Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
How many were slaveholders? You are using a legal term with a precise definition when you ask that question. You must accept the answer the definition provides. Then you can ask another question. Don't ask the first question and provide the answer to the second. That is not history.
Simple question: In determining the percentage of people in the South who owned slaves, would you divide the number of slaveowners into the entire population, slaves included?
In the context of a discussion about social conditions and voting patterns -- rather than one about the technicalities of property ownership -- I'm confident that any reasonable person reviewing my hypothetical will conclude that it's misleading to summarize the state of affairs with the conclusion that 5% of the white population owned slaves. I'm equally confident that a listener or reader would find it far more meaningful to be advised that 25% of white families owned slaves, or that slaves constituted 40% of the total population.
In the alternative, perhaps you'd like to say (again with reference to the hypothetical) that 25% of white male heads of households (3 of 12) owned slaves. At least then you'd be comparing apples to apples.
If "expressing proslavery convictions" means one is fighting for slavery then there were a number of Union soldiers who were fighting for slavery!
That's quite a mischaracterization since the men McPherson referred to as expressing proslavery convictions were the ones who said specifically they were fighting for slavery. He says, specifically, that "20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicity proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries." [James M. McPherson, For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 110.
McPherson says 20% of Confederates expressed proslavery views. This does not tell us why they were fighting, nor does McPherson claim it does. The fallacy of the argument from silence precludes wasting time on this point. One may theorize, posit, or propose that silence means something, one cannot prove it. McPherson makes quite clear that the vast majority of Confederates saw themselves acting from patriotic motives, including independence and self-defense.
The matter of how many people owned slaves is simple. The census tells us. If you want to expand the discussion as to how many people "benefitted" from slavery I have laid down the parameters of that issue--it extends nationwide.
We do not need hypothetical examples, we are dealing with historical fact. We do not need to concern ourselves with what might be more understandable to modern readers, we need to "tell it like it is."
The matter of how many people owned slaves is simple. The census tells us.
The question is not how many owned slaves, but what percentage of people in the South owned slaves, and therefore what percentage of people were not slaveowners. I ask again...would you divide the number of slaveowners into the total population, slaves included, or just the free population?
McPherson says 20% of Confederates expressed proslavery views. This does not tell us why they were fighting, nor does McPherson claim it does.
No, that statement is wrong.
Once again, the direct quote from McPherson is that "20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicity proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries." [James M. McPherson, For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 110.
This is not just "proslavery views." This is "proslavery PURPOSES." In other words, the 20% in question specifically stated they were fighting to preserve slavery. Not a single confederate soldier in the study claimed they were not fighting for slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The matter of how many people owned slaves is simple. The census tells us. If you want to expand the discussion as to how many people "benefitted" from slavery I have laid down the parameters of that issue--it extends nationwide.
It's not so much the benefit, although that is an important consideration, as who had a vested interest in keeping slavery intact and therefore had a vested interest in fighting for slavery. The son of a planter may not have been officially a slaveowner, but he would inherit the slaves of his father and therefore had a vested interest in fighting for slavery.
The problem with utilizing Confederate soldier's letters to determine a definite reason the majority fought for or against, is not ALL or even close to ALL letters/diaries physically exist for examination.
Mr. McPherson's conclusive theory is based on how many letters/diaries? The entire number of CS soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were how many? His statement of 20% of the CS soldier letters examined provided him with his basis of his assumption. To be conclusive, 75% or more of all letters/diaries would be required to establish any conclusive fact. The letters simply do not exist or were never written.
Re: not one single Confederate soldier in the study claimed they were not fighting for slavery.
This statement lacks a conclusion to anything. Stating this doesn't conclude they WERE fighting for slavery either.
Good to see you Rob,
Yea the statement that not one Confederate soldier said he wasn't fighting for slavery says absulutely nothing.You could aslo say with these not one of other 80 percent Confederates said they were fighting for slavery.It's tricky how you can say the same thing another way and it communicates a different result.So basically 80 percent it could be theorized weren't fighting for slavery since they never said were.
Authors and their word games my, my, my
Regards
Ashley
Actually McPherson details exactly how many letters he utilized and IIRC it was several thousand. Whie I have read in the neighborhood of 2000 I have concentrated on Western troops primarily Union... It is possible to easily read than many concentration on CS western troops. I feel I have an excellent grasp on the motivation and philoshopy of the average Western soldier. I think I will give McPherson the benefit of the doubt just becasue of the scope of his research.
If slavery wasn't important to the men who did the fighting and dieing what role did slavery play in their minds? It is pretty conclusive that the 20 slave exemption was not well liked by the fighting men... they certainly felt they were fighting a Rich mans war w/ poor mans blood. Some CS regiments suffered cumulative desertion rates as high as 60%. How much of the realization that men were fighting and dieing for the right of a few hundred rich men to own slaves effect that? My own belief is that it was a myriad of factors w/ poor morale and a realization that this General or that got more men killed... aka Bragg. Along w/ all kinds of other factors that could keep a thread busy for a week.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Shane,
What the heck is going on?You made a post that has nothing I feel compelled to disagree with.As I've said before I like McPherson and have a lot of respect for him as a historian ,though of course I don't agree with him on everything.Would you recommend buying Ken Burns Civil War Series on DVD?I'd appreciate your honest appraisal.
Regards,
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
