In the heated political rhetoric of the mid-19th century, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) famously lambasted South Carolina’s government in his 1856 speech “The Crime Against Kansas,” portraying it as an oligarchy where political power was confined to an elite few, specifically requiring legislators to own “a settled freehold estate and ten negroes.” This claim, however, was a deliberate distortion of the state’s 1790 constitution, which Sumner selectively quoted to advance his anti-slavery agenda. By omitting key alternatives in the law—such as the “or” clause allowing qualification through real estate value alone—Sumner painted a false picture of mandatory slave ownership for office-holding. In reality, South Carolina’s governmental structure was far from a rigid oligarchy; it evolved progressively after ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1788, becoming more inclusive in its provisions for office-holding and representation. Property restrictions were common in other states during 1788, including Northern ones like New York, without labeling them oligarchies. Even in the antebellum period, Northern states like New York and Rhode Island retained property requirements for voting—often with racial motives—yet escaped such criticism. Moreover, during the 1788 ratification debates, no significant complaints were raised about the state’s internal structure, as the focus remained squarely on federal issues. We must correct the record and demonstrate that South Carolina operated as a republican system with broadening access, not a closed oligarchy.
Sumner’s Distortion: A Rhetorical Exaggeration, Not Factual Accuracy
Charles Sumner’s critique was rooted in his broader attack on the “Slave Power” – the perceived dominance of Southern elites in national politics. In his speech, he zeroed in on Article I, Section 6 of South Carolina’s 1790 constitution, which outlined qualifications for the House of Representatives. The exact text reads: “If a resident in the election district, he shall not be eligible to a seat in the house of representatives unless he be legally seized and possessed in his own right of a settled freehold estate of five hundred acres of land and ten negroes, or of a real estate of the value of one hundred and fifty pounds sterling, clear of debt.” The bolded “or” is crucial: It provided a pathway to office based solely on land value (£150 sterling, clear of debt), without any requirement for slave ownership. “Real estate” in 18th-century legal parlance meant immovable property like land or buildings, distinct from personal property such as enslaved people. Sumner’s omission of this alternative was not an oversight but a strategic choice to inflame Northern audiences by linking political eligibility directly to slavery. Historians have noted that while many officeholders were indeed slaveowners—given the plantation-based economy—this was not a legal mandate. Non-slaveholding candidates could qualify via the real estate option, and the Senate’s qualifications (Article I, Section 8) made no mention of slaves at all, requiring only a freehold estate worth £300 for residents or £1,000 for non-residents. By distorting the law, Sumner falsely implied a closed system enforced by slaveholding, ignoring how these provisions allowed for broader participation than critics claimed. This exaggeration fit the abolitionist narrative but deviated from the constitutional text, rendering his label inaccurate.
More Liberal Provisions: Evolution from 1788 to the Antebellum Era
When South Carolina ratified the U.S. Constitution on May 23, 1788, it operated under its 1778 state constitution, which imposed barriers to office-holding that were far more restrictive than later reforms. These high thresholds limited access, but post-ratification changes in 1790 and subsequent amendments made the system progressively more liberal, expanding opportunities and addressing regional imbalances.
Under the 1778 constitution:
– House of Representatives candidates needed to be Protestant, residents for three years, and own a settled estate worth at least £3,500 currency (clear of debt) if non-resident in the district.
– Senate candidates required Protestant faith, age 30, five years’ residency, and an estate worth £2,000 (resident) or £7,000 (non-resident).
– The governor had to be Protestant, a ten-year resident, and own property worth £10,000.
Voting was similarly restricted to free white men with 50 acres or equivalent tax payments, plus religious affirmations. At the time of ratification, according to Federalist 43, all of the states were considered to have an existing republican form of government. No person in MA questioned this status for the state of South Carolina.
The 1790 constitution, adopted just two years after ratification, liberalized these rules significantly:
– Removed Protestant requirements for all offices, promoting religious tolerance.
– Lowered House qualifications for residents to 500 acres and ten negroes *or* £150 sterling in real estate— a drastic reduction from £3,500.
– Senate thresholds dropped to £300 (resident) or £1,000 (non-resident).
– Governor requirements fell to £1,500 in estate value.
– Improved representation by reapportioning seats more equitably between the lowcountry (coastal elite areas) and upcountry (interior regions), and relocated the capital to Columbia for geographic balance.
Further reforms in 1808 and 1810 expanded voting to universal white male suffrage (no property or tax requirements for residents), while maintaining but not tightening office qualifications. This progression reflected a republican commitment to broader participation, not oligarchic entrenchment. While slavery remained, the legal framework did not mandate it for political access, allowing non-planter whites greater involvement than under the 1778 system.
