. commended the call of a convention, but the legislature refused. In 1'issouri a legif/teture dominated by State Righ 1 called : » bu ‘ torate returned an overwhelming rcaj ority of Union delegates. -s long as any hope remained that Congress or the Peace Conference would agree upon a settlement which would restore the Union, the people of the border states gave unmistakable evidence of their desire to remain in the Union. Even after it became clear that no such settlement was possible, and when the question became one of choosing between the United States and the Confederate States, they seem to have preferred the Union. However, notice was early given by North Carolina, Virginia, ien- nessee, and Arkansas that continued adherence to the Union was contingent upon no attempt being made by the Federal government to coerce the seceded states. When, after Sumter, President Lincoln issued his call tor troops, seceded and united their fortunes with the Confederacy. The other border states were saved for the Union. With a view to determine whether or not they reveal any evidences of econ- omic motives for southern sectionalism, it is proposed to analyte ,i) v«e argu meats advanced for and against secession after the election of Lincoln; (2) the alignment of the people upon ^secession issue ; (3) the official statements of causes of secession which were published; (4) contemporary unofficial essays at interpreting events; and (5) the formulation of the early economic policies of the seceded states and of the Confederacy. The considerations determining the action of the border states were manifestly so different from those determining the action of the cotton states that they require a separate treatment. Chapter will deal with the first four points mentioned with special reference to the cotton states. The succeeding chanter will deal with the early economic policies of the seceded states and of the Confederacy and with the peculiar econ- omic considerations affecting the decision of the border slave states. There can be n- doubt that the arguments for and against secession in the . cotton statss used after Lincoln »a election related cniefly to the dangers beset- ting slavery and ho w the|in 3 t itution could best be defended. The leading nrgu- : . rts of the secessionists may be summarized; (1) The election had resulted in the triumph of a party which was founded upon and held together by hostility to slavery; which proposed to exclude it from the common territories, in spite of a decision of the Supreme Court, which opposed the acquisition additional slave territory; which looked to the ultimate extinction- of slavery, and whose candi- date had declared the Union could not exisx hair slave ana aalf fiet, 1 South should acquiesce in Black Republican rule, slavery would be doomed; ana the. destruction of slavery would ruin the 3outh. (2) The triumph of a section- al party established a sectional despotism of the stronger section over the weak- er. Just now slavery was the interest in gravest danger; but sectional I '• might be wielded to the detriment of all the interests of the -South. The Consti- tution would not protect the weaker section because in the North the true view of nion as a federation of sovereign states had been lost, and the ^old Fed- eralist idea of a consolidated government had prevailed. (3) The constitution was a compact between equal sovereign states. The Personal Liberty laws of Northern states were violations of the compact. A violation ot ^ne compact oy some of the parties to it released the others from their obligations under it. (4) The quarrel between the sections had become so venomous as to subvert one of the purposes for which the constitution had been formed, namely, to insure domestic tranquility. The constant denunciation of the South and slaver, by pol- iticians, press, oulplt, Platform, and in the schools of the North -as a constant insult to the South anc^no lor-or to be borne. (5) Secession s - - tional remedy . (6) » ™uld, in all probability, be peaceful: One party in the North believed in the constitutional right of secession. #f the other had declared against coercion. Northern industry would be paralysed! bv the interruption of commerce with the South which war would entail; and the. 249. North would be unable t« fight. The threat of coercion would unite the 3outn, and the Northern people would perceive the folly of waging war against a united South. (7) The Southern states, even the cotton states, together possessed pop- ulation and resources sufficient to enable them to take their place among the na- tions of the earth. The opponents of immediate and separate secession agreed with the secession- ists that the crisis must not be allowed to pass without some action being taken. The-; did not consider separate and immediate secession the proper action, hor- ever, for the following reasons: (1) The election of Lincoln was not a jus- cause for secession. He had been elected in a constitutional manner. The politicians of the §outh were partly responsible for this elec ion, -he border not sustain the cotton states on such an issue; it was doubtful if the people of the cotton states could be united upon it. It would be better to wai, >«r = '' e overt act against the rights of the South on the part of the Lincoln government; that would unite the South. ( 2 ) Lincoln would be a minority president. Both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court would be controlled by the Democrats, Lincoln could not even choose a cabinet without consent of the Senate; the inter- ests of the South were in no immediate danger, (3) The Personal Liberty laws were unconstitutional and unfriendly; butane South had never made a united effort tor their repeal. This should be done. If appeals failed, retaliatory legislation might be tried. (4) While anti-slavery sentiment had become fanatical with many, much of the anti-slavery agitation was due to politicians, l-i»rt . .. o had used the slavery question to inflame the passions of the people. A revolu- tion in the attitude toward slavery was even then in progress in the North and in England. The South had many friends in the North; they should not be deserts'. (5) Peaceful secession was an absurdity - unless, possibly, the entire 3-utn could be united. The South was not prepared for war. The masses, who must tig* it, were not convinced of the necessity for secession, (i) Delay would unite the . 2 50 South. Let all the slave states get together in convention and deliver an ulti- matum. If that were rejected, all would go out together. The cotton states had no right to attempt to dictate to the other slaveholding states. (7) The cotxon states alone would make a contemptible, obscure, little republic whose rl ^ts no foreign nation would respect. Wars and strife would be its lot. * he disso- lution of the Union would be hailed in Europe .as the failure of free government. It was a duty to mankind to attempt to preserve -it. These, it is believed, were the arguments most frequently used in ine cotton states during the few weeks which elapsed bexween the election of Lincoln and secession. 6 Their, use, however, c. ade to prove too much. The election of 1«60 turned ostensibly upon the slavery issue. The eiec-.io.. Republican president had for several years been discussed and announced as the proper occasion, or a sufficient cause, for the seceessio t he S uthern states.| An effort had been made during the campaign to commit as many as possible to se- cession in case of Lincoln's election. After the event, conditional disunionists,| notwithstanding the fact that often they attributed the result to the 'oily or wickedness of Southern leaders, could, now tnat it was a &£. MMffl U, i — tification and good conscience see in it a necessity for secession. Secession Eerse sentiment in the South had been a growth of thirty years, it was a known and dependable quantity, it ccnlfet *• increased over night, unconditional se- cvrrnrvpnts to fit the occasion. The occa- ces sionists would naturally adapt tneir r.rgumen - - Sion required that advantage be taken of the excitement of the f uonc n* as result of Lincoln's election. Such considerations/as these must be kept in mind in any study of secession. However, the secession oerse arguments were not altogether neglected during the canvass. Very few advocates of secession spoke tor it without expressing the • u +u a i- 3 ba^ed are too many to enumerate 6. The sources upon wmch this su . -.j e rate hec ords of the here. Special mention might be made of Candler, Tne w ? , ^iera ^, — State of Georgia. Vol. I, and Smith, oj^.cit. 251. vi6W that the Union had been unequal in its material benefits. Scarcely one ad- vocated secession who did not express the belief that secession would be followed by prosperity. Said Yancey at the close of an argument based upon Northern vio- lation. of Southern rights: "While ever loyal to a constitutional Union, I have been satisfied that if Alabama, even, reassured her full power and sovereignty it would be attended by a glorious prosperity." 7 Host of Alexander a. Stephens famous Union speech before the Georgia legislature. November 14, 1*60. was de- voted to proving that in the Union the South as well as the North had "grown grea prosperous and happy,", and was in refutation of one by Robert Toombs, who had resented a contrary view/ DeB^ MiSS continued to give the unconditional d is unionist arguments/ The New York pacers commented upon the "commercial view" of the Union which was being taken at the South. 10 The existence of di.uni.n- ists per, se. was assumed at every point of the contests to control the convention, which were to decide the question of secession. Union orators often prefaced their remarks by saying that their argument, were not addressed to unconditional d is unionists but only to those who preferred a "const it umional - in which the rights of tne 3.»th would be respected/ 1 Gecess uonists frequently denied being of the per se type: it may have been considered good tactics to do It us impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy new many in tne cotton states had by 1*60 arrived at the conclusion that the true mt :■ the South lay in separate nationality irrespective of theoutcomeof tne pending presidential election. There were no test votes on the question. Turing tne 7, Letter of Nov. 15 , 1*60. in New York JSiSii 1M f( iieK /. Candler, Confederate. Records, of. tne state o£ Georgia, yorx Msg ;ux> 93-101. See aleo, ibid. . 53. 114-16. 10. I have used the hew ^or* ^ t lailedgeville, Ga., Hev. *5, 11. For example, Bonj . H* Hill „* * • H - a Life speeches and Writings, 1^40, Hill, Senator Beni am in H. -^ll Hi — oO 0 (J+s r 252 presidential campaign supporters of Bell and of D-uglas charged the Breckinridge men with having broken up the Democratic party with the design cf making possiole the election of a Black Republican president and consequent dissolution of the Union; they appealed to the voters to “rebuke" the secessionists. The statement has sometimes been made that vote for Breckinridge and the combined vote for Bell ujlas indicates fairly accurately the relative strength of the secessionist and Unionists respectively. 12 The statement is inaccurate, an analysis of tne result of the election snows that many voted against Srecrf nridge to rebuke one secessionists, and many were attracted to Breckinridge by the secessionist ten- dencies of is following, but in the main the people divided according to their old party affiliations. In Seorgia, for example, fourteen counties went * or Breckinridge in November which elected Union delegates to the State Convention in December; and fifteen counties which gave majorities for Bell and Douglas elected secession delegates. 13 Northern Alabama gave a majority for Br ckln- ridge (although somewhat less than the normal Democratic majority) but was strongly against secession. The secessionists from principle had steadily grown an numbers. Theirlleaders were able and determined. They had become sarong enough to gain control of tne Democratic party organisation in several staves. But there iafno reason to believe they were in a majority except in Boutn Caro- lina. L. Q. C • Lamar, describing the state of public orinio o i.i .ne shortly after Lincoln's election, said: "There is a fourth class of energetic, .solute, and high spirited men who consider the federal Government a failure, re; the conne ct ion of Northern and -Southern States as unnatural, • ne dence of the latter a sup even abrupt secession reme good. These are for immediate, unconditional, _ This class is dominant in one State, commands perhaps a majority in another, and is influential in all ." 14 The statement was 12. See Avery, History of. Geor g i a, 13:. 13. See Phillips, Oeor;;^a and — ".* r „ 4is - . Letter .. P. rTttdd.ll, Esc. 10, 1*60, - yes, L. 1- _ ■ m. Life, ll'ces • 'Q -l.~ w e c hs_i_, ' 0 3 T • 253. substantially correct* After Lincoln'3 election this class was joined by those wno had not desired secession but believed it necessary under the circumstances in order to preserve slavery. The classes which cameover to secession were chiefly \Vhig3 of the bl ac n belts and, it would seem, tne propertied, mercantile, financial element of the cities and towns. These cla3se3 had been c on3 ervative, They had long protested against useless agitation, believing that t he best policy wa3 one of conciliation and avoidance of contest. Those who persisted in their opposition to secession to the last were chiefly the people of the faming districts and the bacx country, where the slave population bore a relatively smaller proportion to the whites. They were Democrats of the Jackson type or Whigs of + he Clay type. They had never accepted the teachings of the secessionists. They were not hostile to slavery; but they did not have the same interest in its preservation wnich tne planting class had. Party lines largely save way during the contests for control of the state conventions; but in two states at least Whigs showed themselves more favora >le to the preservation of the Union tnan Democrats of tne same districts. The decision in a few localities was influenced by considerat ions peculiar ■' o each. These general statements may be illustrated by a brief analysis of the alignment upon the secession issue in each of the more populous of the cotton 3tate3. In South Carolina tne Unionists of 1^51 were with some diminution of numoer3 the pn'ionists of 1*60. Tne only locality inwnich there was a pronounced Union sentiment was tne up-country farming district aoout Greenville, 3, o» rerry was the leader there, as he had been in 1^51. Hopes that the commercial interest s Charleston would be adverse to secession proved ill-icunded, *ne co- operat ion- ist 3 of 1 c 51 aid not insist upon waiting for cooperation in 1*60: they were con- fident it would come. The secessionists of Georgia in 1^61 were the southern a tgnt s p arty of a * •' >,j 254 with accretions. About trie only prominent leader who had favored secession in 1^50 but opposed it in 1*61 was Herschel V, Johnson. Robert Toombs, Howell Cobb, E. A, Nisbet were the moat prominent of the large number who counselle quiescence in 1*50 and secession a decade later. Georgia was not divided into sections as were several other Southern states. The only large comr'-ct group of counties which elected Union delegates to the' 3+ ate Convention lay along the Northern border. In these counties the white population greatly outnumbered the black. They had long returned Democratic majorities. They had been Unionist in 1*50. It is significant that ever,, county which had a city or considerable town elected secession delegates; notwithstanding the white popul tion preponderated in most of them, and most of them could be cl iSSj.fied as Whig counties. *he gen- eral tendency cf the districts in which the whites constituted a majority to fav- or maintenance of the Union and of the black belts to go for secession is illus- trated by the accompanying table. Counties having a population more than 50 per cent slave are classified a3 black; others, white. Counties are classified as Whig which gave Whig majorities at a majority of tne , residential elections oe- tween 1*44 and 1*60; ethers, Democratic. Counties are classified as Union, se- cession, or divided accordingly as their delegations in tne State convention voted upon H. V. Johnson's substitute for the ordinance of secession, which was tne test quest ion. 15 Black counties White counties ...... Whig counties ...... Democratic counties . . . Whig, black counties . . . Democratic, black counties Whig, white counties . . . Democratic, white counties Totals , . oecess ion Union Divided Totals^ 37 13 7 57 33 39 3 75 25 23 4 52 45 29 6 *0 15 12 4 31 22 1 3 26 1C 11 0 21 23 2* 3 54 70 52 10 132 15. Journal o f the Convention of Georgia , 32. 16, If the counties in which the negroes comprised from 40 # to 5Q/o of tn total peculation be classified as black, the number of 3uch courses . ouj. 1 be increased y 22, of which 11 elected secession, and 9, Union delegates. . ' 255. Of 29 counties which elected secession delegatee to the convention of Ala- bama, 2 U lay in a compact group in the southern part of the state. Of the 23 Union counties, 22 formed a compact group in the northern part of the state. This division corre3r onded roughly with the division between the black belt and the white counties; only a few counties in thelnorihern calf of the state had large slave popul -=tions, and but p ew more in the southern half could be classed a3 white. The alignment al3o coincided with an old sectional alignment wcich had characterised the state politics of Alabama.*' The basis of this long standing sectionalism lay in part in the social differences between the planting region and the farming section, in. part in geography. The people of southern Alabama found an cutlet for their productions through Mobile. The people of a large part of northern Alabama were cut off by mountains from seeking the same outlet; the chief outlets for their productions were the Tennessee river, and, for a few yesr3 before l°fC, the Memphis and Charleston and other railroads. All of tnese routes led into or through Tennessee. The people ofjnorthern Alabama felt that it would be ruinous to their section of the state to 3ecede unless Tennessee should also secede. Threats were made that, in case Tennessee should not secede, nortn Alabama would separate from tne remainder of the state and a3k for union with her. The Whigs of southern Alabama, where they were in the maj ority, generally went over t ^ t he secessionists. Such Whig leaders as H. V/. Hilliard, T, H. Watt s, and T. J . Judge now took their 3 tana with Yancey, whom they had nitherto opposed. The Democrats of ncttnern Alabama, where they were in a large majority, had always 19 been of tne Jackson rather than the Calnoun wing of xhe party, Mobile and Mont- gomery, the one in a white county, the ether, a black, botn went for secession, 17, Jack, Sectionalism in Alabama . I 5 '. Smith, History and Debates of the Convention 0 *' Alabama , passim, es- pecially remarks of Mr. Clark, of Lawrence, pp, 91-90. New York Times. Jan. lft. J onrnal of the Convention of oouth Carolina . 233-3, report of a, p. Calhoun, Com- missioner xo Alabama. 19, Cf. Hodgson, Cradle of the Confederacy. 475. ' . ■ 256 The accompanying table, with items defined as were tno 3 e of a similar table for Georgia, may serve to illustrate certain tendencies to division in Alabama. It doe3 not illustrate tne sectional division, and it does net accurately indicate the position of the Whig party. •Secession Union Totals Black counties , 15 1 16 White counties 14 22 36 Whig counties ....... 15 3 1ft Democratic counties .... 14 20 34 Whig, black counties . . . . 9 0 9 Democratic, black c nun ties . 6 1 7 Whig, white counties . . . . •6 3 9 Democratic, white counties , 19 27 Totals 29 23 52 The opposition to secession in Mississippi centered chiefly in a few Demo- cratic counties situated in the extreme northern part of the state and having relatively small slave populations, and in several Whig counties with large black populations and lying along the Mississippi river. The counties in whicn Vicks- burg, Natchez, and Jackson, tne only considerable towns of the state, 'neve locate^ all gave majorities against immediate and separate secession. It would seem, that, except in a few northern counties mentioned, the opponents of secession were chiefly Whigs. In tne convention the opponents of immediate and separate action were led by Yerger, a 'Whig. The continued Whig opposition to- secession counter- balanced in this state tne tendency to division between districts having large and districts having small slave populations. This feet is illustrated in tne follow- Secession Union Divided Total 3 Black counties ...... 16 . • 6 2 24 White counties ...... 2ft 6 2 36 Whig counties 7 7 2 16 Democratic counties . . . . 37 5 2 44 Whig, black counties . . . 5 5 2 12 Democratic, bl ck counties 11 1 0 12 Whig, white counties . . . 