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.
Rose it is not that it is popular, it is fact. The South was in no way united... there was too much pro union feeling for that.
Shane, note that I said "the deep South". This notion of a loosely united South was not a common belief until around the year 2000. I believe Freehling's book, The South vs the South, started this line of thinking.
In the original seven seceding states there was a great deal of solidarity. It's true that secession was a harder decision for some states (particularly border states) than others because of a deep attachment to the Union. The Southern people had ancestors that fought the Revolutionary war, too. They had a deep affection for the Union, but the Union was no longer the same one they had previously been willing to die for. They felt a sense of betrayal and estrangement from the Union. In the end even this Union loyalty couldn't stop the majority of Southerners that believed secession was the only answer. And, once the decision was made, there were few that weren't fully committed to it. If this were not true the war couldn't have lasted for four years.
The bottom line (and my point) is that if you take former slaves and border state loyalists out of the equation, you are left with a very united South.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Few large (or small) politicial entities can claim an entirely undivided populace. The North had sizable groups that disagreed with Lincoln and the Republicans. Every colony in the Revolution had people who stayed loyal to the Crown for variable reasons, and fought to defend their choice.
A good story from the Battle of Concord is while the crowd of minutemen were gathering on the bluff over North Bridge, looking down on the redcoats there, one minuteman, a recent immigrant from England and British army veteran started to identify some of the regiments by their uniforms. Finally he gave his gun to his comrades and walked down to the redcoats and talked a little with them. He returned to the minuteman took back his gun and headed home. "I can't fight them." he said.
Few large (or small) politicial entities can claim an entirely undivided populace. The North had sizable groups that disagreed with Lincoln and the Republicans. Every colony in the Revolution had people who stayed loyal to the Crown for variable reasons, and fought to defend their choice.
A good story from the Battle of Concord is while the crowd of minutemen were gathering on the bluff over North Bridge, looking down on the redcoats there, one minuteman, a recent immigrant from England and British army veteran started to identify some of the regiments by their uniforms. Finally he gave his gun to his comrades and walked down to the redcoats and talked a little with them. He returned to the minuteman took back his gun and headed home. "I can't fight them." he said.
In general, historians seem to guess that about 1/3rd of the Colonists truly wanted independence and revolution, about 1/3rd supported the King, and about 1/3rd wished the whole thing would go away.
Some say 100,000 Southern white males seem to have served the Union in the Civil War. Some number below 1,000,000 (opinions vary about how many or few) seem to have served the Confederacy, and some seem to have served both. Given the distance to Union lines, Confederate control of the populace and strict enforcement of conscription, it seems likely that a significant minority of the Southern populace took exception to secession.
I know it is popular today to pretend that the South wasn't united in secession, but that is incorrect. Of course not every man, woman and child wanted to secede, but then there are exceptions to prove every rule. The deep South was largely united and commited to secession and freedom from the United States.
That there was strong support for secession in the Deep South is obvious because they did secede. That is not in question. But you seem to find it important to believe and insist that support there was 100% or close to it.
I think, Rose, you are overstating your case. North Carolina, for example, contributed more soldiers to the Confederate cause than any other seceding state -- and also a large number of white soldiers to the Union cause. Tennessee was deeply divided over secession, and a large area of Virginia simply refused to go along and remained in the Union. The Tennessee secession election is widely thought to have included intimidation and fraud. The Texas secession convention election was simply illegal and biased, and many Unionists were excluded. Large parts of Georgia were opposed to secession (one or two counties in north Georgia voted to secede from Georgia and remain in the Union in 1861). The Confederate government faced small but significant resistance in a number of places within the Deep South -- which is quite interesting given the lack of Union support available there. You might want to ponder exactly who was in the "Free Republic of Jones" in Mississippi that the Confederate Army was fighting in late 1863 and 1864. Committed Confederates, perhaps?
South Carolina probably comes closest to your vision -- but then South Carolina had been attempting to secede for three decades or so. In the 1850s they were generally regarded as not quite sane on the subject of secession by other Southerners.
This is also not a new thought. You should take note of the fact that there were many people in 1861 who believed there were large numbers of Union loyalists in the South. Abraham Lincoln seems to have been one of them. The accuracy of the judgement and supposition might be challenged, but not the fact that some people thought it was so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Not many Southerners indicated a desire to go West, but practically the entire South was outraged that it was denied to them.
The West was not denied to them, Rose. I understand that many people living then implied/said/screamed/insisted that it was. Many of those doing so had personal reasons for the positions they took. Why do you believe such a thing yourself?
