In the late 1850s Southern secessionists were generally disillusioned. Some of them, such as South Carolina statesman Robert Barnwell Rhett, had been working for three decades to achieve independence and yet it seemed that secession was no closer. The opportunities of 1844 and 1850 to break with the Union and establish an independent Southern confederation had been thrown away. The secessionists had no way to know that Southern independence was just over the horizon.
Rhett was asked to speak to his constituents at Grahamville, South Carolina, in Beaufort district in July of 1859. His mood was clearly foul. He claimed to believe that Southerners would eventually embrace resistance, but read his words. He rebuked his countrymen for their acquiescence to demands and injustices which weakened the South and emboldened the North. Rhett’s memoir, A Fire-Eater Remembers, edited by William C Davis, quotes part of his speech on pages 7 and 8:
Click on the cover above for the link to order Rhett’s memoir
Delay is the canker of great enterprises. There may be wisdom in delay, when delay leads to action. I can understand the importance of time for preparation, although the necessity for preparation is usually our folly. But I cannot understand, how a base naked submission to unconstitutional misrule for thirty years, can be anything else but a base and wicked imbecility. Two generations have passed away, since I reached the years of manhood. I found, when I entered into life, the whole South inflamed on the vital matter of unconstitutional taxation. We had before us the very question which occasioned the resistance of our fathers to British misgovernment; and their glorious example in the independence they achieved rather than endure it. Yet we submitted to the principle of unjust and unconstitutional taxation imposed upon us by the North, and we have borne it to this day. Our submission soon produced its natural fruit, of renewed interference and aggression on the institution of slavery. Yet, we still have men, not actually in mocker, warning us against haste; and entreating caution in our measures. Can it be unreasonable at any time to be free; and to cast off a pragmatical and vulgar tyranny? Is not a whole life of endurance of unconstitutional oppression, enough for any wisdom in delay – too much, for safety or honor? How long shall we stand, the resistless and despised victims of northern fanaticism and rapacity? How long shall we cry “wait!” whilst the North advances in power and insolence; and each successive year brings her nearer to the consummation of her policy of domination over us, and over this continent? Shall we wait until the expedient of John Quincy Adams for emancipating our slaves shall be enforced? He declared that the general government, by the treaty-making power, could constitutionally abolish slavery in the South. Insurrections may be produced; and then, the general government, having a right to interpose her military power, as the condition of peace, may by treaty ordain emancipation. Whether by this, or the more direct way of congressional legislation, providing for “the general welfare,” – who doubts, that the day when the northern people possess the power, and will it, emancipation will be a law of Congress? Shall we wait for this blissful consummation – when the fires of insurrection will light up our homes, and the North shall stand by to watch and guard the conflagration? Such things will probably never be, because the South will not await their fearful coming, but will anticipate them. When will she anticipate them; and act out her redemption? When will her mighty heart beat free in the enjoyment of her rights, safe under the shield of her own protection; and, casting off the incubus of ignorance, and error, and fear, which now like a foul toad sits upon her bosom, rise up and command the liberation and independence of the South?
As always, this is a great article and Rhett must have been brilliant.
Having said that, I need your help on something.
I’ve studied this conflict, the history of our country, and my own families history for about five years now. Having said that, the “800 pound gorilla in the room” was still slavery, no matter what the other issues were. When studying my own family, I had many southern relatives who fought in the war, while my northern relatives where United Brethren Germans and Scotch Presbyterians. Both of those northern groups in my family seemed to be anti-slavery and anti-war as near as I can tell.
Therefore, I’m proud of both sides of my family.
Here is where I need help. I’ve come to the conclusion that owning another human like you’d own a dog or cat is wrong, period. It doesn’t matter how you interpret anyone’s book of “holy writ”. If the south would have won, how do you truly feel that slavery would have been resolved? No matter how I look at my ancestors, I can’t seem to “clear that hurdle” internally. Long story short, I guess I’m looking for your thoughts and opinions.
Again, thank you for help and insight. I guess I’m looking for a way to resolve this issue within myself…..
Thanks again!!!
The second to last line should read “thank you for your help and insight”.