2 2 0 4 Democratic, whine c unties 26 4 2 32 Totals , 44 12 4 60 The contest in Louisiana presented no remarkable feati res. Cld -arty divi- v 1 • lions were swept away. In general the parishes with the^Largeet slave populations went for secession; tnere were exceptions. There were few parishes which could not be considered as belonging to th^blac* belt. There were no rrarked sectional divisions .... he st f " '' c ri9he3 the narth ce " tral ? art of the state and another of Whig parishes near the Mississippi in the southeast corner of tne state elected delegates opposed to immediate secession. Hew Orleans which had always been considered a Union stronghold because of its large foreign and northern population and its commerce with states of the upper Mississippi valley, elected 20 secession end ¥ Union delegates. The city had g it y for the Bell electors in November; the population was overwhelmingly white. The result in New Orleans may be attributed in part to the prevalent excitement and the failure of the conservative Creole population to poll their full strengtn in the convention election. * Several of the secession conventions, following the example of the Second Continental Congress adopted declarations of . -e secession. These documents were drawn up, no doubt, with less regard to hl3tor ~ ical accuracy than to the effect they. right nave upon public' opinion at tome, m the border states, in the North and even in Europe. They all rest the cause of the South primarily upon, the necessity of protecting slavery against Northern assaults . The 3outh Caroline convention published two statement, of causes. One. •The Address of the People of South Carolina - - to the People of the Stavehold- tog State. - - r/' S ° ‘ " ittee ^airman, 21 the other, "A Beclaration of the Immediate Cause, which Induce and u.tify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. was brought in pO ,J a committee of which C. 3. t'emminger was chairman.' In all probability PC Journal of jjj* CowentiffiP jL Hit &S&Z. «L f rV^,, d iq 62. i --'7-7-; McPherson, History of the Rebellion, 12 lb, dev iew lhft \>60. 21. J sum*!, 21. . , , 22. J cur ml . 461-^6; McPherson, oo^cit., t * 23. Journal, 31, 24 the chainren of the respective committees wrote the reports. - '' Rhett r s cor mitt e represented secessionists of long standing of the more extreme sort. They were of the faction which had advocated separate action in 1* 51-1* 52. Memminger rep- resented the more moderate element which had constituted the cooperationist party in 1951-52. The Rhett following 3eerc to have wished to play up the establish- ment of a free trade republic for the purpose, of enlisting European support. The group of which Memminger was a member considered it of f irst import -nee c u- nite the South. It would seem that the\two committees were appointed in order that both factions might express their views. The convention showed a disposition to divide along these lines on several questions. Of the two documents the "Address" was much the abler and more worthy of a oreot cause. The entire substance of it may be found in Calhoun '3 lasu s - t ~ ~ 26 speech in the Senate, March 4, 1*50, the address of the Nashville Convention, and Rhett *s speech in the United States Senate in which he avowed himself a dis- unic-nist. 27 It justified secession by "the accumulated wrongs of half a century."! The great wrong was represented to be the overthrow of the Constitution and tne transformation of th^federal republic .into a consolidated democracy, in which a sectional majority in the North could rule over the minority in tne ^ruth and carry out its measures of "ambition, encroachment and aggrandisement . " a parallel was drawn between the relation of tne Thirteen Colonies to Great Britain and the relation of the South to the North. The South had been taxed f or Northern bene- fit; her cities made "mere suburbs of Northern cities"; her foreign trade "al- most annihilated." The much employed economic interpretation of the anti-slavery movement was given: hostility to slavery had been made the criterion of parties in the North in order t consolidate the power of the section to rule the South in 24. Ca-ers, Life and Times of. '’emrringer , 2*9-95. 25. 'Forks. IV, 542- 74. 26. Nationa l Intel ligence r. July 13, 1*50. 27. ConV . Globe, 3.2, Cong. , 1 Seas Appx, 42-4*. -see’ 00 ' 7e the interest of the fo finer. The address further portrayed the dangers to which slavery was exposed in a consolidated republic, argued the constitutional rignt, eracy. to the slavehold instates to W 1'emminger .'s "Declaration of Immediate Causes" was a brief constitu- tional argument. It stated the compact theory of the Constitution, and contended that the Northern states had violated the letter of the compact by their Personal Liberty laws, and the spirit of it by the anti-slavery agitation and the election to the presidency of the candidate of a sectional party. The declaration was attacked by ^ Gregg, L. W. Spratt, and e ground of incoi ness. It set forth only somejof the causes; it omitted the tariff altogether, laid emphasis on "an incomparably unimportant point." The reply was" made that Southern congressmen voted for the existing tariff; the Whig party had always fa- vored the tariff; the tariff argument would not appeal to Missouri, Ken+w^ , Louisiana; the issue should not be raised then. tf«mmi»ger thought it expedient to put their action before all the world upon thesimple matter of wrongs on the 28 - question of slavery, and that question turned upon the fugitive slave law. The declarations of causes adopted by the Georgia, Mississippi, ana Texas conventions bore greater resemblance to Memminger 's "Declaration o' Causes" than 29 to Rhett's "Address". Robert Toombs wrote the Georgia statement of causes. He told how the North had out grown the South in material jra^, - j, cin - the disparity to bounties, tariffs, subsidies, and other protective legislation. He charged that the anti-slavery agitation had been fomented in the East for the purposes of winning over the West from her Southern alliance and uniting East ana West to wield the power of the governments promote sectional interests . me chief theme of the document, however, was the rise of tne anti-slurry - ae 2 *. Debate in National Dec. 27, 29. McPherson, 0£. cit. , 14 ,f + .h« Public and Secret Proc eedings, of. the C dentin, Geor , 0 fthe committee to report an or- ftan^Tf 3 . - rt i. ■ It - *££& 104. 260 history of aggression upon aggression, and their culmination in the victory of a sectional party, which left no protection for the South but the Constitution, Wo confidence was placed in Republican promises to respect the const at ut ion: "They (tne Southern people ) know the value A f parchment rignt3, A n treacherous hand3, and therefore, they refuse to commit tneir own to the rulers whom the Worth offer us," The Mississippi declaration is fairly epitomised in two sen- tences:; "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- the greatest material interest in the world, - - - Utter subjugation awaits vs in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it," The Texas declar- ation added little to this except the assertion that the Federal government had i 31 '.ailed to protect life andrroperty u^on the frontier. President. Davi3 devoted a large part of hig first me3sage t^ the Confeder- ate Congress, April 2$, 1^61, to a discussion of the|cau3es of secession. The Constitution of the Unitted States provided for a f edera". government, he said; but that had not prevented the rise of a political school which "persistently claimed that the Government thus formed wa3 not a compact between States, but wa3 in ef- fect a National Go vernment, set up and over the States," This doctrine gained the more ready assent in the Worth because as that section gained preponderance in Congress self-interest tempted her representatives to use their power to pro- mote Northern interests atithe expense of the South, "Long and angry controversy grew out of these attempts, often successful, to be - ; f Li ■ section of the coun- try at the expense of the other," In addition there had existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, slavery, which involved interests of such transcendent importance .that the oernsanence of the Union had long been endangered, 'Tit h slavery as the issue there had developed in the Worth a sectional party, 30, J o u r nn 1 of t- he 0 v ~ t e C p n v e n 1 1 i ~ n . etc,, c '6- CfCi , 31, T ex a3 Library and Historical Commission, J ^f the Secession Con- vention of Texas. l r< 6] , pp, 6l ff. 2*1 which had finally gained control of the government. Meanwhile great interests had developed in the South. "With interests of such overwhelming magnitude im- perilled," the people of the South could not consent to live under a sectional government.' " Some people in the Worth believed that President Davis had emphasised the unequal operation of the government upon the economic interests of the sections and minimised the slavery question for the purpose of influencing opinion abroad. They were disposed to take as a more accurate interpretation of the causes of secession, a speech of Vice-President Stephens in which he spoke of slavery >3 the corner stone of the new republic, '"he speech accorded well with Stephens earlier utterances. He, it should be 3sid, was one of the more c "nse rvat ive lead- ers of the South; he had never shown sympathy with the unconditional d is unionists; he had taken little interest in those progressive Southern movements which have been described; he opposed secession t « the last. Moreover, his "Corner Stone" speecn should be read in its entirety. He did not fail to pay his respects to a protective tariff and appropriations for internal improvement . "This old thorn of the tariff, which occasioned the cause of much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. - - - - The true principle is to sub- ject commerce cf every locality to whatever burdens may be necessary to facili- tate it." The people of the North, he said, wanted to preserve the Union because "they are disinclined to give up the benefits they -derive from slave labor." Ac- cording to the reporter, "Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length the extravagance and profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United. States for sever- 33 al years past, - - - ." Unofficial Southern essays at interpreting events after their occurrence also fail to shew general agreement, Cf them, too, it must be ss.id that they were not made to facilitate the task of the student. Tne Charleston T ^~ourp, speaking of 32. Annual Cyclopedia. I, 614 ff. 33, Moore, .v. v ell ion Rec o rd . I, Do”. p. 44-4^, ' . . 262 the Confederate Constitution, said: "The system of partial legislation in the imposition of taxes which has been the prime cause of all the corruption and sec- tionalism vfoich have finally overthrown the Union of the United States is repu- 34 diated by this constitution." According to J. D. 3. BeBow: "At bottom, the quarrel between the North and South is, "Shall the North support itself, or, by means of government action and machinery, be supported by the South? It is the 35 old quarrel of nullification continued under a new name." "A report submitted for the consideration of the Merchants’ and Planters* convention, at Macon, Georgia, October 1861, expressed the thought that the "chief causes of our separa- tion must be found in questions affecting our selling the products of the soil and the purchase of our supplies from others. Governor Joseph P. Brown, of Georgia, who was already defending state rights against the encroachments of the Confederate government, in his annual message, November, 1861, followed a chain of reason quite like that of President Davis in the message already referred to. The people of the North had become consolidationists because they had found that tariff laws, navigation acts, fishing laws, etc. had fostered their inter- ests. "By the instrumentality of these laws, the government of the United States has poured the wealth of the productive South into the lap of the bleak and sterile North, ..." The slavery question had been used to excite the masses. The Southern people had tried to maintain state rights. In the same message, 'with a different bearing (the capacity of the South for self-government), he praised 37 slavery as conducive to the perpetuity of republican institutions. Others put the emphasis on other causes. L. 7/. Spratt,the indefatigibie advocate of reopening the African slave trade, believed that the South had seceded, or should have seceded, for the purpose of perpetuating slave in- stitutions; by the provision of the Confederate Constitution prohibiting the 34. Mar. 15, 1861. 35. DeBow* s Review . XXXI, 2. See articles in ibid. . XXXI, 13-17; 69-77. 36. Ibid. . XXXI, 333. 37. Candler, Confederate Records of the State of Georgia. II. 77-125. * • ■ , * ' s .... ** ■ ' “ • * • 2-3 foreign slave trade, the mission of the South had been betrayed.' The Reverend. Dr. J. H. Thorr.well, sometime editor ofthe S outhern Quart erl;/ Review sought to put the Southern caua^upon the highest possible plane. The Southern states nad seceded because/r-f "The profound conviction th- t the Const itution, in its relatio® to slavery, nas been virtually repealed," He repudiated the suggestion "unat all this ferment is nothing but the result of a mercernary spirit on the part of the cot ton- growing states, fed by Utopian dreams of aggrandisement and wealth, to be realised under the auspices of f ree trade, in a sercarate confederacy of their own." Considerations of such character had been advanced in the South not to jus- tify secession, but to reconcil^her to the necessity of it. Neither had seces- sion been desired to make possible the reopening of the African slave trade', t agitation of that question had only been tne natural reaction of irresponsible „ • •; L- oouthern hot-heads to Garrisonian abolition in the North. Numerous incidents and miscellaneous comments illustrate how firmly grounded were the opinions relative to the economic effects of disunion, which had been inculcated by years of disunionist propaganda. Mayor McBeth, of Charleston, notified agents of Northern steamsnip lines that he would not permit the landing of steerage passingers unless it was guaranteed that they would not become public cnarges. He expected that paupers, fearing destitution in the North as a result 4C of the los3 of Southern trade, would flock South. ^li !. Shorter, of Alabama, wrote t a friend in Missouri saying that the people c-f the South greatly s.. -- pathiced with the conservatives of the North and would gladly preserve them, if 41 possible, from the general bankruptcy which awaited New York City, It seems to 3 &. Letter to Hon, John Perkir.3, of Louisiana, in Moore, Rebellion Record. II, 3 57-65. 39 . The St a he :f the C ^-un+ry : an article republished fro^ he mouther ri J r os- byte rian Review "(pamphlet. New York, l & 6l) pp. 6 ff. 40. New York Herald, Nov. 15, I860. Also ubid. . Nov, 20, quoting Nie New Orleans Courier and Bee on effec f upon North and South; ibid. . Dec. 11, on a threatened exodus to the South. 41. Quoted in New York Times . Jan. 12, 1861, 264. have been expected that northern shipping and northern capital would be trans- ferred to the South; ana from time to time during the winter of i960- 6l, reports 49 came of such transfers which had been or were -'bout to be made.*" Evidence will be given later of the desposition shown at an early date' to taxe advantage of se- cession to promote schemes for direct trade. It was said to be desirable to get "started right". As late as July I96l, DeBov; wrote: "That magic word, .Secession, has transferred thousands of millions of wealth from the North to the South. The North is bankrupt. Her people must migrate to the Vest or starve. . , They do not produce their own food and clothing and will have oxhing va.erewith to pur- chase it. . , Their local wealth, derived from houses, factories, cities, rail- i 43 roads, etc., ceased to exist theinstant secession became an accomplished fact." in the border slave states, where tne maj ority did not believe tnat the election of Lincoln j ustified precipitate abandonment of the Union, frequent ex- pression was given by opponents of secession of a belief xnat fears for slavery ute the chief cause for the action of the cotton ' largely a pretext. A notable example is found in Governor Letcher's message to the General Assembly of Virginia, January 7, lS6l. The cotton states in seced- ing without attempting to secure cooperation of all the slave nolo, ing states '.'ere consulting their own interesxs. Why should not Virginia consider her own? He criticised the tendency of Virginians to ignore the j ust corcplainxs of their own 3tate against the North and unite in the complaints of the coxton states. "The complaints of tnose states are ratner against thejf inancial end commercial policy of the Federal Government, than any action or want of action on the subject of l .,44 -j- si .very . " 42. Quoted in New York 1 ime ~ . Feb. 25 , 1961; New Yorx Herald. Nov. 19, Dec. 20, 1941; G, B. Lamar to Howell Cobb, Mar, 25 , 1941, Toomb3 . Stephens . C 0 b ■: Cor- respondence . 43. DeBow's Reviev/. XXXI, 5. Many others wrote and spoke in a similar strain for example, Vice-President Stephens, speech at Augusta, July 11, 1941, in Moore, Hebe.]. lion Record. II, 274 ff.; Secretary of State Toombs, Instructions to Yancey, Ro3t, and T 'ann, Commissioners to Great Britain, Fi-ance, etc., ,r ar. l4, l & 4l, in Richardson, Messages and Parers of the Confederacy, XI, 7. ' Documents , ' T 3 1 , 265 John A. Gilmer, of north Carolina, said secession had been an ODject in South Carolina for thirty or forty years. The secessionists had desired Lin- coln's election. They did not want guarantees for slavery.'" 0 Governor Hicks, of Maryland, took a similar view. 46 The national Intelligencer put a desire to reopen the slave trade as the foremost cause of secession. John P. Kennedy, of Maryland, a former secretary of the navy, told the history of disunion sentiment in South Carolina. As causes of secession he mentioned a disposition of Southern leaders to undervalue the strength and beneficence of the Union; the belief that the planting states paid all the taxes; visions of a great Southern confederacy, including Cuba, San Domingo, Mexico, and perhaps Central America, with free trade and powerful alliances, and peopled by "swarms of reinforcements from the shores of Afrioa." He did not overlook the fact, however, that the slavery quarrel had become "venomous." 48 John Bell, of Tennessee, said the disunion movement was led by men of distinguished ability with whom the expediency of secession was a foregone conclusion and who only waited a plausible pretext - "men whose imagin- ations have been taken possession of, and their judgments led captive, oy the dazzling, but, as I think delusive, vision of a new, great, and glorious repub- lican empire, stretching far into the South." 49 Andrew Johnson and W. G. Brown- low, of Tennessee, attributed secession to the machinations of disappointed pol- iticians, and emphasized the long standing hatred of the Union in South Carolina. A Kentuckian in South Carolina. Disunion, and a Mississippi 45. Cong. Globe . 36 Cong. 2 Sess. , 580 f f • 46. Annual Cyclopedia. I, 443. 47. Editorials of Nov. 29, Dec. 29, 1860. 48. The Border States . Their Power and Duty in the Present Disorder ed Condition of the Country. (Pamphlet, 46 pp. ) _ 49^ Letter to A. Burnell, Dec. 6, 1860, in Hew York Herald, Dec. 12. 50. Speech of Andrew Johnson in the Senate, Feb. 5, 1861, in Cong, j-pjq p, 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 744 ff . ; v7. G. Brownlow, Sketches, of the Hise, Progre ss and Decline of Secession ; etc., 114 and -passim. 6 266. Valley Confederacy, seemed to be well acquainted with South Carolina history for thirty years; and ascribed to her the leadership in the disunion movement. " hiv- ing made up her mind to disunion for the sake of re-opening tne African Slave Trade, or for the sake of 3 ome other supposed local advantage of her own, or for the sake of vengeance in nar gratification of her hate to tne Union and the na- tion, her policy was to precipitate as many of the other cotton 3 tates as sne could into disunion also," Among other oojects ne mentioned the "cnerisned policy of free trade, direct taxation, and no tariff", and disappointed polici- cal aspirations. Union men in Missouri tried to account for the secession move- 51 ment by other causes than fears for slavery in a Union with the tree states. General John B. Nenderson, Democrat of tne Benton wing, said: "They never left this confederacy ... on account of any tear whatever as to tneir x ignts in negro property. It is a false idea of comme raial greatness. They have, since 1*32, inculcated a doctrine that a Tariff upon imports is a mere burden upon ex- ports; that their cities have languished under the revenue laws of the Government 4 s that their fields have become barren under tne oppressions and actions of an un- just government. The merchant of Charleston to-aay, candialy and sincerely Re- lieves, in case his government can be established, that South Caroli. oe separated from the Federal Union, Charleston in the course of ten years will be- come a New York. The merchants of Savannah have the 3ame opinion, tne merchants of Mobile and the merchants of New Orleans have the same opinion, and unfortun- ately I must say that this doctrine^ f the day is entertained by some of tne mer- chants of the West." Another cause for secession was the desire to filibuster for Cuba and Central America. But the excuse wmcn had been given for secession . ,52 was tne one which found sympathy among the people o> issouii, 51, P? s 4,6. 52. J ournal and F r o c eed ing s of tne is x o r ? v ^ 1 - ± > - ■ 1 ■* ■■ ingg . p. hT. See also majority report ofthe committee on tne Commissioner roir. Georgia, ibid . , J -■ urnal . p. 50 J "f. 2,67 In the North also -there was from the first a large class who orofessed to believe that the cotton states had seceded chiefly for other reasons than fears for slavery and a belief that constitutional rights had been disregarded. This class reposed no confidence in compromises and concessions as Union savers or restorers; no doubt most of them would have been opposed to compromise or concession upon the slavery issue in any case. They advanced various explana- tions of secession. William H. Seward, in a speech of which the Union savers had expected much, credited disunion chiefly to the defeat of Southern politi- cians and their loss of power to govern the country. But he did not overlook the influence of the unconditional disunionists : "More than thirty years he re has existed ? e onsiderab? -v - though not heretofore a formidable - mass of dtisens in certain states situated nuar or around the delta of the Mississippi, who believe that the Union is les3 conducive to the welfare and greatness of those states than a smaller confederacy, embracing only slave states, would be . " 53 Senators Wade, of Ohio, Wilson, of Massachusetts, Cameron, of Pennsyl- vania, Chandler, of Michigan, and Trumbull, of Illinois, inclined to take the view that secession was the outcome of a "rule or ruin" policy on the P^it f Southern leaders. 