The Militant South

[larry_cockerham]

This is an example of a more typical soldier-level view of the war. Aside from the first word, notice no mention of slavery.


FREEMEN!
of
TENNESSEE!

The Yankee war is now being waged for "beauty and booty." They have driven us from them, and now say OUR TRADE they must and will have.

To excite their hired and ruffian soldiers, they promise them our lands, and tell them our women are beautiful ---that beauty is the reward of the brave

Tennesseans! Your country calls! Shall we wait until our homes are laid desolate; until sword and rape shall have visited them?

NEVER! Then TO ARMS!

and let us meet the enemy on the borders. Who so vile, so craven, as not to strike for his native land?


The undersigned propose to immediately raise an infantry company to be offered to the Governor as part of the defense of the State and of the Confederate States. All those who desire to join with us in serving our common country, will report themselves immediately

J. B. MURRAY
H. C. WITT

[samgrant]

And apparently many of them fell for it. (literally and figuratively)

[ole]

Mentioning slaves in any southern recruiting poster would have yielded no more than a dribble of volunteers. The threat of invasion, however, brings up the red eye in most.

Much admired your "literally and figuratively" observation. The poor bastards got gulled into fighting for the benefit of slaveholders -- they believed they were fighting for home and hearth, and they were .... after the fire-eaters called the toss and retired to their sky boxes.

Ole

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

The Yankee war is now being waged for "beauty and booty."

I think they must have consulted with P Diddy when they came up with that line!

[OpnDownfall]

I am sorry (it is a tough row to hoe, I know) but, whatever, the motivation of the individual southern soldier, the fact remains that they were fighting to preserve and protect the slaves of their political leaders.
Without slavery, the average southerner would not have had to fight invading soldiers to protect hearth and family from, in the first place.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

I am sorry (it is a tough row to hoe, I know) but, whatever, the motivation of the individual southern soldier, the fact remains that they were fighting to preserve and protect the slaves of their political leaders.
Without slavery, the average southerner would not have had to fight invading soldiers to protect hearth and family from, in the first place.

This is the part where I have a general disagreement with what is apparently a majority of the folks who frequent this board. I suspect this statment above would more likely be written by someone with a general disregard for the southern soldier. The fact may remain that the collective efforts of our Southern fight might be interpreted to having served the desires of the folks promoting slavery, but that AIN'T necessarily the reason the southern soldier was in the fight. The average southerner had to fight the army that showed up in the cornfield, from his perspective quite un-invited. Don't keep trying to pin the slavery burden on the southern soldier. He didn't do it.

[mobile_96]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

....He certainly never toiled in the cotton or rice fields, nor did he apparently suffer from a cruel slave master. Yet he had a feel for his times and the ability to express his feelings, and at the same time enough quickness to avoid being hung for his trouble.

In "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave", we find that Douglass had several masters.
About the time he reached the age of 14 or 15 he was sent to work on Jan 1, 1833, apparently as a rental, for a Mr. Covey, who was known as a slave breaker. "I was now, for the very first time in my life, a field hand"
Then he relates his experiences at handling a unbroken team of oxen in which it took him a good portion of the day, and a broken gate post before he managed to return a load to wood. Page 102, "He then went to a large gum-tree, and with his ax cut three large switches, and after trimming them up neatly with his pocket knife, he ordered me to take off my clothes. I made him no answer, but stood with my clothes on. He repeated his order. Unon this he rushed at me with the fierceness of a tiger, tore off my clothes, and lashed me till he had worn out his switches, cutting me so avagely as to leave the marks visible for a long time after. This whipping was the first of a number just like it, and for similar offences. (pg 103) I lived with Mr. Covey one year. During the first six months, of that year, scarce a week passed without his whipping me. I was seldom without a sore back. My awkwardness was almost always his excuse for whipping me."
pg105, "We were worked in all weathers. It was never too hot, or too cold: it could never rain, blow, hail, or snow, too hard for us to work in the field. Work, Work, work, was scarcely more the order of the day than of the night. The longest days were too short for him, and the shortest nights too long for him. I was somewhat unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me. Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit. My natural elasticity was crushed, my intellect langushed, the disposition to read departed, and the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died: the dark night of slavery closed in upon me: a man transformed into a brute"
Although Douglas Did Not spend his entire life under these conditions, it most certainly was long enough for him to understand what it was all about. The final comments of his that I quoted, help underline the total cruelty of slavey. IMHO!

[mobile_96]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

This is the part where I have a general disagreement with what is apparently a majority of the folks who frequent this board. I suspect this statment above would more likely be written by someone with a general disregard for the southern soldier. The fact may remain that the collective efforts of our Southern fight might be interpreted to having served the desires of the folks promoting slavery, but that AIN'T necessarily the reason the southern soldier was in the fight. The average southerner had to fight the army that showed up in the cornfield, from his perspective quite un-invited. Don't keep trying to pin the slavery burden on the southern soldier. He didn't do it.

I think your disagreement is due to not trying to understand a basic fact.
1.Polititions start wars.
2.Soldiers fight them.
Soldiers (both sides) fight them for various reasons, and seldom include the the same reasons for fighting that politicians claim started them.
Soldiers fight them to protect their homes from the "horrors that will fall to their lot if the "enemy" is not defeated. Therefor, many fight to defend homeland, which usually tranlates into their neighborhoods, family and friends. Some fight for adventure. Some fight because they need a job. Some fight because they are bored. And some fight so as to not be called cowards by their friends.
We find this in their letters, diaries, and books written both during, and after the conflict.
The political leaders that managed to create secession, gave us very specific reasons why they wanted free of the Union, and they said it up front. The message has been given many times on previous threads here, so I'll refrain from repeating them.
However a major point is missed by far too many (but not many in this group)..Politicians create a war and give its citizens a cause, which may or may not, be the 'full reasons'. They call to arms to defend their 'position' and men sign up. In effect, even though the war causes and the reasons the men sign up, are different, the soldiers are Actually supporting the cause of the Politicians, whether they believe, or understant, that.
Secession was caused by Slavery, ergo, the soldiers, whether they understood it or not, were fighting for slavery!

[unionblue]

Larry,

This has become more than an interesting topic for me, but an area that I have dedicated some study to. While I do not have all the answers, and as a matter of fact, am waiting for a new book that has it's subject the very matter you and I find so interesting, why did the average Southerner, who did NOT own slaves, fight in the war?

I am leaning, more and more, to the opinion, the average Southern soldier knew exactly what he was fighting for and it is going to become increasing clear that he was definately fighting for his social system in that system and had no problem with it. And that the negroe's place in that system, as a slave, had a VERY large part to do with that reasoning.

I once believed that the nonslaveholding soldier, had been pretty much dragged into the conflict, convinced by large slaveholders that 'this was his fight too' sorta thing, that the little guy who had no slaves, didn't fight to preserve the institution.

I don't hold to that very much now. I think the nonslaveholding Southern soldier had a very large stake in the institution of slavery as a motivating factor for him to fight. The debate over the Slave Soldier Bill and the book, Confederate Emancipation, had a lot to do with putting me on this path. The black codes, lynchings, segragation, poll taxes, restrictions on voting, etc., (Not only in the South, but the North too) have led me to believe that for such practices to exist in the South for so long, tends to make me think that it had at least the passive support of a large part of the Southern population.

We'll see if this pans out.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[samgrant]

"am waiting for a new book that has it's subject the very matter you and I find so interesting, why did the average Southerner, who did NOT own slaves, fight in the war?"

Neil, might that be "What this Cruel War was Over"?

If so, see the "What They Fought For" thread.