Quote:
|
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham There seems to be a reluctance among you gentlemen to discern the distinct difference between the ROOT of the war and the REASON the individual soldier was caught up in the mess. Tennesseeans weren't fighting for slavery; they were fighting for survival. Two different concepts. If slavery benefitted from their efforts (obviously it didn't), then it was a by-product of their efforts, not the intent. |
Larry,
In general, about 25% of the families in Tennessee probably owned slaves. That was the average for the slave states in the census of 1860 (according to the director of that Census). I haven't checked TN specifically, but since Border states like MD and DE were way below that 25% figure, TN was probably close to it.
Naturally enough, that 25% is generally made up of people with money: their slave "property" is an asset that can be converted into cash. The people who don't own slaves tend to have less money -- or they would be more likely to own a slave in a slave state.
Also, in general, the people who have money in our society tend to have a greater impact on politics -- if for no other reason then they tend to have more time and resources to devote to it. Poor dirt farmers rarely become state legislators, Congressmen, Senators and Governors. These men thus become very important in leading the opinion of those who have less money, simply because they are involved with the matters more closely, are more educated, have more money and power, etc.
In TN, this money/slavery tie would have been more evident the closer you got to the Missisippi River. Big plantations and cotton and slaves were more evident as you went that way; they were comparatively rare when you moved into the Cumberland Plateau. (Similar in KY, BTW, where a relatively small number of counties, closely related to slavery, supported secession and most counties, weakly tied to slavery, supported the Union. The Lexington/Bluegrass area, for example, supported the South.)
So if you look at 1861 in TN, you'll probably find that slave-owning families, by a large margin, supported secession. If you look at the two votes, you'll find the counties of Western TN did heavily support secession both times; that the counties of Eastern TN voted heavily against secession; and that the counties of Middle TN were close to even on the first vote and moved heavily to secession on the second vote. That seems to bear out the same sort of slavery connection.
But the second vote is heavily criticized for intimidation and suspected fraud by pro-secession, pro-slavery elements. This was true in 1861, and remains true today. State Militia was called out to guard the polling places -- but strangely enough, in a state clearly divided on the issue, the vote in the Milita units called up was 100% in favor of secession. The state vote as a whole was nowhere close to that, leading to a belief the Governor, an avid secessionist, was very selective when he called up Militia units. In addition, some pro-Union men were arrested on the day of the election and imprisoned for months afterwards, and the Governor immediately ordered state troops into anti-secession areas after the election.
Beyond that, the Governor and legislature (heavily composed of slave owners, as above) had already committed the state to the Confederacy before the vote, concluded a military alliance, and dispatched state troops to join the Confederacy in Virginia without waiting for the referendum. Such actions are prejudicial to a fair vote. The East Tennesseans objected. The reaction against them was strong.
Now in that 75% of the families that did not own slaves, a lot of men voted for secession, both before and after Fort Sumter. A lot of them did see themselves as concerned with slavery, even though they did not own slaves. That might have been worry about how such a change would affect them (what happens to me and mine if the slaves are freed) or had desires to emulate the rich and live the same way (which often meant they wanted to own slaves but couldn't afford them) or simply took their lead from the local important man who did own slaves. Others, of course, didn't give a fig about owning slaves themselves, although they might be worried by what happened to them and theirs in this war they were being dragged into by slaveowners. Once TN secedes and the war is obviously headed their way, slavery becomes much less of a reason for fighting and choice is largely taken away. This is when you get to "We're fighting you because you're down here" -- but that isn't why TN secedes and gets involved in the war.
Slavery is the the ROOT of the war. It was also the essential REASON the individual soldier was caught up in the mess, because there would have been no war without slavery. But I do agree that any individual had individual reasons why he was wearing a uniform, ranging from a passionate commitment to slavery to defense of home and hearth to being conscripted and held in the ranks. I just believe they all understood the essential issue that caused it all and kept it from being resolved peacefully: slavery.
Regards,
Tim
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
