1. home and garden
2. gardening and landscaping
3. yard and patio

William Henry Gist’s Political Service1
South Carolina House of Representatives, 1840-43
Committee on Colored Population, 1840-41, 1842-43
Committee on District Offices and Officers, 1842-43
South Carolina Senate, 1844-1855
Committee on the Judiciary, 1844-45, 1846-47, 1848-49
Committee on Incorporations and Engrossed Acts, 1844-45, 1846-47
Committee on Privileges and Elections, 1846-47, 1848-49, 1850-51, 1852-53
Committee on Accounts and Vacant Offices, 1850-51 (apparently as chairman), 1852-53
Committee on Commerce and the Mechanic Arts, 1854-55
Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, 1848-1850
Gist was elected on December 12, 1848, but he was never inaugurated. Gist never vacated his senate,
As required by the state constitution, to enter the office of lieutenant governor. He remained in the
Senate and apparently served as “acting” lieutenant governor.2
Governor of South Carolina, 1858-1860
Elected on the fourth ballot on December 11, 1858, and inaugurated two days later, Gist served as
Governor until December 17, 1860.
Delegate, South Carolina Secession Convention, 1860-62
Committee on Foreign Relations, 1st session (December 17, 1860 - January 5, 1861)
Special committee, 3rd session (December 26, 1861 – January 8, 1862)
To report on the course of action to be taken regarding slaves held by Union forces along the
seaboard and slaves likely to fall into Union hands.
South Carolina Executive Council (January 7, 1862 – December 18, 1862)
Jointly head the Department of Treasury and Finance with Lieutenant Governor
W. W. Harllee (until March 24, 1862)
Chief of the Department of Construction and Manufactures (created March 24, 1862)
1
The committees to which Gist was assigned during his tenure in the South Carolina house and senate were standing committees. No
attempt has been made in this appendix to list the various special committees on which Gist served while in the general assembly.
2
Senate Journal, 1848, p. 118; Emily Bellinger Reynolds and Joan Reynolds Faunt, Biographical Directory of the Senate and the State
of South Carolina (Columbia: South Carolina Archives Department, 1964), pp. 52, 222; The Daily Telegraph (Columbia, South
Carolina), 13, 15, 16, 18 December 1848.
SOURCES: South Carolina, General Assembly, House of Representatives, House Journal, 1840,
p. 25; House Journal, 1842, pp. 8 – 9; South Carolina, General Assembly, Senate, Senate Journal, 1844, p. 5;
Senate Journal, 1846, pp. 6 – 7; Senate Journal, 1848, pp. 10, 103; Senate Journal, 1850, p. 7; Senate Journal,
1852, p. 16; Senate Journal, 1854, p. 8; Senate Journal, 1858, pp. 114, 128; John Amasa May and Joan
Reynolds Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1960), pp. 14, 51;
Charles E. Cauthen, ed., Journals of the South Carolina Executive Councils of 1861 and 1862, State Records of
South Carolina Series (Columbia: South Carolina Archives Department, 1956), xii.
William Henry Gist’s Children
Children by Louisa Bowen (daughter of George and Tabitha Bowen, Laurens, South
Carolina; c. 1812-6 to May 1830 1 ):
Maria Louisa Gist (25 April 1830 – 21 August 1900)
Children by Mary Elizabeth Rice (daughter of William and Sarah Rice, Union District,
South Carolina; 11 April 1813 2 - 13 June 1889):
Infant son (died November 8, 1833)
Infant son (died April 14, 1835)
James Hayne Gist (April 28, 1836 3 - November 11, 1837) 1 year old
Infant son (died November 15, 1837)
Richard V. Gist (November 18, 1838 – October 24, 1907) 69 years old
William M. Gist (October 3, 1840 – November 18, 18634 ) 23 years old
*Clarence Calhoun Gist (March 28, 1842 – October 17 1854 5 ) 12 years old
Caroline Clementine Gist (October 9, 1843 – August 19, 1876) 33 years old
David Christopher Gist (July 6 1845 – September 6, 1915) 70 years old
*Charles C. Gist (March 17, 1847 – October 17, 1854) 7 years old
Ellen Douglas Gist (December 11, 1848 – September 12, 1854) 6 years old
Infant son (July 19, 1850 – August 1850 6 )
* might be the same child.
1
Whaley gives Louisa Bowen’s death date as April 6, 1830. This is obviously incorrect, for Louisa’s daughter, left eleven days old at
her mother’s death, and was born on April 25, 1830. Whaley, comp. and ed., Union County Cemeteries, p. 168.
2
Whaley cites Mary Elizabeth Rice’s birth as occurring on November 4, 1813. The exact citation gives her birth date as 11/4/1813;
Whaley ostensibly intended the date to read 4/11/1813. Whaley, comp. and ed., Union County Cemeteries, p. 65.
3
The year of James Hayne Gist’s birth is given as 1836 in Whaley, comp. and ed., Union County Cemeteries, p. 169. Dorsey and
Dorsey write that James Hayne Gist was born on April 28, 1835. Dorsey and Dorsey, Christopher Gist, p. 126.
4
William Gist was killed while leading his regiment in an advance on Union positions before Knoxville, Tennessee. An undated
contemporary obituary in the Mary Duncan Scrapbook describes Gist’s death as occurring on November 18, 1863. Mary Duncan
Scrapbook, Rose Hill, PRT. Whaley also gives November 18 as the date of Gist’s death. Whaley, comp. and ed., Union County
Cemeteries, p. 65. The battle report of Capt. Stephen H. Sheldon of the Fifteenth South Carolina Infantry implies that Gist was killed
on November 19, 1863. Sheldon’s report was written a considerable time after the engagement, however. The War of Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 128 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1880-1901), series 1, XXXI, part 1, p. 516.
5
Dorsey and Dorsey state that Clarence Calhoun Gist died on October 18, 1854. Dorsey and Dorsey, Christopher Gist, p. 126.
Whaley and an undated contemporary obituary in the Mary Duncan Scrapbook provide the earlier date used here. Whaley, comp. and
ed., Union County Cemeteries, p. 65; Mary Duncan Scrapbook, Rose Hill, PRT.
6
There is some disagreement over the exact death date of this unnamed infant boy. Dorsey and Dorsey state that the child died on
August 4, but Whaley writes that he died on August 9. Dorsey and Dorsey, Christopher Gist, p. 126; Whaley, comp. and ed., Union
County Cemeteries, p. 65.
Resource material
¾ Graham, John Remington, A Constitutional History of Secession.
¾ Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 17761854.
¾ Genovese, Eugene D., The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the
Economy and Society of the Slave South. Vintage Book.
¾ Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: Fruits of Manifest Destiny 18471852.
¾ Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852-1857.
¾ Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 18591861.
¾ Federal Government and Confederate Cotton – American Historical
Review Vol. 32, No. 2, January 1927
¾ American Historical Review Vol. LVIII
¾ Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 27
¾ Schwab, J. C., Confederate States of America – Financial and Industrial
History
¾ American Historical Review Vol. 77 – 1972
¾ Journal of American Studies pp. 349-56, No. 9 (1975)
¾ Greenberg, Kenneth S., “Representation and the Isolation of South
Carolina, 1776-1860”
¾ Journal of American History 64 (1977): 723-43
¾ Greenberg, Kenneth S., Masters and Statesman: The Political Culture of
American Slavery
¾ Smith, Alfred G. Jr., Economic readjustment of an Old Cotton State:
South Carolina 1820-60
¾ Rubin, Louis D. Jr., The Edge of the Swamp: A Study in the Literature and
Society of the Old South
¾ Taylor, William R., Cavalier and Yankee: The Old South and American
National Character
¾ Klein, Rachel N., Unification of a Slave State: The Rise of the Planter
Class in the South Carolina Backcountry, 1760-1808
¾ Scarborough, William Kauffman. The Overseer: Plantation Management
in the Old South.