54 Senator Simmons, of *hode Island, engaged in a colloquy with Thomas L. Clingman relative to the effect of secession upon revenues North and South and upon the imports of the respective sections. "I know," he said, "d art of this scheme has been to make Charleston the great c o. o - ciaJ emporium of the South," 55 A select committee of the House of Representatives reported that "the difficulties growing out of the existence of slavery, he waver viewed by the common poeple, are so far as the leaders are concerned, but a mere pretense, their real object being the overthrow oft he Government, that a 53. Cong , Globe, 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 343, speech in the Senate, Jar.l 54. Ibid ,, 102; 10** ft,; 494; 1370; 13*0 (in order), 55. Ibid,, 1476. . . ' 268 56 Southern Confederacy, of a military character may arise. . . ." The New York Times consistently sought other motives for secession. An editorial of January 4, 1861 gave the desire to reopen the African slave trade a prominent place among the motives for secession. A week later "the expectations of great advantages'* tfhich seaboard cities were to derive from a free trade pol- icy, were canvassed. 57 Another editorial of the same issue considered the long taught belief in the South that "they supported the Union— that they contributed far more than the Northern States to the support of the Government— that the industry of the North was entirely dependent upon their staples and that, if these should be withdrawn, universal bankruptcy, beggary and ruin would instantly overtake the people of the North." Another editorial reviewed a disunion per se 58 a . article by Major W. H. Chase, of Florida, in DeBow's Review ; another was headed, 59 "Proportion of the Burdens of Government Borne by the South;" another dealt with schemes to form "a grand Slave Bnpire to embrace the islands of the Gulf of Mexico and the territories facing it." 5< ^ A number of articles of this char- acter from the Times were published as a pamphlet under the caption, Tpe. Bffec . t of Secession upon the Commercial Relations between the North and the South* apparently intended to influence opinion in the border states. It asserted that "the leading motive or inducement to secession has undoubtedly been the antici- 61 pated material advantages that were to result." Another able panphlet, The Five Cotton States and New York, etc. , took up and refuted, in order, the Southern views that (1) "the commercial policy of the United States is injurious to Southern interests;" (2) "the present course of business in the United States is extremely unfavorable, 56. Cong . Globe. 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 1294. 57 . J an. 12 . 58. Jan. 15, "The Ideas on Which Secession is Based." 59. Jan. 17. 60. Feb. 5. 61. P. 3. Daniel Lord was the author. , . . . • ■ • - i ■ u . . • ; ' . 269 if net unjust, to the South, especially, the five cotton states (3) cotton is king. " Another pamphleteer, Samuel Powell, in Not eg on * 3 o ’jt he r n vVe alt h a nd N o rt he r n 2 r of it s * , Kettell, t nought Kettell 's tnesis, namely, thatfthe South had sup lied the capital which had accumulated at the North, was the keynote of secession. He refuted Kettell *3 statements seriat im . Even the New York Herald, f o rjr/hic h no concessions or guarantees to slavery were too great, occasionally ascribed to sece33ionists other motives (similar to those already mentioned) than a de3ire to force concessions from the North, Ah or to protect the institution of slavery. It is believed that such expressions as those quoted above were represen- tative of the professed opinions of a considerable clas3 in tne Northern ana border states, and that these opinions had some oasis in fact, ihe majority of the people of the North and of the Unionists in the border states, however, 3 eem, clearly, to have been of the opinion that the cotton states had seceded chiefly because of a justifiable or mistaken belief that slavery was endangered and that c onstitut ional rights had been violated in the Union. In the opin ion of many, perhaps most of this class, at least before the organization of the Provisional Confederate Government, the Southern states, .vith the exception of South Carolina, could be saved to the Union by concessions and guarantees relative to slavery. After the organization of the Confederacy the primary object of the compromises was to save the border states. 62. Stephen Colwell, The. Two. Cotton S tates and New York, or. the Social and Ec onom i c Asrects of tne Souther a p ol it i c aa. ^r.i3 is_, J an, - • ' 64 pp. 63. For example, Nov. 19, Financial and Commercial; Dec. R, Feb, 19, 1R61, editorials. <■ < t 1 < , - . - , . . ' chapter X Evidences of Economic "ogives for Southern Sectl cnalism. in tie To rmulatlcn of tlio Early Economic Polici es of the Confederacy and in the Decis: on of the Border Slave 3 o at e 3 A. Early Economic Policies of the Confederacy As soon as secession was assured in the cotton states, indications were given of an intention to tahe advantage of political separation from the North to promote industrial and commercial independence . In studying these indica- tions, however, it must he remembered that from the very first individual seceded states and the Confederate government were not free to formulate econ- omic policies with reference solely to their economic effects. In the brief period before Sumter the policies were determined largely by the necessity of winning over the border slave states, the desire to avoid war with the North, which leaders feared, if they did not expect, and the need for gaining friends in Europe# After Sumter everything else had to be subordinated to the conduct of the war . An ordinance was adopted by the Georgia Convention, January 29 , 1861, declaring it to be "the fired policy of Georgia to protect all investments already made, cr which may be hereafter made by citizens of other states, in mines or manufacturing in this state , and capital invested in any other permanent 1 improvement." A resolution was introduced in the Louisiana convention to instruct the committee on commerce to report on the expediency of exempting from taxation all capital and property employed in manufacturing within the 2 state for a tern of five years. In the Texas Convention a resolution was 1. J oumal ... of the Convention of the Pec ole of Georgia . #1861,p 117. 2. Official J oumal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of Louisiana, 34. A • " 5 ' ' •j <. ' . i O n 17 1 C I X introduced recommending that the legislature give adequate protection to the manufacturing interests and enterprises of the state. 3 Frwn south Carolina and elsewhere, before Sumter, came reports of efforts of the people to make themsel^e - independent of the No. th industrially as well as p 3 itically. Arguments in favor of home industry appeared. Southern manufacturers and mer- chants appealed for patronage on the ground, that the South must be independent in all respects. 4 Secession gave an impetus to projects for establishing direct trade with Eurore. Cavern or Gist, of d th Carclina. asked the legislature t: guarantee the interest of 5 percent per annum upon the capital, invested in a line of steamers to Liverpool, which private parties propose to establish. 5 p n February, following, a public meeting was held in Charleston to consider a veil advanced project for establishing a line of three screw propellers between / Charleston and England, A committee was appointed to solicit subscript ..ons. The legislature of Alabama chartered a ’’Direct Trade and Exchange Company." 7 The committee on commerce, revenue, and navigation of the Louisiana convention was instructed to report upon the propriety of state aid for direct communica- tion by steam between New Orleans and Europe , 6 Governor Brown, of Georgia, discussed the subject of direct trade in his message to the legislature, December 9, I960, He asked authority to send, a commissioner t" Europe to investigate a company which had offered to establish a line of five steamers t 3* J~^rr.al of the 3ec.es s -o n C -inversion c f Texas, 1-961, p. 41, 4, DeBow’-i Aeview . XXX, 371; New York Herald . War, 26 , 1-361, quoting a number of such ar>p -0.s; edit -'rial com-'ewtinr thereon, ibid . , Mar. 27. 5, Ibid , . Dec. 1, 6, Hunt ’v Merchants ’ Ma va? ine . XLIV, 524-5; New York Herald, Mar, 4, 22. 7, DeLmv *s Review. XXX, 3 & 1. 9, G f f icial J ournsl . etc. 36. ' ■ V , , . ' . * 272 make weekly tripe between Savannah and a European port if the 3 tate of Georgia would guarantee a 5 percent return upon the investment, ^ The legiaLature chartered the "Belgian American Cpmpany." 10 Thomas Butler King was sent to Europe to promote direct trade and to represent the state of Georgia in England, France, and Belgium. He was instructed "not to fail to present a clear view of the effect which our Federal connection with the Norther Atates had in attracting, or forcing, our commercii&I exchanges with Europe, coast-wise through the port and City of New York He wa3 to show further that the result of secession "must necessarily be to establish direct commercial and diplomatic intercourse with all the world#" Northern manufacturers, also, who had been protected by a tariff, must now compete on dqual terms with European i I manufacturers* -*• When the legislature met again in November, 1*161, it had at least three direct trade projects to consider. Two had resul'ted from King’s mi33ion; the third was that of an association of Georgians who would establish a line of steamers as soon as the blockade should be raised, if the legislature would subsidise their enterprise, 1 ^ In urging the matter of direct, trade, Governor Brown said: "But our deliverance from political bondage will be of little advantage, if we remain in a state of commercial dependence* "^3 . ^ committee of the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy was formed to organize an excursion trip from Savannah to Antwerp via Havre for the purpose of affording Souther a merchants an opportunity to make arrangements S. Candler, Confederate Records ojf the State of Georgia. II, 6, 7. 10. IbJLd., II, 116; Avery, History of_ Georgia. 131* 11. Candler, op * c it , II, 2o ff, 12. Ibid, , II, 115-17, 322-324, messages of Gov. Brown, Nov, 6, 1861 and Nov, 18, 1862; ibid , , II, 324, report of a special committee of the Georgia House of Representatives, 13. Ibid*, II, 115. , niu it,, . ■ < , ..i. J . . 273 for direct importations,'* 1 Up to the time of hia departure for England as a commissioner of the Confederate States, Colonel A, Dudley Mann pursued hia plans for establishing direct trade, A convention of merchants, bankers and others, met in convention in Macon in October, 1861, to devise a plan to establish credits between the Confederacy and Europe, DeBow *s Review commended the purpose of the convention, 3aying, "It i3 necessary to start right on the removal of the blockade in order that our former vassalage to the North may not be renewed."^ 0 Immediately South Carolina had seceedea .from the Union her convention £nd legislature, was confronted with the problem of framing tariff and navigation laws. &ach of the other states which seceded before the organization of the Confederacy had to solve the same problem, When the Provisional govern- ment was formed the task devolved upon it. The development of the tariff and navigat ion polic ies of the Confederacy wa3 watched witn considerable interest both at home, in the border states, in the North, and in Europe, and throws some light upon the motives of Southern leaders. When South Carolina seceded hot heads in the convent ion w is hed to throw the ports open to the commerce of the world at once. The convention rejected the proposal by a large majority and provided, instead, that the revenue and navigation laws of the United States should be continued in effect, but no duties should be collected upon imports from states ofthe late Federal Union / and no tonnage duties should be collected upon ves39l3 from the 3aid states. Vessels owned to one-third part by citizens of South Carolina or of other 14. New York Herald, Mar, 19, 1861. 15. Ibid ., Mar. 19, 23, 1861. 16. DeBow 1 s H e view. XXXI, 325, AI 30 ib id . , XXXI, 333-47, 274 slave-holding states night be registered as Soutn Carolina vessel::.''' The ac^-ton upon the t;iriff was determined by a member of conaiderut j.on 3 , Revenue v/as needea. Tne members of the convention were dividedjupon the relative merits of direct taxation and a tariff forjrevenue only. The majority were not ready to risk a clash with the Federal government by attempting to collect duties upon goods from other states or by admitting foreign goods free of duty. The Georgia convention adopted an ordinance similar to that of South Carolina by a small majority, thejminor it> wishing to allow the duties to be paid into the Federal treasury, In other seceding states similar action was taken, The states in the Mississippi valley werejmuch concerned about the naviga- tion of the Mississippi River. They wished to continue their trade with the West and they did not wish to antagonize sxates of the upper valley. Senator Slidell, of Louisiana, promised free navigation of the Mississippi while yet in the United States Senate."" 0 An ordinance recognizing the report of the right of the free navigation of the Mississippi by all friendly nations bordering upon it was reported to the Louisiana convent ion along with the ordinance of secession and was adopted unanimously . ^1 Thesis sis s ippi convention adopted a resolution similar to the Louisiana ordinance, also by a unanimous vote»22 The Alabama convention also declared that the navigation of the Mississippi 17, Proceedings in J ournal of_ t he Convention -- of South Carolina -- 1360 . up. 45-47, 67, 33 , 37, 95-96, 103; debate in New York He raid. Dec, 21, 25,1360, Nat io nal I ntelligencer. Dec, 2 5. 13. J ournal -- of the Convention -- of G eorgia. 1361 . pp, 57, 33, S2, 123. The vote was 130 - 119, 19, Ordinances and Cpnstit ut ion of the 3t at e of Alabama , , , 136l . p, 13, the seaports, took no action. Tne Texas convention took no action because it wa3 expected that the Southern Convention at Montgomery would take the matter in hand in a few days. of Jan, 23, 1361 > i ournal of the Proceedi ngs of the. Convention of ordinance People of Florida 1361 . 99. ordinance of Jan, 15i Official Journa l of the M Cdny>, of La, 105. 106, 235, ordinances of Jan* 29, Mississippi, having no 20 . 21 . 22 . Cong . Globe. 36 Cong., 2 Seas,, Official Journal. 10, 13, 235, J o urna l of the. State Co nvention 137, 720. and Ordinances and Resolutions. 63 . t • • . « < 275 23 should not be restricted. It was not an easy matter for the provisional government of the Confederacy to fix upon a tariff and navigation policy. The commercial interests of the seceded states desired and expected free trade or an approximation thereto. Free trade, it was thought, would mean direct trade, -' 1 '- It would tend, too, to conciliate the North and make peaceful separation more possible. As early a3 December 5, 1860, Senator Iyerson told the Senate that, if the Northern .states would let the South go in peace, the new confederacy would treat them as a favored nation in the making of commercial treaties,-'* 3 Free trade would make easier the settlement of the navigation of the Mississippi. It might also win sympathy for the Southern cause in England and France, 26 Qn the other hand the new government must be supported; the people were accustomed to indirect taxes, and the leaders hesitated to test their patriotism at the very start by a resort to direct taxation.^ There were those who wanted a judicio’LB tariff because it wouxd encourage manufactures. There were localities with interests to protect, Louisiana sugar interests demanded a tariff. Others • wished to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to render the South indepen- dent of the North, When in the Alabama convention W,R, Smith proposed that the South shoul a c ont inue free trade with states of the old Union, Yancey said that union. would reconstruct the most material elements of the late Union into a commercial ^ 23 , Smith, Hist or.y ana debates of the Convent ion of the People of Alabama, 1861, p, 184 f; Ordinances and Constitution of tne_ State of Alabama. 33, resolu- tion of Jan, 25. 24, William Porcher Miles to Howell Cobb, Jan, 14, 186l; G.B, Lamar to Cobb, Mar, 25, Toombs. Stephens. Cobb C o rresp o ndenc e ; h at lonal Intel igencer. Dec, 20, quoting the Charleston M ercury , 25, Cong , Glob e. 36, Cong,, 2 Sess. 12, 26 , G.B, Lamar to Howell Cobb, Feb, 9, 22, Mar, 9, 1861, Toombs . Stephens, Cobb C orres pondende ; D&Bsv/’s Review. XXX, 93 ff, r 28. Smith, Hist ory and Debat es of the C 0 nve nt ion -- of_ Alabama, .; 18 6l . p.188 27, Junius Hillyer to Howell Cobb, Jan, 30, Feb, 9, 1861, Toombs. Stephens Cobb Correspondence , ' 1 V < . The attitude of the border 3tate3 was very important. One of the influences understood to be deterring Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and other border states from secession was the fear that manufacturing, mining, and other inter- ests there wouldjbe sacrificed to the free trade principles of the cotton 3tate3, and the people subjected to direct taxation. ^ In various quarters duties upon exports were suggested. In his message of November 7, 1*60, Governor Brown, of Georgia, suggested that the power to levy an export duty upon cotton would be a powerful support to the diplomacy of a Southern confederacy! 33 It would permit the Confederacy to rai 3e ample revenue and at the same time male her import duties 30 much lower than those I of the North that either direct trade would be established or the North would have to adopt free trade. The possibilities of export duties as a protection to home industries were not overlooked. The chief considerat ion, however, in favor of export duties was the need of revenue, A small tax on cotton for example could be easily collected and would net a considerable sum, c ^ In the border states the suggestion of export duties was welcomed because it relieved apprehension of direct taxation. 33 The committee of the Montgomery Convention on a provisional constitution for the Confederate states reported a clause which forbade rotective tariffs and prohibited duties in excess of 15 percent, with the proviso that such 29. Junius Hillyer to Howell Cobb, Jan, 30, Feb, 9, l*6l, Toombs , S tephens Cobb Correspondence ; DeBow *s Review, XXX, 165; iNl at ional Intell igencer, Nov, 27, 1*60, 30. Candler, Confederate Records of the State of Georgia, I, 52, /Uso Howell Cobb in the Provisional Congress, A nnus.! 2, ncy cl oped ia, I, 157; DeBow *s Review, XXX, 564, 31. DeBow Review, XXX, 551,-67, 32. Ibid , , XXX, 565; Charleston C ourier, - : ar. 25, 1*61 « 33. Richmond Correspondence, New York He ral d , Feb, 3, l*6l. , « 277 import and export duties might be imposed "as may be expedient to induce friendly political relations" with nations pursuing unfriendly policies. Tne clause was rejected* 1 ' 1 The provisional constitution as adopted contained a clause almost identical with the corresponding clause of tne United States Constitution. 0 ^ 1 Export duties, however, were not prohibited. On February 9, 1861, the Provisional Congress passed a bill continuing United States laws in force November 1, i860, which were not inconsistent with the Provisional Constitution, 00 Thus the United States tariff and navigation laws were adopted, February 18, Congress modified the tariff law to admit free of duty, 37 oreadstuffs, provisions, agricultural products, living animals, and munitions. By an act of February 28, an export tax of one-eighth of a cent a pound wa3 levied on cotton. 0 ^ On February 22, Congress unanimously passed a lav/ establishing the free navigat ion of the Mississippi,^ By an act of February 26, the United States navigation laws were virtually repealed, and the coastwise commerce of the Confederate states thrown open to the ships of all nations, 1 ^ Another act, of liiarch 15, authorized the transit of foreign mercnandise tiirough the confederate states to points beyond their borders free of duties^' xiegulations were at once made to putfthis act into effect, 42 Thus the Confeder- ate government slowly took steps in the general direction of free trade. Meanwhile the provisional government was engated in drafting a permanent constitution for the Confederacy, On March 4 the clause relating to taxes was 34. Senate Documents. 58 Cong, 2 Sess., No. 234, $oi» 1, Journal of the Provisional Congress of the Conf ederate State s of Amer ica. p, 35. 35. Constitution 6or the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, Art, I, 6,1. 36. Statutes at Lar^e of the Provjs ional Government o_f_ the C onf ederate St at S3 of America, etc.^p. 27. 37. Ic id . . 28, 38. Ibiid, . 42, Sect. 5. 39, Approved, Feb. 25, ibid , . 36; Annual Cyclopedia, I, 157, 40. St atu t es at Large of^ the. Prov i sional Government. 38. 