(Sigh)
Nobody’s perfect, especially me…..
TNSDG, I’ll refrain from commenting on your moral conclusion and just address the question you asked me. At some point slavery would have become uneconomical. I, of course, can’t say when because this is all based on counter-factual history. However, had the South won slavery would have surely continued in the Southern States for a while. It was abolished in Brazil in 1888 and at the time northern Brazil was just as much of a plantation society as Dixie. Machines today function like slaves. They work for us. They increase our productivity. They require maintenance. With them, Western man has been able to feed the world (much like the South once supplied the world with cotton), for instance. Anyhow, at some point machines would have taken the place of slaves. By the 1840s and 50s some industry was already appearing in the South. Slavery and industry don’t generally go together well. Of course, the destruction of the South in the war set that back probably four decades or so. But in summary, machinery and industry would have eventually doomed slavery, even if the South had won the war or had there been no war.
Michael,
You bring up a very good point about how mechanization was a death sentence for slavery. This is also true in our modern world. True some jobs are shipped overseas because in some industry sweatshops are still more economical than mechanizing the process. However, many jobs are disappearing because of greater advances in technology. The need for human labor has been drastically reduced.
This allows companies (that are mainly driven by profit) to cut the number of workers needed to produce goods while increasing the profit margin. These companies, of course could simply cut the number of hours per worker without reducing their worker’s pay and still make a higher profit margin… but they can make a lot more profit by eliminating half of their work force and supplementing any mechanization failures with overtime hours.
It is interesting to speculate on what will happen to the common workers whenever mechanization reduces the need for workers by say another 30%.
All good points.
Thank you gentlemen.
I will add that your points about technology also make me leary(sp?) of technology. However, that’s a whole other issue entirely.
Thanks again.
Chad and TNSDG, new technology generally eliminates some jobs (normally lower wage) while adding new jobs (normally higher wage). For instance, the textile mills in the South were no longer profitable after the free trade agreements of the 80s and 90s. But now we have tire companies and car companies here in SC which employ thousands of people. They also pay much better and the working conditions in these plants are far better than in old textile mills.
Technology should not feared. Technology is what Western man does. lol It’s how we have been able to survive and thrive.
Good points Michael.
I’ll have to ponder them…..
I still have some concern for the future (Ex. Could the technology become smarter than us?)
Who knows? We have to move forward but be wise at the same time….
Michael,
I agree that technology in itself shouldn’t be feared and it’s true that the tire and automobile industries did bring in new jobs. It is also true that those two industries are still using outdated technology in order to milk more money out of the consumers.
The fact is that the tire and automobile industry is using this older technology because of a higher profit margin. The moment it becomes more profitable to employee current technology these people’s jobs are history and it will be very likely that the new jobs generated will only be a faction of those lost. This is what happened to several cities (like Detroit) up north and these cities clearly did not adapt to the changes.
As technology advances the need for a large unskilled to semi-skilled population becomes obsolete and the need for skilled and highly skilled labor reduced. This, of course, brings to question of how the Southern people will adapt to these new changes and what affect it will have on our culture. Will we as a people rise to the challenge or will out towns up as a third world slum like Detroit? A brighter future is out there for us if we prepare for it now.
TNSDG
“Could the technology become smarter than us?”
Technology is not really in itself “smart”. Technology is merely tools that we use to enhance or harm our everyday lives. It is nearly good nor evil, though the individual can use technology to either of those ends. Take the gun for example, it can be used for many good things such as hunting for food or protecting yourself from wildlife or home invader. However, put that same gun into the hands of military thugs and you have death, destruction and chaos.
Chad, Detroit is a Third World slum because the vast majority of people who live there are Third World. Take the same people and put them anywhere else on the planet and they will fail. They can turn gold into lead.
If what you say is true about technology eliminating the need for un-skilled and semi-skilled people, then why isn’t unemployment in the South today five or six times what it is? The service industry, in particular, is heavily reliant upon such people. And at the bottom rungs of pretty much any industry there is demand for such people. You are thinking here in a closed system manner. Western people excel at opening up closed systems. Southerners have a very bright future that will employ technology that we today can not even imagine… if we can survive and eventually become independent. Our people took wilderness and made it into the wealthiest society in the world. This is what we do. We turn lead into gold. Technology should not be feared – it is our tool.