I will have to agree with Trice here. Secession was unanimous in no southern State. The vote in the South Carolina Convention was unanimous, but that does not mean the whole State was unanimous. James L. Petigru being the most well-known opponent of secession in South Carolina. In Alabama, the convention vote was 61-39. In Florida was 62-7. And in Louisiana, the vote was 113-17. Georgia voted 208 – 89. In Mississippi it was 83-15. Secession in the Deep South wasn't unanimous, but it was popular. It would be a mistake to assert that "Cooperationists" and "Unconditional Unionists" were one and the same. As Mr. Brooke, of Warren, said in the Mississippi Convention: "I throw myself on the indulgence of the Convention for a short explanation of the vote I am about to cast. I was elected by a large majority, as what is known as a co-operationist – which means, as I understand it, one who was in favor of united Southern action for the purpose of demanding further guarantees, from the North, or, failing in that, the formation of a Southern Confederacy. I have, to the best of my humble ability, endeavored to carry out the views of my constituents in these respects. I have acted in good faith, and with no desire to make a factious opposition. I have failed. Previous co-operation, or co-operation before secession, was the object of my desire. Failing in this, I am willing to take as the next best, subsequent co-operation, or co-operation after secession. The former is now impossible. I, therefore, am willing to adopt the latter." Mississippi Convention, J. L. Power (editor), pg. 14-15. I believe the myth of southern unanimity came after Reconstruction, and gained acceptance as the South became “The Solid South” around the end of the century. It probably is related to the movement of national reconciliation that occurred at the same time, and supported national unity in the Spanish-American War. Freehling is right to question it. It is also a mistake to assert that anti-Confederates were pro-unionists. This certainly was the case in many individual instances (I believe that Trice’s figure of white Union soldiers from Southern States is a good indicator of how pervasive; this is especially true in eastern Tennessee). In many regions (e.g. north Georgia, western North Carolina), yeoman farmers and mountaineers simply wanted whichever central government to leave them alone. Opposition to the Confederate government should not be construed as pro-Union sentiment in every case, however.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
"Southern nationalism was born of resentment and not a sense of separate cultural identity. But the cultural dissimilarities of North And South were significant enough to turn a campaign for the protection of southern interests into a movement with a strong color of nationalism. This does not mean that there was never a deeply felt southern nationalism. There was. But it resulted from the shared sacrifices, the shared efforts, and the shared defeat (which is often more unifying than victory) of the Civil War. The Civil War did far more to produce a southern nationalism which flourished in the cult of the Lost Cause than southern nationalism did to produce the war."
__________________ -
"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
I'll have to go along with Mr. Potter. Being "Southern" is largely a post-war invention. I see little evidence of antebellum consensus amoung southerners, except among those seeking to set up a country of their own.
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
I'll have to go along with Mr. Potter. Being "Southern" is largely a post-war invention. I see little evidence of antebellum consensus amoung southerners, except among those seeking to set up a country of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Ole
Well, Ole, I would not say that there was not a consensus either. Consensus does not mean unanimity. I believe that there was a consensus in the seceded states, a consensus for independence, simply by virtue of these states seceding. Or, to follow your statement more closely, "those seeking to set up a country of their own" consisted of a majority of the people of each of the states that left the Union in 1860-61. But I do agree with you that the post-war evolution of perceptions of the war greatly reinforced the image of consensus, well beyond any consensus that had existed during the war.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Every Southern State supplied troops to the Northern war effort, even that rabid secessionist SC.
Check out the book, The South vs. The South, How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped The Course Of The Civil War, by William W. Freehling. Freehling contends that there were 450,000 troops raised for the Union from the South. Though he states that these numbers include Border State whites and southern blacks, there were thousands raised from those states south of the Mason-Dixon line in that number.
Or read the book, Disloyalty In The Confederacy, by Georgia Lee Tatum. In every Southern State of the Confederacy, there were organizations dedicated to the Union and for bringing down or resisting the Confederacy.
Or better yet, just type Southerners in Union Army or some such in your search engine and check it out.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Nope....
I'll go straight to the Official Records...
...let's see what they've got:
From the Original Seven Confederate States
White troops.......11,600 (Over 4 yrs. the equivalent of ONE brigade)
Black troops........56,929
Eleven Confederate States (Running Total-)
White.................54,137
Black..................98,398 (includes 5,052 at-large from seceded states)
Total................152,535
...not exactly equal to the Confederate Army (750,000-1,000,000)...
...as claimed by Joha.
Border States (DE, MD, WV, KY, MO, incuding DC)
(When you include these it does add up to nearly 450,000...but the population of these states is not thoroughly Southern in their sentiments or native background.)
Wow, I thought that some of the posts I've read and responded to in the numerous "slavery" threads confused the heck out of me, but the conversation between Jkeith and Scots completely boggles my mind. You're both mysteries, wrapped in enigmas, smothered in secret sauce. (Stephen Root, aka Jimmy James in News Radio) just kidding
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
