Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Andersonh1]

Not true there are articles in the Confedrate Constititon that I have posted in the past concerning the sanctity of slavery.
Leftyhunter

Again false the Confedrate Constititon specifically protects slavery .
Every single Confedrate soldier fought to uphold the Confedrate Constitition which specifically upheld slavery.
Article I Section 9
1. Bans foreign slaves from being imported
2. Only Slaves from Confedrate states can be sold.
Sounds very humanitarian but it benefits Confedrate slave owner so they can get a better price for their slaves. If the Confedracy was anti slavery they would of outlawed slavery but they didn't. I wonder why?
Article III Section 3
All new states admitted to the Confedracy must accept slavery.
Article IV Section
All escaped slaves must be returned to their masters.
Leftyhunter

I did not say that the Confederate Constitution did not have sections about slavery in it, just that you're mistaken about the purpose and goals of the document.

 

[leftyhunter]

I did not say that the Confederate Constitution did not have sections about slavery in it, just that you're mistaken about the purpose and goals of the document.

No I am not the only difference between the US and Confedrate Constititon is slavery and more limited internal improvements us a single six year term for the Presidency.
It the issue of slavery is what motivated the war.
Leftyhunter

 

[Andersonh1]

No I am not the only difference between the US and Confedrate Constititon is slavery and more limited internal improvements us a single six year term for the Presidency.

That's another myth. There are a number of differences between the two Constitutions, some minor and some major. They made a lot of tweaks and a few large changes, and those changes reveal a lot about what the CS's goals were.

I have issues with the writer's commentary at the following link, but the comparison showing the changes is useful.

Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?

 

[Jantzen64]

I think it's worth pointing out that the majority of modern Americans are not millionaires and yet there's a significant political movement which favours policies which only benefit millionaires. I don't bring this up to insert modern politics but to use as an example - it is quite possible for a significant number of people to favour a political movement which benefits people they do not qualify as, especially when it fits in with a worldview in which you could qualify as that category (i.e. an aspirational one) or one in which the beneficiaries are seen as admirable.

Well said, Saphroneth. In addition, one needs to consider the significant strain of religious and social commentary in the antebellum South characterizing slavery as either a necessary evil or even a positive good in keeping with biblical traditions. This created a culture where all classes had a vested interest in preserving the insitution. Even those on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder who owned no slaves could take "comfort" in the fact that, however difficult their plight was, their status was higher than those of slaves.

 

[Andersonh1]

Even those on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder who owned no slaves could take "comfort" in the fact that, however difficult their plight was, their status was higher than those of slaves.

I would like to see proof that the lower classes actually believed this.

 

[Saphroneth]

I would like to see proof that the lower classes actually believed this.

What sort of proof would you accept? Personally I'd consider it pretty much self-evident that lower-class Confederates did not believe slaves were better off than they were, because of the obvious fact that they were not liable to unlimited punishment by an actual owner.

 

[Andersonh1]

What sort of proof would you accept? Personally I'd consider it pretty much self-evident that lower-class Confederates did not believe slaves were better off than they were, because of the obvious fact that they were not liable to unlimited punishment by an actual owner.

Documentation that a large number of the Southern population expressed this belief in some way, preferably over a long period of time so we know it was a consistent and ongoing belief in the region, enough to motivate them into action.

 

[Saphroneth]

Documentation that a large number of the Southern population expressed this belief in some way, preferably over a long period of time so we know it was a consistent and ongoing belief in the region, enough to motivate them into action.

It's not like Gallup polls existed at the time... and it wouldn't be "motivating them to action", so much as not motivating them into action (i.e. they would be supporting the existing system because they have scope to benefit from it).

Assumedly, however, you would agree that black freedmen were considered to be better off than black slaves? So therefore, either white lower-class Confederates considered themselves worse off than black freedmen or white lower-class Confederates considered themselves better off than slaves (at least one of these has to apply). Which of these do you think was more likely?

 

[Andersonh1]

It's not like Gallup polls existed at the time... and it wouldn't be "motivating them to action", so much as not motivating them into action (i.e. they would be supporting the existing system because they have scope to benefit from it).

Assumedly, however, you would agree that black freedmen were considered to be better off than black slaves? So therefore, either white lower-class Confederates considered themselves worse off than black freedmen or white lower-class Confederates considered themselves better off than slaves (at least one of these has to apply). Which of these do you think was more likely?

My opinion is not evidence though, that's the point. If I'm going to make a historical judgment about the attitude of the Southern population, there needs to be evidence on which to base that beyond "I think it obvious that they would have thought this way". If I've learned nothing else studying this history, I've learned that the Civil War generation did not always think and react in ways that seem obvious to us here in the 21st Century. A belief in white superiority, which I think is well documented, is perhaps a first step, but there must be further links in the chain before we get to "non slave owners went to war to keep the slave system intact because it meant they kept themselves on a higher rung on the social ladder." That's a huge leap without something to support it.