¾ Lesser, Charles H. Relic of the Lost Cause: the story of South Carolina’s
Ordinance of Secession.
¾ Charles, Allan D. The Narrative History of Union County South Carolina.
¾ Helsley, Alexia Jones, South Carolina Secedes: A drama in three acts. A
Curriculum Resource.
Advice Among Masters: The Ideal in Slave Management in the Old South. Ed. James O.
Breeden (Westport. CT: Greenwood Press, 1980)
Sample Entry
1
2
3
4
5
53
S.C.
1836 Planter
22
1.
location of entry in bibliography
2.
author’s state
3.
year of author’s contribution
4.
author’s occupation
5.
if slaveholder, size of slave force, according to the following ranking:
9 or fewer = minor slaveholder or farmer
10-49 = small planter
50-99 = major planter
100 or more = great planter
The information for number of slaves has been derived from authors or from the slave census
returns, state and local histories, and studies of the South and slavery. The size of the slave force
is given either by a category designation, such as small or major, or by number. The editor does
not claim complete accuracy for the numbers given, especially when considering variations in
the census returns. P. xxv
Chapter 2: On the fundamentals of good management
70, S.C., 1833, planter, [major-great]
When I commenced planting, I was induced to believe, from the advice I received, that
success depended more upon the judicious management of negroes than anything else; and that
in order to arrive at any good system of management, it was necessary:
First – that there should be a perfect understanding between the master and his slave.
Secondly – That certain rules should be laid down on the plantation which should be considered
fundamental rules never to be deviated from, and which should be distinctly understood by all,
and
Thirdly – That there should be uniformity of conduct on the part of the master, who ought to
exhibit considerable interest in the proceeding on his plantation and an ambition to excel.
What I would mean by a perfect understanding between a master and a slave is that the
slave should know that his master is to govern absolutely, and he is to obey implicitly. That he is
never for a moment to exercise his will or judgment in opposition to a positive order...
1
That the general conduct of a master has a very considerable influence on the character
and habits of his slaves will be readily admitted.
When a master is uniform in his own habits and conduct, his slaves know his wishes and what
they are to expect if they act in opposition to or conformity with them: therefore, the more order
and contentment exist. A plantation might be considered as a piece of machinery; to cooperate
successfully all of it parts should be uniform and exact and the impelling force regular and
steady; and the master, if he pretended at all to attend to his business, should be their impelling
force. If a master exhibits no extraordinary interest in the proceeding on his plantation, it is
hardly to be expected that any other feelings but apathy and perfect indifference could exist with
his negroes; and it would be unreasonable for him, who has the principal incitements and is
careless, to expect attention and exertion from those who have no other interest that to avoid the
displeasure of their master. P. 31
16, S.C. 1836, overseer
Their (slaves) proper management constitutes the chief success of the planter. If he has
not a proper control of them, he had much better give up planting; for as sure as he continues
they will ruin him. P. 34
Chapter 3: Plantation Order
Plantation order was considered crucial to the successful management of slaves. Unregimented
Negroes, it was held, were troublesome and unprofitable. The chief components of good
plantation order were thought to be routine, peaceableness, and security. P. 50
56, S.C., 1828, overseer
Any negro leaving the plantation or field to complain to me is registered and treated as
such. P. 50
70, S.C., 1833, planter, [major-great]
In the different departments on the plantation as much distinction and separation are kept
up as possible with a view to create responsibility. The driver has a directing charge of every
thing, but there are subordinate persons, who take the more immediate care of the different
departments. For instance, I make one person answerable for my stock of cattle, the plantation
horses, the carts, wagons, ploughs and their tacklings. Another ahs charge of my boats; a third
attends the dairy, the sick, &c.; a fourth, the poultry, and providing for and taking care of the
little negroes whose parents are in the field. Each of these negroes, however, does other work.
As good a plan as any I have found, to establish security and good order on the
plantation, is that of constituting a watch at night, consisting of two or more men. They are
answerable for all trespasses committed during their watch, unless they produce the offender or
give immediate alarm. When the protection of a plantation is left to the negroes generally, you at
once perceive the truth of the maxim “that what is every one’s business is no one’s business.”
But when a regular watch is established, each in turn performs his tour of duty, so that the most
careless is at times made to be observant and watchful. The very act of organizing a watch
bespeaks a care and attention on the part of the master, which has the due influence on the negro.
P. 52
2
100, S.C., 1857, planter, great
The names of all the men are to be called over every Sunday morning and evening, from
which none are to be absent but those who are sick or have tickets [passes]. When there is
evening Church, those who attend are to be excused from answering. At evening list [roll call],
every negro must be clean and well washed. No one is to be absent from the place without a
ticket, which is always to be given to such as ask it and have behaved well. All persons coming
form the Proprietor’s other places should show their tickets to the Overseer, who should sign his
name on back; those going off the plantation should bring back their tickets signed. The
Overseer is every now and then to go round at night and call at the houses, so as to ascertain
whether their inmates are at home…
Drivers are, under the Overseer, to maintain discipline and order on the place. They are
to be responsible for the quiet of the negro houses, for the proper performance of tasks, for
bringing out the people early in the morning, and generally for the immediate inspection of such
things as the Overseer only generally superintends.
Watchmen are to be responsible for the safety of the buildings, boats, flats, and fences,
and that no cattle or hogs come inside the place. If he perceives any buildings or fences out of
repair, or if he hears of any robberies or trespasses, he must immediately give the Overseer
notice…
Fighting, particularly amongst women, and obscene or abusive language is to be always
rigorously punished. P. 58
Chapter 4: Workday
A full and reasonable day’s work was the ideal espoused by the South’s students of slave
management. A full day universally meant daylight to dark. During the oppressive summers of
the Lower South, however, this lengthy workday was usually broken at midday by a rest period
of several hours. For obvious health reasons, labor in the open during inclement weather was to
be avoided. Likewise, night work was frowned on, not only because it was considered an
unwarranted burden on the slave but also because it impeded his efficiency by reducing his hours
of sleep. The only recognized exception to this general rule was harvest time when extraordinary
measures were often necessary. Sunday labor was denounced as irreligious and a flagrant
violation of the slave’s deserved day of rest. A reasonable day’s work meant a daily chore that
while not backbreaking required a brisk pace to finish. Gang work was seemingly preferred over
the task system. P. 61
58, [S.C], 1830, planter, [major-great]
No before-day work, good day light will be quite time enough to commence the labour of
the day. P 62
6, S.C., 1832, farmer-planter, ?
Every indulgence should be extended to them, as far as it is for their own benefit,
exacting from them no more that a reasonable day’s work, and that by task-work as far as it is
practicable, according to the ability of the hand, and not row by row or hill by hill as is
customary, where the effective hands, when they make an exertion, exhaust the weaker ones in
3
keeping up with them, and when this effect is produced, work at their leisure keeping a little
ahead of those who follow, and as their pace slackens the others respond. P. 62
10, S.C., 1840, young planter, ?
I regret to say that I know large slaveholders, and otherwise honourable men, who I
believe feed and clothe well but do exact too rigidly from their slaves – as the performance of all
errands is done at night, and such as the errands to the store, blacksmith-shop, and with some the
labor of packing cotton, &c.,and …they exact from them the Sabbath, the day given them by
their maker for the best and wisest of purposes, for religious observance, and in which they may
recover from the exhaustion and fatigue incurred from 6 days of labour in the hot melting sun.
