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.
I want to point out that the use of "slave power" as synonimous with "south" or "southern" is historically incorrect.
It is almost completely accurate if we look at the situation in 1860. Except for Delaware and the 18 elderly slaves in NJ, all the slaves were held in southern states--counting Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky as southern states.
The argument that slaveholding and support for secession can be correlated does not bear the scrutiny of statistical examination.
Actually, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The county with the largest number of slaves in Tennessee in 1860 was Williamson, yet there was a significant anti-secession vote in Williamson (47%). Franklin County held far fewer slaves but voted 100% for secession. While West Tennessee counties had more slaveholders than any other part of the state there were strong anti-secession votes in that section as well, Hardin and Wayne counties being examples. Indeed, these two counties were much more Unionist in sentiment than the better well known cases in East Tennessee.
Actually, cherrypicking a few exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the overall correlation. East Tennessee, where slavery was relatively sparse, was overwhelmingly Unionist while West and Middle Tennessee, where slavery was more widespread, was Secessionist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The statement that 15% of Tennessee families owned slaves is not open to challenge since it is documented by the 1860 census.
It is open to challenge since the 1860 Census documents around 25%. Out of 149,335 families in 1860, there were 36,844 who owned slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The available evidence from this majority of Tennesseans (and other Southerners) is that they did not much care about slavery, they did care about other issues they perceived to be at stake. This is documented by McPherson, Why Men Fought in the Civil War. This can be documented independently by looking at any collection of letters and diaries written by these men.
You mischaracterize what McPherson wrote. McPherson's conclusion was that for confederate soldiers, slavery was taken for granted as a southern right they were fighting for.
Because most of them owned slaves in several different locations it seems probable that an individual nabob has been counted as, say, four different slave-owners rather than one individual with slaves in four places. And so the number of slave-owners in the South (and, therefore, amongst the population of the Confederate States) has been overstated.
No, it doesn't seem probable, since the slaveowner would only be counted in the state in which he resided in his primary domicile. In any event, the number who were wealthy enough to own slaves in different states was so small relative to the general population as to be insignificant.
I have a question about counting slaveowners. If a man owns a slave, he is a slaveowner. How does his wife count? Of these two people, husband and wife, is just the husband counted officially, since he is the legal owners, or are both counted?
The impact on the statistic, 25 per cent of Southerners overall were slaveowners is obvious if it omits their wives and children, since persumably they to have experience and a stake in slavery. It would make the antebellum South more slave oriented so to speak.
Of course if they're counting slave owning families vs. non slave owning families, never mind. Are they? It seems that way from what Cash wrote.
When was my first one? See there is a double standard. They can say and do what they want. I really don't care what you do. How's that!
Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--This is your second warning, please watch your language, do not attempt to flame others. We expect all members to act civilized here!
--------------------------------------------- THE ADMINISTRATOR----------
__________________ "I want to bury myself in a den of books. I want to saturate myself with the elements of which they are made and breathe their atmosphere until I am of it."
--Lew Wallace, 1885
Actually, cherrypicking a few exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the overall correlation. East Tennessee, where slavery was relatively sparse, was overwhelmingly Unionist while West and Middle Tennessee, where slavery was more widespread, was Secessionist.
Cherrypicking? Hardly! I am speaking accurately. The idea that Union sentiment was overwhelming in East Tennessee and not found in other areas is untrue and misleading. Many slaveholders were strongly pro-Union since they clearly understood that the Constutution of the United States absolutely protected slavery. The reports of the secession debates in Tennessee show many slaveholders opposed secession and became Ckonfederates only after Lincoln called for troops.
You mischaracterize what McPherson wrote. McPherson's conclusion was that for confederate soldiers, slavery was taken for granted as a southern right
they were fighting for.
It is not I who mischaracterizes McPherson. The good professor states as his personal view that Confederates took slavery for granted. He carefully distances this statement from his historical conclusions as he properly should since the evidence he cites does not support his personal conclusion. Be careful how you read!
I have a question about counting slaveowners. If a man owns a slave, he is a slaveowner. How does his wife count? Of these two people, husband and wife, is just the husband counted officially, since he is the legal owners, or are both counted?
The impact on the statistic, 25 per cent of Southerners overall were slaveowners is obvious if it omits their wives and children, since persumably they to have experience and a stake in slavery. It would make the antebellum South more slave oriented so to speak.
Of course if they're counting slave owning families vs. non slave owning families, never mind. Are they? It seems that way from what Cash wrote.
What a good question. Legally, only the men (head of the family) owned the property. If you count only the legal property owners the percentage of slaveholders is rather low, somewhere just under 10% of the Southern population. Because of this low numbers those who wish to emphasize the role of slavey in the Civil War use the total number of family members as slaveholders to increase the percentage. Mark Twain warned us about those who cite statistics.
It is almost completely accurate if we look at the situation in 1860. Except for Delaware and the 18 elderly slaves in NJ, all the slaves were held in southern states--counting Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky as southern states.
Regards,
Cash
The Slave Power did not emerge in 1860, now did it? It had been around for quite a long time and was very widespread. If it had emerged in 1860 history would be quite different, I suppose.
A good historian cannot ignore the origins of things, not and be a good historian.This thread did not stipulate that we were beginnning our discussion in 1860 so stop trying to dodge the bullet that slavery had national support and was maintained by a national concensus. New York City was a major part of that concensus as were other industrial states who profited from the cheap products of slave labor.
Martin, we're merely probing the possibilities. I've seen nothing where ridicule is involved; if you see that, you are mistaken. There is no ridicule involved.
Shane, Cash, Neil, Ed, Cedarstripper, and on and on and on, are far more well read than I, and I have yet to see where anyone of them declares himself omnipotent. From where I stand, and you are certainly welcome to dispute that, they are stating what they have found to be a reasonably factual view. They each and all are open to rebuttal with an equally reasonably factual view.
We are here to prove, question, or disprove the "official" record AND to get to the nitty-gritty of actual. I will wager that if, the argument swung the other way, and it was PROVEN that they were wrong, they would admit it.
It is well to hold a belief -- it is a foundation of humankind. But when we're talking about the past, belief can be a hindrance. We all grew up in a box. We learned and absorbed a bunch of stuff. But when we're discussing a subject like this one, we must step out of that box and look at things differently. If we can't get out of that box, then there's little purpose of discussing anything, is there?
Disagreement is the lifeblood of debate. If disagreement alone is considred rude, then
there is no debate. I will give you that rude has appeared now and then in all these discussions, but I will point out that it would not appear to be prevalent on one side or the other.
For example, your post might be considered rude. But I will venture that not one of the named posters will complain about it. The old grain of salt rule applies.
So. May we agree that none of the named parties assumes superiority? That none of them dictate fact? That all of them are looking for fact? In the end, it's a quest to transcend belief and look for fact. And if you can't see that, I'm rudely sorry for you.
"But I will venture that not one of the named posters will complain about it."
Since I'm not one of those named posters, may I humbly complain (hopefully without being added to anyone's ****list) about it?
I just believe that using most versions of "Shut Up" is clearly not polite, and is certainly uncalled for in legitimate discussion among us brothers and sisters at CWT.
Perhaps one could substitute the phrase "Please forever hold your peace", instead.
Are we not gentlemen and ladies, or if not, should we not aspire to be; at least in this forum, if not on the street corner?
Sam
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