Michael,
Good points.
I hope you are correct.
Michael,
The reason why unemployment isn’t higher in the South currently is because the South is importing a large amount of wealth from outside. This is being done in a couple of ways such as Yankees retiring to the South and tourism.
To be completely honest unemployment is still horrible in the South despite importing outside wealth. The numbers the government releases are completely bogus that are designed to keep the uninformed complacent. The real unemployment number (of people who want work and cannot find it) is probably closer to 24 or 25%.
Then if you want a really scary number add in the number of people under 18, retired and disabled adults into the mix. Let’s look at Florida alone, one of the few states that aren’t in debt, the state government able to pay its bills without borrowing and one of the wealthier nations in the South.
Let’s see there are about 19 million people living in Florida alone, of that 21% are under 18 and 17.6% are over 65. So that’s roughly 7.2 million people that aren’t working. If you use the government unemployment number of about 9% of the working age population that’s another million people not working (use the unofficial number its closer to 3 million). In the best case scenario 8.2 million (or 43% of the population or the more likely case scenario 10.2 (or 54% of the population) are jobless and must rely on someone else to provide for them… and we didn’t even include those who are of working age and disabled. Honestly, how much higher can the unemployment rate go before it completely breaks Florida’s economy?
This brings up another point (and topic) about how many people expect other people to provide them jobs and don’t have the ability to be self-sufficient outside of employers.
In addition, service jobs are a horrible way to employee a people. Most service jobs are completely expendable such as waitresses (no one has to eat out), barbers (you can cut your own hair), people who work at tourist destinations (vacations not necessary) and the list goes on. What is even worse, these types of jobs do not produce real wealth (such as food, tools, etc.).
Florida has two major industries, agriculture and service. Cut off the wealth from the retired Yankees and the tourist and you would have complete disaster in Florida. The technological advancements in agriculture has eliminated the vast majority of unskilled agriculture jobs and threatens to take even more. This would be especially true of they eliminated the illegal aliens from agriculture jobs because legal workers are expensive and only sweetens the deal to further mechanize.
Chad, I am not saying that all is well in the South today. Certainly it is not. And you do make a good point about the imported wealth and vast number of people not working. Part of the solution to this would be to cut back on welfare programs and other government social programs. When I was little in the 1980s the peaches in South Carolina were picked almost exclusively by poor Blacks. Today there is not a Black to be found in the peach industry. All the picking is done by Mexicans. Meanwhile, when I ride through the small Black communities around town there are many young Black males just standing around or sitting on their porches or walking up and down the road. This is terrible in two ways. First, it imports foreigners to do our work for us while we pay healthy people not to work, thus contributing to our demographic decline and causing us to pay higher taxes. Second, it is a recipe for more crime and chaos when you have all those young Black males with nothing to do, just hanging out. So, the agricultural problem could be fixed rather easily if there was the political will to do so. Also, if poor natives took the low-wage jobs that Mexicans currently do, there would be more political will to send the Mexicans home since they would be directly competing with a native population.
As far as service industry jobs, if we are going to have restaurants, movie theatres, cell phone stores and retail shops then we are going to have a service industry. I think it will always be with us if we have a developed economy. And there is nothing wrong with that. You are right that it doesn’t produce things, but it does get goods to customers – it does play an important role in the economy. It shouldn’t be the basis of our entire economy though. Germany, for instance, has a developed service industry but it also has a lot of manufacturing. The German model of incorporating on-the-job training from an early age into education is smart; I think it’s something we could learn from. Also, incentives that encourage industry to move overseas could be ended. And one more thing. We should end the tax that parents pay to support the public schools (which is where our property taxes here in SC go) if their kids are in a private school. My parents sent me to private school and worked the equivalent of two jobs each to do so. But they have to pay for my education and someone else’s education because there is no opt out even though their kids (my brother, sister and I) were not using the public school system. This would result in far more White people and just middle class people in general getting their kids out of public schools. Private education would boom. It would also slightly reduce the cost of having children for middle and upper class families. This would result in a better educated public. One of the things industry complains about is the poor education of the public. They can’t find enough properly educated people to work in their plants. I think my proposal would help on that front. Public education, at this point, would be what it should have been all along – a social welfare program for the very poor. Anyhow, sorry to write so much, but I do think the problems you noted have solutions. We just can’t empliment them in the current social/political environment because of democracy, equality and Federal intervention.
