Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I just can't buy it, old friend. While you may have full confidence that the majority or substantial part of five states did not discuss slavery daily, you cannot begin to believe that folks there did not have an opinion on it or were not concerned with it.
As I said in my post, folks didn't greet each other, "Howdy Slim, how about that slavery problem?" the first thing every morning, but you cannot get around the major issue of the last 20 to 30 years that kept the country in turmoil.
That is also what I meant by my comment that Southern men weren't plowing one day and then just start shooting at Union blue the next. They had their reasons for joining the army and shooting at Union uniforms and one of the big reasons was maintaining slavery, as I see it.
The war and the reasons for it did not happen in a political and social vacum. Southerners were not surprised at the wars coming nor did they have to guess at the reasons.
Now if they were living on a deserted island after being shipwrecked or it they somehow got to the moon, I would accept the idea of them being startled at a Civil War being fought on the mainland on the planet Earth.
But its going to take quite a bit of a powerful searchlight to drive back the shadows of slavery that everyone, North and South knew existed at the time.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
If all yankees were like you, it is evident the Confederates were up against a hard headed bunch! Amicable as you are, you still blink when I attempt to make a point that not ALL who fought in the Civil War cared much about slavery. Living in a big city, you apparenly also don't have much of a feel for rural life as was experienced by the non-slave owning farmers in the hill country of the Confederate states. NEVER have I contended that slavery was not a major part of this conflict and I shall not. Perhaps it was discussed in places were people had the skills and were afforded the opportunity to read a paper, even one from the north. No radio, no television, just looking at that axe handle, hoe, or the south end of a mule or horse, depending on the alignment of the field. No, slavery was not a daily topic, and in many areas, not a topic at all. Soldiers fought because there was a war going on. They stood beside their neighbors because they had been forced to join the melee. At that point there was plenty of discussion. I submit that slavery was not the primary concern, at least to all southerners. I also contend we should be working on the future today. Race relations apparently aren't evolved to the level that I would have hoped for.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
PMFJI. I agree to some extent with each of you, but it looks like you guys are trying to drive the issue of slavery and how it impacted the average young Southern man to extremes, from "how much" to "Absolutely Yes or Absolutely No". In my experience, it is fairly rare when any human motivation is that simple on a major issue.
That slavery was a major issue for an awful lot of the men who fought in the war is clearly true. It also seems clear that there would have been no secession, and hence no war, if the slavery issue was resolved. The other divisive issues were all fairly minior and normal disagreements that would have been resolved if slavery had not poisoned every discussion about them, IMO and that of vast hordes of others.
I'd suggest you ponder the examples that clearly do not fit into the extremes of either of your positions. Here are a couple to get you started:
Texas in the Confederacy: An Experiment in Nation Building By Clayton E. Jewett
SC is not the average seceding state, and should be regarded as an extreme on secession, but it also had the Planter/Yeoman (small Farmer) split, particularly in the Upcountry area. In that website on West's article you'll find this: "... In South Carolina, to be sure, the planter class probably wielded greater political power than in any other state in the union, due to the nearly statewide extent of the plantation belt and a political structure that was the most undemocratic, even for white men, in the antebellum United States. Lacy K. Ford Jr. and Stephanie McCurry have argued that South Carolina nonetheless possessed a vibrant political culture marked by the widespread participation of yeoman voters, who far outnumbered the planter elite. An ideology of proslavery or slave-labor republicanism provided grounds for an accommodation between yeoman and planter and united them in the defense of slavery, an institution that members of both classes saw as essential to their privileges as citizens, property owners, and heads of household. Both McCurry, in her study of the South Carolina Low-country, and Ford, in his study of the upcountry, view the secession crisis as confirming the strength of proslavery republicanism and the yeomanry's support for the politics of slavery. In McCurry's words, "yeoman farmers not only supported the cause of secession and dis,4 union, they made it their own." "
Read some more and you will find this paragraph: "This is where the evidence regarding Minute Man companies is especially useful. The men who organized and joined these groups represent the most enthusiastic and active grassroots supporters of secession. And the evidence indicates that even in the upper piedmont of South Carolina--an area with a majority of non-slaveholders--the mobilization for secession was squarely in the hands of the slave-owning minority. Within the region, Minute Man companies appeared first and most frequently in areas of the countryside with high percentages of slaveholders in the white population and less frequently if at all in areas where non-slave-owning whites were most numerous. About three-quarters of identified Minute Men came from slaveholding households, more than double the incidence of such households in the population as a whole. More particularly, the membership rolls of these companies suggest a split among the yeomanry along lines of slave ownership, as slaveholding yeomen participated at levels far exceeding those of their non-slave-owning counterparts. "
There is more, and it applies to both of your positions.
