In this I am in 95% agreement with you. Very few in the North cared about the slave and his condition. The problem was, very many in power in the South DID care about the slave and his condition.
So on what aspect of the slavery issue did their motivation rest?-
...the attainment of power.
No real proof, so a no-go for me on this one, Battalion. Where was the coup, the armed force, the planning, the PROOF of such a complicated plot to attain power by masking it in a non-concern for the black slave? You can't have it both ways.
Period.
Actually, Question marks, and quite a few of them.
"The North is fighting for empire, the South for independence"
Change that English quote to "America is fighting for empire" and I will agree. The more I read the more I see a Southern desire for empire, a desire to expand South into Cuba, Mexico, and South America. Up North, you have a desire for Canada. Seems like both sections were willing to expand at the expense of their foreign neighbors.
No matter how many books there are trumpeting the 'Glorious Union' and the 'Crusade against Slavery' the underlying cause was always a struggle for political power.
You run off at offense at something we have both agreed with. The North was NOT concerned about slavery, the slaves condition, or his freedom, when the war started. But you keep refusing to believe the central reason for the South leaving the Union, to protect the institution of slavery, to maintain its own political power in the government.
And if there was one thing the North could not stand for more than a rival political faction (<1860)...
...was a rival nation on its borders (1861-65).
It could not stand a section of the nation in rebellion, especially after it had stolen property of the nation and fired on the nation's soldiers in the performance of their duty.
"...If the two sections can no longer live together, they can no longer live apart in quiet till it is determined which is master. No two civilizations ever did, or can, come into contact as the North and South threaten to do, without a trial of strength, in which the weaker goes to the wall...
...We must remain masters of the occasion, and the dominant Power on this continent..."
New York Times, 9 April 1861
Another editorial?
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
I see unionblue has referenced Williams' book Bitterly Divided. I encourage everyone to read this book. Pay special attention, if you read it, to the sections which lay out in vivid detail how poor Southern soldiers knew slavery was part of the equation because they resented having to fight when rich plantation owners didn't. Frankly, I'd trust the poor fellow from the North Carolina hills writing in 1862 than I would someone today who tends to cloak the South's moral vacuum regarding slavery in propaganda and turn the argument around on either Lincoln or Yankees.
Slavery was the major factor which drove Southern politicians to call for secession. They never would have withdrawn from the Union over silliness like tariffs and taxes, etc. Interesting how the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott Decision all have one common denominator.
I see unionblue has referenced Williams' book Bitterly Divided. I encourage everyone to read this book. Pay special attention, if you read it, to the sections which lay out in vivid detail how poor Southern soldiers knew slavery was part of the equation because they resented having to fight when rich plantation owners didn't. Frankly, I'd trust the poor fellow from the North Carolina hills writing in 1862 than I would someone today who tends to cloak the South's moral vacuum regarding slavery in propaganda and turn the argument around on either Lincoln or Yankees.
Slavery was the major factor which drove Southern politicians to call for secession. They never would have withdrawn from the Union over silliness like tariffs and taxes, etc. Interesting how the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott Decision all have one common denominator.
Since I share genes with several poor fellows from the North Carolina hills, I'll have to admit that those soldiers knew about slavery, though it probably wasn't a personal priority. The reasons for the individual soldier's participation go way beyond a subject as trivial as slavery (albeit the underlying cause of the war, as Unionblue has suggested a couple of times). These men were simply fighting because they were caught up in a war not of their doing, but which was very much impacting their lives and their livelihood, not to mention those they loved. Had a slave been anywhere around, the soldiers might well have been a bit cross with them for being the center of the political start of the war. The war did no one immediate good. It took 100 years for it to get the civil rights movement going, a task probably not quite complete today.
__________________ 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
Since I share genes with several poor fellows from the North Carolina hills, I'll have to admit that those soldiers knew about slavery, though it probably wasn't a personal priority. The reasons for the individual soldier's participation go way beyond a subject as trivial as slavery (albeit the underlying cause of the war, as Unionblue has suggested a couple of times). These men were simply fighting because they were caught up in a war not of their doing, but which was very much impacting their lives and their livelihood, not to mention those they loved. Had a slave been anywhere around, the soldiers might well have been a bit cross with them for being the center of the political start of the war. The war did no one immediate good. It took 100 years for it to get the civil rights movement going, a task probably not quite complete today.
