Greeley's Correspondent Reporter in Charleston
Tells
Why They Seceded
Shortly after Lincoln's election, Horace Greeley, Editor of the New York Tribune published an article giving reasons for secession. It was a report of Greeley's Charleston correspondent. It gave the frank explanation of a planter of his reasons for secession. The article printed in its entirety in the right-hand column below.
It is unlikely that this report escaped Lincoln's attention. Lincoln regularly read the Tribune. It was the principal political organ of the Republican political party. It was also generally regarded as the nation's newspaper of record.
It is a credible source of information on the reasons for secession.
Here's why they left.
"As near as I can learn," said the correspondent, "a very practical view is taken by the people of South Carolina of the difficulty in which they are placed in the Union. I will try to give it."
He reported an interview he had with a planter "from Wadboo Bridge" who, he said, had a large plantation on Cooper River and owned 2,000 slaves. Wadboo Bridge was probably where the road (the present highway 402) crossed Wadboo Creek, a point about 29 miles North of Charleston as the crow flies.
"Why do you wish to go out?" asked the correspondent. "Lincoln may make a good and a just President."
"That is not the thing," replied the planter, "most of us planters are deeply in debt; we should not be if out of the Union. We should have a direct trade with Europe. We should get a better price for our cotton, and our goods would cost us 50 per cent less than now."
This was a precise and succinct statement of the true reasons for secession. The mathematical relationship between tariff rates and cotton prices confirms that his expectation of higher cotton prices was well founded.
Direct trade with Europe would have brought, among many other benefits, British iron at about half the cost of American iron.
The planter recognized the reality that the balance of power to control tariff rates had irrevocably shifted away from the South. "It don't make much difference what Lincoln does," he said. "We want to secede. We must do it now or never. If we don't secede now the political power of the South is broken."
To explain to the correspondent the effects of the shifting balance of power, the planter recounted how New England had lost its control of political power to the South and the West. "Once New-England was a power in the State," he said. "She made Congress pass just such laws as she pleased. She has had her Adamses, her Websters, and her Tariffs. What is she now? Merely New-England. No power; no one regards her. So it will be with the South if we do not go out now. I say we, for the South will go with us."
There were three factors that bore away southern political control. The population growth in the North in the 1860 census gave it more members in the House of Representatives. Several northern senators who voted with the South lost office in the 1860 elections. The country elected a president who would certainly sign the tariff bills demanded by his party. It meant that tariff rates would rise and cotton prices would plunge, impoverishing cotton planters who were already in debt because of the existing tariff.
That dismal reality contrasted starkly with the bright hope of prosperity in a separate southern confederacy whose trade with Europe was not hopelessly fettered by protective tariffs.
The planter explained his agency theory of the national government as a legal justification for secession. "The United States was nothing more than an agent," he said, "appointed by South Carolina and the other States, and now the agent has become master, tyrant, and dictator to the principals. The State won't stand it."
It was a weak theory of constitutional law. But it was the best the planter had. The real defect lay in the U.S. Constitution that permitted the national legislature to lay on heavy tariffs for the benefit of a few in the North at the cost of impoverishing the vast agriculltural industry. Against a northern government determined to crush rebellion by military might and impose heavy tariffs, the legal exercise was futile.
After reporting further the planter's explanation of his agency theory and his expectation of commercial prosperity, the correspondent concluded: "This ended the conversation, and I send it to you as correctly illustrating the opinions prevailing in this city with regard to the great question disunion."
VIEWS OF A CORRESPONDENT.
Correspondence of the N.Y. Tribune
Charleston, S.C., Nov, 17, 1860.
Lincoln's election will lead to attempts at Secession, but I am convinced that they will not be supported by the majority of the people, even in the State of South Carolina. In some respects the consequences of the movement here, if it should be pushed too far, just have an evil, not to say a dangerous tendency.
There is one element in Charleston which I have never been able to regard with confidence. This is the free blacks. Many of them are educated. Some of them are rich; their families well educated, beautiful, intelligent; but they have no rights. One family I have long known, named Dureef; the old man is about 60 years old; his hair as white as the driven snow; his daughters are educated, and beautiful; his sons are well educated; and yet, if one of those daughters wears a vail over her face, the first policeman will strip it off, for that is only a privilege accorded to the white girl, with no negro blood in her veins.
If found after the 9 o'clock bell rings, without a pass from a white man, old Dureef or any of his family, though worth $200,000, will be locked up in a guard-house until his or her white guardian come and pay the fine in the morning. There are hundreds of such in the City of Charleston. They own slaves, some of them, although they are slaves. This is a large class in Charleston, and most influential with the slaves.
As you will have seen by the limited census returns, the number of slaves in and about Charleston has decreased since 1850 by thousands. Generally speaking, the slave-owner's profits increase every year. Not so here. The reason is this: A good able-bodied field-hand of middle age is worth $1,300 to $1,400. He will bring that. If sold, and the money invested in Government, Bank or State stocks, it will pay a net income of $110 per annum. Put him at labor on a plantation, and, aside from risks, he cannot earn the interest of three per cent gross on the sum he is actually worth in cash to his master if sold. In Alabama, Texas and other new States, a $1,400 nigger will earn 12 per cent on his highest value, and even more. But he cannot do it on any rice or cotton plantation in South Carolina. Consequently, if the Union holds, Slavery will tend to decrease in the State of South Carolina. Negroes are not worth more than $400 to till the ground; but they are worth $1,400 to sell and go further South.