You can find parts of Jewett through a Google Book Search. He will also have parts that support each of your positions.
One aspect of recent scholarship that should be noted is that the men who volunteered in 1861 on either side tended to be in professions that would be heavily impacted by the secession. Virginians in the tobacco areas volunteered heavily; so did shoemakers in Massachusetts (fracturing the Union threatened their livelihood because of the threat to RR markets, just as a threat to slavery threatened the tobacco country's economics) while Massachusetts' farmers and fisherman were less likely to volunteer, and Virginians not connected to industries like tobacco.
There are exceptions and complications to both your positions, and you looked like you were getting locked in to all-or-nothing rather than a more realistic view that groups of people rarely do things for only one reason.
Here's one clear-cut paradox: Nathan Bedford Forrest was born poor, grew up poor and uneducated, exemplifies the self-made-man success story as a slave-trader-turned-planter, married into a mightily respectable family, might have been a closet Unionist, saw his loyalty to TN rather than to MS (where most of his slaves and lands were), and went with secession only when Tennessee did. That he favored slavery to some extent is clear -- but is that what he was fighting for?
Actually, as Chandra Manning shows quite persuasively, the average confederate soldier cared very much about keeping the slaves enslaved, whether he owned slaves or not.
Regards,
Cash
Actually, just what process is Ms. Chandra using to come to this conclusion?
I've read many letters written by Confederates and very few mention slaves or slavery.
A few thoughts about N.B. Forrest. This man moved with his mother and siblings to Hernando, Mississippi vicinity after the death of his father. A robust young man of 16 or so, he was forced to toil with his hands for subsistance. As he continued to work, his brothers grew a bit and the family prospered. At some point he doubtless acquired slaves for labor as was very legal and customary at the time for those who could afford it. He eventually acquired a large plantation in both Mississippi and Arkansas across the river. This land was likely bought primarily with profits from his slave trade, a legal enterprise shared with his brothers. He was a respected businessman and city alderman in Memphis. The slave trade was dissolved about 1859 for whatever reasons. All surviving records indicate he was as kind as possible to his charges and operated in a manner that continued to draw him respect for the business community. Slavery was the law of the land. It's an ill wind that blows nobody good? Forrest had enough rapport, not to mention legal contracts of ownership, with about 45 of his slaves who he offered freedom at war's end if they would join him as drivers, guards, etc. He certainly kept his part of the bargain as did the men who remained with him until the end of the war. Yes, Forrest was a bit of a Unionist. What he was fighting for was Tennessee as he knew it. He and a few hundred thousand others.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
A few thoughts about N.B. Forrest. This man moved with his mother and siblings to Hernando, Mississippi vicinity after the death of his father. A robust young man of 16 or so, he was forced to toil with his hands for subsistance. As he continued to work, his brothers grew a bit and the family prospered. At some point he doubtless acquired slaves for labor as was very legal and customary at the time for those who could afford it. He eventually acquired a large plantation in both Mississippi and Arkansas across the river. This land was likely bought primarily with profits from his slave trade, a legal enterprise shared with his brothers. He was a respected businessman and city alderman in Memphis. The slave trade was dissolved about 1859 for whatever reasons. All surviving records indicate he was as kind as possible to his charges and operated in a manner that continued to draw him respect for the business community. Slavery was the law of the land. It's an ill wind that blows nobody good? Forrest had enough rapport, not to mention legal contracts of ownership, with about 45 of his slaves who he offered freedom at war's end if they would join him as drivers, guards, etc. He certainly kept his part of the bargain as did the men who remained with him until the end of the war. Yes, Forrest was a bit of a Unionist. What he was fighting for was Tennessee as he knew it. He and a few hundred thousand others.
Yes, I think that is more-or-less as it was. Even the people who owned slaves tended to look down their noses at slave-traders -- but Forrest managed to move into circles where he could marry the neice of a mighty preacher in the Mississippi Valley, and where the Governor would approach Forrest to raise a regiment in 1861. He was by no means an ordinary man.