Larry,
We agree about poor soldiers, for the most part, not viewing slavery as a personal priority. However, poor soldiers were not the ones who started the war or the war rhetoric. It was Southern politicians who had a vested interest in promoting and protecting slavery at all costs. The argument about whether the war was about slavery often switches over to what the soldiers thought. Frankly, by the time the bullets started flying it didn't much matter what they thought. Southern politicians refused to concede on slavery and thus doomed countless poor Southern farmers to death, fighting mostly farmers from the North who never would have taken up arms if the country was not imperiled. Meanwhile, the Southern power elite stayed at home, protecting their crumbling slave empire until the bitter end.
Eric, well stated. I hope Unionblue has or will read this. I've been trying to beat that concept into his slavery-ridden brain for quite a while now with only partial success.
Northern boys seem to enjoy the attempt of blaming slavery on every soul who walked south of the Mason-Dixon line. Then the response is always that Confederate soldiers in total contributed to the slavery cause by association. Hogwash.
Cotton was THE cash crop for the US in 1860, by about 70 percent, and was key to the solvency of New York banks. Folks tangled up in that web were the driving force behind the preservation of slavery.
To impact the memory of the 'poor fellows from the North Carolina hills' and other non-slave holding soldiers, fighting because there was a fight, just ain't right. My Union ancestors, three of them, weren't fighting to stop slavery, though they might have voted that way given a chance. There was a war going on that affected every soul in this country, like it or not. A civil war, hardly...
__________________ 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
Either they supported the system (actively), they opposed the system (to little effect), or they ignored the system (passively supporting it).
Doesn't mean that every Johnny in the mountains thought that slavery was absolutely awesome, but if he thought slavery was repulsive or something in which those who felt it appealing could d--- well fight for it themselves...
He didn't act on it. And thusly, bluntly, it doesn't count. The Southern armies that formed of volunteers were people who chose to join the war. People who knew what was happening (or who were lied to very well) and made there be a civil war.
I don't know your ancestors, either personally or by reputation, so I'd rather not condemn them as slavery supporting fanatics. But unless they were fighting solely because they were conscripted, they and others were fighting because they chose to join the army that was formed of people who chose to come together and kill Yankees.
Lee supposedly didn't much care for slavery. If he really was appaling at the idea of fighting over slavery, then not joining the Confederate army was a perfectly valid option in 1861.
He refused to take it.
Same with anyone else who joined voluntarily. You can quote stories like the one about the lad whose lass broke off with him (broke an engagement, if I recall) and sent him petticoats with a letter saying "wear these or enlist" until you're hoarse or your keyboard breaks, but Johnny still said "I'm volunteering."
There wouldn't have been a war if the hotheads picked a fight andnobody came.
So...with all due respect to Johnny the Average Southerner, I cannot and will not excuse him from responsibility for there being a war except for theones dragged into the army kicking and screaming, possibly literally, and only stayed there out of fear that Really Bad Things Would Happen if he didn't to either him or his loved ones or both.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Eric, well stated. I hope Unionblue has or will read this. I've been trying to beat that concept into his slavery-ridden brain for quite a while now with only partial success.
Northern boys seem to enjoy the attempt of blaming slavery on every soul who walked south of the Mason-Dixon line. Then the response is always that Confederate soldiers in total contributed to the slavery cause by association. Hogwash.
Cotton was THE cash crop for the US in 1860, by about 70 percent, and was key to the solvency of New York banks. Folks tangled up in that web were the driving force behind the preservation of slavery.
To impact the memory of the 'poor fellows from the North Carolina hills' and other non-slave holding soldiers, fighting because there was a fight, just ain't right. My Union ancestors, three of them, weren't fighting to stop slavery, though they might have voted that way given a chance. There was a war going on that affected every soul in this country, like it or not. A civil war, hardly...
I looked around for it last night, but couldn't put my finger on it, so I ask your indulgence for a non-referenced quote.
In one of the POW reminiscences I stumbled across on "giant search engine" books, the author related that in half or more of the exchanges he had with his confederate captors, they started by asking him "why 'd you want to come down here and take our slaves?" to which he would counter "why do you chase white men with dogs?" pretty much ending the conversation. The subtext of the Rebel soldier considering the slave to be sub-human comes through pretty clearly, but to be fair, needs some filtering for the source. It is a valid data point, though.
So I don't think it's as clear cut as "no poor southerners fought to preserve slavery and every Yank fought to end it." As with so many things, it is not simple and any generalization is likely very wrong.
__________________ One can be a brother only in something. Where there is no tie that binds men, men are not united but merely lined up.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Lee supposedly didn't much care for slavery. If he really was appaling at the idea of fighting over slavery, then not joining the Confederate army was a perfectly valid option in 1861.
He refused to take it.
Sadly, this is untrue. One of the more compelling aspects of the ACW is that one had to choose sides. Particularly in the South where Home Guard operated with almost total impunity against those who resisted military service.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