41, r ° id « ~» 70. ~ 42. New York herald. Mar. IS, 21. President Davis’s Message of April 29 , Annua l Cyclopedia. I, 131, 168. . . . ' « « • * « 1 t t 27ft taken up. As reported .from committee, it was almost ident ical with the c orresponding clause of the United States Const itution, R. B, Rhett moved to add the proviso, "but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry," Tni3 amendment was adopted, Georgia, wnicn had a small manufactur ing interest, and Louisiana, vihieh had xhe 3Ugar industry to protect, voting in the negative, ^ The following day a clause was adopted mrfhich gave Congress the power, by a two-thirds maj ority, to lay duties on exports. Upon motion of Rhett, Congress was denied power to appropriate money in aid of internal improvements intended to facilitate commerce. The Texas delegation voted against this provision, and the Louisiana delegation wad divided, ^ Texas was especially interested in the Pacific railroad, and Louisiana in the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi. Tne Constitution was hailed generally in theSouth as the end of prot ectionism and 46 special privilege of all kinds. Vice President Stephens so described it. The Charleston - ercurv termed it, "the first acknowledgment in the fundamental law of any people, of the principle of just and equal taxation," It .must be rigntfully administered, however,'*^ DeBovj^s Review, said, "Tne protective system receives its quietus thus: — South Carolina free traders, however, feared the new Constitution left a loophole for protection^ because it placed 43, J ourna l cf the_ Provisional Congress, ft 53, 864, 865, 44, Toid . . ft69; Art, I, 3,6. 45, Ibid. . 892. The provision made certain exceptions. Art. I, 9,6. 46, "Corner stone" speech, Moore, Rebellion Record. I, Doc. p, 44-45 , 47. Mar. 15, 1861, quoted in New York He raid , ’ ar. IS. 4ft, XXX, 4ft4. I . 279 no maximum limit upon the duties Congress mignt impose. 1'hi3 ms one of the grounds upon which a number in the South Carolina convention . opposed ratification AC of the Constitut ion; the convention, however, ratified the Constitution by a large majority. The provision giving Congress the power to lay duties on exports likewise did not give universal satisfaction:^ In the North, too, a few were inclined to charge that the South had abandoned free trade principles. The South had claimed separate nationality, said one, "and it has proclaimed, not free trade, but a system of virtual, though covert, protection What 3 hall v/e 3ay of their Chinese duty on exports’"^ The early action of the Provisional Congress in continuing in fbr ce the United States tariff law, that is the Tariff of 1857, wa3 not generally satis- factory. The Augusta Chronicle , for example, thought Congress had done well an ignoring the fallacy of free trade (Augusta was a manufacturing town)^? and the action seemed to have a good effect in the border states. D *> But many feared that it was not calculated to promote direct trade or win friends in.^ Great Britain and France or conciliate the North and West. March 2, Mr. ‘Harris, of Mississippi, moved to instruct the committee on finance of the Provisional Congress to enter upon a revision of the tariff with a view to reduction of the duties and an enlargement of the free list. In explanation ho said that when the tariff had been adopted upon his motion, an early revision had been promised "with a view to the future adoption of that policy which was i invite the great Northwest to other and cheaper markets than those to be found in Boston and New York, and also enable the merchants of the Confederate states to obtain their goods at lower rates than those purchased by the merchants of the United 49, J * ur nal of the C c went to r. ,, cf 5.C . .. i 860 .., pp, 207, 214, 255. 50. Ibid . , 253; LeBcw * a. Review. XXXi, 206, 3C5-13; C.3. Lamar to Howell Cobb, Feb. 9, 1^61, Toombs . Steuhe ns . Cobb Corres; ondence. 53$, bi. Powell, s on "Southern 'Wealth and Northern Prof -its ", 29. 52. Quoted in New York Times, Feb. 16, 53, Report of H.P. Bell, Georgia commissioner to Tennessee, I o urnal of_ the Convert A on ;f Georgia. 369. ■ . < ' i . . ■ States, and consequently be enabled to undersell the latter. Tni 3 p licy would throw the evils of illicit traffic upon the shoulders of the Northern States, end put the crown of c ommerc i&l supremacy upon the Confederate States - in ether v;ords, achieve one of the great positive advantages arising from our separation from the unfriendly states of North America - to-wit: commercial independence," 1 -* William Forcher Miles, of Charleston, favored the resolution. He had always supposed the South was desirous of approaching as near free trade as possible. Judge Withers, of South Carolina, want ed to hold out free trade to Europe as an inducement to recognition if the South, A resolution v/as in- troduced into the Louisiana convention, "'arch 26, declaring for entire free trade with the Western states both slave and free. Cn May 17 a new tariff bill was passed in Congress over considerable opposition chiefly from those who desired a measure calculated to produce more revenue. ' 1 ' The duties averaged about 5 per cent lower tha\y those of the Tariff of 1957. Most manufactured goods bore duties of 15 per cent; mo3t important raw materials bore duties of lo per cent; the free list included provisions, breadstuff s, living animals, munitions and munitions materials, and shirs. The bill was to go into effect 57 August 31, Plainly the measure represented a compromise between the vari- ous views of a proper tariff policy. Meanwhile the Congress of the United States had taken action highly satis- factory to the South when it enacted the Morrill Tariff, approved March 2, 1961. The bill fixed moderately high duties to become effective April 1. The oppo- sition press of the North represented the Morrill act as a stupendous piece of 54. Journal of the Provisiona l Congress t s 7 ; New York Herald, Mar. S, Debate cn Harris^ motion. 55. ?f f ic ial J ournal of t he Convent i on of Louisian a , 99; Annual Cyclopedia, I, 431; New York Herald . Mar. 27. 56. J •'urnal of t he Fr ov is ional Congress, 242, act approved v ay 21, 57. Statutes at Larne o f t he P rovisio nal G overnmen t , 127-3 5. The act was amended in minor particulars by act of Aug. 3, ibid. . 171. . : . ’ . ■ 281 . folly which would result in direct trade for the South, make it difficult to re- tain the border states in the. Union, and alienate the/sympathies of Great Britain tip and France. The hew York Times, a Republican paper, opposed it. The London Tirr.cs represented it as a blunder on the part of the North. ^ In the '3 0 uth it was hoped the difference in the two tariffs would promote direct trade. 3outn- ern j ournals and representatives seised the oppostunity afforded by the Morrill bill to play up, for the benefit of foreign opinion, the tariff as a cause of secession; and to present to foreign nations the view that it was to their inter- est to recognise the independence of a people which would continue to maintain as nearly free trade as its necessities would allow. President Davis and Vice- President Stephens both announced that a3 near free trade a3 possible would be 61 the policy of the government. “ Secretary of State Toombs instructed Yancey, Rost, and Vann, Commissioners to Europe, to point out the differing views of the North and South upon commercial p&Iicy, avoid discu33ion of slavery, and to assure European governments that the policy of the Confederacy v/ould be an ap- proximation of free trade. ^2 Later in the year, Secretary Hunter in ni3 in- structions to J. Y. Mason 3tated very forcibly the interest the British people had in the establishment of a free trade republic in America. He neglected, how- ever, to emphasise differences over commercial policy as a cause of separation; the Southern states had seceded when the government of the Union had threatened . . , , . , „63 „ r, , ,, with force andeffect to "destroy their social system." Yancey, Rost, and Lann presentecutne aavan- tages to European nations of an independent Southern confederacy dedicated to 58 . New York Herald. Feb. 1, ft, 1*, 27, 2ft, Mar. 4, 15, 19, 23, 29; Carpen- ter, Causes of the War, 146 f., quoting anumber of Northern papers. There was little debate upon the tariff in Congress. 59. Quoted in Carpenter, or . cit . , 147; to same effect in New York Herald , Mar. 23, 29, Apr. 6. 60. DeBow *s R eview, XXXI, 69-77; Savannah Republican , T, ay 22, in ’*oore. Rebellion Rec ord, I, Diary p. 5. 61. Applet cn *3 Annual Cyclopedia. I, 612; Moore Rebellio n Record, I, 4ft, 62. Mar. 16, lft6l, Richardson, Messages and Pape rs of the Confederacy, II, 3 ff . ' ' ' ' ■ 2 82 64 free trade. Prom the first there was a group in the Confederacy who wanted to make a hold hid for the support of Great Britain and France by granting them valuable commercial advantages for a long period of years, and this group was strength- ened by the outbreak of the war. President Davis, however, believed the proper Southern policy to be to conciliate the North, if possible. In his inaugural address he said: H An agricultural people, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit . There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the 65 Northeastern States of the American Union." Even after the war began Presi- dent Davis promised the North treaties of amity and commerce if it would abandon coercion. He relied upon their dependence upon the South for cotton to secure the good will, even aid, of European countries. Though, as we have seen, the commissioners to Great Britain and France had been instructed to represent that approximate free trade would be the policy of the Confederate government, they 67 were not authorized to attempt any hi$i diplomacy. On May 13, 1861, R. B. Rhett, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, offered resolutions in Congress advising the negotiation of treaties guaranteeing a low maximum of duties for a long period of years. Mr. Cobb moved to amend by stii ulating that such treaties should not extend beyond five years. The amendment was adopted; whereupon, on Mr. Rhett’ s motion the whole matter was laid upon the table. Congress acted upon the belief that the war would be short; there v/ere perhaps still hopes that the North would abandon the war if assured that the Confederacy would not adopt a hostile commercial policy. The necessities of the South were 64. Letters to Secretary Toombs, in ibid . . 34, 42, 60. See also Letter to the London Times, by John Lothrop Motley, in Moore, Rebellion Record. I, 209- 218; Callahan, Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy. 81, 109, 116 ff. 65. Annual Cyclopedia. I, 613. 66. Ibid. . I, 618, 139. 67. Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Secretary of State Toombs, Aug. 7, 1861, asking for new instructions, Richardson, op . cit . . 56-59; DuBose. Yancey. 3%. 68. Journal of the Provisional Congress. 214, 253; Charleston Mercury. June 20, quoted in Moore Rebellion Record, II, Diary p. 13; DuBose, Yancey, 598. 38 . . 283 not yet felt to be great; the Confederacy should hold herself free to adopt any commercial policy she saw fit. Twenty years of free trade with SngLand would destroy the manufactures of the South. Secretary of State Toombs seems to have 69 agreed with Mr. Rhett; but President Davis was m accord with the majority. The representatives in Europe were given no new instructions. As the year wore on and the blockade of Southern ports tightened, the Administration showed a dis- position to rely upon a shortage of cotton for the factories of IhgLand to bring about the intervention of that country. The exportation of cotton was forbidden 70 except through Southern ports; and Yancey, Rost, and Mann wtote Earl Russell that "To be obtained it must be sought for in the Atlantic and Gulf ports of these States."”^ From time to time through 1861 and the early part of 1862, efforts were made in Congress to admit all goods free of duty for a limited period except from the 72 United States. A bill to that effect passed the House April 3, 1862, by a large majority, but was not acted upon in the Senate.' A convention of merchants and planters at Macon in October, 1861, had unanimously recommended the suspension of all duties and the adoption of free trade with all nations at 74 pea$e with the Confederacy; and sentiment favorable to the course was 75 manifested elsewhere. But in general public opinion supported the policy of 76 the government. Confidence was still felt in the cotton is king argument. Those who wished to make the South industrially independent of the North were disposed, 1861, to look upon the war and the blockade as a blessing in disguise. De3ow* s Revi ew reflected this disposition. In July, when the people were confident of an early peace, DeBow wrote: "Secession, disunion, 69. DuBose, Yancey . 600. 70. Act of May 21. Statutes at large of the Provisional Government . 152. 71. Richardson, op. cit . . II, 70. 72. Journal of the Provisional Congress. 277, 290, 489, 549, 743, 820. 73. Schwab, Confederate States of America. 246. 74. Ibid .. 245. 75. Gov. Brown, of Ga. , Candler, Confederate Records of Georgia. . II, 115; DeBow’ s RfiView. XXXI. 536 ff. 75. ibid . . XXXi, 400-404; 412 ff. ***** 2*4 will avail us nothing if we continueto have intercourse with the North and to trade with her there is danger, grave danger, that in making peace with the nrt North we shall restore the old Union in all save the name."'’ In September, DeBow wrote: "The blockade will make U3 very independent at the South, and thank God for it. Every branch of manufactures is springing up. Our people need but 7ft this spur." President Davi3 gave countenance to such an idea in his message of November 1°!, l*6l: "if they (people) should be forced to forego many of the luxuries and some of the comforts of life, they will at least have the consola- tion of knowing that they are daily becoming more and more independent of the 79 rest of the world." As the war progressed the sentiment in favor of restric- . tions on imports and exports grew. This was due, chiefly, no doubt, to a de- sire to coerce foreign governments to recognise the confederacy and raise the blockade; but in part it was the manifestation of a genuine protectionist sen- timent . The early tariff and navigation policies of the Confederacy, then, were determined mainly by the exigencies of the political situation; but there are sufficient indications that, could they have been worked out in peace and inde- pendence, they would have been adopted with expectations of great economic bene- fits to result therefrom. As to what the proper policies were, similar divi- sions would have occurred a3 among the secessionists per se before secession. The free traders would have won, at least temporarily; but the sentiment for protection measures would have been much stronger than the previous attitude of tne Southern people on the tariff and navigation policies of the United States alone would have led one to expect. When the cotton states seceded there waw considerable discussion there as to v/hat states would ultimately join the Confederacy^ and as to what states it was 77. mi, 12. Bee also XXXI, 336. 7ft. XXXI, 323, 51ft. 2S. Annual Cycloped ia, I, 624. ftC. This subject is discussed in Schwab, Confeder a te Staxe s, 23 f - , -55. ■ ■ _ r M ‘ ’ P* •' ; **- < * 1 ** r nal of t he Secession Convent ion of Texas . 53 , . ' ■' 2*7 convention to this clause. President Davis, in his inaugural address, called attention to the clause; but he tnough.it to be the will of the people not to admit atatespvhich did not have interests homogeneous with theirs, Vice- President Stephens expressed a similar idea in his "Corner Stone" speech." 0 Without doubt the opinion was quite extensively neld in the border states and in the North at the time of the secession of the cotton states that a chief object of secession was to reopen the African slave trade. The opinion was perhaps justified by knowledge of the agitation for renewal during the years 1*56-1*55, Tnere are strong reasons, however, for believing that the importance of a desire to reopen the slave trade as a motive of secession v/a3 considerably exaggerated, perhaps purposely so, by men of the border states and the North, The discussion of reopening the slave trade of a few years previous had made very clear that the people of the cotton 3tate3 were badly divided upon the question, Di3unionist3 had tried, and in a measure had succeeded, to silence the agitation because they found that it weakened the disunion move- ment, The discussion of those years had made it very clear, too, that the bcider states were very strongly opposed to reopening the slave trade, Dis- unionists understood also that the sent iment of European nations was against it. Cogent arguments had been presented before the election of 1*60 to show the futility of expecting a Southern confederacy to reopen it. The' 'prospect of reopening the trade was not held out to the electors as an inducement to go for secession during the brief campaign which preceded the election of delegates to the decession c onvent.icns , On the contrary, leaders early gave the assurance 88. The Constitution contained a "three- fifths clause" al3 0. When the matter was being considered by the Provisional Congress, the three-fifths clause was dropped upon the motion of Keith, of South Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi; and Louisiana voted for the motion; Georgia, Alabama and Texas against. Upon motion of A, H, Stephens the vote was reconsidered, and Mississippi reversed her vote. The states supporting the three-fifths pro- vision, it may be said, were those having the largest white population in pro- portion to black. See J ournal of the Prjwisi _q nal _ Congress. 86l, 862. « ' ' ,f ! . . 287a 89 that it was not intended. The conventions of the three most populous cotton states adopted resolutions against reopening by great majorities end without hesitation. The Alabama con- vention adopted, with only three dissenting votes, a resolution declaring the people of Alabama opposed to the reopening of the African slave trade on grounds of ’’public policy". The debate made it very clear that one of the chief reasons 90 of "public policy" was a desire to win the border states. The Mississippi convention by a vote of 66 to 13 adopted a resolution declaring it not to be the 91 purpose or policy of the people of Mississippi to reopen the slave trade. The Georgia convention unanimously adopted an ordinance prohibiting the African slave trade; and Georgia’s commissioners to other states gave the assurance that 92 the people of their state had no design to reopen it. The Louisiana convention, however, seemed to be in favor of reopening the trade. A resolution declaring the people of Louisiana opposed to reopening was rejected, 59 to 49; and another instructing the delegates to Montgomery to resist any and every attempt to reopen the slave trade end to secure a constitutional provision prohibiting it, was 93 rejected, 83 to 28. An analysis of these votes does not show that secession- ists voted against them in great proportion than opponents of secession. The con- ventions of South Carolina, Florida, and Texas seem to have tahen no action on the matter. The Provisional Congress put a prohibition of the foreign slave trade, except from the slaveholding states of the United States, in both the Provi- sional and the Permanent Constitution, only the South Carolina delegation voted, in each case, for a substitute giving Congress the power to prohibit the 94 trade. There was strong opposition in South Carolina to the prohibition. It was strongly criticized in the South Carolina convention. The Charleston 89.. Southern Literary Messenger. XXXII, 13. 90. Smith, op. cii,, 194-211; 228-265. 91. Journal of the State Convention . ., 78, 86. 92. Journal of the Convention of Georgi a. 59, 363, 369. 93. Official Journal of the Convention of Louisiana . 28, 29. See ante,pp.224fd, 94. Jpurnad oi_ the x^oyisionaV Cong yes's, 3ET, 856. xrt 95 Mercury protested against the interdiction. L. Spratt v/as irreconcilable. Mach, ot the South Carolina opposition to the prohibitory clause, however, was made because it seemed to admit that slavery was in itself an evil; many of those opposed claimed not to favor the actual reopening of the foreigi slave 96 trade.' The Louisiana convention refused to specifically approve the action 97 of the Provisional Congress relative to the slave trade; although it ratified both the Temporary and the Permanent Consi tuti on of the Confederate states. Outside these two states there seems to have been little dissatisfaction with the action of Congress. Surely if a desire to reopen the foreign slave trade had been a chief motive of secession, a constitutional prohibition of it would not have been acquiesced in so readily. B. Tiie Deci sicn of the Border States . In the border states after the election of Lincoln, secessionists tried to show that the election of Lincoln, the Personal Liberty Laws of northern States, and the abolition agitation generally, justified secession; and the opponents of secession refuted their arguments. There were those, toe, who wished to mice continuance in tine Union contingent upon securing further guarantees for slavery; there were ethers 7/ho thought such guarantees unnecessary. The discussion of these points differ- in no essential respect from the debate of similar propositions in the cotton states. Furthermore, seces3i onists per sq and unconditional Unionists advanced arguments to show that secession would affect advantageously or detrimentally the material 95. Mar. 15, 1861, quoted in ITow York Herald . Liar. 19. 96. V7. H. Russell, letter of April 30, 1861, on "The 3tate of South Carolina” in IJoore, Rebellion Record . I, Doc. p. 314 ff. 97. Official Journal of the Convention of Louisiana . 60. 