Property Restrictions in Other States in 1788: Common and Not Considered Oligarchic
South Carolina’s 1778 restrictions were typical of the era; nearly all states during the Constitutional ratification (1787–1788) required property ownership for voting and often for office-holding, yet none were labeled oligarchies. This was viewed as a standard republican practice to ensure voters had a stake in society. For example, New York’s 1777 constitution mandated a £20 freehold or 40 shilling rental with taxes for assembly voting, and a £100 freehold for senate and governor elections. The U.S. Constitution itself omitted such requirements, but state constitutions from 1776–1780 routinely included them without controversy over oligarchic tendencies.
In the antebellum period, while many Northern and Western states removed property requirements for white male suffrage by the 1820s–1840s, some retained them for specific groups or offices, mirroring South Carolina’s approach without the oligarchy label. New York, in its 1821 constitution, abolished property qualifications for holding any office, including legislative positions, but retained a $250 freehold requirement for black men to vote—explicitly to exclude them despite the state having one of the highest free black populations (nearly 50,000 by 1860, with New York City hosting the largest urban community). This racial barrier persisted until 1870. Rhode Island, another Northern state, maintained a $134 property requirement for voting (and by extension, the pool for office-holding) until 1843, disenfranchising many, including immigrants, and leading to the Dorr Rebellion. These examples show that restrictive provisions were not Southern anomalies but part of broader American practices.
Silence in 1788: No Complaints About State Structure During Ratification
The 1787-1788 debates over ratifying the U.S. Constitution were intense across the states, but in South Carolina, criticisms focused exclusively on federal issues—such as commerce regulation, the three-fifths clause for representation, and fears of centralized power eroding state sovereignty. Anti-Federalists, including upcountry planters, worried about how the new federal government might limit their economic interests, like rice and indigo exports, but raised no objections to the state’s own 1778 constitution. The ratification convention in Charleston voted 149-73 in favor, with delegates from both lowcountry and upcountry regions participating without protest over internal governance. Historical records, including convention debates and correspondence (e.g., Charles Cotesworth Pinckney’s letter to George Washington), show no mention of the state system as oligarchic or flawed. Even Anti-Federalist writings, which scrutinized aristocratic tendencies in the federal plan, did not extend such critiques to South Carolina’s framework. This absence of complaint underscores that contemporaries viewed the state government as functional and republican, not a barrier to joining the Union. Only later, in the 1790s, did internal pressures for upcountry equity emerge, leading to voluntary reforms rather than revolutionary upheaval.
South Carolina’s history reveals a state committed to republican principles, with post-1788 reforms making office-holding more accessible and inclusive than at ratification. Sumner’s portrayal as an oligarchy reliant on slave ownership was a distortion, ignoring legal alternatives and the system’s progressive changes. The lack of complaints during the 1788 debates further affirms that the structure was accepted as legitimate. By examining the original texts and contexts, we see not a closed elite cabal, but a dynamic government adapting to its citizens’ needs— a far cry from the myth perpetuated by partisan critics.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
Very good column! Thank you AI for posting it. Yanks, if they are not/were not dissembling or out right lying they are/ere spouting off about “so much they know that is/wasn’t so”. It’s part of THEIR national character.
I’d like to contextualize the article, with the fact that South Carolina was a sovereign nation unto itself, from 1783 at the very latest (along with the other 12 states):
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, SOUTH CAROLINA and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.” — 1783 Treaty of Paris
Meanwhile the US government claimed national union over the states, solely on the false claim that they had NEVER been 13 separate sovereign nations:
————————————————————————————————————————
“Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”?
Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land.
The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution.”
————————————————————————————————————-
And this claim is proved false, by the historical facts that the American Revolution established the states as 13 separate sovereign nations; while the were united only as an international union, such as the UN or the EU– and were NEVER lawfully ruled under one supreme national authority.
So whatever else South Carolina may or may not have been; there is no question that it was a sovereign nation unto itself, and this status was never officially or lawfully changed.
And this context renders all other arguments moot, in proving South Carolina’s supreme right to govern itself as a sovereign nation.
And South Carolina officially seceded from the Constitutional union, by its POWER as a sovereign nation:
“By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States.”
–South Carolina Gov. Francis Wilkinson Pickens; South Carolina Declaration of Causes for Secession, December 20, 1860
Accordingly, any accusation of “oligarchy” against South Carolina; is simply hypocrisy, by ruthless deniers of its rightful national sovereignty.