The penal statutes of our State should be enforced, but a mistaken delicacy interferes, and they
escape the laws; but most certainly that are a mock, a bye-work and reproach, and justly deserve
the indignation of all who treat their slaves as their Great Author designs, neither deserving the
name of planter, patriot, or statesman and should never nor indeed are they esteemed by those.
By standing guilty before that tribunal which has said,
“Servants be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also
to the forward; and also, masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing
that ye also have a master in heaven.” P. 63
100, S.C., 1857, planter, great
A task is as much work as the meanest full hand can do in nine hours working
industriously. The Driver is each morning to point out to each hand their task, and this task is
never to be increased, and no work is to be done over task except under the most urgent
necessity; which over-work is to be reported to the Proprietor, who will pay for it. No negro is to
be put in a task which they cannot finish with tolerable ease. It is a bad plan to punish for not
finishing task; it is subversive of discipline to leave tasks unfinished, and contrary to justice to
punish for what cannot be done. In nothing does a good manager so much excel a bad, as in
being able to discern what a hand is capable of doing and in never attempting to make him do
more.
No negro is to leave his task until the driver has examined and approved it; he is then to
be permitted immediately to go home, and the hands are to be encouraged to finish their tasks as
early as possible so as to have time for working for themselves. P. 70
15, S.C., 1858, planter, great
Each full hand (grown person) is required to turn or dig up one quarter of an acre of
swamp land (rice land) per day. In cutting ditches, the task is 600 feet and is arrived at thusly:
multiplying the width and this by the number which will amount to 600 feet; this number will be
the length that each man will have to cut. In listing land each negro will do half an acre; in
bedding land three-eighths of an acre; in trenching land for rice each man will trench threequarters of an acre which will contain 180 rows; the women who sow will plant one-and-a-half
acres; in hoeing rice, corn, or potatoes, each negro will no one-half acre if the land is in good
order. All these tasks are light, and the negroes who industriously work from the time they go
out, which is always after sunrise in the winter months, will finish their tasks and return to their
houses between three and four o’clock. P. 70
4
Chapter 17: Negro crops
Negro crops were thought be many to be the best means of inculcating a sense of
industriousness in slaves. But this method of reward was also the most controversial. Advocates
of the practice argued that giving working hands a plot of land on which to raise poultry,
vegetables, corn or cotton, to be consumed or sold, would impress the importance of work and
the value of property upon their minds. Opponents insisted that Negro crops encouraged
stealing, overwork, damage to horses and mules, and trafficking. P. 266
58, [S.C.], 1830, planter, [major-great]
All my slaves are to be supplied with sufficient land on which [the overseer will]
encourage, and even compel, them to plant and cultivate a crop, all of which I will, as I have
hitherto done, purchase at a fair price from them. This crop can be tended during their idle hours
after task work was done, which otherwise would be spent in the perpetration of some act that
would subject them to severe punishment. P. 267
16, S.C., 1836, overseer
Negroes should in no instance be permitted to trade, except with their masters. By
permitting them to leave the plantation with the view of selling and buying, more is lost by the
owner than he is generally aware of. Let each planter have upon his place a store of such articles
as his slave usually purchase elsewhere. These can be dealt out to them for their corn and such
things as they have to sell. By so doing, your negroes will be better and more cheaply provided,
and be put out of the way of the temptation of roguery. P. 270
5
Garrett, Elisabeth Donaghy, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870.
Harry N. Abrams Inc., Publishers. 1990, New York.
Sources – Letters, diaries, novels, poetry, household inventories, newspaper advertisements and
housekeeping manuals. P. 14
Chapter One: Welcome Home!
The use of paint.
Captain Thomas Hamilton attributed some of the sparkle of American towns to the ever-fresh
paint. He believed that New Yorkers must have inherited their taste or colorful housed from
their Dutch ancestors, and he admired the agreeable effect on gaiety and lightness. In many New
World towns, fire regulations stipulated that bricks be used and these, too, were often annually
coated in red, yellow, or light gray enamels, which not only acted as a sealant, preventing the
clay from freezing and scaling, but lent a “cheerful, bright and daylight aspect” to the streets.
P.17
John M. Duncan attributed the singular neatness of New York residences in 1818 to the bricks,
which were made of very fine clay, affording a close and smooth grain, and to the fact that they
were always “showily painted either a bright red with white lines up the seams, or a clean
looking yellow.” P.17
Paul Svinin, a Russian traveling in the States between 1811 and 1813, maintained the “the
greater half of all the houses in the United States is built of brick painted with oil paint and
outlined in white.” He further complained, “Almost all the private residences in America are
built on the same plan. They have the same façade and are laid out in the same way. P. 18
John Shaw, whose A Ramble through the United States was published in 1856, found many of
these red-brick and green shuttered houses so gay that they resembled “paintings rather than
dwellings” p.20
Windows
Large and numerous windows, often fitted with window seats, offered vantage points which to
admire the pastoral setting. Many Foreign observes remarked upon this typical abundance of
windows, which gave American houses a light appearance (though some were puzzled by the
chronic deficiency of window glass in southern homes). P.29
For it one looked upon arriving at home in early America there was sure to be someone at a
window – for air, for light, or for entertainment.
Having arrived at home, perhaps we should climb the front steps, open the door, and walk into
the entry hall. Very possibly this hall runs straight through the center of the house, bisecting a
symmetrical floor plan. With large doors at either end, it is commodious, lofty, and airy,
bespeaking a growing concern for the healthfulness of one’s surroundings. Spacious rooms,
soaring ceilings, and cross-ventilation all contributed to a lung-strengthening free circulation of
air. In winter, drafts of frosty air from the entry doors could be confined to the hallway by
closing doors to the adjoining rooms. P. 31
1
Throughout the eighteenth century and during the early nineteenth century, the hall (and all firstfloor rooms) was often elevated above a story or half-story basement…In the country, this
elevation took advantage of picturesque prospects and salubrious breezes. With its front and
back doors opened wide, the through hall is a metaphor for the Enlightenment’s self-confident
embrace of nature for human pleasure and benefit. Nature could be enjoyed outside on carefully
planned grounds, or inside from strategically positioned doors and windows. Front-hall doors
and drawing-room windows were calculatingly placed to take best advantage of the view. P.31
…That the first object of a house-builder or contriver should be to make a healthy house; and the
first requisite of a healthy house is pure, sweet, elastic air. I am in favor, therefore, of those
plans of house-building which have wide central spaces, whether halls or courts, into which all
the rooms open, and which necessarily preserve a body of fresh air for the use of them all.” P. 33
Harriet Beecher Stowe
By the 1850s such bold drama was decidedly outré’. Not only had the entry been reduced in
scale in many homes but its muted decoration was to be very definitely subservient to the éclat of
the parlor. As Downing counseled, “The hall, and all entries, staircases, and passages should be
of a cool and sober tone of color – gray, stone color, or drab,” because “the effect of the richer
and livelier hues of the other apartments with then be enhanced by the color of the hall” p. 35
Possibility of fire
Coat rack in front hall
Tall case clock
The remaining furnishings of the vestibule characteristically varied according to the season, for
although the hall might be a comfortable breezeway in summer, outfitted with supplementary
tables and chairs brought in from adjoining rooms, it was in winter but a chilly interval to be
quickly passed through. P. 38
From 1750 to 1850, Windsor and other painted chairs were common both in the entry hall and in
the corresponding passage on the second floor. The Early American entry hall was a large and
convenient storage space, and folded or disassembled dining tables often lined the walls. On
occasion, tea tables could be found in the entry hall, more often in the upstairs hall. This secondstory passage might contain card tables and settee or daybed as well, for the large windows at