How long would slavery have lasted? Nobody really knows.
What would bring about its demise naturally? We already have the answer when looking at our own nation’s history and current reasons for economic failure.
Don’t fall into the misconception that slavery only existed in the south, it existed in every original colony. What displaced the need for both indentured and slave labor was growing population and birth-rate, which occured faster in the north than the south. Both indentured servitude and slavery were employed as a means of “forced migration” to develope resources in sparsely populated areas that people would normally not do on their own volition. One forgets how “young” the south actually was at the time of the war. However, the wave of population growth was displacing slavery in the upper south even as the war was breaking. Census records actually show the trend better than anything I’ve run across.
My first reading of DeToqueville’s “Democracy in America”, in relation to the south – made me initially angry. He described conditions on both sides of the Ohio River making observations of the yeoman farmers of Ohio vs. the slavery based farms in Kentucky. The observation noted how industrious and profitable the yeomen farmers were, while the slaves on the south bank were slothful and constantly behind in operations by comparison. DeToqueville was making these observations in the 1830′s.
Flash forward to the time of the war and take a look at the census data for the region of Ky DeToqueville was making note of. Where it had been sparsely populated and dominated by the plantation system, it was in 1860 the mirror image of the economic system previously on the north bank. High birth-rate amongst the yeoman farmers and free-market/independent competition had displaced the dis-economy of scale related to the Plantation system.
DeToqueville’s observation was more economic than demographic. Whether its slavery, marxism, or overly centralized production models (in both business and government): the eventual result is a dis-economy of scale dying of diminishing returns and inherent inefficiencies. The demise of slavery was related to being out-competed by people operating within more efficient, incentivised production systems.
A single independent farmer and his large family were more efficient, simply because their entire life depended on their industriousness – which was their driving incentive. Not so in the case of slaves, their basic needs would be met by the Master – as long as the minimum of work was done to accomplish very broad goals. Independent yeoman farmers could put more capital toward land rather than labor, as well as their progeny, which drove up land prices as population increased. The Plantations would liquidate and move on to regions where land was less populated and cheaper.
The death of slavery would have been driven by these factors. The Plantation system was going to die of excessive overhead expenses to support human capital that they could not cut themselves loose from (Kinda like General Motors today). When the availability of land cheap enough to offset the opportunity costs of labor vs. land was gone: the next step would be to capture the industriousness of the independent farmers while maintaining the control of land. The “Sharecropper” system would have, and did, replace slavery. This would have happened all on its own soon enough without Northern intervention.
Slavery is entirely incongruent with a free-market economy, just as marxism is incongruent with a free market economy. The only thing that makes them viable, which is also the case of “too big to fail” modern corporations, is government intervention.
In the end, it would have been best if the south had been left alone (as it wished to be). The economic shortcomings of slavery would have been realized and rationalized for what it was, inefficient. By the same token, the north should have left their own “internal improvement” socialistic projects squarely upon the shoulders of the individual states employing such schemes – and not allowed to defray those inefficiencies by taxation of the general populace in all the states. The resulting, and natural, failures of both systems would have left such a distaste for socialist/marxist/centralized systems that our freedoms in both regions would have been preserved today.
Without government intervention, all of these “political heresies”(as the Georgians noted in their Declaration of Secession) would have died entirely in the 19th Century. We would rightly denounce both Marxism and Slavery with the same critical rationale as idealogical and economic equals.
DeToqueville’s observation then rings true, both then and now. The overly socialistic systems of labor exhibit the same laziness/inefficiency that DeToqueville noted of slavery.
UnRecontructed,
That is one of the best responses I’ve heard yet.
They’ve all been good, but this one has helped me a great deal.
Thank you for the detail in your explanation. It was well thought out, and again, gives me much to think about….