61 26 interests (other than slavery) of their respective states, Bui^it wag under- stood from the start that the majority of the people of the border states preferred to remain in the Union if it could be saved intact, xhe initiation of secession must c ore from the cotton states. Ardent secessionists devoted their first efforts after Lincoln's election to persuading the cotton states to take the initiative, in the border states secessionists demoted inly ten percent duties in excluding products from abroad, would give life aft and impetus to mechanical and manuf act ur ing indusxr^ throughout the Soutn, Senator Hunter, the author of the ■‘■ariff of 1^57, promised the border states, especially Virginia, that in a Southern confederacy they v;ould tane the place of New England and other no i>- 3 laveholding states in manuf acturing for the South, "Under the incidental protection afforded by a tariff, laid without other views than those for revenue purposes, there would be an unexampled development of her vast capacity for mining, manuf actur ing, agricultural and commercial product ion,"®^ 1, Randolph Tucker, Attorney General of Virginia, &■$, Cong . Globe, 06 Cong,, 2 Sess,, 4. Letter on the Crisis, Nov, 24, 1^60, New York He ral d , -ec, ne Bov; »s Aeview, XXX, 115. . 290 advanced a similar 'argument. 00 Tne Georgia commissioners to Maryland, Delaware, and Worth Carolina urged in behalf of secession that the cotton states were agricultural and the states named could manufacture for them. Said .Mr, Hall, Commissioner to North Carolina: "Your material interests must be promoted by your speedy union with us in the new government, Tne princely treasures which have been hitherto lavished upon New England, will be poured into your lap."^^ In the border states the free trade proclivities of the people of tne cotton states were feared; and Unionists played ^pon tnis fear. Tney showed now free trade would injure manufacturing interests intheSouth and how the tariff would be an apple of discord in a new confederacy a3 ityiad been in the old. Sherrard Clemens, of western Virginia, said: "It would be for the interest of the coast states to have free trade in manufactured goods; but how would that operate on the mechanical and manuf act uring industry of Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware ? "^G2 Unionists al3o showed that free trade would mean direct taxation. Tne Confederate C 0 ngre33 took cognisance of these speculations in border states when framing their early tariff legislation and the Provisional and the Permanent Const itut ion. -1 ^ Their action was not entirely reassuring, however, 3ince it included placing a prohibition of pro- tective tariffs in the Permanent Constitution, J ohn P. Kennedy, of Maryland, •referred to the belief of some that discriminatory duties would be laid on Northern goods with a view to the establishment of large manufacturing interests ICO, In article , "The Great Issue! Our Relation to It," '->&•, Let . Mes . , XXX .u, IP 7, 101. J ournal rf tne Convent ion o f Georgia, 325, 330, 364. 102. Speech in the House of Representatives, Jan. 22, i86l, in Moore, Re'- td ' ion Record . I, Doc. p, 25* See also Kennedy, The Border States, their Power and Put;, . 23 , 103. H.P, Bell, Georgia Commissioner to Tennessee, reported that the adop- tion of the' policy of raising revenue by duties on imports had strengthened the secession movement, in that state. Journal of the Convention of G ecrgi-i, 36 9* 2bl in the South* The Constitution, he said, had already put a veto upon protec- tion. Once peace 3hould be established, the South would become friends of the North and would revert to free trade. Northern manufacturers could compete with the world in free trade; but Maryland’s could not. Much was aaid of the commercial advantages which would accrue to cities of border states, particularly Norfolk, Richmond,, and Baltimore, from their inclusion in a Southern confederacy. North Carolina had no seaport with prospects of becoming a New York under the stimulus of the free trade and direct trade; it was understood that the trade of the old North State v/ould have to contribute to the upbuilding of Charleston and Richmond and Norf oik*- 1 - In Virginia, however, the commercial benefits of disunion were well canvassed. Thej were being discussed at Norfolk and Richmond shortly after Lincoln’s «L action. In the ^nion, 3aid Tucxer, Norfolk and Richmond would still be dependencies of New York. "With the command of the Southern trade, with her extended Southern connections, with her commercial facilities^ Virginia would be the great commercial, manufacturing and navigation state of the South. Her bottoms would replace tho se of New England - her merchants and factors those of New York - ner factories those of the free states. "107 The efforts being, made in Virginia to develop an extensive foreign trade by building railroads and canals and making arrangements in Europe, were represented a3 "u~ terly vain so long as our federal system cont inues, "• L Visions of commercial grandeur in a Southern confederacy explain in a measure the sympathy with 104, "An Appeal to Maryland," Moore, R ebellion Record. I, Doc. pp. 368-74. J ournal ana_ Br oceedings of the Missouri Convent u?n. 31, report of the committee on Federal Relations. 105, Clingman in the Senate, C o ng . Globe. 3$ Cong., Exec, Sess. of Sen., 1476. 106, Norfolk and Richmond Correspondence, N. Y. ^e raid, Nov, 2 %, Dec. 22. 107, J. Randolph Tucker in article cited above. 108- Willoughby Newton, Nat i onal untei.li.ge nc er , Nov. 24, lloG. . 292 secession manifested in Baltimore. Opponents of secession, ho we vep,were able to show the baselessness of these expectations. Sven should Southern indepen- dence change the course of Southern trade, which mv&s highly problematical, what had Baltimore to hope from the change? they asked. "Will she import for the South, from the head of the Chesapeake, whilst Norfolk lies on the margin of the sea at its north Even merchants of St. Louis were led to believe that somehow separat ion f rom the North would be conducive to her prosperity and hake her the metropolis of the V alley, ' But it was generally recognized that secession offered few or no positive advantages to the western border states. "Disunion at the slave line," 3aid one, "carries such obvious and inevitable destructive results in Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri that no Utopian projector of a Southern Confederacy ha.3 ever yet had the ingenuity to suggest even the plausible semblance of any compensating advantages to these three states. as far as material interests, other than slavery, were concerned, the choice, in case of a disruption of the Union, between going with the Soutn and remaining with the North was a choice between two evils. And in each of the border 3tate3 the decision wa3 affected more powerfully by a consideration of which alternative would cause less disturbance and injury to esiabl is he d relations of trade and intercourse than it was by expectations of positive advantages to result from joining a Southern c onf oderacy . North Carolina was very slow t o 3ecsde. Her people were conservative. 1C;. John P. Kennedy, "An Appeal to Maryland," cited in note 104. 110, J carnal and Proceedings of t he Miss ■•'un C onv ent io n. Proceedings, p. p 6; New York He ral d, Dec. 17, 1360, remarks of r r. Grow in a meeting of the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce. 111. South Carolina. D>3aru' , n. an . d a. Mississippi Valle p C^nf ederac;y , p. a. - ■ 293 The state ms often referred to as the Rip Van Winkle of the South, Leaders of tne secession movement had perfect confidence, however, that Nortn Carolina would go out if Virginia did so; for, aside, from questions of defense, the chief routes of trade and travel lay across the boundaries of Virginia and South Carolina, That portion of Virginia which lay between the mountains and the Chesapeake had important commercial connections with both the Nortn and the South, But the routes of trade upon which Virginia cities depended for their prosperity were to the South and Southwest, The moat important railroad tne Virginia and T'ennessed, ran via the southwest corner of the sxate in tne direction of Chattanooga, whence connection ms had with Nashville, Memphis and New Orleans, Another important road, tne Petersburg and Weldon, ran south and connected with North and South Carolina road3, Tne Snenandoah Valley, however, and much of Northern Virginia, had been made commercially tributary to Baltimore, The commercial interests of Baltimore would be an important factor in the decision of Maryland, Baltimore was the commercial center of central Maryland much of northern Virginia, and to a limited extent for the Susquehanna valley, in Pe nnsylvania. But the most important connection wa3 tne Baltimore and Onio railroad. The road ran up thePotomac river to Cumberland and thence to Wheeling, with a branch across western Virginia to Parkersburg, At Wheeling and Parkersburg connections were made with the network of railroads in the old Northwest, Tne possession of/tnis western c onnect ion promoted Union sentiment in Baltimore, especially because western Maryland and northwestern Virginia snowed strong Union tendencies. John P, Kennedy, of Maryland, referred to xne unf r iendliness of eastern Virginia to Maryland *3 internal improvement policy and the friendliness of the western counties; "Tne true friends and allies of our policy are in the We 3 t, At this momentjthat region i3 making its protest against secessio . It is a matter of deepest moment that we should wisely . • , 294 appreciate this fact."--^ One explanation of the strong union sentiment of western Virginia was the identity of economic interests with neighboring portions of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Maryland rather than with eastern Virginia. The trade of Western Virginia went not across the mountains to Richmond and Norfolk but to Cincin- nati, Pittsburg, and other cities on the Ohio -river and by the Baltimore and Ohio railroad to Baltimore. Governor Fierpont said secession would be fatal to the material interests of West Virginia, "Secession and annexation to the South, would cut off every outlet for our productions. it is quite probable that the failure to complete the Cnesapeake and Qnio railroad and the River and Kanawha canal before the Civil War was a deciding factor in the division of Virginia on the secession issue. a desire to unify x he state had been one of the motives of those who zealously supported tne3e projects. It i3 possible, too, that, could the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad have been completed and successfully operated before 1861, the ties which oound Virginia to the Union would have been mofe difficult to break. It is not without significance that the leading and most persistent advocate of a Western connection, Joseph Beggar, although a resident of the tide-water region, 115 declined to go with hi 3 state in secession, and became an exile during the War, nt In the case of Tennessee, going South would without doubt cause xhe least pi L disturbance and injury to established relationships of trade and intercourse.-*-- 1 - 0 Most of the cotton of Tennessee went via Memphis to A ew Orleans, a comparatively 112. Moore, Re bell ion Rec ords. I, Doc, p, 372. 113. Ibid . , II, Doc, p. 158, Also Virginia Senate Journal and Do ^ ere r, s. extra 3e33ion, 186l, p. 20, message of Governor Letcher. 114. A Richmond correspondent wrote, in New York Mefaiu , Nov, 22, l r -60: "Tne facilities of intercommunicat ion between Western a'nd Eastern Virginia, and the frequent intercourses which result therefrom have procured a unity of j sentiment between the people of both sections which no one co ulWhav e antici- pated ten years ago,,,. They are breaking up the association of the people of the West with- those of the border free states which were heretofore a necessity of trade," lib. Letter of Mon. Joseph Sejfgar to a Friend in Virginia, etc. (Pamphlet l r o2 — anj in ’Tennessee, 13, 22. ■ 1 t 295 small amount went by rail to Charleston and Savannah. Still less, perhaps, went up the Mississippi, and by other routes to the factories of the Ohio yalley. Tennessee tobacco found an outlet chiefly by va, of New Orleans, Mules, hog3, grain,and whiskey from the farming districts were sold to the planters of the cotton belt. With the opening of the Virginia/and Tennessee Vail road, the export of grain by way of Virginia began, imports into Tennessee, however, came from all directions - from New Orleans, from Charleston and Savannah, to some extent from Virginia, and,largely, from Cincinnati, Louisville, and St. Louis by rivers and railroads; it isjnoteworthy that while east Tenne33ee was about as firmly bound to the South by economic ties as any other pui-t, yet no district in the South had a population more loyal to the Union. The explanation lies elsewhere than in such economic c ons ^derations a3 are here stated. What nas been said of the economic tie3 of Tennessee was true in greater degree of Arkansas, There were no railroads, Arkansas products found an outlet chiefly by river routes, Memphis and New Orleans were the commercial centers. Governor Hector stated the situation concisely, Arkansas was disposed to be conservative as were Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, and. Tennessee. 3ut Arkansas was the natural ally of the cotton states. She was bound to them by tne institution of slavery Missouri might rid herself of it; Arkansas could not. "With the mart and channel of Southern commerce in the possession add control of the States of Louisiana and Mississippi, what would be the condition of Arkansas should she determine to adhereto the Union?"-'-' In Kentucky and Missouri it ms generally recognized that a3 far as economic interests, other than slavery, were concerned, the states had much to lose and little to gain by seceding. Mr, Gamble, later governor of Missouri, put the matter tersely in the Missouri convention: "Our interests as a state are bound up inseparably with the maintenance of the Union; our 117. Message to the legislature, New York Herald, Dec, 29, l'-6'. 296 sympathies, our personal sympathies, in a large measure with the eople of the South," n Most of the trade and intercourse ofthese states was with and by way of the free states of the North. They were dependent upon about the same markets as southern Illinois, ^nd-Lana, and Ohio, "It is true," wrote a para- pnleteer, "that much the larger amount of the trade of the Northwe3t tends to the hast, and not in the South, and if weighed in merely commercial scales the question of connection, as between the two would preponderate in favor of T-* X f 119 the Sast," * The east and west railroads, built during the last decade or 30 , had reversed the outlet and outlook of these and other Western states; ana of this the people were well aware, A correspondent of v ohi J. Critiendon wrote him: but since railroads have Intervened there can be no division between the people of the Mississippi valley north of Kentucky (including that state) and ail Kasyand Northeast - the ’railroad ’tells the stor^,"^^ Delegates in the Missouri convention said 3t, Louis owed her greatness to the Union, and nothing should be done to blast her progress,*'"* 1 ' They also gave co ns id e r at i on to the prospect that the route of the Pacific railroad would lie across the state, "And Missouri stands in the pathway of nations; over her soil this pathway must run as inevitably as fate, "^22 But if economic and commercial ties made it almost a necessity that Kentucky and Missouri remain with the North, their commercial relations with the South were so valuable tnat the destruction A f the Union wuid be a great blow to their prosperity, ot. Louis and Louiswiile each had a large Southern trade. Hemp and tobacco were sent South, Mule3 and horses, bacon, por£, and corn were shipped doom the Mississippi or over the ^ouisville and Nashville lift. J our ml and Proceedings A _f t he Missouri Convent ion. Proceedings, p,6'7. See also the address of the ^order State Convent ion to the people of the United States, Moore. Rebellion Record, I, Doc. p. 352, 11 9 , 3 out h Car olina. D isunion, and a ^ississ i:pi Valley Confederacy . 14 . 120. C.J, Davis to J.J. Crittenden, Jan, 1, lft 6l, J ,J ,Cr it ■ ende n U33 . 121, Journal and Proceedings, 11, °6. 122. Pcid ,, 122. , ' ■ 257 railroad and by other routes to the cotto and sugar plantations. The people of the interior states, not only of Kentucky and Missouri but of Illinois, ±owa, Indiana, etc. as veil, whose prosperity depended 3 c largely upon unimpeded access to the sea, felt that they had a greater interest in the maintenance of tne Union than the people *f any other section. Promises of the free navigation of the Mississippi and transit of foreign imports across Southern territory free «f duty, were too insecure and inadequare to reconcile them to the establishment of a foreign power between them and the Guif,^ 2 ^ Governor v 'aBoffin, of Kentucky, who strongly sympathized with the secessionists, said that the "mouth and sources of the Mississippi River camot be separated without the horrors of Civil War. ”^24 Such facts as these help to explain why the people of Kentucky and Missouri were so anxious f or a compromise to save the Union, But considerations ' of benefits or injuries to economic interests were by no means the only c onsiderations determining the decision of border states. Others may be briefly summarized. The question of the relation of slavery to secession in the border 3tates presents several aspects peculiar to them. The people of those states were almost unanimously opposed to reopening the African slave trade. Until it had been prohibited by the Constitution of the Confederate States, the fear that it might be reopened had been one of the chief influences retarding the 125 secession movement. The Constitution of the Confederate states gave Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from the 3lavehoiding states of the United 123, manual Cyclopedia. 1,3 S6. 124, Great Debates in Arcr, History V.276, 123, Washington correspondence, N.Y. rieral d. Nov, 22, 1' Doc. p. & J % 134, Ibid ., I, Doc. p. 353, ; II, Doc, p. 73, 75. 135, J ournal and Proceedings of t ob Mxss our.: C on venison. J ournal. 3 5 , 52, Proceedings, *6, 112, 136* Moore, Rebellion Record, I, Doc. p. 2 Q S, 354; Collins, Third Address etc.; douth C-arcl ins.. P is uni or. and a Mississippi Valley Confederacy, 13. 137. do . Lit . : -e 3 s . . XXXII, 182 ff.; Annual Cyclopedia, I, 730, quoting address o f ten Virginia Congressmen; Letter of Non, Joseph ,£egar to a Friend in Virginia. 28, 300 to maintain the Union by force of arms, furnished the occasion fot the secession of four states. In the cases of Virginia and Tennessee it is quite doubtful if secession wouldjhave occurred had the seceded states been permitted to depart in peace. T3* This was the view taken by an element in the South which wished to precipitate a conflict with the Federal government in ^nier to insure the secession of the border states. Resistance to coercion was the issue which won over conservative Tennessee Whigs such a3 Bell, E, H. Swing, Neil 3.3ro mi M and J ohn Collander.^® It was the issue upon which the secessionists made their last stand in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. It is as difficult to identify the secessionists in the border states as it was the secessionists in the cotton states. In three the people were given no opportunity to vote upon the issuejuntil after the outbreak of war. It is impossible to state just what the issue was when the elctions were held in the other five. It is certain that in no state did the majority favor secession if the Union could be preserved or rec cnstructed without war. In general, it would seem, about the same classes came, sooner or later, to favor secession which had supported the secession movements in the cotton tde, namely; the people of the planting sections and of the cities and tow closely identified in interests with them. As in the cotton states also, the 13’-, 6 f , Fertig, 3.- ~ ^ - , in Tennessee, 20 ff; Kncdes, History -f t he U. 3 . Ill, 344, 37&, 3^3; Beverly Munford, Virginia *s Attitude to yard Slavery as / 3 ece3s ion; J,H,3otts, The Great Rebell icr. 205 ff, I do not name North Carolina in this connection. A large vote was cas+ for secession in January^ when it was still believed a rec onciliation could be effected. The House of Commons unanimously resolved in -February that N. Carolina would go with the South if reconciliation failed, , a m uni C y c 1 o ; e a ia . 1, 537, Tnis was the opinion of men in the cotton states. Report of Jacob Thompson, Commissioner from Mississippi to N, Carolina, Journal of the Convention *f Mississippi, 1 '• b. But see J.G, d^jhoulhac Hamilton, .deconstruct j . on in u. Carolina, 21 ff,; Wm. K, B 0 y ^ Carolina on the Eve of Secession," Am. Hist. Assoc. Kept, 1910, 177. ” ‘ — 139, Moore, nebe lli on Rec o rd. I, Doc, pp. 72, 137. 301 opposition centered in districts in which the slave population was small in proportion to the vhite and in which farming rather than planting was the chief occupation of the people. Whigs, in general, were more averse to secession than Democrats of the same districts. In North Carolina a convention election of January 2ft, resulted in the choice of ft2 const itut ional Unionists and 3ft • secessionists . Tne opinion seems to have been quite prevalent at the time that the Union could yet be peacefully reconstructed; the issue, then, was neither strictly Union versus disunion, nor remaining with the North versus going wit in the South, Of 47 counties in the eastern part cf the 3tate, v/here the slave population was a high percentage of the total inmost localities, 17 chose secession delegates, 30 Union delegates. Of the counties which went for secession 4 were normally YJhig, 13 Democratic, of the counties which returned Union delegates 21 could be classed as Y/nig, 9 &3 Democratic. Tne secessionist counties were grouped pretty well in the southeast corner of the state. Of 3* counties in the western part of the state, in few of which the slaves c instituted more tjian 2 5 percent of the population, 11 selected secession, 27 Union delegates. Of the secession counties 6 were normally Whig, 5 normally Democratic; of the counties returning Union majorities, 23 were hig, 4 Democratic The counties which chose seces- sion delegates were well grouped along the South Carolina border, j/ilmington was strongly Democratic and secessionist; Wake county, in which Raleigh was located, was normally Democratic but strongly Unionist in the Tennessee convention election of Fenruary 9, 9ft, ft 03 votes were cast for Union, 24,749 for secession delegates. Virtually all of the seces’-. . votes were cast in west and middle Tennessee, but the majority in all three 140. I nave U3ed the classification of delegates made by H,M,Wagstaff , otdte Rx^hts and Political Parlies in n. Carolina, 134 . 