either end made this an open, airy, well-lighted and solar-heated apartment for relaxing and
informal entertaining. P. 38
Best Parlor or Drawing Room
Many American homes between 1750 and 1870 could boast two parlors. One was aloof and
ceremonial, the other unpretentious and informal. The best parlor was a reception room, the
apartment to which a guest would first be shown. It was strategically located on the main floor,
frequently at the front of the house, just off the entry hall; as the view could play an important
part in the overall ‘éclat, however, the room might be shifted to take advantage of an expansive
prospect or breathtaking garden at the back or side of the house. The intent was to impress
through a display of fine possessions. The furniture should be rich and delicate and the wall and
furnishing colors cheerful and light so that the “brilliancy of effect” would not be lost in evening
Twilight. The atmosphere was formal, the use occasional – for entertaining and such rites of
passage as weddings, christenings, and funerals. And the appellation was various – parlor, front
2
room, best room, drawing room or a compass-point designation such as “southwest room,” in
reference to the position of the floor plan. P. 39
The resulting open space in the center of the room facilitated housekeeping; promoted the easy
arrangement of the furniture for tea drinking, card playing, sewing, reading, or eating; and
prevented family members from tripping over furniture left standing about in these often dimly
lit interiors. P. 39
This could be one reason why carpets in American parlors were typically stretched from wall to
wall and nailed tightly to the floor: tautness prevented them from bunching as furniture was
moved about. Casters of brass, wood, and leather facilitated this transport around the room and
were advertised in colonial newspapers from the 1750s. p. 39
The best parlor was used most often either for the morning reception of visitor, when natural
light would suffice, or in the late afternoon and evening, with tea, cards, music, or simply
conversation as the social fare and, with the alliance of artificial light, looking glasses, gilded
edges, and polished surfaces providing the drama. P. 46
With the earliest appearance of tea china in the American seventeenth-century home, tea wares
had sometimes been placed on a mantel – perhaps for display at this fire-lighted focal point,
perhaps at this height to prevent accidental breakage, for closets were few and small. But as the
eighteenth century progressed, growing concern for order, neatness, and convenience paralleled
expanding consumer desires for luxury goods. Mantels in genteel homes were now decorated in
an orderly law. Often with small object specifically designed as chimney garniture. Table china
and glassware were taken off the mantel and displayed in a china cupboard or buffet (or
variously referred to as the boffett, beaufat, or bowfat), which had become common to many
homes by the 1750s and would remain in fashion into the next century. P.48
On occasion, such a piano or harpsichord in an eighteenth-century parlor or music room bespoke
genteel pretensions. The proliferation of the form in the early nineteenth century was an
indication of the diffusion and diversity of consumer demand necessary to a polished young lady.
When a daughter sat down to perform for a parlorful of guests, such tunes pronounced the
genteel education her parents had procured her, and not without considerable expense. P. 52
The extension of trade routes worldwide contributed to the profusion of objects in American
nineteenth-century drawing rooms. “Indeed, the whole world contributed to their luxury.”
Exulted James Fenimore Cooper in 1828: “French clocks, English and Brussels carpets, curtains
from Lyons, and the Indies, alabaster from France and Italy, marble of their own, and from Italy,
and, in short, every ornament below the rarest that is known in every other country in
Christendom, and frequently out of it, is put within the reach of the American of moderate
means, by the facilities of their trade.” P. 54
By 1870 the whole idea of a formal room for the reception of guests, and to the exclusion of the
family, was coming under increasing fire. A new word was being bantered about – instead of a
parlor for proper parlance, a family might prefer a living room for all the lively activities of its
bustling, close-knit membership. But, for generations of Americans from 1750-1870, the best
parlor-drawing room was an accepted, if chilly, aspect of life at home. “We never sat in the
parlor but usually visited it,” As Andrew L. Winton summed it up. The front parlor was
removed from the pulse of the family. It was, in the words of social historian Russell Lynes, “an
3
island of formality in a turbulent sea of family comings and goings.” Perhaps, then, we should
trespass no longer, but shut the door and tiptoe to the back parlor, where we’ll hope to find the
family. P. 60
The Back Parlor, or Sitting Room
The second parlor in an American house was variously termed parlor, sitting room, keeping
room, living room, dining parlor, or back parlor – the last reference to its location behind the best
parlor. The role of this apartment was family room, the intent was convenience, the atmosphere
was informal and the use was frequent. P.61
A desk was often placed in the back parlor…Some homes could boast a separate library,
occasionally located on the second floor (perhaps for greater privacy and quiet), but in most
houses books, bookcases, and a desk or desk-and –bookcase were found in parlors, often the
back parlor. Such pieces connoted male learning and business acumen, and when the master of
the house sat for his portrait. P. 65
The Dining Room
Meals at home in early America were served in the dining room, sitting room, drawing room,
bedchamber, kitchen, hall, piazza, and any other convenient location. Flexibility was essential
when servants, weather, health, and family compositions were ever-changing. When family
members were ill, and they often were, they ate in bedchambers. Before central heating became
available, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the family ate in a hearth-warmed room in
winter. In summer they would gather where it was coolest. P. 78
A specialized dining room was a symbol of economic success…Many families never saw the
need for a pretentious dining room and continued to enjoy their meals in the cozy kitchen or
hospitable sitting room. Others had a formal dining room but continued to eat informal meals,
such as breakfast and supper, in that back parlor. P. 78
The first step in preparing the room for a meal was to lay the table rug, or crumb cloth on top of
the carpet. Its purpose was set forth by Eliza Leslie in 1840: “in an eating-room, the carpet
should be protected from crumbs and grease-droppings by a large woolen cloth kept for that
purpose, and spread under the table and the chairs that surround it; this cloth is to be taken up
after every meal, and shaken out of doors; or else swept off carefully as it lies.”…The use of a
crumb cloth was universal; the materials and colors were various. Painted canvas had been used
for this purpose since the early years of the eighteenth century and remained popular well into
the nineteenth century…Crumb cloth colors might be green, blue and white, brown, or black and
white – Catherine Beecher advised that a “pepper-and-salt color” would show dirt the least. P. 79
A great advantage of the formal dining room, however, was that the dining table might stand out
in the center of the room and not have to be folded up and placed aside to make way for other
activities…The table end or ends, when not in use, could be placed symmetrically around the
room as supplementary serving tables. P. 80
4
The Kitchen
In the South, the kitchen was generally a detached outbuilding some twenty to one hundred yards
was from the “Big House,” thus removing at a distance the incessant commotion of the servants
and the bothersome heat, troublesome smoke, and treacherous sparks of the open fire. P. 95
Regardless of where it was located, there were certain universal qualifications for an efficient
kitchen. It should be sufficiently large that duties could be performed smoothly, and it must be
well aired and ventilated; receive plenty of light; offer easy access to the dining room or dining
parlor; be remote enough that the family not be incommoded by the smell of cooking food and
the noise of rattling pots; have readily available supplies of fuel and water; and share proximity
with such supportive appendages as sinkroom, pantry, buttery, and storeroom. P. 95
Family use of this apartment depended in large part on the housewife’s involvement in kitchen
operations. If she was blessed with able and sufficient servants her role was merely supervisory.
She only visited the kitchen, and the room entered little into family life, being more an efficient
workroom than a lively living space. P. 95
The Bedchambers
Elegance, comfort, utility, and health were important considerations in the decoration of the
eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century bedchambers. Furniture for sleeping, resting,
washing, nursing, writing, and eating proclaimed the multifunctional aspect of these rooms,
although their primary function was made clear in the towering presence of the curtained
bedstead. P. 138
5
Kalman, Bobbie, Games from Long Ago. Crabtree Publishing Company, 1995.
