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.
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.
John,
There were certainly a lot of people voting for secession and enlisting to fight. Pretty clear that there was indeed a consensus for this act of secession in December 1860-early 1861. I think the rabble-rousers deliberately whipped enthusiasm for their plan to a fever pitch to get this done, and I think they rushed to take acts (such as firing on Ft. Sumter) that would be seen as irrevocable, so there would be no turning back. But that is all normal practice for people staging a rebellion, a revolution, or any other violent upheaval.
But if you want to say, for example, there was a legal election in Tennessee on the matter, there is a lot of reason to doubt it. Certainly the TN governor and legislature had prejudiced the case in April when they concluded arrangements to support the Confederacy two months before the referendum, and offered troops to the Confederacy.
If you want to look at Texas, well, there simply was no legal election of delegates to the secession convention, because the legislature never voted for such an election and the governor never signed any such bill. Many secessionist delegates were simply elected by voice votes in small groups, while many Unionists boycotted an election that was not called for by the governor and legislature. Not all areas of the state sent delegates to the convention, and so were not represented, and the Convention had no authority for acting as they did in threatening Federal forces. I think there is a good chance Texas would have gone out anyway if they had simply followed procedures, but the truth is the secessionists were determined to act without waiting, and so deliberately chose an illegal path.
Given the high emotional atmosphere and the threats being bandied about in some places (such as Texas), one thing no one can say is that the South conducted a calm, well-mannered, unbiased vote on this issue. But of course, such was the state of politics at the time ... and many other times.
The OR's while a valuable resource, is not the ONLY resource a person can use to support one's claims.
I am glad that you contend, as did Freehling, that there were 450,000 souls from the South (including the border states and blacks) who served with the Union. I think you have taken Johan's statement a bit out of context for whatever personal reasons you feel you have to, but his statement is pretty much correct if taken in the vein it was intended.
In his book, The South vs. The South, Freehling writes the following:
"Statistics indicate other Southerners' ability to cool white Confederates' ador; and the numbers illuminate but the tip of the iceberg. Southern blacks supplied close to 150,000 Union soldiers and sailors (northern free blacks provided another 50,000). Border South whites added 200,000 and Confederate state whites 100,000 soldiers to Union troop strength. The resulting total of 450,000 Southerners who wore Union blue, half as many as the 900,000 Southerners who wore Confederate gray, replaced every one of the Federals' 350,000 slain men and supplied 100,000 more men besides--a number greater than the usual size of Robert E. Lee's main Confederate army. White Confederates developed no such replacements for their mounting casualties; and in addition, anti-Confederate Southerners piled on psychological, economic, and geographic burdens that ultimately helped flatten white Confederates' resiliency."
As you see, Dr. Freehling's numbers hardly differ from the one's you have provided from your research, so I am going to presume that the man has looked up the same information as you have, as he should, being a historian of his proven ability.
As for your comment that the Border States (DE, MD, WV, KY, MO including DC) were not as throughly Southern in their sentiments as those in the rest of the Confederacy, you have some evidence before and after secession that supports this conclusion somewhat.
But I also think you must include parts of NC, GA, AL, TX, and others in that view also, as these are some of the states and areas Confederate authorities had their most trouble with prounion sentiments before and during the war. So, would these folks in the deep South also be considered as not being thoroughly Southern in their sentiments also?
And before the war, did not the states you mention vote with the deep South on numerous views and subjects when they came before Congress? How did these states (the ones not thoroughly Southern) vote on the tariff before the war? Were not their interests thoroughly identified with those in the deep South? Strange, I thought anyone South of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon line considered themselves Southerners. And I know for a fact that the residences of MO, WV, DE, KY and DC, etc, consider themselves Southerners and identify themselves as such, quite proudly, as I recall.
But being considered a Southerner may not automatically conclude that you are inclined towards rebellion, simply because you live south of those geographical locations I have mentioned above.
Seems like 450,000 other Southerners, thoroughly or not, felt the same way.
Thank you for your views.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The OR's while a valuable resource, is not the ONLY resource a person can use to support one's claims.
No doubt...there are other "sources"...but would not the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies be the PRIMARY source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
I am glad that you contend, as did Freehling, that there were 450,000 souls from the South (including the border states and blacks) who served with the Union. I think you have taken Johan's statement a bit out of context for whatever personal reasons you feel you have to, but his statement is pretty much correct if taken in the vein it was intended.
No, it's still BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
In his book, The South vs. The South, Freehling writes the following:
"Statistics indicate other Southerners' ability to cool white Confederates' ador; and the numbers illuminate but the tip of the iceberg. Southern blacks supplied close to 150,000 Union soldiers and sailors
Nope...
It's 143,582...but then you have to deduct about 7,500 white officers which are included with that number...
...so that makes it about 136,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Border South whites added 200,000 and Confederate state whites 100,000 soldiers to Union troop strength.The resulting total of 450,000 Southerners who wore Union blue, half as many as the 900,000 Southerners who wore Confederate gray, replaced every one of the Federals' 350,000 slain men and supplied 100,000 more men besides--a number greater than the usual size of Robert E. Lee's main Confederate army. White Confederates developed no such replacements for their mounting casualties; and in addition, anti-Confederate Southerners piled on psychological, economic, and geographic burdens that ultimately helped flatten white Confederates' resiliency."
