EOTO: The Secession of South Carolina

The secession of South Carolina from the United States on December 20, 1860, marked a critical turning point in American history, setting the stage for the Civil War. This event was not only the first formal act of secession by a Southern state but also a catalyst for the broader secessionist movement that swept across the South in the months following. South Carolina's secession is significant for various reasons, including its deep roots in political, social, and economic conflicts that had been simmering for decades between the North and South, most notably over the issues of slavery, states' rights, and sectional power.

By the mid-19th century, the United States was becoming increasingly polarized. The North, with its growing industrial economy, was diverging sharply from the South, which remained predominantly agrarian and dependent on slavery. The abolitionist movement gained momentum in the North, advocating for the end of slavery, while the South saw slavery as essential to its economy and way of life.  The state’s economy having been heavily reliant on enslaved labor, particularly within the cotton industry, saw any threat to the institution of slavery as a threat to their economic survival and social structure. This fear was exacerbated by the election of 

Abraham Lincoln as President in November 1860. Lincoln was a Republican, and although he had not campaigned on a platform of immediate abolition, the South feared that his administration would eventually move to restrict and ultimately abolish slavery. For many in South Carolina, Lincoln's election was the final straw.
Following Lincoln’s election, South Carolina wasted little time moving toward secession.

On December 20, 1860, a special convention was held in Charleston where delegates voted unanimously in favor of secession. The convention drafted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," which laid out the state’s reasons for seceding. The document explicitly linked South Carolina’s decision to the issue of slavery, arguing that the non-slaveholding states had "denounced as sinful the institution of slavery" and had refused to uphold the Constitution by allowing the return of fugitive slaves, as required by the Fugitive Slave Act. The declaration framed secession as a necessary defense of both states' rights and the institution of slavery.

South Carolina’s secession was more than just a reaction to Lincoln’s election; it was a response to long-standing grievances. The state had a long history of advocating for states’ rights and nullification, having previously threatened to secede during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 when President Andrew Jackson sought to enforce federal tariff laws that South Carolina opposed. 

The secession was significant as it triggered a wave of secession by other Southern states, leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America in early 1861. Over the next few months, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all followed South Carolina’s lead, seceding from the Union. The secessionists argued that the Union was a voluntary compact among sovereign states and that they had the right to withdraw from it if the federal government violated their rights. The federal government, along with the backing of the Northern States, viewed these acts as unconstitutional. This fundamental disagreement over the nature of the Union was an underlying cause that would only be resolved after the Civil War.

No matter how the secession of South Carolina is examined, it was a pivotal event that led directly to the Civil War. It reflected deep-seated divisions within the United States over slavery, states' rights, and the nature of the Union. As the first state to secede, South Carolina set the stage for a broader Southern rebellion and ultimately the most destructive conflict in American history.

Town Hall: Meet Elizabeth Buffum Chace

Hello all, my name is Elizabeth Buffum Chace. While I may not be within the pages of your textbooks, my contributions to our nations growth is no small feat. I was born to a quaker family on December 9th, 1806 in Smithfield, Rhode Island. Many of my abolitionist beliefs come from the first president of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, or as I knew him as my father, Arnold Buffum. From being a pillar to organizations such as the Fall River Female Anti-Slavery Society and the Rhode Island Women's Suffrage Association, to writing my book, AntiSlavery Reminiscences.

My whole life has been built with the ideals of anti-slavery. However it was not till my wedding to my dear Samuel Chace, was this structure radicalized my life. Making the switch from being an anti-slavery to a devoted abolitionist was swift and strong. Much like slave women, I have lost five of my ten children, not even the oldest of the five had met their older siblings. These losses gave my heart and mind the sympathy for these mothers in shackles, for we had all lost children, only they were not given time to grieve. While my personal connection to these women was fully backed by my husband, the people of Rhode Island had other ideals. 

For the community in which I was raised shunned my husband and I for our shared views on slavery as a whole. While many would have agreed that slavery is not just or moral, our differences lived within what to do after slavery was made unconstitutional. Majority of the Quaker community believed enslaved people should be sent to African colonies, whereas my personal beliefs fought these ideals. Although most of the opposition I faced came from outside sources, my own brother in-law once looked at me and said "I shouldn't want to see a black man sitting on the sofa beside my daughter". I all but toppled out of my chair at his unhinged comment.

My fight was not just against slavery, but against the racism that spread throughout this nation. Which is why with the help of my sisters, we founded the Fall River Female Anti-Slavery Society in 1835.  This could be seen as my first steps within my start of abolition, however that respect is dedicated to one of my esteemed colleague within this fight, William Lloyd Garrison.  Within the next four years, my family moved to the Blackstone River Valley, and took over the Valley Falls Mill.  Where I would start my acts as a conductor of the Underground Railroad.  My mission was to make my home a safe place in which every human being who walked through my door felt welcomed.  Notable members I have had the honor of meeting include Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Abbey Kelley, Wendell Phillips, and Fredrick Douglas.  