Parlor Games: Charades and Blind Man’s Bluff. Guessing games, word games, and
board games were also played in the parlor.
Cudgel game: a favorite among boys of the late 1800’s. Two blindfolded players are
given rolled-up newspapers. They lie on their stomach, head to head, holding each other by the
left hand. One player calls out “Are you ready?” When the other player replies “yes,” the first
player tries to swat him or her with the newspaper. Since the swatter is blindfolded, he or she
usually misses. The other player then asks “are you ready?” and tries to whack his or her friend.
There is no point to this silly game.
Pinch, No Smiling: Pinch, No Smiling was a parlor game that tested self-control. To
play Pinch, No Smiling, everyone sits in a circle. One by one, each player turns to a neighbor
and pinches his or her nose. The first player to smile or laugh has to pay a forfeit such as
jewelry or a favorite toy.
After everyone in the circle has been pinched, all the losers must “pay” to get their
forfeits back. The wheeling and dealing is as much fun as playing the actual game! A player
buys back his or her forfeit by performing a silly trick, such as acting like an animal, hopping
around the room on one foot, or staying perfectly still and silent for a period of time. The
winners of the game decide what the losers must do!
Guessing Games – good brain exercises
Charades, Twenty Questions.
Dumbo Crambo: Two teams are needed for this game. Team 2 leaves the room while
Team 1 picks a word, such as “pie,” as well as a rhyming word to offer as a clue. Team 2 reenters the room and is told that the secret word rhymes with “sky.”
Team 2’s job is to act out the secret word. If the players on Team 2 are wrong, the Team
1 players hiss loudly. Team 2 keeps acting until the players guess the right word. Then it is
Team 1’s turn to leave the room while Team 2 picks a new word.
Word Games - Help children learn language skills.
I Have a Basket: The players form a circle. The first player begins the game by saying
“I have a basket.” The person beside him or her asks “What’s inside?” The first person has to
name something that starts with the letter A. The second person has to name an object that
begins with the letter B, and so on. The game gets interesting with the players reach the letter Q
and X.
Cupid’s Leaving – All the players pick a letter, for example, S. The first player calls out
“Cupid’s leaving,” and the next person asks “How?” The first person has to think of a word that
starts with S and end in “ing” to describe how Cupid is leaving. He or she might answer
“singing.” The second player then calls out “Cupid’s leaving,” and the third player asks “How?”
The second player might say “sobbing.” The game continues until someone is unable to think of
an answer. The players then choose a new letter.
Anagrams – Children used small squares of paper with letters of the alphabet written on
one side. The players take turns turning over one square each. As soon as someone sees
enough letters to make a word, he or she calls out the word and takes the letters. New letters are
then turned over. If any of these can be added to an old word to make a new word, a person can
call out the new word and “steal” the letter from the person who holds them. Players are also
allowed to rearrange letters to make new words. Anagram players muse think fast to hold on to
their letters!
Taboo – Taboo players decide on a letter of the alphabet that will be forbidden in the
game. One person is chosen to be it. The other players ask It question that might force him or
her to use the forbidden letter. For example, if the letter D were chosen, one player might ask
“What animal has hoofs?” It would answer “a lamb.” If It answered “deer,” he or she would
have used the forbidden letter. The questioning continues until It is forced to use the taboo letter.
In a more difficult version of the game, the person who is It must answer in sentence form
without using the taboo letter anywhere in the sentence: “The little lamb follows Mary to school
on its four little hoofs.”
Table Games
Dominoes
Tiddlywinks – Players use a disk called a shooter to flip smaller disks called winks into a
cup that sits in the middle of the playing area. The object of the game is to be the first player to
sink all of his or her disks into the cup.
Pick-up sticks - Pick-up sticks, or jackstraws, was a very popular game among North
American settlers. To play, all that was needed was a pile of wood splinters or straws. Some
fancy pick-up-stick games had ivory “straws.” Modern versions of jackstraws use wooden or
plastic sticks. The sticks are heaped in the middle of the table. Each player takes a turn
removing one stick from the pile. The challenge is to do so without moving any of the other
sticks.
Cards – In the early 1800s, most children’s card games were designed to be educational.
Card games helped children learn about math, geography, history, and science. Some card
games even taught girls about cooking.
In the 1850s, people began to play card games for fun. Decks of cards were very
colorful. Our Birds, Old Maid and Old Bachelor, and Dr. Busby were lively card games.
Parents did not allow their children to play with regular playing cards because they did not want
to encourage gambling.
Board Games
The value of hard work – Errand Boy was a popular board game in the 1800s. This game
tried to show children the value of hard work and good deeds. Players followed the career of an
errand boy as he was promoted in the company. Players who landed on squares describing hard
work and good behavior could move ahead. Players who landed on squares that described
dishonest acts or laziness had to move back or go to jail. The winner was the player who became
president of the company!
Work-party games
Whenever there was a big task such as raising a barn or making apple cider, the settlers
organized a work party called a bee. There were bees for husking corn, making quilts, and
harvesting crops. Children often took part in the work or joined in the party afterwards. A big
part of the bee was feasting, dancing, and playing games. Playing games made the work seem
like fun.
A-mazing! – During the harvest, parents sometimes set up maze of hay sheaved to keep
their children occupied. The children wandered through the maze or played hiding games.
While the children played, the parents had a chance to get work done or gossip with other adults.
Mazes kept children amazed for hours!
Gossip – The first settlers did not have newspapers to tell them what was happening in
the world. When people gathered at a bee, they exchanged news and information. Sometimes
the news changed as it traveled.
Apple games – One apple game was believed to predict the future! A person pares an
apple, leaving the peel in one long, winding piece, closes his or her eyes, and tosses the peel.
The peel falls to the floor in a shape that resembles a letter of the alphabet. The letter just might
be the first initial of the person the thrower will marry!
Corn husking – After the harvest, everyone gathered to husk corn for winter storage.
The young man who found a red ear of corn was allowed to kiss the young woman sitting closest
to him. Some men cheated by bringing red corn to the bee in their pockets.
Holiday games
Holidays provided a chance for settlers to get together. They looked forward to special
days such as Christmas, Valentine’s Day, Thanksgiving, and Halloween.
Bag and Stick Christmas
Famous Romances Valentine’s Day
The Cobweb Game Christmas
Run for your seat!
Children today have loads of energy. The children of the past were no different. They
enjoyed games that allowed them to run and compete with one another.
Spin the Trencher
Post Office
Duck, Duck, Goose
Outdoor Games
Battledore and Shuttlecock
Graces – The game of Graces was played by two players, either two girls or a girl and a
boy. Boys did not play Graces with one another because it was considered a “girl’s game.”
Each player had a stick. Using the sticks, the players tossed a hoop to one another. The game
was meant to encourage children to move gracefully.
Ring Taw
Team sports
Tug-of-war
Shinny
Lacrosse
Football
Baseball
Classroom games
Buzz
Spelling bee
Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: Fruits of Manifest Destiny 1847-1852.
New York; Charles Scribner and Sons, 1947.
Elliots Long Letter – Charleston Courier, August 28, 1849. Volume 1
Hamer, Philip M., Secession Movement in South Carolina
Columbia Daily Telegraph – 9/28/1849, 5/14-16/1849
Compromise of 1850 – MVHR XXII, 525-536
Neglected Phase – JSH XII, 153-203
Boucher, C.S. – Secession and Cooperation Movements in South Carolina
Cotton Factorage System – AHR XX
Fleming, W.L., Jefferson Davis – Sewanee Review XVI 407-427
Owsley – JSH VI 21-45
Govan, Thomas – JSH VIII 513-535
Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852-1857.