But the Tennessee society Forrest was fighting to protect was one built on slavery. He was aware of it, even if I don't think he particularly hated black people or fought because of it. I think to him they were merely part of his stock in trade, his production process, somewhere above his horse and below a white man. He felt no need to treat them badly, and (my guess) treated them well unless he had a reason not to do so.
Undoubtedly he thought of slavery every day: it was his business, both when he was a slave-trader and when he ran plantations. Most people he ran into daily would be doing the same. Poor people thinking about becoming rich would be thinking about slavery -- because there was almost no way to become rich that didn't involve slaves. Virtually all people who were successful in the South owned or rented or used slaves. Even those who weren't often did rent or use them, to get a tough job done or to bring in the harvest.
When a man like the Senator from SC, James Hammond, made his "Mud Sill" speech, he was expressing a commonly held belief. In Charleston, white men who didn't own slaves were the ones who most adamantly supported the slave codes and turned in unacompanied slaves and slaves who had an out-of-date slave badge. Out in plantation areas, it was the non-slave owners who tended to be most involved in riding slave patrols.
Average people had a different slant and interest in slavery than the owner of 100 slaves, but it was a part of their lives as well.
Regards,
Tim
PS: the slaves who worked as his teamsters (about 60) he took with him from his plantation when he formed his regiment in 1861 and it was then he made his promise to them that he'd free them if the Confederacy won, while they'd be free if the Union won. Sometime after Chickamauga in 1863 and before the end of the war he had emancipation papers written up for those who remained with him, using a wonded soldier to do the work. The most commonly given reason is that he thought he might die with the promise unfullfilled.
Forrest wasn't the only one who treated slaves well. Jefferson Davis, who had a reputation in public life of being a cantakerous, argumentative man, had a reputation in private life as a very polite and kind man. A slave named James ran his plantation in Mississippi before the war, and did so with little or no interference from Davis. After the war, while he was in prison, Davis sold his planation to a former slave who'd become wealthy through running a general store.
A better place to start might be What This Cruel War Was Over
Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War by Chandra Manning.
Chandra Manning graduated Mount Holyoke College and received her Master degree from the National University of Ireland, Galway, and her Ph.D. at Harvard. Currently, she is assistant professor of history at Georgetown University.
Actually, just what process is Ms. Chandra using to come to this conclusion?
Professor Manning uses the words of the soldiers themselves.
"While most books about soldiers rely disproportionately on the opinions of officers, 1861 recruits, Easterners, and men who fought in the Virginia theater, this book casts a net broad enough to capture members of traditionally underrepresented groups such as immigrants, African Americans, western soldiers, late enlisters, and soldiers who served in the West, in order to approximate cross sections of the actual Union and Confederate ranks. It draws on letters and diaries written by men during the war itself, rather than postwar memoirs, in which nostalgia, revisionism, and selective memory often cloud the ideas that soldiers entertained at the time they actually served. ... In the course of this project, I unearthed more than one hundred regimental newspapers whose survival and whereabouts have escaped historians' attention, which makes this book the first study to use this unique type of source extensively and systematically. These newspapers, unofficial, uncensored publications written almost entirely by enlisted men with whatever resources they could find, differ from one another in many details, but taken together, they offer valuable insights."
[Chandra Manning, _What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War,_ pp. 8-9]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
I've read many letters written by Confederates and very few mention slaves or slavery.
"My dear Sister I shall depict our wants in true but ardent words, hoping to affect you to some action. Here are gathered the sick from the contraband camps in the northern part of Washington. If I were to describe this hospital it would not be believed.
"North of Washington, in an open, muddy mire, are gathered all the colored people who have been made free by the progress of our Army. Sickness is inevitable, and to meet it these rude hospitals, only rough wooden barracks, are in use—a place where there is so much to be done you need not remain idle. We average here one birth per day, and have no baby clothes except as we wrap them up in an old piece of muslin, that even being scarce.
"This hospital is the reservoir for all cripples, diseased, aged, wounded, infirm, from whatsoever cause; all accidents happening to colored people in all employs around Washington are brought here. It is not uncommon for a colored driver to be pounded nearly to death by some of the white soldiers. A woman was brought here with three children by her side; said she had been on the road for some time; a more forlorn, worn out looking creature I never beheld. Her four eldest children are still in Slavery, her husband is dead."
Cornelia Hancock, nurse at "hospital" for contrabands, 5 November 1863
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