After the Civil War, I joined the Rhode Island Women's Suffrage Association in 1868. During my time as president within the association, I made it so our African American counterparts were able to join and work along side us.  Our nation had strong years where my new friends were allowed to live in symbiosis, the Jim Crow Laws destroyed this.  All this meant was the fight was not over just yet.  If my friends could not sit with me, I will go sit with them.  Regardless if it meant breaking social cues, I would go join my friends at their rail cars, restaurants,  and any other place in which they were treated differently.  Once slavery was abolished, I turned my focus to the fight my focus to the fight against racial discrimination in schools, women's rights, prison reform, and the overall education for the minorities that live within our boarders. 

After my death, the Elizabeth Buffum Chace House was opened within Warwick, Rhode Island.  This house was created to shelter and aid the victims of domestic violence.  This includes helping to mask the identity of the women and children who are hiding from their domestic partners.  

Supreme Court Blog

The American Supreme Court was made to protect the citizens who live under the constitution, but how well can they protect us?  The historical cases this high court has seen over the years brings some of Americas biggest controversies into law.   Their interpretations of the constitution dictate our ways of life, and sets federal principles that alter the ways of our nation.  So what happens when their lawful decisions are in direct contrast of their constituents ideals?

Over the past 211 years, the court has seen 112 justices and 17 chief justices due to their lifetime appointments.  These justices hold the power to protect our constitution and to oversee that our governing bodies are staying within their bounds.  However this was not always true, the case of Marbury v. Maddison (1803) set precedent for the Court to strike down, or reverse any actions of lower courts deemed to violate our rights. 

 This major shift within how the Court operated was due to Chief Justice John Marshall. Without his guidance, the Supreme Court would not have the power and notoriety that it has today.  Famously after the unanimous vote, Marshall was quoted how "it is empathetically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."  

Prior to this case, and the many that followed, the Courts power w
as unknown and uncared for.  Although this case gave the Courts a new sense of power, the unease America was facing caused the faith and respect the American people had within the Court into question.  While America was on the doorstep of the Civil Rights era, one case would light a fire.  Dred Scott v. Sandford(1857) which indirectly told American citizens the Court could not and would not recognize the enslaved people as citizens.  This meant that even within the 'free territories' of our nation, slaves could and would not be protected under the Constitution.  

Historically, every major divide within our nations political ideals can be traced back to Supreme Court cases, including U.S. v. Nixon (1974), Bethel School District v. Fraser (1987), Roe v. Wade (1973).  Whether or not we as a nation pay close attention to the Courts on a daily basis, their decisions change the way we as a people live.  

The video did not change my views on the Courts importance, nor negate the respect I have for the justices whose votes can change the trajectory of America.  That in its self is an important viewpoint which should be taken up more by fellow citizens, while we may not see our justices make public appearances, they are still people.  Not only are they people, but they are also trying to decipher our nations most important piece of literature and the meaning our founding fathers were trying to convey.  While the turnover of their cases, it is understandable due to the severity in which these cases have on peoples lives.  

The Discussion of Slavery

  The Argument against Slavery

  While many enslaved individuals turned to religion for solace, Christian scripture has been used both to justify and condemn slavery. In the 18th and 19th centuries, proponents of slavery often cited Biblical passages, such as those referring to servants or slaves in the Old and New Testaments, to argue that slavery was divinely sanctioned.      

Kevin Giles assertion points to a nuanced truth: the Bible does not unambiguously endorse slavery as it was practiced in America or other modern contexts. Biblical references to slavery often pertain to systems vastly different from the chattel slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as indentured servitude or prisoners of war. The Exodus narrative portrays God as a liberator, not an enslaver.  Christianity became a source of hope and strength for many enslaved Africans in America. They identified with the Israelites, freed from slavery in Egypt, and saw themselves as part of a divine story of liberation. Spirituals, prayers, and Biblical references gave them the emotional and psychological endurance to survive in oppressive conditions. Some of the enslaved recognized the contradictions between the Christian gospel of love, equality, and freedom, and the brutal system of slavery. They used these contradictions to undermine the legitimacy of their bondage.

    In the New Testament, they focused on verses such as Galatians 3:28 or Exodus 20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.", emphasizing the importance of being free in a place of slavery. While Christianity was used to pacify slaves, with some slave owners teaching their slaves a warped version of the gospel that focused on obedience and submission, many slaves subverted these teachings. They embraced the more liberating aspects of the Bible, seeing their eventual freedom as a divine promise. In this sense, religion was both a tool of control by the oppressors and a source of revolutionary inspiration for the oppressed.  The long-standing argument over whether slavery was justified by religion continues to shape discussions today. While some historical figures twisted Biblical scripture to support the institution of slavery, the deeper message of the Bible, especially through the Exodus story and the teachings of Jesus, leans towards liberation and equality. This tension is a critical part of understanding the complex role religion has played in both justifying and resisting slavery.