New York; Charles Scribner and Sons, 1947.
“Send us help!” Missourians were beseeching their Southern brethren, the border
counties, bearing the brunt of the struggle, had spent funds and labor without stint in fighting the
battles of the South, and not without success. “Lafayette County alone,” argued a committee
addressing the section, “has expended more than $100,000 in money and as much or more in
time.” The population of Kansas, this body continued, was still about equally divided between
Free-State and Slave-State men; The North was preparing to make tremendous exertions; the
South should form societies, and those who could not emigrate should send money to help
Missourians settle across the line. The decisive struggle would occur in the elections of October,
1856, and unless the South could maintain her ground she would be lost. “We repeat it, the crisis
has arrived. The time has come for action, bold, determined action”.1
In response to such appeals, Southern women gave their jewels; Southern Aid Societies
sprang up in different States; various railroads furnished free passage to emigrants; and
businessmen and planters subscribed small sums. Late in March the Kansas Association of
Charleston forwarded it second corps, twenty-eight young men. An Abbeville, S.C., committee
had offered an outfit of $200 to every suitable person who would emigrate to Kansas. Atlanta
sent off twenty young men, “true as steel,” to be joined by a dozen more in Marietta, Ga.
Committees and recruiting agents toiled busily in other areas. For a time enthusiastic
Southerners deceived themselves with hopes of a quick and decisive victory. We must not
divulge the details of the efficient plans now on foot, exclaimed the Montgomery Journal of
April 7, but “measures are already effected to place in Kansas before the October election at least
six thousand voters.” These would stream out of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina,
1
Appeal to the Lafayette Kansas Emigration Society, March 25, 1856, in National Intelligencer, April 12, 1856.
1
and Tennessee; and the remainder of the South “will stand ready at any moment to supply any
balance of voters which may be necessary.” 2
Attack on Lawrence, Kansas
Then, as a blood-red flag with a lone star in the center, emblazoned with “Southern
Rights” on one side and “South Carolina” on the other, was raised above the Herald of Freedom
office, the premises of that hated journal and of the Free-State were invaded; both presses were
smashed and tossed into the river; and books and papers were destroyed. The excited mob
thereupon planted three cannon near the hotel, fired some thirty shots in a vain effort to batter it
to pieces, and tried to blow it up with a keg of gunpowder. Finally, after ransacking the rooms
and seizing the stock of liquor, they burned it down. When the best hostelry in the Territory was
a heap of ruins, they fired Governor Robinson’s house and barn, destroying his furniture and
library. Before setting out for home they also pillaged a number of shops and houses. 3
“The Free School System of South Carolina,” Southern Quarterly Review, November, 1856
Nevins, Allan. The Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861.
New York; Charles Scribner and Sons, 1947.
In the autumn of 1859 an avowed disunionist, John J. Pettus, was chosen governor of
Mississippi. Another, the wealthy, cultivated, and implacably secessionist William Henry Gist,
have the previous year been made governor of South Carolina. A third, Andrew B. Moore, who
had sat for two years in the governor’s chair in Alabama, was now chosen for his second term.
Scattered all over the South, men who openly or covertly wished to see a great slaveholding
republic come into existence looked toward 1860 as their year of opportunity. P. 39
Governor William H. Gist of South Carolina, a wealthy lawyer-planter, hot tempered (he
had killed his man in a duel), rigid (an ardent Methodist and prohibitionist), and hostile to the
Union (he had demanded separate secession in 1851), was quick to see his opportunity. He told
the legislature that the whole North was arrayed against the slaveholding area, that Harper’s
Ferry had marked the crossing of the Rubicon, and that it was hopeless to look to the Democratic
party for protection – it was a pasteboard ship tossed by ocean storms. Resolutions were
introduced by Christopher G. Memminger, lawyer and financial expert of Charleston, now
turning from conservatism to radicalism. They recalled that South Carolina by her ordinance of
1832 had affirmed the right to secede, asserted that the assaults upon Southern rights had
continued with increasing violence, called upon the slaveholding States to meet for concerted
action, and directed the governor to send a commissioner to Virginia to press for joint measures
of defense. These resolutions were received with acclaim. Already, many public gatherings had
been called to organize local vigilance committees, while a number of previously cautious
newspapers had become extreme. A vote on still more radical resolves indicated that not less
than fifty-three percent of the senate and forty-three percent of the house stood for disunion. As
2
Charleston News, March 27, 1856. J. W. Whitfield wrote Kansas friends from Washington December 4, 1855: “I
reached here nearly a week ago after spending some days in Georgia, etc. I found an immense excitement in all the
South, and if you can but hold your own hundreds will flock to Kansas.” Daniel Woodson Papers, Kansas State Hist.
Soc.
3
For full accounts, see Missouri Democrat, May 27; Independence, Mo., Messenger, May 24; N. Y. Tribune, May
28, 1856. Interesting correspondence by Governors Shannon and Geary bearing on the attack on Lawrence is
printed in Kansas State Hist. Colls., IV. For Jones’s role, see Lawrence Herald of Freedom, October 31, 1857.
2
Memminger’s proposals passed, and the governor named him commissioner to Richmond,
Mississippi accepted the plan for a Southern convention, suggested that delegates meet in Atlanta
early in June, and sent a commissioner of her own to Virginia. 4
It is certain that another governor, Gist of South Carolina, promised armed support to the
Congressmen of his State if they offered forcible resistance to the seating of such a Speaker as
John Sherman. Declaring that, though he preferred a peaceable solution, he was prepared to
wade in blood rather than submit to a degrading inequality, he privately assured them: “If…you
upon consultation decide to make the issue of force in Washington, write or telegraph me, and I
will have a regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time.” 5
Effects of John Brown’s raid
That there was no danger of immediate action, however, was demonstrated by the failure
of Memminger’s mission to Virginia. The agent of South Carolina, received with due ceremony,
delivered a four-hour address to the Richmond legislature on January 19, 1860. He urged the
Old Dominion to join other States in a convention to discuss means of protecting their rights and
property. South Carolina, he said, would abide by the will of her sisters. “If our pace be too fast
for some, we are content to walk slower; our earnest wish is that all may keep together.” While
the address was heard with attention, and the legislature voted to publish and distribute ten
thousand copies, no strong disposition to act appeared. Not wishing to embarrass the
deliberations, Memminger returned to South Carolina on February 10. He reported to Governor
Gist that the Virginians were hesitant because they felt that Southern rights might yet be
preserved in the Union, and feared that the proposed convention would prove precipitate.
In the end, the Virginia legislature resolved that it was inexpedient to appoint deputies to
a conference. Most other Southern States showed a similar reluctance (Mississippi alone
selecting delegates), and the gathering vanished into oblivion. On this point, conservatism still
won the day. Gist, indeed, had to write Governor Hicks of Maryland that he never desired
secession so long as the rights of the South in the Union were respected and her equality was
recognized. 6
If Lincoln is elected President
Not a few men in the cotton kingdom knew that the governors were exchanging letters on
possible ways and means of secession. Gist of South Carolina, on October 5, sent a confidential
missive to his colleagues, declaring that concert action was essential, that South Carolina desired
some other State to take the lead or at least move simultaneously in seceding, and that if none did
so, she would in his opinion secede alone. The governors of North Carolina and Louisiana
replied that, with public opinion much divided, their States would probably not regard Lincoln’s
election as justifying secession; and ever Joseph E. Brown declared that Georgia, if acting alone,
4
Harold Schultz, “South Carolina and National Politics, 1852-60,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke Univ.; Ames, State
Documents, 69, 70; Capers, Memminger.