302 "« 4.1 sect ions of the state were for Union.^ x At this t hne tne people of Tennessee seem to have believed the ^nion could be peacefully rec on struct ed,^ - On June 8 the action of the Tennessee legislature declaring the state independent and ratifying the C on3ti tution of the Confederate States, was submitted to ohe people for their ratif ication, Overwhelming majorities in west and middle Tennessee approved, but in east Tennessee the vote was almost as strongly adverse. 1 -* 3 Tne slave population of the latter section was very small in comparison with the white, an election was held in Virginia, February 4, to choose delegates to tne ptate convention. Tne result was considered a u axon victory , although the d elegates could not be classified accurately as Unionists and secessionists. About 25 or 30 were considered, unc ondit ional secessionists. 1 ^ No test vote was had in the convention upon a straight-out secession resolutxcn until April 4 , when 3ucn a resolution was defeated by a vote of £0 - 45. x "’ iC Tnis was long after it had become apparent that the ^nion could not be reconstructed by agreement, but before it became certain that coercion was the policy of the government. All but 3 of the 45 votes for secession were cast by delegates from counties now in Virginia; all but 14 by delegates from, east of the U]_ ue R^dge. All of the counties with large slave populations lay in the eastern section; it was the planting section. Of the 45 votes in favor of secession, 15 tfere cast by delegates from counties normally Whig; 30 by delegates from counties normally Democrat ic» Tne delegates from Richmond and Petersburg, out not the delegate from Norfolk, voted for secession. After Sumter the convention 141, Annual Cyclopedia, X, 677; New York Times, Feb, 15, lS6l, 142, Report of H.P.Bell, Georgia Commissioner to Tennessee, Journal of t_he_ Convent ion of Georgia, 3 69; Fertig, oeces 3 xp . an., ike . r.s - rue U on i Ti .** .^ 2o, 143, Moore. Rebellion Record, lx, Doc, p. 169. 144, Rhodes, History of the U.3 . III, 309; Tyler, Letters and Time 3 of the lexers , 11, 62 -i. ; annual Cyclopedia, X, 730. 145, J o ur na.l o f t he C ommitt ce of the Who! e of til . Convent ion of Vxrgxnia, 3 303 decided for secession by a vote of 7& to 64, The delegates from north- western Virginia, now West Virginia, Voted almost solidly against secession; those from east of the Ridge voted almost as solidly against it, those from the intervening region were divided. This division in the convention reflected quite accurately the divisions among the people as 13 shown by the popular vote on the ordinance of secession of May 23 and the subsequent division of the state, Maryland and Kentucky declared, finally, for the ^'nion, but there v;a3 strong sympathy in each with the secession movement. In Maryland the East Shore and the western part were strongly Unionist. Secession sentiment developed chiefly in the planting region of central Maryland, and was reflected in Baltimore, In Kentucky it was strongest in the Blue U ra 3s region of the central part and the tobacco counties of the southwest. The delegates in the Missouri convention who wished to resist coercion of the seceded states by the Federal government represented, with a few exceptions, counties along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, ^ There werethe district s^r/hich had a con- siderable slave population; there tobacco and hemp were grown, Tne opposition of the non- slaveholding districts of the border states to secession did not, in general, signify nostility to slavery. IV signified, however, a degree of indifference to the preservation of slavery and a disposi- tion to remember that slavery ms not the only important interest to be considered. This disposition found frequent expression. For example, Mr, 3rodhead, in the Mis so ur i Convent ion, said negro slavery wa3 not- the only 14-6, This is the test vote, not the vote upon the adoption of the ordinance of secession, J ournal of tn^ 3ec ret Session. p« •*. 14 V, ah n - . C c 1 0 0 e d ia , 737 ff; 743, Rhodes $1, 3*7. 14fi. An analysis of several divisions of the Convention, 304 great interest in Missouri. Slaves comprised less than one- ninth of the taxable property of the state. The white population was increasing v o ur whr.es as rapidly as the slave. The slaves were engaged in raising hemp and tobacco principally. There were mining, manufacturing, axd commercial interest carry on which white labor was required. If Missouri 3 eceded, the white laborers woulc^iot come, "when they know that, as far as our political power is concerned, v.e shall be subjected to the cotton lords of South Carolina ana Louisiana." 14 ”' Only in a few localities, such as St. Louis, vnj.cn had a large German and Northern population, was there an active hostility to slavery. The Unionists of the border states entered the war with the understanding that it was a war to preserve the Union, not to destroy slavery. In two, at least, of the border states, Tennessee and Virginia, the divisions of the people on the secession issue corresponded rather closely to long standing sectional divisions. Tennessee sectionalism was based largely upon social differences between the people of the east and those of the middle and west. The people of east Tennessee resented the political domination of the state by the planting society, While they did not hate slaver, , wney believed that the South should be a white man’s country, and that one ran was as good as another. They were not disposed to fight in support of a movement which they conceived to have been inaugurated to perpetuate and establish more firmly an aristocratic social system. Andrew Johnson was a typical represen- - tative of east Tennessee. "We find..," ^id he, "that the whole idea is to establish a republic based upon slavery exclusively, in which the great mass of the people are not to participate." And again, "we hold (in east Tennessee) that it is upon the intelligent free white people of the country tha- all governments should rest, and by them all governments should be controlled.* 143. J ournal and ?r ceeediags. of. Mia^uri C onvenx io^ Proceedings, - • See also xbidTT d p. 3E Record*. I, » ^.Carolina, ■ ^ _ r 1.50 Disunion , a wd. s. Missies yr -1 C - , 50 , Speech i V--- • - , " ■> "1, i -> t 30b The old sectional division in Virginiojhad grown in part out of social differences similar to those in Tennessee, in part from, separation by geographical barriers. Politically it had found expression in disputes over legislative apportionment, appropriations for and location of state aided internal improvements, and the apportionment of taxation. It is significant that the Virginia convention submitted to the people of the state along “itn the secession ordinance, an amendment to the constitution provic-ing •*•••• "Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the commonwealth, and all property shall be taxed according to its value, The purpose of amendment was, of course, to insure the taxation of slaves at the same rate as other property; its proposal was a belated effort of the East to conciliate the West. The sectionalism of North Carolina was not so pronounced, but was not without bearing upon the alignment upon the secession issue. In i«ru Carolina, too, the ad valorem issue was agitating the state upon the eve of secession. It is not possible within the limits of this study to develop the subject of the relation of long standing sectional divisions within several Southern states to the divisions of the people upon the question of secess:.- ; but no study of the reasons for the attitude taken by the people in the largely non-slaveholding districts would be complete which did no-, take them into acc cunt • The decision of the border states was slowly and carefully mace. It was determined largely by fears for slavery, feelings of sympathy and kinship with the people of the cotton states, and considerations of their position in case of war; but]the people of the border states were powerfully influenced in their decision, too, by their judgments as to the probable effect of secession upon the economic interests, slavery aside, of, (the localities Evolve... ia . Journal of the Convention oj Vh^ 134, 150, 0Bi im .so r s.r; Y -ST c7n^ntion of VgS* in Secret dessuon, P. 21. , • 306 From this viewpoint going with the South or remaining with the Union appeared as the choice of two evils. Only in eastern Virginia and in North Carolina did the people of the border states share to any considerable extent the expectations of people of the cotton states of great material benefits to follow secession and the formation of a Southern confederacy. , XT 3UVMARY AND .OCCLUSIONS In this study we have considered some of the economic aspects of Southern sectional ism during about twenty years prior to the Civil War. This period by no ■means includes the beginning of such sectionalism. The people of t he South, generally, were aware of a disparity between the North and South to the advantage of the former in material development — popula- tion, wealth, commerce, industry, financial strength, dis ribution of the comforts and conveniences of life. Although at intervals the Southern people were inclined to be satisfied with their degree of prosperity, their economic organization and methods, and the progress of their section, in general they felt that the Southern states did not enjoy the propserity and were not making the material progress that their natural resources and the efforts of their people entitled them to expect. Thi3 dissatisfaction was not uniformly distributed throughout the South. It was greatest in the older states. It developed in the newer states only as conditions there approximated those of the "Ider. It was greater in the planting than in the farming regions. It was greatly augmented because a political struggle between the sections over slavery, especially, called sharp attention to the relationship between material progress and political, power. The "decline" of the South was attributed to various causes by those who perceived it. Cne group persistently emphasized the alleged unequal operation of the Federal government upon the economic development o' the sections: Somev.hao earlier than the period of this study, Southern leaders, partic ularly of the planting regions^had come to hold widely different views from their colleagues in ether sections as to the proper revenue, expenditure, and commercial policies to be followed by the Federal government. They opposed higa tariffs, hea ,r y governmental expenditures, aid to private enterprises, oouncies, and specie . ■ , 308 favors of all kinds, because they thought thair section was not equally bene fitted thereby. As years went by and they werejnct always able to make their views prevail, they, of the Calhoun school, came to attribute the decline of the South to policies which they had opposed, Thi3 group was strong in the cotton states. Others attached comparatively little Significance to governmental reactions upon economic development; they attributed Southern "decline" chiefly to a t oo exclusive devotion to undiversified agriculture attended, as it was, by industrial, commercial, and financial dependence upon the North and Europe, and by unsatisfactory methods of marketing and buying. These conditions had come about in a natural way; but because of them the^ out hern people produced wealth while others enjoyed it. Men of this class would have diversified agriculture; they pleaded for the introduction of cotton manufactures; they proposed plans for securing direct trade with Europe; they dreamed of railroad connections with the Northwest and with the Pacific which would rehabilitate Souther i cities; they advocated various measures of a protective character on the part of state and local governments; they asked that sectional patriotism and pride take the form of developing the economic resources of the South, Tne3e classes, generally, agreed that slavery wa3 notlthe cause of the lagging prosperity of the section. They agreed, slaveholders and non- slaveholders, that slavery, the plantation system, and the production of great staples, must remain fundamental features of the South’s economic system. Some of them, to be sure, were aware that slavery had off-setting disadvantages in that it restricted the Opportunities of white labor, deprived it of leadership, and, consequently, deprived the South of its full services, and acted as a bar to the immigration of reinforcements. There was a class, also, in the South which opposed Slavery, namely, non- slaveholders of the laboring class who came into competition with slave labor; but the class was only beginning to be numerous and vocal. ' , t i ' * , 305 Not economic reason only explain the determination of the great majority to maintain the institution of slavery. Aside from the fact that it constituted a vast Vested interest, that it was established i ;ial organization and social prestige accrued to the owners of big plantations, was the firm convic- tion that a superior and an inferior race could/not live side by side (the negroes were here to stay) without the greatest social disorders; unless the imferior race were in bondage. Some of the staunchest defenders of the institution refused to support plans for the economic regeneration of the South, because they feared that, if successful, they would prove incompatible with the con- tinued security of slavery. The majority, however, were either unaware of the incompatibility or unafraid. Line their fellow Americans in the other sections, most Southerners were not seeking a static society. They were willing to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. And, while progress and change may have S3 rapid in the ante-bellum South than elsewhere in the Un error to regard Southern society as stationary. Those who emphasized the unequal operation of the Federal government as a cause for Southern decline came early to believe that independent nationality would result in great material advantages. Many of those who advanced the various plans for regeneration mentioned above came eventually to believe that they could better be carried into effect in an independent republic. These views pre sented repeatedly to the Southern people convinced the great majority in the cotton states that while secession might not be attended by any vast positive benefits, it would not be attended by any serious disadvantages; thus were they reconciled to a step which they were convinced was necessary to re- serve slavery and maintain Southern honor, Wien the auspicious occasion came, the cotton states promptly went out of the Union. The people of the oorder states hesitated, ’"ith them slavery was not such a pred^kinat Lng interest. From an economic point of view they stood to lose whether they went out or < i'v 310 stayed in. But confronted by a fait accompli and war on one aide or the other, they went with misgivings, where their sympathies, associations, or interes ts chiefly lay. Now what basis had Southern sectionalism in actual economic facts? There can be no doubt of the divergent economic interests of the sections; one suction was growing less rapidly in wealth and numbers, and was economically dependent upon the other. The divergence dated far back, even into colonial times. Fundamental causes lay in geography, climate, 3oil, and natural resources. Less important were conditions of settlement. The South had received a smaller proportion of thrifty sturdy, middle class stock than had the North, Slavery was both effect and cause. In days when slavery was considered no evil, natural conditions (soil and climate) explain why slavery was estab- lished and flourished chiefly below New Jersey. Once established, however, slavery, notwithstanding its great services in clearing forests, draining marshes, and growing great crops of staple products, was responsible for or tended to perpetuate some of the evils of the South’s economic system. It tended, to keep the South exclusively agricultural and to confine agriculture largely to the production of a few great staples because it was best adopted to such an organization. It was largely res jible for a great mass of undirected, semi-productive white labor in the South, 3ut. not too much should be attributed to slavery. The South was vast in area, population s„ read easily and, perforce, remained sparse. In 1360 the oldest portions of the South still possessed characteristics of a frontier, and their business methods we re appropriate thereto; they were still in the exploitation 3tage, The South wa3 farther from Europe than the North, Her Iwbora were not so good as the® of the North, Her mineral resources were less extensive and less accessible. Her soil wa3 less productive than that of ' ■ . I 311 the Northwest. Her climate was more enervating than that of other sections. The differing views of governmental policies grew out of different economic conditions. Northern states could be benefitted by protective duties; they demanded them and at time 3 secured them. There were more Northern enterprises and projects which were felt to be entitled to government aid; insistent demands were made for such aid and frequently secured. More Federal officials were required in the North; supplies and equipment for government needs could be more readily secured there; consequently most of the governmental expenditures were made in the North, There was justice in the Southern complaint that the South paid more in the form of taxes than she received back in disbursements, and that the difference was a drain upon Southern resources. But in those days Federal taxes were comparatively light, and governmental expenditures comparatively smal^j the operation of the Federal government would seem to have been of 3 mall censeuqance in determining the economic condition o f sections as compared with other great economic forces of the time. What 3 hall be said of the remedies for Southern "decline"? Much more might ha ir e been accomplished than was had the plans advanced by the progressives been earnestly and intelligently carried out either by the state and local governments or the cooperative efforts of private citizens; for example, commercial education, bett embanking laws, improved methods of marketing cotton. But the remedies lay chiefly in time and the natural order of events. Greater density of population would have come. Slavery or no slavery, capital would have come in or would have accumulated out of the profits of agriculture, White labor mu3t have been put to work, first, perhaps, in cotton culture and later in other industries. Cotton manufactures would have sprung up as they threatened to do in the forties and as they did a few decades later. The Pacific railroad wuld ha^e been built. The quantity of commerce would have become great enough to warrant direct trade with Hurope. The development of the section*s forest . 312 and mineral resources would have begun. But the South did not wait for time and the natural order of events. It is perhaps idle to speculate in regard to the economic future of the Sbutherh states if they could have, become an independent confederacy without wars threatening national integrity, .here is little liklihood that secession wouldhave proved the magic proponents prophesied; aboutlthe same progress would have been made as in the Union, Slavery would have endured somewhat longer. The foreign slave trade would not have been reopened. Some industries might have been art if icially stimulated, * measure of financial independence, as far as the actual transaction of business was c n ncerned, would probably have been secured. But'jthe economic advantages would have been off-set by the disadvantages of increased C03t of government and the barriers imposed upon trade with states of the Union, with whicn urade formerly been free. The conditions were not right and the means not present for the formation among the Southern people of a thorough understanding of xhe greao economic problems of the section. The pres 3 was poor and almost wholly partisan, DeBow’s Review , after its founding in 1346, contained almost everything of value written on the economic conditions and problems of the South, Tne volumes were of very unequal merit; many of the articles were flimsy in character. De3ow himself, while a brilliant journalist, possessed of a vast fund of information, and a man of prodigious industry, was neither a man o<- broad grasp nor an impartial seeker after truth. Few books o v^iae ..n economic subjects were published. Much as was said and written on tne in- quest-ion, for example, no considerable study of the|ec onomics of slavery of any value was produced. Too much that was written was baded upon insufficient infor- mation and was speculative in character, A few men apparently did the thinking on economic questions for the vocal part of the population. The reading public was small, probably the thinking public also. The platform and the stump ecu,: . and did contribute little to an understanding of economic problems. The schools nad not yet become centers of study and research along economic line^, especially. Hen of experience in large business affairs were comparatively too few, and seem to have written and talked too little. Much of tne population was volatile and excitable. Tne bitter 3 ectiona.