It is said that in the upper districts of this State Slavery is nearly extinct. In Greenville, Spartansburgh, Pendleton, Anderson, and in that section generally, the population is nearly all white. Slave labor does not pay. That section has trebled in population, wealth, and comfort in ten years. Very few slaves are owned there.
Something may be inferred from the circulation of each of the two leading daily papers. The Mercury has a daily circulation of about 550 300 in the city, and 250 sent to exchanges. Of course, it is very extensively copied out of the state, though not much read in it. Nobody here regards it as of much consequence. Few businessmen read it. Its proprietor is the well-known wealthy agitator R. Barnwell Rhett. He is an ambitious man, fiery and headstrong. He was once in Congress, but the people of South Carolina have no confidence in him. He tried to be Senator, but they elected Hammond. He tried again, but the Legislature chose Mr. Chesnut. Rhett is one of your "I'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" sort of man. Hence his only chance of becoming "head of the hong," is to smash up the Union, and he sinks about $8,000 annually in The Daily Mercury to accomplish his object.
The Courier is forced by circumstances to go with the surface current. It circulated about 3,000 daily. It is owned by A.S. Wellington & Co., men who are marked AAA in the books of commercial reference. The working editor is supposed to be Mr. Carlisle, and amiable, talented young man. The owner don't believe a bit in disunion never did never will. At present they run with the current.
There is another paper in this city, edited by Mr. Cunningham, a gentleman who was a delegate from South Carolina to the famous American Convention in Philadelphia in 1856. It is an evening paper, called The News, and has 100 to 120 circulation.
As near as I can learn, a very practical view is taken by the people of South Carolina of the difficulty in which they are placed in the Union. I will try to give it. I went up the street (Meeting street) to the Pavilion Hotel last night. I met a planter from Wadboo Bridge who owns a large plantation on Cooper River, and has 2,000 slaves. "Why do you wish to go out? Lincoln may make a good and a just President? I asked.
"That is not the thing," he replied, "most of us planters are deeply in debt; we should not be if out of the Union. We should have a direct trade with Europe. We should get a better price for our cotton, and our goods would cost us 50 per cent less than now. It don't make much difference what Lincoln does. We want to secede. We must do it now or never. If we don't secede now the political power of the South is broken. Once New-England was a power in the State. She made Congress pass just such laws as she pleased. She has had her Adamses, her Websters, and her Tariffs. What is she now? Merely New-England. No power; no one regards her. So it will be with the South if we do not go out now. I say we, for the South will go with us."
"Take another cigar, Sir? What reason will you give? What excuse" said I.
"D n the reason or excuse. We want to go out. We have a right to go out, and South Carolina will go out. The United States was nothing more than an agent, appointed by South Carolina and the other States, and now the agent has become master, tyrant, and dictator to the principals. The State won't stand it."
"I do not see clearly how you make that out. I am dull, perhaps. Will you inform me in this regard?"
Certainly, As you are going into Greenville District, I'll tell you my ideas, and you will find them extensively held. As long ago as the formation and the adoption of the Constitution, thirteen states united and formed a constitution; and then they appointed an agent to attend to the extraneous matter, and to manage the property or territory which belonged to all. These States acted in the premises as States, and not as individuals; and yet it was as simple as the act of thirteen individuals. Their motive for forming the General Union was that each might be benefited. The Constitution was adopted. South Carolina was in the boat. She is now a part of the Southern Section the minor section of the Union. We hold to the Constitution, and are willing to abide by its provisions, fairly and justly interpreted. This, Sir, you will find the prevailing sentiment among all the intelligent people you will meet with in this State. We don't regard the Federal Union, or General Government"
"National, you mean," I interrupted.
"No, Sir, I'll be d--d if I mean National. Nation and National are words not used in the South, and they were never used by the framers of the Constitution or by Gen. Washington in any of his papers. I mean the Federal Government, and I say it is a mere agent. Congress is only the maker of laws. It is not the interpreter of the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme and above Congress, for it is the bond of the Union created and made for the protection of the minor States, more than for the major. Majorities can protect themselves and need no Constitution. This solemn compact, made by the 13 States as States, had been repeatedly violated at the expense of the Southern States. Congress, under the Constitution, has no right to pass a law which affects the interest of any State, or a majority of the States at the expense of any State, of a minority of States."
"Do you think Charleston will be greatly benefited by secession?" I asked.
"Yes, because in case of separation, this city would evidently become one of the great commercial cities of the South. It has but one inconvenience. The draft of water on the Bar is about eighteen feet, and this Bar is but ten miles from the city. Cast your eye on that map (and he pointed out to me a map of the United States), and see what an immense region will receive its supplies from Charleston, and forward its produce from the same point. Produce can now be sent from the interior of Tennessee to this city cheaper than to New-Orleans or New-York. As soon as separation takes place we shall run the steamers that ply between New-York and Charleston between the latter city and England, touching at the Azores. It would pay better than at the North. Even as it is, letters from England are received in the West Indies sooner than by the West Indian line of steamers."
This ended the conversation, and I send it to you as correctly illustrating the opinions prevailing in this city with regard to the great question disunion.
The New York Weekly Tribune, Saturday, November 17, 1860, p. 3, col. 3.
American historians have uniformly failed to follow up the assertion that they expected higher cotton prices by asking, "Just how high could they have expected them to be?
Over the next sixty years after Lincoln's inauguration, the Republicans inflicted enormous damage on cotton revenues. The measure of the damage can be found in the relationship between cotton prices and tariff rates.