5
To W. P. Miles, December 20, 1859; Miles Papers, Univ. of N.C.
6
A group of former Whigs and other Opposition members of the Virginia legislature addressed a letter to John
Minor Botts, January 14, 1860, declaring themselves disturbed by the manifestation of a design to prepare Virginia
for Civil War, and to use the John Brown raid as a pretext for early hostilities. Botts replied to the group in a
pamphlet of fifteen pages of fine type, denouncing the efforts of Wise and the Virginia radicals to exaggerate current
difficulties. In Richmond, he wrote later, these men had created an uproar that had rarely been paralleled even in
Paris and that had spread all over the State. See Botts, The Great Rebellion, 177, 178; Shanks, Secession Movement
in Virginia, 62 ff., 85 ff. For Memminger’s mission, see Charleston Courier, February-March, 1860; “South
Carolina Mission to Virginia.” DeBow’s Review, IV, 751-777; Miles Papers, Univ. of N. C. Gist’s letter is in the
Charleston Mercury, February 17, 1860.
3
would probably wait for an overt act. But the governors of Mississippi and Florida believed that
their States would join any other in secession; while Governor Moore thought that Alabama
would cooperate with any two or more. 7
Chapter 11: The Lower South Secedes
[The election of Lincoln]…South Carolina was like a bed of charcoal suddenly leaping
into flame. The legislature was sitting at Columbia to choose presidential electors. As the
returns came in, Rhett, Milledge L. Bonham, Keitt, and Ruffin, all present in the city, delivered
impassioned speeches. The States Rights flag, a red star on a white ground, was flung over
public buildings. In Charleston on Wednesday the seventh [of November], crowds thronged the
streets, the palmetto flag was hoisted over the Mercury office amid wild cheering. J.D.B. De
Bow and others spoke, and the announcement that Federal Judge A. G. Magrath and Collector
W.F. Colcock had resigned their offices inspired general enthusiasm. In the next few days a
spate of news kept people aroused. The legislature has authorized the governor to spend
$100,000 for arms; Senator Chesnut had resigned his seat in Washington and Hammond had
followed suit; telegrams from other States were tendering the support of volunteer corps.
Everywhere the stars and stripes were coming down, and the red star or palmetto flags were
going up. In Columbia, Charleston, and other centers, militia units and minute men had
redoubled their drilling. Bonfires, parades, and “resistance rallies” were the order of the day. 8
For several reasons, South Carolina was in the best position to give the secessionist
forces vigorous leadership. Since in that State alone presidential electors were chosen by the
legislature, the two houses had met November 5; they would reconvene again on the twentysixth for the regular session and to elect a governor. No legislature in the county was less
representative of the masses. Seats were apportioned according to a ratio compounded of the
white population and the amount of taxes paid, so that the wealthy lowlands, with their heavy
slave properties, held a marked advantage over the poorer up-country where the whites so
strongly preponderated over the Negroes. Governor Gist, a wealthy planter and veteran States
Rights man, had already prophesied the secession which he wished to make a reality. A month
before the election, he had sent the before-noted letters to various Southern governors declaring
that South Carolina would secede if she had any assurance of similar action by another or other
States, and would desire their cooperation. As soon as his legislature met, he had informed it
that in view of the probability of a Republican victory, which would give the South the prospect
of becoming a mere province in a consolidated despotism, it should remain in session, and if
Lincoln were chosen, should call a State convention to consider modes of redress. 9
The legislature was ready to act. Differences arose as to the time schedule, one party
demanding immediate and separate secession while another urged delay until joint action with
other States could be arranged; but the issue was quickly resolved. On November 9, a bill passed
calling a secession convention, to which the various districts should send as many delegates as
their quotas in legislature – thus preserving their lowland domination. The election was to be
held January 8, and the delegates were to meet a week later. This would give time for
ascertaining the temper of other States. But when Charleston heard of the movement for delay, a
great mass meeting entered a vehement protest; it was seconded by a body of influential
7
Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, II, 306-314.
Ruffin, MS Diary, November 7, ff., 1860; Schirmer, MS Diary; Charleston Courier, November 8,10, 1860; Mrs.
Mary B. Chesnut, A Diary from Dixie. A caucus of South Carolina leaders was said to have met, October 25, at
Senator Hammond’s house to make plans; Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, II, 328.
9
Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln, II, 306 ff., gives Gist’s corr. With the governors. The S.C. House Journal and Senate
Journal for 1860 mirror the rush of the radicals, though Speaker James Simons of Charleston was a moderate, and
many members opposed precipitate action.
8
4
Georgians who had come for the before mentioned celebration of the opening of the SavannahCharleston Railroad; and a committee of three was hurried to Columbia by special train. The
legislature the reversed itself, fixing the election for December 6 and the convention for the
seventeenth. The members, caustically wrote J. L. Petigru, were afraid to “trust the second
thought of even their own people.” It seems probable, however, that a decisive majority of South
Carolinians wished to express themselves without delay, and to point the road for their sister
States. 10
Mississippi was prepared, though with less precipitancy, to fall into line. Governor John
J. Pettus had already written Gist that if any State acted, he believed his own would go with her.
He hastened (November 13) to call the legislature into session on the twenty-sixth. Lincoln’s
election, he wrote, demonstrated that men eager to “destroy the peace, property, and prosperity
of the Southern section” had gained control of the government, and that Mississippi must provide
surer safeguards for life and liberty than could be hoped for “from Black Republican oaths.” He
also privately arranged a meeting in Jackson of part of the delegation in Congress to advise him.
Here the usual disagreement arose between advocates of joint and disjoint secession; but when
Reuben Davis offered a resolution calling on the governor to propose immediate and separate
State action; it was adopted – the governor voting for it. 11 Gist had telegraphed Pettus asking
whether the South Carolina convention should make secession effective at once or March 4, and,
again at the suggestion of Davis, a majority of the gathering decided that Gist should be advised
in favor of immediate secession. The Jackson Mississippian was arguing that it would be wisest
to secede while the national government still was in friendly hands. 12
Governor Moore [Alabama], who had assured Gist that he believed Alabama would
secede with any two or more cooperating States. P. 321
He [Governor Joseph E. Brown] had also informed Gist that, in his opinion, Georgia
would meet all the Southern States in convention, and might even take action without waiting for
her sisters. P. 322
One hopeful factor was that all five States contained a Unionist party of no little strength
and dignity. In the upper districts of South Carolina, many citizens – one observant minister
thought them a majority – stood for maintenance of the Union. The able editor-politician, B. F.
Perry, had published a strong attack upon secessionist scheme in the Charleston Courier of
August 20, and he kept up his battle. Chief Justice John B. O’Neall, a nationalist since
nullification times, believed that secession was madness and had the support of his associate,
Judge Job Johnstone. Gabriel Cannon of Spartanburg was one of several State senators who
counseled patience. “I am still for the Union,” declared George S. Bryan of Charleston, “on the
sole ground that the South has made Mr. Lincoln President.” 13
The respected jurist James L. Petigru, just entrusted with the codification of the State
laws, protested to the last against the flowing tide. Charlestonians long remembered one
dramatic moment of his career. Listening attentively to the reading of Sunday prayers from the
pulpit of his beloved St. Michael’s he started when he heard the usual invocation for the
President of the United States omitted, and without hesitation walked up the aisle and out of the
door. It required all the varied excitements of the day, all the oratory of Keitt, Bonham, and
10
Carson, James L. Petigru, 361; Lillian A. Kibler, “Union Sentiment in S. C. in 1860,” Journal Southern Hist., IV,
August, 1938.
