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.
Tim, you remind me of Unionblue..... you are well-spoken, very polite and possess a certain yankee stubborness. No wonder, aside from the Confederate government, that the Union was preserved.
The stubbornness comes from all the Irish in the family tree. Not sure where the politeness might come from.
The real problem with the Confederate government (the whole system, including the states) was that they were never really working efficiently together. This was true in the armies, true in the courts, true in the politics between states and national government, true in almost every aspect. Too many mules pulling in the wrong directions for the team to manage the load.
What doomed them was that eventually the Lincoln-Grant team got on top of the Union's problems. Grant could make the military system do what Lincoln had always known, instinctively, it could. If the South died from "states' rights", the Union triumphed through unity.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
"I've read most of Manning and have concluded that she hasn't totally destroyed the idea that some southern boys didn't enlist nor subsequently fight to preserve slavery--just that more did than some would like to believe. That the logic of "why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?" just doesn't hold up under Manning's study."
My yankee friend pretty much summed up my opinion, the one you guys don't agree with. Harvard never impressed me as a hotbed of conservative, much less Confederate thought. My thoughts on this subject are based on local knowledge which does not necessarily compute with the averages or the results of samples from the big towns or plantations.
Actually, Larry, Ole's post doesn't agree with what you've been saying.
Ole said that "she hasn't totally destroyed the idea that some southern boys didn't enlist nor subsequently fight to preserve slavery." Nobody said she destroyed the idea that some southern boys didn't enlist nor subsequently fight to preserve slavery. But she has destroyed what you were saying--that the majority of southern soldiers did not enlist or fight to preserve slavery.
He also said, "the logic of 'why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?' just doesn't hold up under Manning's study." That appears to me to be diametrically opposed to your position.
Cash wrote: "But she has destroyed what you were saying--that the majority of southern soldiers did not enlist or fight to preserve slavery.
He also said, "the logic of 'why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?' just doesn't hold up under Manning's study." That appears to me to be diametrically opposed to your position."
Whoa pardner. Never have I used the word MAJORITY referrring to Confederate soldiers in total. This is a regional thing, confined to areas where slavery was not nearly a big a deal as you yanks might hope. Personally I believe that area covered several states in the areas where land holdings were small and SLAVERY WASN'T A PART OF EVERYDAY LIFE NOR A NECESSITY OR EVEN AN OBTAINABLE GOAL ON MANY FARMS. Remember we're talking rural soldiers, subsistance farmers, laborers, and craftsmen of various means.
Several times I've stated why soldiers would fight when they "didn't and wouldn't own slaves". Apparently Ms. Manning ain't listening? Heaven forbid!
__________________ 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
The stubbornness comes from all the Irish in the family tree. Not sure where the politeness might come from.
The real problem with the Confederate government (the whole system, including the states) was that they were never really working efficiently together. This was true in the armies, true in the courts, true in the politics between states and national government, true in almost every aspect. Too many mules pulling in the wrong directions for the team to manage the load.
What doomed them was that eventually the Lincoln-Grant team got on top of the Union's problems. Grant could make the military system do what Lincoln had always known, instinctively, it could. If the South died from "states' rights", the Union triumphed through unity.
Regards,
Tim
One aspect of this situation in the late unpleasantness is that just because the several southern states voted to seceed from the Union, those who were opposed to that notion didn't just disappear into the woodwork. They took up arms in many cases against their brothers and went about the task of kicking butt. The Confederacy was never able to envelop the minds of the people in totality. I'm not so sure that was a bad thing, even with my Southern sympathies. Grandpa (gg) Cockerham thought the Union was worth the effort. He said so. He voted with his muscle and effort for more than two years. Then he went home, hung his GAR certificate on the wall, and went to work. Many of my other folks simply got mad at the invading army, were drafted or felt an allegiance to their homeland. Enough so that they suffered through the perils at Fredericksburg, Antietam and Gettysburg as well as the horrible winter of 1864-65 in Tennessee. No fun for anyone.
__________________ 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
Cash wrote: "But she has destroyed what you were saying--that the majority of southern soldiers did not enlist or fight to preserve slavery.
He also said, "the logic of 'why would they fight when they didn't and wouldn't own slaves?' just doesn't hold up under Manning's study." That appears to me to be diametrically opposed to your position."