>. quarrel over slavery ..'as noijc onducive to calm thinking* After all, however, the remarkable thing is not how much intelligent consideration the Southern people gave to their economic conditionsjand problems but how little. Northerners and Englishmen contributed something to an understanding of these matters, but too much that they wrote was unsympathetic in c ha racier. x And the Northern people as a whole did noijhave that sympathetic under- standing of the complex social and economic problem o Sfthe South which was requisite to peace and amity between the sections and the eventual solution of tho$e problems* The problems and interests of the sections were so different that serious conflict could be avoided only by mutual understand ing, sympathy* and forbearance. The sections drifted into a war which was not an "inevitable c onflict « " 1* Notable for either breadth of understanding or sympathetic treatment or both were : Kettell, 3c ul her n *7 gal th ?nd "‘Cr »" - n -ns : Olmsteu, A , j j in the Seaboard Slave Spates •. A J our ne j ^ nr. - ugn T exas ; A J ourney in ^ne. Country; Weston, The i?r purges o f Slaver., in me bnot - ~ . N.u ''•e. North America 'E nglish ) . B IBLIO GRAPH Y Public Documents ; Federal and Confederate The Sixth Census of tie United States: 1040. The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. De Bow, J.D.B. Statistical View of the United States ... Being a Compendium of the Seventh Census .... Washington, 1854. Kennedy, Jos. C. G. Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census. .. .Washington, 1862. The Eighth Census: 1860. The Congressional Globe, 26th Congress to the 36th Congress. Congressional Documents, 26th Congress to the 36th Congress. Commissioner of Patents. Annual Reports, Agriculture, 1845-61. Register of the Treasury. Reports ... on the Commerce and navigation of the United States ... , vols. for 1831-36; 1836-43; 1845-47; 1849-61. Statutes at Large, 26th Congress to the 36th Congress. Mathews, James M. The Statutes at Large of tie Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the govern ment, Feb. 8, 1861, to its Termination, Feb. 18, 1862.... Richmond, 1864. Journal of tie Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America (U.S. Senate Documents, 58 Cong., 2 Sess., Ho. 234, Vol. I). Public Documents : State and Local Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of a General Convention of the State of Virginia, Assembled at Richmond ... 1350 ... . Richmond, 1850. ■ 315 Journal of tlie Acts and. Proceedings of a General Convention ox the - -ate o_ Virginia, Assembled at Riciimond ••• ISol. j.chmond, — - --x. Virginia House Journal and Documents, 181-0-61. chrnond. Virginia Senate Journal and Documents, 1840-6.-, jchmond. Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia (published annually and biennually) . Ricimond. Tlie Convention of tie People of Horth Carolina, Held on tlie 20th Day of -ay, A.D. , 1861. Raleigh, 186x.. Journal of the State Convention of South Carolina, together with the Resolutions and Ordinances. Columbia, 1852. Journal of the Convention of the People of ~outh Carolina, ^-eld in x^oC, l-*"-!, and 1862, together with Ordinances, Reports, and Resolutions, etc. Columbia, 1862. Report of the Commissioners appointed at the Last session of uhe General ^-sem- bly to inquire into the feasibility of improving the channel of the 3ar of Charleston Columbia, 1852. Report; Containing a Review of the Proceedings of the City Authorities from the 4th September, 1837, to the 1st August, 1338 .... By Henry L. Pinclcney, Mayor. Charleston, 1838. A Digest of the Ordinances of the City of Charleston ... 1783 to •• -- - -0 which are annexed the acts of the Legislature which relate exclusively to the City of Charleston. Ordinances of the City of Charleston from ••• Aug. 1844, to ...Sept* Iu51; and the Acts of the General Assembly relating to the City of Charleston. 1854. j; 316 Ordinances of the City of Charleston ... 1854, to the 1st December, 1859, and tiie Acts of the General Assembly .... compiled by John R. Horsey ... 1859. Journal of the Georgia Convention held in Hi lie dee vi lie in 1850. Hilledgeville, 1850. Journal of the Public and Secret Proceedings of the Convention of the People of 'Georgia, held in Hilledgeville and Savannah in 1861, togeth- er with the Ordinances adopted. Hilledgeville, 1861. Hotchkiss, W. A. Codification of the Statute Law of Georgia. Savannah, 1845. Candler, A. D. The Confederate Records of the State of Georgia, Vol.s I - III. Atlanta, 1909-10. Ordinances and Consitution of the State of Alabama, with the constitution of the Provisional Government and of the Confederate States of America. Montgomery, 1861. Acts of the General Assembly of Alabama, 1843-1860 (published annually and bi- ennially) . Tuscaloosa and Montgomery. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Mobile, with the Charter and an Appendix..- 3y the Hen. Alexander McKinstry. 1359. Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi, and the Act callingthe same; ...(1850). Jackson, 1851. Journal oi the State Convention and Ordinances and Resolutions adopted in January, 1861 .... Jackson, 1861. Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of Louisiana which assembled at ... Hew Orleans, January 14, 1845. Hew Orleans, 1845. Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of Louisiana. Hew Orleans, 1861. * I * ... . ♦ ■ vis ' h| % t . - * • 4 i 317 Acts of the Legislature of Louisiana, 1840-61 (published annually) .l ew Orleans. Digest of the Ordinances and Resolutions of the Second Municipality and of the General Council of the City of Hew Orleans, applicable thereto, Jan. 1848. By F. R. Southmayd, Sec’y. , Texas Library and Historical Corrmiasion. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861. Austin, 1912. Magazines and Periodicals The American Whig Review. 16 vols. Hew York, 1845-52. DeBow's Commercial Review of the South and West. 38 vols. Hew Orleans ,1846-70 . Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review, 63 vols. Hew York, 1839-70. Hiles’ Weekly (national) Register (Vols. L-LXXV) . 75 vols. Baltimore and Phila- delphia, 1811-49. The Southern Literary Messenger, zJa vols. Richmond, 1834-64. The Southern Quarterly Review. 16 vols. Charleston, Jan. 1842 to Jan. 1850. The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. 43 vols. Washington, 1838-59 • The Western Journal and Vivilisn. 13 vols. St. Louis, 1848-55. llewswaoers Hew York Herald, Jan.-Je., 1854; Jul. -Dec. ,1857; Jan. -Je. ,1859; Jul. ,1860-Je. 1361. Hew York Times, 1861. Baltimore Sun, July, 1852 - Je., 1853. Daily Rational Intelligence (Washington) , 1844-46; 1850-51; 1856;1860-61. Richmond Daily Whig, 1851. Richmond Daily Enquirer ,138, 1856, 1857. Richmond Semi -Weekly inquirer, 1850, 1852-1854. Raleigh Register, 1839-1840. - . . » r. f 9 f r » f i C v » t 318 Charleston (S.C.) Daily Courier, July, 1837, -Je., 1839; 1854-1856. Charleston Mercury, July- Dec., 1838; 1858-1859. Savannah. Daily Republican, Jan.-Je., 1837; Jan.— Je., 1838; Jan.-Je., 1 o ; July- Dec., 1356. Montgomery Daily Confederation, 1858, 1859. Hew Orleans Picayune, Jan.-Je., 1858. Hew Orleans Commercial Bulletin, Jan.-Je., 1855. Hew Orleans Delta, 1858. Hew Orleans True Delta, 1859 . Memphis Daily Eagle, 1845. Memphis Eagle and Enquirer, 1853. Memphis Daily Appeal, Jan.-Je., 1853. Republican Banner and Mashville .dug, July, 1856 - Dec., 1857. Pamphlets lallory, Francis. Report on the Commercial Condition of the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia. Presented to the Commercial Convention convened in Richmonc June 13, 1838. Petersburg, 1838. Convention of Merchants and Others for the Promotion of Direct Trade, 1839. Charles- ton, 1839. Diskson, Samuel H, Address delivered at the Opening of the Hew Edifice of the Charleston Apprentices’ Library Society, January 13, 1841 ... Charleston, 1841. Sotithern State Rights, Free Trade and Anti-abolition Tract Ho. 1. (Includes Letter of Langdon Cheves, Jackson’s Letter on Texas, J. Adams’s Disun- ion Letter, etc.). Charleston, 1844. A Reply to the Letter of the Hon. Langdon Cheves. By a Southerner. Charleston, 1844 (?) 9 ' * ? * ' • •• t 9 « > h ' e « • • o ’ 1 : : . .t 0 > r <• ^ 1 t. f ? r •) ! ' li ■ * ' 319 Gregg, William. Essays on Domestic Industry; or an Inquiry into the Expediency of Establishing Cotton Manufactures in South Carolina. Charleston, 1845. Inauiry into the Propriety of Granting Charters to the .lanufact- urers of South Carolina. By One of the People. Charleston, 1845. Journal of the Proceedings of the Southwestern Convention. ... Memphis. .12th Novem- ber, 1845. Hammond, Janes H. Letters on Southern Slavery; Addressed to Thomas Clarkson, the English Abolitionist. Charleston, 1848 (written in 1845). Abbott, Lawrence. Letters from the Hon. ... to the Hon. William C. Hive3 of Virginia. Boston, 1846. A Voice from the South: Comprising Letters from Georgia to Massacnusetts, and m the Southern States. Baltimore, 1847. Fisher, Ellwood. Lecture on the ITc-rth and the South; delivered before the Yeung Hen’s Mercantile Library Association of Cincinnati, Chic, January 16, 1849. Cincinnati, 1849. Proceedings of the national Railroad Convention, which assembled m the City oi St# Louis, on tie fifteenth day of October, 1849..... St. nouis, 1849. Minutes and Proceedings of the Memphis Convention assembled October 23, 1349. Memphis, 1849. national Plan of an Atlantic and Pacific Railroad and Remarks of Albert Pike made thereon, at Memphis, Hovsmber, 1849. Memphis, 1849. Janes, diaries T. Practical Hints on the Comparative Cost and Productiveness of th Culture of Cotton, and the Cost and Productiveness of its Manufacture Addressed to the Cotton Planters and Capitalists of the South. 1849 Smith, Hamilton. Cannelton, Perry County, Indiana, at the Intersection of the East- ern Margin of the Illinois Coal Basin# ... Louisville, 1850. <• r * 1 t « f ; * i G - "i ‘ / r t - ■ ' £ ' ' t . 1 i . . . ov ■■ »> ’■ i . » y. ; ■ in , • ' ‘ ■" •• ■ ■ ■ : ; ■ , r ' ,, ' ',/• f ... . • • • • 320 Proceedings of the Convention in Favor of a National Road to the Pacific Ocean Philadelphia, April 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1850. Philadelphia, ~..o. Trescott, William H* The Position and Course of the Couth. Charleston, Townsend, John# The Southern States; Their Present Peril and their Certain * mc-dy. , 1850 . Bryan, Edward 3. The Rightful Remedy. Addressed to the Slaveholders of the South. Charleston, 1850. Garnett, Liiscoe R. H. Tm Union, Past and Future: How It Works and How to ^ave n Washington, 1850. Derby, E. H. Reality versus Fiction; a Review of a Pamphlet ... Entitled, Tiie Union, Past said Future....". Boston, 1850. Grayson, W. J. Letter to Ms Excellency, Whitemarsh 3. Saabrook, Governor of ... South Carolina, on the Dissolution of the Union. Charleston,18u0. (A. G. MaGrath) . A Letter of Southern Wrongs and Southern Remedies; addressed to the Hon. W. J. Grayson, in reply to his Letter to the Governor of South Carolina. ... Charleston, 1850. Grieves, Langdoru Speech of ... Delivered before the .... Nashville Convention, ... November 15, 1850. Columbia, 1850. Southern Rights Association. Barnwell District, South Carolina, Ifeeting, danu^ry 6 , 1851. 1851. Proceedings of the Ileeting of Delegates from the Southern Rights Associations of South Carolina, held at Charleston, Nay, 1851. Columbia, 1851. Proceedings of the Great Southern Co-operation and anti— recession ileeting , ** 6 x 0 . in Charleston, September 23, 1851. Charleston, 1851. Barnard, F. A. P. Oration delivered before the Citizens of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, July 4, 1851. Tuscaloosa, 1851. Elliott, Hon. William, The Letters of Agricola. Greenville, S. C., 1852. (First Published, 1851.) Y t 0 * ? * . r . r i t • t • v' . v. 0 “ f u * jp* * ! < 321 Address to the People of the Southern and Western States, and more particularly to these of La., Sex., Miss., Ala., Tenn., Aik., Ky., and Ho. (By a committee, in "behalf of the Hew Orleans Railroad Convention, 1852) . Hew Orleans, 1851. Proceedings of the Southern and .e stern Commercial Convention, at Memphis, -enneesee in June, 1853 .... Memphis, 1854. Graniteville Manufacturing Coixpany. Report of the President and Treasurer for the Year 1854. (William Gregg, Pres.). Charleston, 1855. (Carey, Henry C.) . The Worth and the South (Reprinted from the Hew York Tribune).. 1854. Journal of the Proceedings of the Commercial Convention of the Southern and Western States, .... Charleston ... commencing ... 10th April, 1854. Charleston, 1854. I Two Tracts for the Times, the one entitled, "uQgro Slavery Ho Evil,' 1 by 3. P. Stringfellow, of Missouri; the other, "An Answer to the Inquiry, Is it expedient to Introduce Slavery into Kansas?" by D. R. Goodloe, of Worth Carolina, 3oston, 1855. Jest on, George H. The Poor Whites of the South. Washington, 1856. Burwell, William. True Policy of the South, with Suggestions for the Settlement of our Sectional Differences. Washington, 1856. Official Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the Southern Commercial Convention assembled at Knoxville, Tennessee, August 10, 1857. Knoxville, 1857. (An appendix contains the proceedings of the session at Savannah, Dec. 1856.) health, Resources and Hopes of Virginia. (Prom the Daily Southern Argus. ). Norfolk, 1857. fielder, Herbert. The Disunionist: a Brief Treatise upon the Rvils of the Union.... and the Propriety of a Separation and the Formation of a Southern 3 ? • « * . * • r ' * ' - . • f 3i , « * « 0 322 United States. , 1857. Hughes, Henry. Report... read "before the Southern Commercial Convention at Vicks- burg, llay 10, 1859, on the subject of the African Apprentice Sys- tem. Vicksburg, 1859. Third Annual Report of the Merchants ’ and Mechanics' Exchange of Norfolk, Virginia, January, 1860. Townsend, John. The South Alone Should Govern the South .... Charleston, 1860. - - . The Doom of Slavery in the Union: Its Safety out of It. (2d Ed.) Charleston, 1860. Robb, Janes. A Southern Confederacy. Letters by ..., Late a Citizen of New Orleans to an American in Paris and the Honorable Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia. Thornwell, J. H. The State of the Country: An Article republished from the Southern Presbyterian Review. New York, 1861, Tracts for the Tines in Relation to African Labor, the Future Supply of Cotton and Popular Government in North America. (N. H. Herald reprint) . 1861. Atkinson, Edward. Cheap Cotton by Free Labor, by a Cotton Manufacturer. Boston, 186] Colwell, Stephen. The Five Cotton States and New York; or Remarks upon the Social and Economic Aspects of the Southern Political Crisis. Philadelphia 1861. Lord. Daniel. The Effect of Secession upon the Commercial Relations between the North and South and upon each Section (New York T ime s rerpint i , 1861. Powell, Samuel. Notes on ’’Southern Health, and Northern Profits.” Philadelphia, 1861. Gollins, William H. Third address to the People of Maryland, by*., of Baltimore. Baltimore, 1861. *' ' . , . ■ i .. ; , ... . •» 1 »■ ■ ' V: ;>• 3 £3 Kennedy, John P. The Border States, their Power and Duty in the Present Disordered Conditions of the Country. — , 1860. South Carolina, Disunion and a Mississippi Talley Confederacy (by a Kentuckian) • , 1861. Segar, Joseph. Letter ... to a Friend in Virginia in Vindication of his Course in Declining to follow his State into Secession. Washington, 1862. Oven, Robert Dale. The Future of the Horthwest in Convention .vith the Scheme of Reconstruction without Few England. Philadelphia, 1863. Irenholra, . L. The Centennial address Before the Charleston Chamber of Commerce, 11th February, 1884. ... Charleston, 1884. Published Diaries , Speeches , and Contemporary Correspondence. Brown, Aaron V. Speeches, Congressional and Political, and other Writings. Hashville, 1854. ialhoun, John C. Correspondence of John C. Calhoun. Edited by J. F. Jameson (Auer. Mist. Assoc., Report . 1899, Vol. IIjl» Washington, 1900. — - Works of John C. Calhoun. Editied by R. K. Crall^i 6 vols. Hew York, 1854-55. Japers, Henry D. Life and Times of C* G. Memminger . Richmond, 1893. Jhittenden, L. E. A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention, for proposing Amendment s to the Con- stitution of the United States. Held at Washington, D. C. in February, A. D. 1861. Hew York, 1864. ilaiborne, J. F. H. Life and Correspondence of John A. yuitman. 2 vols. Hew York, 1860. Sleveland, II. Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private. Philadelphia, 1866. Clingnan, Thomas L. Speecl^es and Writings. Raleigh, 1878. - 5 ?, .1 *) * * ■ 324 Coleman, Sirs, Chapman. The Life of John J. Crittenden, with Selections from his Correspondence and Speeches. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1871. Colton, Calvin, Life, Correspondence and Speeches of henry Clay. 6 vols. Hew York, 1854. Fielder, H. Life, Times, and Speeches of Joseph E. Brown. Springfield, Class., 1883 Hamilton, J, G. do R. Tie Correspondence of Johathan 7orth. 2 vols, Raleigh* 1909. — The Papers of Thomas Ruffin; Collected and Edited "by 2 vols Raleigh, 1918. Hill, Benjamin H., jr. Senator Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, His Life, Speeches and Addresses. Atlanta, 1891. Hilliard, Henry ", Speeches and Addresses. Hew York, 1855, Hunter, Robert II. T. Correspondence of .... (American Hist, Assoc., Report, 1910, Vol. II). Edited by C. H. Ambler. Washington, 1913. Johnston, R, II., and Browne, H. Life of Alexander Stephens, Philadelphia, 1878. Jones, John B. A Rebel 7/ar Clerk’s Diary at the Confederate States’ Capital. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1866. Mason, Virginia. The Public Life and Diplomatic Correspondence of James M. Mason with Some Personal History by ... his daughter. Roanoke, "fe.,1906. Phillips, U, B., ed. The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens and Howell Cobb, (Amer • Hist. Assoc. Rapt., 1911, Vol. II.) '.7ashington, 1913. Yuaife, II. LI. The Diary of James K. Polk. 4 vols. Chicago , 1910. Seward, Villiam H, An Autobiography from 1801-1834; with a Memoir of hie Life, be 1832-1872, by Frederick • Seward. 3 vols. Hew York, 1891. Smith, William R. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama, begun and held in the City of Montgomery, on the seventh day of January, 1861 ... Montgomery, 1861. • • • e 4 * ? f t o * f % * » « J «> e p r t 325 Tyler, Lyon G. Letters and Tines of the Tylers. 3 vols. Richmond and Williams- burg, 1834-1896. 'l Unpub li shed Correspondence , Diaries , and -t- rs » William Burwell 'Papers. J. J. Crittenden Papers. J. H . Hammond Pax^ers. M. F. Maury Papers. Edmund Baffin’s Diary. Whitemarsh 3. Seabrock Papers. Memoirs and Reminiscences Benton, Thoms H. Thirty Years’ View, or a History of the Workings cf the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850. 2 vols. ITew York, 1854. Botts, John LI. The Great Rebellion: Its Secret History, Pise, Progress, and Dis- astrous Failure. Hew York, 1866. Rrotvnlow, W. G. Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession, with, a narrative of Personal Adventures among the Rebels. Philadelphia, 1862. Buchanan, James. Hr. Buchanan * s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion. ITew York, 1866. Ones nut, Ha ry 3. A Diary from Dixie .... ITew York, 1916. Claiborne, J. F. H. Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and State. Jackson, 1880, Foote, Henry 3. Gasket of Reminiscences. Washingt n, 1874. 1. Preserved in the Library of Congress. 3 * ■ : . ' ' ’ J J . : - v • ? , . •£ , •> 326 ar of tiie Rebellion} or, Icylla and Charybdis. IT ew York, 1866. Garrett, 7/illianu Reminiscences of Public lien in Alabama for Thirty Years* Atlanta, 1872* Green, Duff* Pacts and Suggestions, Biographical, Historical, Financial and Political, Hew York, 1866. Hilliard, Henry . . Politics and Pen Pictures at Home and Abroad. Hew York, 1892. Holden, I* Y /. Memoirs of .... Edited by I'm* H. 3oyd. (John Lawson Monographs of the Trinity Co-lege Hist. 3oc.) Durham, IT. C., 1911. Perry, B. P. Biographical Sketches of Bminent American Statesmen, with Speeches, Addresses and Letters. Philadelphia, 1387. Pryor, Mrs. Roger A. Reminiscences cf Peace and Mar. Hew York, 1905. Sargent, ITathan. Public Men and Hvent s from the Commencement of Mr. Monroe's Administration, in 1817, to the close cf Mr. Fillmore’s Adminis- tration, in 1853, Yol. II. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1875. Books cf Travel or Description, 3 i at 1st leal 'forks , and Directories. Bancroft, Joseph. Census of the City of Savannah, together with Statistics relat- ing to the Trade, Commerce, Mechanical Arts, and Health of the same; ... 2d. ed. Savannah, 1848. Buckingham, J. 3. The Slave States of America. 2 vols. London, 1842. Campbell, John P. The Southern Business Directory and General Commercial Adver- tiser. ... Charleston, 1854. Chase. Henry and Sanborn, C. H. The Perth and the South: A Statistical View of the Condition of the Free and the Slave States. Hew York, 1856. Gist, Charles. Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1851. Cincinnati, 1851. - , Sketches and Statistics of Cincinnati in 1859. Cincinnati, 1869. Dawson, J. L. and DeSaussure, H. W. Census of the City of Charleston, South Carol- I f . * f * 327 ina for the year 18-1-8; Charleston, 1849. Fe at he r s t onfcau gh , Gerog© .7* 2xc*arsion through the Slave States, hew Pork, 1C44. Forrest, Y/illiam S. The ITorfolk Directory, for 1851-2 ... ITorfolk, 1852. hemble, Mrs. Frances Anne. Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-39. hew York, 1863. Lyell, Sir diaries. A Second Visit to the United States. 2 vols. London, 1349. Llackay , Charles. Life and Liberty in America; or Sketches of a n our in the United States and Canada in 1857-8. hew York, 1859. Pitkin, Timothy. Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States. 2d ed. hew York, 1817. Robertson, Jaaes. A Few Months in America ... London, 1865. Russell, Robert, horth America; Its Agriculture and Climate, Mdinburgh.,1858 . Russell, Villi am H. Pictures of Southern Life, Social, Political, and Military. ITew York, 1861. Stirling, James. Letters from the Slave States. London, 1857. Tucker, George. Progress of the United States in health and Population, hew York, 1843. White, George. Statistics of the State of Georgia, including an account of its natural. Civil and Rcclesiastical History Savannah, 1849. Contemporary Monographs , Special Porks , and Books of a. Controversial Character Adams, Rev. ITehemiah. A Southside View of Slavery, or Three Months at t lie South. Bosto 1 f 1854. Batchelder, 3. Introduction and "larly Progress of Cotton Manufacture in the United States. Boiten » 1863. Bledsoe, Arthur Taylor. An Masay on Liberty and Slavery. Philadelphia, 1856. * . • , t ' 1 - •- ■ — . , . me- , . . « m * l . <*o ( r « i * ' « « • $ • ' - *■ • '• ' 9 . 0 . •• . .. ■ , v "V *-! f ” * : ■ c *: ; . : t> * ’ ov t. , . V J -■ ? •-/ ; • • J- . . * c , ■ ; ; # 'i ■> . ; m ... _ • e . . . v ' 328 Cairnes, J. 2. The Slave Power. Its Character, Career, and Probable Desigi. 2d. ed. London, 1863. Carpenter, 3. D. The Logic of History. Uadi son, .Vis. 1364. Christy, David. Cotton is King, and its Delation to Agriculture, Hanufactur es,and Commerce, 2d. ed. Hew York, 1856. Cobb, T. R. R. An Inquiry into the Law of Hegro Slavery. Philadelphia, 1858. Davis, Jefferson. Rise and Pall of the Confederate Government. 2 vols. Hew Pork, 1881. Elliott, E. IT*, ed. Cotton is Ring and Pro-Slavery Arguments, Comprising the Writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, Stringfellow, Hodge, Pledsoe, and Cartwright.... Augusta, 1860. (These writings can he found separately) . Fitzhu^i, George. Cannibals All, or Slaves without Masters. Richmond, 1856. Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society. Richmond, 1854. Gcodloe, Daniel R* An Inquiry into the Causes which have Retarded the Accumulation of Health and Increase of Population in the Southern States ... Washington, 1846. Goodell, William. Slavery and Anti -slavery; a History of the Great Struggle in both Hemispheres, ... Hew York, 1852, Greeley, Horace. The American Conflict. 2 vols* Hartford, 1864* Harper, William* The Pro-Slavery P-rgiment as Maintained by Host Distinguished Writers of the Southern States, containing the several essays on the subject, of Chancellor Harper, Dr. Simms , and Professor Dew. Philadelphia, 1852. Helper, Hinton, R. The Impending Crisis of the South, How to meet It. Hew York, 1857 Hildreth, Richard. Despotism in America* Bast oti J 1854. Hodgson, Joseph. The Cradle of the Confederacy; or, the Times of Troup, ^uitman, 329 and Yancey. I'tobile, 1876. Kettell, Thomas Prentice. Southern health and northern Profits, as exhibited m Statistical Pacts and Official Pitres. Pew York, 1860. Lunt, George. The Origin of the Late war; Traced from the Beginning of the Con- stitution to the Revolt of the Southern States. Rev/ York, 1866. Olmsted, Prederick Law. A Journey in the Seaborad Slave States, with Remarks on their Economy. Yew York, 1856. — — » A Journey through Texas Yew York, 1857. * A Journey in the Back Country. Yew fork, 1861. — . The Cotton Kingdom, a Traveller’s Observations oh Cotton and Slavery. 2d. ed. 2 vols. Yew York, 186! . Pollard, E. A. The Life of Jefferson Davis, with a Secret History of the Southern Confederacy. ... Philadelphia, 1869. _ The Lost Cause; a new Southern History of the Tar of the Confeder- t ates. Yew York, 1667. Ruffin, Edmund. Anticipations of the Future to Serve as Lessors for the Present Time. Richmond, 1860. Russell, Tilliam H, Lly Diary Yorth and South. Boston, 1863. (Scott, John). The Lost Principle; or the Sectional Equilibrium; How it was created — how destroyed — how it may be restored. By ’’Barbarossa" Richmond, 1860. Stephens, Alexander H. A Const ittiional Tiew of the Late war Between the States. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1868-70. Tucker, Beverly. The Partisan Leader. Washington, 1836, Yew York, 1861. Van Evrie, Dr. John H. Yegroes and Yegro Slavery. 'Vewyork 1853. 'ware, Y. A. Yotes on Political Economy, as Applicable to the United States, by a Southern Planter. Yew York, 1844. ■ • . . 1 • • t 330 Weston, George M. The Progress of Slavery in the United States. Washington, 1858. Wilson, Henry. History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 3 vols Bolton.; 1872-77. Wolfe, S. M. Helper’s Impending Crisis Dissected. Philadelphia, 1860. Collecti cns of Sources.. Ames, Herman V, State Documents on Federal Helations. Philadelphia, 1906. American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events Yols. I and II . (Appleton’s ) Hew York, 1862 — . Callondar, G. S. Selections from the Economic History of the United States, 1756-1860. Boston, Hew York, 1909 . Clusky, Ilichael W. The Political n ext 3ook, or Encyclopedia. Philadelphia, 1858. Commons, J. R. et al. A Documentary History of American Industrial Society, Yols. I and II: Plantation and Frontier, edited "by U. B. Phillips. Cleveland, 1909 . DeBow, J.D.3. Industrial Resources, etc., of the Southern and Western States. 3 vols. Hew Orleans, 1852-53. Great Dehates in American History, Yol. Y: State Rights, 1798-1361, Slavery, 1855-61 M. M. Miller, ed. Hew York, 1913. Hambleton, Jamies P. A Biographical Sketch of Henry A. Wise, with a History of the Political Campaign in Virginia in 1855. Richmond, 1856. McPherson, Edward. The Political History of the United States of America during the Great Rebellion. 3d. ed. Washington, 1876. Moore, Frank. The Rebellion Record: A Diary of American Events with Documents, narrative. Illustrative Indidents, etc., Yols. I and II. (Put nan’s) Hew York. * f 0 f X I ' t c • 531 Pike, James S. First Plows of the Civil Far. The Ten Years of Preliminary Con- flict in the United States. New York, 1879. Poore, 3. P. Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws of the United States. .Vashington, 1877. Richardson, Janies D. Compilation of the Llessages and Papers of the Presidents, Vols. III-& . 10 vols. Washington, 1896. A Compilation of the llessages and Papers of the Confederacy, in- cluding the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865. 2 vols. ilashville, 1905. Decent Ilo no graphs and Special ..rtioles and -erks 1 * Ambler, Cliarles H. Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776-1861. Chicago, 1910. Thomas Ritchie: A Study in Virginia Politics. Richmond, 1913. Ballagh, J. C. A History of Slavery in Virginia (Johns Hopkins Univ. studies. Sup. Vol. HXIV). Baltimore, 1902. Southern Economic History: Tariff and Public Lands. (Amer. Hist. Assoc., Rapt., 1898.] Bates, William W. American Navigation; the Political History cf its Rise and Ruin« Boston and New York, 1902# Bogart, E. L. The Economic History of the United States, Hew York, 1907. Bolles, A. 3. Industrial History of the United States .... Norwich, Conn., 1879. *3oucher, Chauncey 3. The nullification Controversy in South Caro lina. Chicago, 1916. * The Ante-Bellum Attitude of South Carolina towards llaauf acturers and Agriculture (V/ashlngton Univ. Humanistic Studies, Vol. Ill, Pt. II, Ho. 2). St. Louis, 1916. /. ITo attempt has been made to list all the monographs and special articles and works which have bearing upon the subject, but only those are listed that have proved of some assistance in the preparation of this thesis. The most valuable are starred. . ■ — V t - . . I f • ' - V « '3 t t ' • • * 332 Boucher, Chauncey S. The Secession and Co-operation Movements in Couth Carolina, 1848 to 1852 ( Washington Univ. Humanistic Studies, Vol. V, Pt. II, ITo. 2). 1918. South Carolina and the South on the Eve of Secession, 1852-1860 (Washington Uni v* Humanistic Studies, Vol. 71, Pt. II, Ho. 2 \ 1919. Boyd, William K. "North Carolina on the Eve of Secession," Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1910, pp. 167-77. Washington, 1912. Brown , William Garrott. The Lower South in American History. Hew York, 1902. Callahan, James Horton, -he Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy, Baltimore, 1910, "The Mexican Policy of Southern Leaders under Buchanan's Adminis- tration," Amer. Hist. Assoc., Kept., 1910, pp. 135-51. allendar, G. S. "Early Transportation and Banking Enterprises of the States," Quar. Jour, of Econ., XVII, 111-162. Boston, 1902. lark, Victor S. History of Manufactures in the United States, 1607-1860. Washington, 1916. Cole, Arthur C. The Whig Party in the South. Washington, 1913. "The South and the Right of Secession in the Early Fifties," Hiss. Val. Hist. Rev., I. Cedar Rapids, 1914. ollins, ./infield H. The Domestic Slave Trade of the Southern States. i!ew York, 1904 Davis, .-illiam Watson, Ante-Bellum Southern Commercial Conventioiis (Ala. Hist. Soc. Transact ions, V, 153-202). Montgomery, 1904. 5avis, John P. The Union Pacific Railway: A Study in Railway Politics, History and Economics. Chicago , 1894. tewey, David R. Financial History of the United States, Hew York, 1915. tonnell, E. J. Chronological and Statistical History of Cotton, Hew York, 1872. C ois, W. E. B. The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to tlie United States of America, 1638-1870 (Harvard Historical Studies, Vol. I) Hew * ' ! ■ • « f . , . , “■> . ; 333 York, 1896. Fertig, J. 7/. Socession smd Reconstruction of Tennessee, Chicago, 1898. Ficklin, John Rose. History of Reconstruction in Louisiana, through 18G8. (Johns Hopkins L T niv. Studies, 3eries YXVI^. , Jo* 1 j. 191 . Fish, Carl Russell. "The Decision of the Ohio '’’alley,' 4 Arne r* Hist. Assoc., Rept., 1910 , pp. 153-64. Flaaing, "./alter T. 'limitation to the Southern States, -ol. 3ci. N,uar., HA, 276-297. Hew York, 1905. Garner, Janes W. "The First Struggle over Secession in Mississippi", Miss. Hist. Soc., Publications, IV. Oxford, Miss., 1901. Hamer, Philip Hay. The Secession Movement in South Carolina, 1847-1852. Allentown, Pa., 1918. Hamilton, J. G. de R. Reconstruction in Forth Carolina (Columbia Univ. Studies, Vol. LVIII, Ho. 141). ITew York, 1914. *Hammond, M. E. The Cotton Industry: An Mssay in American Mconomic History, Part 1: The Cotton Culture and the Cotton Trade. ITew York, 1897. Hearon, Cleo. Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850. (lli3s. Hist. Soc., Publica- tions ,) Oxford, Miss. , 1914. Houston, D. F. A Critical Study of ITullif ication in South Carolina. (Harvard Hist. Studies, Vol. HI). Hew York, 1893., *IngLe, Edward. Southern Sidelights: A Picture of Social andPconomie Life in the South a generation before the War. Hew York, 1896. "Two Southern Magazines," So. Hist. Assoc., Publications, I. Yashin gt on, 1897. Jack, T. H. Sectionalism and Party Politics in Alabama, 1819-1842. Henasha, is.,’ 1919. Jacobstein, Meyer. The Tobacco Industry in ole United States. (Columbia Univ. ■ ■ • • * 334 Studies, 7ol. 33LY1, Ho. 5). 1907. Mayes, Edward. Origin of the Pacific Railroads, and especially of the Southern Pacific. (Miss. Hist. Soc. f Publications, Vol. 71). Oxford, Miss., 1902. Million, John U. State Aid to Railways in Missouri. Chicago, 1896. liunford, B. B. Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Secession, Mew York, 1909. Pa^e, Thomas ITelson. The Old South; Essays Social and Political, Mew York, 1896. Social Life in Virginia before the ar . Hew York, 1898. ♦Phillips, Ulrich 3. American ilegro Slavery; a survey of the supply, employment , and control of negro labor as determined by the plantation regime. Hew York, 1918. * Georgia and -tate Rights (Araer. Hist. Assoc., Rept., 1901 II). Yashington, 1902. A History of Transportation in the Eastern Cotton Belt to 1860. Hew York, 1908. "The Origin and Growth of the Southern Black Belts, ’ Araer. Mist. Rev., XI, 798-815. Hew York, 1906. "The Economic Cost of Slaveholding," Pol. Sci. -iuar. '-■>■, 257-75. 1905. Phillips, Ulrich 3. "The Slave Labor Problem in the Charleston District," Pol. Sci. Quar . , *311 , 416-439. 1907. "The Decadence of the Plantation System," An. of the Amer. Acad. of Pol. and Soc. Sci., HX£V, 37-41. Philadelphia, 1910. "The Literary Movement for Secession", Studies in Southern History and-olitics, oh. II. Hew York, 1914. Elams dell, Charles "Tire Prontier and Iccession," Studios in Southern History and. Politics, ch. III. Reed, J. G. The Brothers ..'ar. Boston, 1905. • . * • . : ' * ■ 335 Ring/zalt, John L., Development of Transportation Systems in the United States, Philadelphia, 1888. *Sobaper, ... A. Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina (Amer. Hist. Assoc., Kept., 1900, I). Washington, 1901. * Schwab, J, C. The Confederate States of America, 1861-65, Jew fork, 1901, Scott, \Y, A. Repudication of State Debts ... few fork, 1893. Staawood, Edward, American Tariff Controversies in the nineteenth Century. 2 vols. Boston, 1903-4, *3tone, A. H. "The American Pactorage System of the Southern States, ' Amer, l ist. Rev., XX, 557 ff. 1914-15. Taussig, Uilliam, The Tariff History of the United States, Hew York, 1914, Thompson, Holland, Prom Cotton Pield to Cotton Mill. A Study of the Industrial Transition in Perth Carolina. Hew York, 1906. *Trexler , H. .i. Slavery in Missouri, 1804-1865. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Series 'YXI I, Ho. 2). 1914. '.‘agstaff, H. M. State Rights and Political Parties in ITorth Carolina, 1776-1861 (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Series XXIV) . 1906. weaver, C. C. Internal Improvements in north Carolina previous to 1860 (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Series XXI, Uos. Ill and IV). 1903. Bio era: Ail j s and Bioarauhical Sketches. Bassett, John 3, The Life of Andre?/ Jackson, 2 vols. Hew York, 1911. Butler, Pierce. Judah P. Benjamin. Philadelphia. 1907. Caldwell, J. <7. ’’John Bell of Tennessee" , Amer. Hist. Rev. IV, 651-64. 1399. 3olton, Calvin. The Life and Times of Henry Clay, 2 vols. Hew York, 1846. Davis, Mrs. Varina II. Jefferson Davis, Bx -President of the Confederate States : a Memoir. 2 vols. Hew York, 1890. D//(,Xs. L lit St* ty oi C.mm.rPi. r Jauv. tf- Am&r. li£ , - r >'7 - $$ Dodd, . illiam P . Jefferson Davis. Philadelphia, 1907. ? * * • r ■ > * ; •5 f * * ~ « 236 DuBose, j. 77. Life and Times of 77. L. Yancey. Birmingham, 1892. Ellis, H. G. Edmund Ruffin, His Life and Times (Branch Historical Papers, 7ol.HI, 100-23) • Richmond, 1903. Ilall, Clifton R. Andrew Johnson, Military Governor of Tennessee, London, 1916. Hunt , Cai .lard. John C. Calhoun. Philadelphia, 1908. Jervey, Theodore. Robert 7. Hayne and his Tines. Hew York, 1909. Mayes, Edward. Lucius Q. C. Lamar: his Life, Tiraasyand Speeches, 1825-1893. Hashville, 1896. Phillips , Ulrich 3. The Life cf Robert Toombs. Hew York, 1913. Stovall, P. A. Robert Toombs: Statesman, Speaker, Soldier, Sage. Hew Tori;, 1392. Trent, 77. P. 7/ill iam Gilmore Simms. Boston and Hew York, 1892. Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime. Hew -ork, 1897'. Theeler , John H« Reminiscences and Memoirs of Uorth Carolina and Eminent north Carolinians. Columbus, 1884. tfise. Barton H. Life of Henry A. 7/ise, Hew York, 1899. % State and Local Histories . ivery, Isaac. The History of the State of Ceorgia from 1850 to 1881; Hew York, 1881. 3rown, 111 iam G. A History of Alabama. Hew ’"crk, 1900. Jurton, H. 7. The History of ITorfolk. Uorfolk, 1877. Jable, George 77. History and Present Condition o f Hew Orleans (Tenth Census, HLX, Pt. II, 213-95), Garr, Lucien, Missouri, A Bone of Contention (African Commonwealths series). Boston, 1888. 3ordoza, J. IT. Reminiscences of Charleston. Charleston, 1846. j’orrest, 7 Gilliam S. Historical and Descriptive Sketches of ITorfolk and Vicinity ... Phi 1 ode Ip hia , 1853. • » # * . * 1 4 9 9 a * ■ • 9 * . ' * * 3 * . •* V 9 • • * i . * 357 Fortier, Alc£e, The History of Louisiana, Vol. IV., 4 vols. Hew 'fork, 190'. Garrison, George P. Texas (American Commonwealths series). 3oston, 1903. Gayarr&, diaries, History of Louisiana, Vol. IV, The American Domination. 4 vols. Hew Orleans, 1903, Hamilton, Peter J. Mobile of the Fire Flags, the Story of the River 3asin and Coast about Mobile from the Earliest Times to the Present, Boston, 1913. tlowison, Robert R, A History of Virginia from Its Discovery and Settlement by Europeans to the Present Time. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1848. Ic Elroy, R. M. Kentucky in the Ration's History. Hew York, 1909. ibore, J. K. History of Horth Carolina, 2 vols. 1880. Rowland, Dunbar, ed. Encyclopedia o f Mississippi History. 2 vols. Madison, 1907. Ghaler, IT. 3. Kentucky (American Commonwealths series). Boston, 188 5. General Histories Of the many general histories covering the period, the following have especially valuable chapters o t sections dealing with topics discussed in this thesis Che American Ration: A History, A. B. Hart, ed. 27 vols. Hew York, 1906—. Vol. 16, Hart, A. B., Abolition and Slavery, especially, chs. I - X. Vol. 17, Garrison, George ?., Eastward Extension, ch. XII. Vol. 18, Smith, T. C., Parties and Slavery, chs. IV, V, XIII, XIX, XX. Vol. 19, Chadwick, F. E. , Causes of the Civil war , chs. I-IV, IX. Fhe Chronicles of American Series, Allen Johnson, ed. 50 vols. Hew Haven, 1913—. Vol. 24, Stephenson, IT. V/., Texas and the Mexican Ear, especially ch.EX. Vol. 27, Dodd, 'Killian E., The Cotton Kingdom. Vol. 29, Stephenson, ,., Abraham Lincoln and the Union, especially chs. I -VI . , ♦ •• , f * - e * f r * f > ?! ♦ . • ’ f . 9 i » • • 338 Yol. 30, Stephenson, IT. '.7. , The Day of the Confederacy, especially chs. I-lV. )odd, V. r . E. Expansion and Conflict, chs. YII-XIV (Yol. Ill of the Riverside History of the United States). Boston, 1915. •Iolst, Herman E. von. Constitutional and Political History of the United States, especially Yol. I, chs, 9, 10} Yol. Ill, ch. 17; Yol. YII, chs. 7,8. 8 vols. Chicago, 1877-92. ScMaster, John B. A History of the People of the United' States, Yols. YII and YIII, nassim . 8 vols. Hew York, 1888-1913. Ihcdes, Janes Ford. History of the United States from tine Compromise of 1850, es- pecially Yol. I, chs. 1, 4; Yol. II, chs. 12-15; Yol. III. 7 vols.- ITew York, 1896-1906. Hhe South in the 3uilding’ of the ITation, hy J. A. C. Chandler, et al. Yols. I-Y, especially Yol. IY, ?t. Ill, ch. II. Richmond, 1909-13. ihorpe, Francis Uewton. The Civil 7/ar: The national Yiew, chs. I-IY (Yol. HY of the History of ITorth America, Guy Ccrleton Lee, ed.). Philadelphia, 1906. 339 TABLE I. COI.ICRCR OF TIE! PRETCIPAL AI.CRICAIT CCLOKIRS AtID COIEtERCIAL STATES . 1760-1860, 1 Year llev/ England ITew York Pennsylvania Maryland and Virginia Carolina Georgia Alabama Louisiana 1760 (frorts ( -imports 599,647 37.802 480,106 21.125 707,998 22.754 605,882 504.451 213,131 162.769 12.198 ; . 1774 (reports ( Imports 562,476 112.248 437,937 60.008 625,652 __ . 69.611 _ 523, 738 612,030 378,116 432.302 57,518 67.647 1791 Sports Massachusetts $2,505,465 $3,436,093 Maryland • Virginia... South Carolina 491.250 >62.519 .651 >,^2.239 .691 ? $0,130,865 $2,693,268 1600 Reports 11.326.876 14.045.079 11.949.679 12.264.331 • 4,430.689 10.633.510 2.174.268 1610 Exports 13.013.048 17.242.330 10.993.398 6.469.018 • 4,822,611 5.290,614 2.2 38.686 1.890.592 Imports l63. 1797. 341 TABLE III REGISTERED AuD EITROLLED M3 LICENSED TOL-GE IN STATE. AID DISTRICTS OF THE UNITED STATES . 1793 - 1860." STATE 1793 1810 CITY 1837 1850 1860 U) (Registered Mass. (Enrolled! I) 135,599 51.402 352,806 107.260 Boston 127,955 73.049 270,510 50.177 411,410 52,802 (Registered K e w Y ork ( Enr o lied 45,355 13.986 168,556 83.536 Hew York 191,322 219,549 441,336 594,230 838,449 625,551 (Registered Pa. (Enrolled 60,92^ 4.579 109,628 14.255 Philadelphia 039,156 642.592 64,205 142.292 67,094 174,642 (Registered I'd. (Enrolled 26,792 9.512 90,045 46.247 Baltimore 34,954 32.153 90,669 58.349 114,185 85.923 (Registered 7a# (Enrolled 23,997 12.093 45,339 51.234 Norfolk 1,864 10.857 10,542 13.592 10,452 15,954 (Registered J. C. (Enrolled 10,167 2.764 26,472 10.562 Wilmington 6,551 2,088 9,123 6.074 13,372 10,535 (Registered 3. C. (Enrolled 12,998 2.058 43,354 9.449 Charle ston 8,226 12,957 15,377 17.915 38,490 26,934 (Registered Ga# (Enrolled 1,568 233 12,405 3,107 Savannah 6,493 10,437 9,293 . 27,560 12,280 (Registered (Enrolled Motile 2,733 7,585 7, '103 16,753 22,442 30,514 (Registered Orleans Ty. (Enrolled 11,386 1.326 New Orleans 31,383 60,992 86,668 165.040 132,199 96,043 1. Timothv Pitkin. Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States, on. 397 ff.: Commerce and ITavi Ration, 1338, p. 308: 1850, Statement No. 15: 1860. p# 658. 2. Engaged In the foreigi trade. 3. Including licensed. Engaged in the coastwise trade, etc. * ■ . 5 ( . t t • .? ? t • ' c : 7 « * e ■ 1 r • 1 . o • VITA Robert R. Russel was born on a farm near Galva, Kansas, September 27, 1890. He attended rural school and later a two years' high school in a near-by town. In 1906 he entered the Academy De- partment of McPherson College, McPhe -son, Kansas; he received his A.B. from that institution in 1914. The summer of 1914 and year 1914-15 he did graduate ”'ork in the University of Kansas, receiving the M. A* degree in June. The subject of his thesis was "Early Projects for a Railroad to the Pacific”. The two following years he did graduate work in the Unlvasity of Illinois. He held fellowships in history during the three years of graduate study. He was elected a member of the Illinois Chgpter of Phi Beta Kappa, 1917. Before graduation from college he taught three years in the grades and in high school. For two quarters, 1919, he was Assistant in History in the University of Illinois. For three years he has been Professor of History in Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kusas. During the War he served fifteen months in the United States Army. He has written nothing worth mentioning for publication. «-V;>