11
N.Y. Weekly Tribune, November 21, 1860
12
Reuben L. Davis, Mississippi and Mississippians, 391; Jackson Mississippian, November 13, 1860; Jefferson
Davis, Rise and Fall, I, 57ff.
13
November 6, 1860; Kennedy Papers.
5
Ruffin, all the urgings of Chesnut and Gist, and all the fiery editorials of the Mercury (whose
normal paid circulation of five hundred and fifty compared badly with the three thousand
circulation of the Courier) to convince Carolinians that the Unionist minority was too
insignificant to be heeded. 14
But despite all the evidence of scattered Union feeling, by December 6, the date of the
South Carolina election, it was clear that the secessionists were overriding all opposition in four
of the five foremost States – Georgia alone being doubtful. The course of events under the
palmetto flag was eloquent of the situation. November found the State full of secession
meetings, while Union men hardly dared assemble. Even B. F. Perry, who was defeated in his
own county for the first time in twenty years, confessed himself paralyzed. “The election was
hurried on without giving time for discussion,” he writes in his autobiography. “I did not go out
at all to electioneer, and the people of the district did not turn out to vote. The secessionists all
went to the polls and did not cast more than a thousand votes, whilst the district could vote more
than twenty-four hundred. The Union men thought that it was a foregone conclusion that the
State would secede, and it was not worth their while to go to the polls.” 15 Chief Justice O’Neall
and Judge Johnstone, speaking from the steps of Newberry courthouse, were a target for eggs
and turnips; and, according to O’Neall, “the majority of those entitled to suffrage” in that area
did not vote. In the last week before the election, some observers discerned a strong
conservative rally. One wrote the New York Tribune that if a true vote on the issue could be
taken, a majority of South Carolinians would refuse to leave the Union. But on the election day,
the secessionists won from sea to mountains. And on the morrow Governor Gist issued another
stirring message, urging immediate secession so that South Carolina might not exercise “a
blighting and chilling influence upon the action of the other Southern States.” P. 326
The central factor which made the secession movement possible, and which must be
viewed as fundamental to the nation schism, was a triple-fronted sentiment which, for a long
generation, had been inculcated among the Southern people; A fervent belief in State Rights,
including the right of secession, as the palladium of their liberties; an ever-deepening hatred for
the free-soil movement in the North; and an increasing readiness to indulge the vision of a
happy, opulent Southern republic. P. 329
Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leader emphasized familiar
economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced for the general truth of
Rhett’s and Hammond’s much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests.
Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected duties between 1791 and 1845, The South
had paid $711,200,000 and the non-slaveholding States $216,000,000. Hammond had declared
that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000
raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, the Senator thought the North
about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. 16 These statistics were not the less
14
The Charleston Mercury, while extensively copied outside the State, was not much read in it. It was supposed to
cost the Rhett family $8,000 a year to maintain it. Charleston corr. N.Y. Tribune, dated November 7, 1860. See
John B. O’Neall and John Chapman, Annals of Newberry, for the opposition. Petigru later was walking down Broad
Street when a friend accosted him. “Have you heard the news, sir?” he asked. “Great news; Louisiana has
seceded.” “Good God, Williams,” Petigru said in a tone of mild disgust, “I thought we had bought Louisiana.”
Undated sheet, Petigru Papers, S. C. Hist. Soc.
15
Perry, MS Autobiography.
16
White, Rhett, 126-127; Cong. Globe, March 4, 1858. See Washington Constitution, November 13, N.Y. Weekly
Tribune, November 17, 1860, for Southern economic complaints.
6
persuasive because totally devoid of scientific quality. The theory that imports were paid for out
of exports were generally accepted in South Carolina.
And on December 20 came the electrifying news of the secession of South Carolina. The
convention met in Columbia on the seventeenth, adjourned to Charleston next day to escape a
threatened smallpox epidemic, spent the nineteenth in talking about procedure, and at 1:30 on the
afternoon of the twentieth unanimously adopted an ordinance of secession. Buchanan had sent
Caleb Cushing to expostulate, but he was ignored. That evening, all the delegates having signed
the engrossed copy of the ordinance, South Carolina was proclaimed an independent
commonwealth. 17
Nevins, Allan. The War for the Union: The Organized War 1863-1864.
New York; Charles Scribner and Sons, 1971.
While Northerners were still hoping that McClellan’s spring advance in 1862 would
bring the South to terms, the Washington National Republican, a leading organ of Radical
opinion, laid down some conclusions of startling rigor. It was clear, it asserted, “that the revolt
of a State against the authority of the General Government destroys its political rights under the
Constitution, and reduces it territory to the condition of the unorganized public domain. It
forfeits all its rights…there is no longer a State of South Carolina, a State of Georgia, etc. The
territories and their inhabitants still exist, and the General Government has lost none of its rights
of superior jurisdiction over them…” A rebellion intended to annihilate the nation, declared the
paper, had instead annihilated the State governments. “It is equally clear that the seceded States
can never come back into the Union until they have been reorganized and reofficered in all their
departments. Every vestige of their treason must be repudiated…Having framed Constitutions, it
will be competent for them to apply for readmission to the Union, and Congress may receive
them or continue to hold them in the condition of Territories until satisfactory assurance shall be
given that the people have returned to a sentiment of loyalty.” 18
“We deny that any State can go out of the Union,” declared the Intelligencer, “and
therefore there can be no necessity in any event of providing for her ‘readmission.’” The
seceded States were not dead, it asserted; they still held full rights as States, and were not to be
governed as Territories. As soon as Tennessee or Arkansas were liberated, it people should “of
their own motion proceed to reorganize the State Government on the basis of the State
Constitution which existed prior to the outbreak” of war. This was emphatically Lincoln’s
view. 19
The President had declared in his inaugural address that under the Constitution the union
of the States was perpetual; that perpetuity is implied if not expressed in the fundamental law of
all governments. It followed that no State could of its own volition lawfully leave the Union,
and that ordinances of secession were legally void. Lincoln added in his special message the
following summer that the States had no legal status outside the Union, and could leave it only
by successful revolution. “the action of the government in all its departments,” his secretaries
noted, “was based upon the idea that the rebellion was the unlawful proceeding of individuals
17
Dumond, Secession Movement, 139-142. Bonfires, fireworks, bands, a military parade, and general illumination
of the city celebrated the event. The Mercury sold six thousand copies of its extra. Crowds cheered the
transparencies: “One voice and millions of strong arms to uphold the honor of South Carolina.” Mercury, December
22, 1860. Commissioners from Alabama and Mississippi, Governor Perry of Florida, and other prominent
Southerners were present at the convention.
18
Washington National Republican, February 11, 1862. p. 455
19
National Intelligencer, March 1, March 6, 1862. p. 456
7
which neither destroyed nor impaired any rights or obligations of Statehood, nor even any rights
and obligations of their co-citizens who remained loyal.” 20
Program for Reconstruction
Sumner, Charles, “Our Domestic Relations; or, How to Treat the Rebel States,” unsigned article,
Atlantic Monthly, October, 1863, Vol. XII, No. LXXII, 507-529. For Radical Republican view
20
Lincoln, Collected Works, IV, 264-265, 434. Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, VI, 347-348.
8
Genovese, Eugene D. The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of
the Slave South. Vintage books, New York, 1965.
Retardative effects of a slave economy;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A low level of capital accumulation
The planters high propensity to consume luxuries
A shortage of liquid capital aggravated by the steady drain of funds out of the region
The low productivity of slave labor
The need to concentrate on a few staples
The anti-industrial and anti-urban ideology of the dominant planters
The reduction of southern banking, industry and commerce to the position of auxiliaries
of the plantation economy. P. 158