As you see, Dr. Freehling's numbers hardly differ from the one's you have provided from your research, so I am going to presume that the man has looked up the same information as you have, as he should, being a historian of his proven ability.
As for your comment that the Border States (DE, MD, WV, KY, MO including DC) were not as throughly Southern in their sentiments as those in the rest of the Confederacy, you have some evidence before and after secession that supports this conclusion somewhat.
But I also think you must include parts of NC, GA, AL, TX, and others in that view also, as these are some of the states and areas Confederate authorities had their most trouble with prounion sentiments before and during the war. So, would these folks in the deep South also be considered as not being thoroughly Southern in their sentiments also?
Well, let's check how many joined the Federal Army-
Georgia.....................0
South Caro................0
Alabama..............2,576
Texas.................1,965
Florida................1,290
Mississippi............. 545
Louisiana.............5,224
These numbers do not give any appearance of pro-Union. The troubles the Confederate government had recruiting certain sections of these states appear to be more anti-draft than pro-Union.
Arkansas.............8,289
North Carolina......3,156
Virginia.....................0 (If you count W.Va.- 31,872)
Tennessee.........31,092
John T.: I left out the point I was trying to make. Concensus, as you pointed out, is not a strictly accurate word to have been used. Clearly, the number of legal secession elections shows that the southern people opted for secession. The lack of "concensus" to which I was referring was the reason for the fighting. Some bought the idea that they were fighting northern oppression, some fought because "you'uns is here," some for the restoration of constitutional liberty, some for the helluvit, and some were honest enough to realize it was to secure the right maintain a permanent underclass. No "concensus." The northern soldier, aside from human variations, had one cause: to preserve the Union. "Concensus."
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
No doubt...there are other "sources"...but would not the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies be the PRIMARY source?
Unfortunately, no. Sometimes the OR is all there is, but there are other sources more primary -- and accurate -- than a report written months, even years, after the event.
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
Unfortunately, no. Sometimes the OR is all there is, but there are other sources more primary -- and accurate -- than a report written months, even years, after the event.
Ole
The report I referenced was written April 1865.
How could there be something "more" primary?
I have found a few minor revisions though-
Georgia had ONE battalion of infantry in the Federal army (195 men)....and Virginia had a few small units (in all numbering about 500)
...so add 695 to the total...
...you've still got a long way to go to get 1,000,000.
White troops.......11,600 Brigade... try Division. Would you like a source. Might suggest Griffith's excellent work.
Black troops........56,929 This is not too far from the number of men fielded by the CS AoT or ANV and either orginazation would greatly have appreciated them...
Eleven Confederate States (Running Total-)
White.................54,137 See above
Black..................98,398 (includes 5,052 at-large from seceded states) Not Southern I suppose? Typical.
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) KY, WV, MD not Southern... typical.
(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.) Please be kind enough to define "thoroughly Southern." Bragg & Lee both had hope of recruiting "Southerners" while in MD & KY. I think they would have appreciated even 10% of the numbers from the OR. It is fascinating to see someone claim the OR as the only reputable source in one instant then totatly discount it as rubish another.
Thank you for your kind words... sir. Though coming from an individual who thinks a body of troops closer in number to a Division is only a Brigade... No wonder so many believe Bobby Lee held off the evil ole Union w/ only a one armed Sgt and twenty naked men. In short I'll take it w/ a grain of salt.
Now if you wish to contend that Davis wasn't interested in having those men in CS uniform instead of the Union... Come to think of it 140,000 odd were Black; so he didn't. Well not until March/April 65 anyway.
If you truly believe 450,000 odd troops serving the Union from geographical region thought to be largely Southern and sympathetic to the South was not a problem... I might suggest a rethinking.
Have a nice day Battalion... or is it Company?
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Well, let's check how many joined the Federal Army-
Georgia.....................0
South Caro................0
Alabama..............2,576
Texas.................1,965
Florida................1,290
Mississippi............. 545
Louisiana.............5,224
These numbers do not give any appearance of pro-Union. The troubles the Confederate government had recruiting certain sections of these states appear to be more anti-draft than pro-Union.
Arkansas.............8,289
North Carolina......3,156
Virginia.....................0 (If you count W.Va.- 31,872)
Tennessee.........31,092
Leaving out Black men again... SC fielded 5 Infantry Regiments "African Descent"
These states also sent organizations to the Federal Army.
TX 4 organizations
TN 56
MS 10
KY 80
LA 23
MD 35
MO 447!
FL 2
GA 1
Al 6
AK 17
VA 1
680 + units... I think the CS would have appreciated the batteries, Cav & Infantry Regiments.
Source - A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer (Part 3)
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Thank you for your kind words... sir. Though coming from an individual who thinks a body of troops closer in number to a Division is only a Brigade... No wonder so many believe Bobby Lee held off the evil ole Union w/ only a one armed Sgt and twenty naked men. In short I'll take it w/ a grain of salt.
I think you need to review what I posted- "over 4 years"
A brigade would have that many enlistments over the period of 4 years....
Example- 1st Alabama Cavalry (one regiment)- 2576 total enlistments
Now multiply that number by 4 or 5 and see what you get.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