Whoa pardner. Never have I used the word MAJORITY referrring to Confederate soldiers in total. This is a regional thing, confined to areas where slavery was not nearly a big a deal as you yanks might hope. Personally I believe that area covered several states in the areas where land holdings were small and SLAVERY WASN'T A PART OF EVERYDAY LIFE NOR A NECESSITY OR EVEN AN OBTAINABLE GOAL ON MANY FARMS. Remember we're talking rural soldiers, subsistance farmers, laborers, and craftsmen of various means.
Several times I've stated why soldiers would fight when they "didn't and wouldn't own slaves". Apparently Ms. Manning ain't listening? Heaven forbid!
Well, Larry, I'm pretty sure you meant the majority of Tennessee soldiers, anyway. Their letters, diaries, and soldiers newspapers indicate otherwise.
Ms. Manning is listening to the soldiers. Apparently your emotions aren't.
Well, Larry, I'm pretty sure you meant the majority of Tennessee soldiers, anyway. Their letters, diaries, and soldiers newspapers indicate otherwise.
Ms. Manning is listening to the soldiers. Apparently your emotions aren't.
Regards,
Cash
Over the years I've read 100s of letters written by Confederates. Most of them have nothing to say of causes but relate only personal information, camp news, or rumors of battles.
When causes are mentioned it is invariably about defending the South.
There may be a few letters here and there that do mention slavery...but how many did Manning (and assistants) look through to find them?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"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."
Over the years I've read 100s of letters written by Confederates. Most of them have nothing to say of causes but relate only personal information, camp news, or rumors of battles.
When causes are mentioned it is invariably about defending the South.
There may be a few letters here and there that do mention slavery...but how many did Manning (and assistants) look through to find them?
Well, since she describes what she did in detail in her book, and since you keep asking questions like this, I guess that means you haven't read the book. That pretty much means we should dismiss as meaningless all your comments about the book, doesn't it?
My suggestion: read the book and see for yourself before you criticize. If you don't feel like spending money on it, contact your local library and borrow a copy for a while. That's what I did; it was widely available around here.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Cash wrote: "Well, Larry, I'm pretty sure you meant the majority of Tennessee soldiers, anyway. Their letters, diaries, and soldiers newspapers indicate otherwise.
Ms. Manning is listening to the soldiers. Apparently your emotions aren't."
Let's apply some logic, leaving emotions aside. The only letters Ms. Manning referred to are the ones she has read or otherwise acquired. I'll bet there were considerably more Confederate soldiers than the total numbers of letters she referenced. Please see previous post in this thread. I've read a bunch of letters myself. Most of the ones I have read have to do with survival, not slaves.
__________________ 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
Let's apply some logic, leaving emotions aside. The only letters Ms. Manning referred to are the ones she has read or otherwise acquired. I'll bet there were considerably more Confederate soldiers than the total numbers of letters she referenced. Please see previous post in this thread. I've read a bunch of letters myself. Most of the ones I have read have to do with survival, not slaves.
My Rebel Friend: It's quite obvious that she had nowhere near access to, or ability to read, all letters. It remains that she tried hard to get as many as she could and to analyze, organize and present their revelations.
She also presented them in their place in a time line. The Kaintuck who joined the rebs had a motive at the time. What his motive was six month's down the pike might have been considerably different. Same with the Iowan, or the Georgian.
In this is the value of her book--a better understanding of individual and group motivations over time. The motive of the individual soldier cannot be considered typical until the individual motives of many soldiers are arranged in a way to paint a picture of how most felt at a given point in time.
We can find evidence that our personal feelings are justified and, in an individual sense, they can be. What Ms. Manning does is apply modern statistical methodology to what might be considered a representative sample of participants. I don't see where she was squoozing numbers to make a point, and she certainly left room personal or local convictions.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Cash wrote: "Well, Larry, I'm pretty sure you meant the majority of Tennessee soldiers, anyway. Their letters, diaries, and soldiers newspapers indicate otherwise.
Ms. Manning is listening to the soldiers. Apparently your emotions aren't."
Let's apply some logic, leaving emotions aside. The only letters Ms. Manning referred to are the ones she has read or otherwise acquired. I'll bet there were considerably more Confederate soldiers than the total numbers of letters she referenced. Please see previous post in this thread. I've read a bunch of letters myself. Most of the ones I have read have to do with survival, not slaves.
Look into sampling. In addition to letters and diaries, she used soldiers' camp newspapers. These were newspapers written, printed, and distributed by the soldiers themselves.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