 

[Saphroneth]

Okay, so, to be clear, the contention is not whether non-slave-owners saw themselves as superior to slaves but whether that factored into their decision making?

 

[Andersonh1]

Okay, so, to be clear, the contention is not whether non-slave-owners saw themselves as superior to slaves but whether that factored into their decision making?

Yes, whether there is evidence that a desire to keep slavery legal in order to remain a step up on the social ladder existed and also motivated them to go to war.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes, whether there is evidence that a desire to keep slavery legal in order to remain a step up on the social ladder existed and also motivated them to go to war.

I'll admit that in the first case that's actually difficult to identify - it's not the sort of thing that would be explicitly spelled out. We can however tell something by the post-Civil-War decision making and voting patterns, because the people who tended to do well were the ones who promoted the idea of black Americans as second-class citizens; we can also tell something by the obvious fact that, while the founding of the Confederacy caused several other latent issues to be attracted to it, the one which was the initial spark and which was by far the most prominent cause was slavery.

If the motivating factor for the lower-class people who signed up for the army in large numbers, and who generally speaking supported the Confederacy (even if not all did, many did) was something other than slavery, we would expect it to come immediately to mind as it would be the way Southern elites presented the situation to the Southern lower classes, so as to motivate them to sign up (rather than trusting in the inertia factor of "serving with your state", which was in any case associated heavily with the slave-vs-free dichotomy as a result of the ongoing culture war in the 1840s and 1850s).

 

[Jantzen64]

I would like to see proof that the lower classes actually believed this.

I see that Saphroneth has already weighed in on this in post #306/#308, but let me add a bit. I got hit with something at work and so will provide a more detailed response this weekend. For now, please consider the following excerpt from Stephen's Cornerstone Speech. While, as Saphroneth points out, there were no Gallup polls at the time, this speech - from the Confederacy's second highest elected official, made with the events of formation of the Confeedracy fresh in mind - reasonably reflects a common sentiment of the times in the new Confederacy:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice.

Note the biblical references and the assertions that these views are ordained by the Creator. As a politician, Stephens knew his audience and well understood the message he was sending. More later . . . .

 

[Andersonh1]

I see that Saphroneth has already weighed in on this in post #306/#308, but let me add a bit. I got hit with something at work and so will provide a more detailed response this weekend. For now, please consider the follwouing excerpt from Stephen's Cornerstone Speech. While, as Saphroneth points out, there were no Gallup polls at the time, this speech - from the Confederacy's second highest elected official, made with the events of formation of the Confeedracy fresh in mind - reasonably reflects a common sentiment of the times in the new Confederacy:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice.

Note the biblical references and the assertions that these views are ordained by the Creator. As a politicain, Stephens knew his audience and well understood the message he was sending. More later . . . .

Yes, this is the opinion of one of the minority, a wealthy slave owner. Can it be demonstrated that the non-slave owners embraced these sentiments, and embraced them strongly enough to risk life or crippling wounds during wartime so that they could remain in that "superior" position? Was that worth dying for to them?

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes, this is the opinion of one of the minority, a wealthy slave owner. Can it be demonstrated that the non-slave owners embraced these sentiments, and embraced them strongly enough to risk life or crippling wounds during wartime so that they could remain in that "superior" position? Was that worth dying for to them?

I think the question here is - if not that, then what else?

There are thus these possibilities:

1) The non slave owners (i.e. the lower class, with slave owners forming an oft substantial middle class - in some states practically half of white families owned at least one slave so non slave owners were only a hair off being the minority!) did not believe in slavery, but signed up to fight and die for a state avowedly arranged for slavery for some other reason.
1a) That reason was state patriotism, and these people identified with their state more strongly than their country during a period of intense North-South culture war in which the dividing line was the presence or absence of slavery.
1b) That reason was something other than state patriotism, and they believed it despite the wealthy elites not even really mentioning it.

2) The non slave owners did believe in slavery or were in some way invested in it, to the extent that they were willing to fight or die for it.
2a) They considered slavery to be good despite not having a hope of at some point joining the slave-owning group, and this was because they felt it was better for blacks to be "down".
2b) They considered slavery to be good because they had a hope of joining the slave-owning group.
2c) They considered slavery to be good because it was divinely supported; i.e. that it was morally right.


One useful bit of information is the 1860 election. While obviously most Southern states didn't bother to put Lincoln on the ballot, Virginia did, and Lincoln got effectively zero votes - but Douglas ("popular sovereignty" and the rejection of the pro-slavery Charleston platform) got far fewer than Breckinridge (which was a pro-slavery platform) and Bell (who ignored slavery entirely); in the other Southern states Douglas was handily beaten by Breckinridge, and the only competition for Breckinridge was Bell.

I would say that heavily voting for the "pro slavery Democrat" over the "popular sovereignty Democrat" given the choice between the two would indicate that in the South there was genuine support for slavery as a positive good, including among the lower classes (since, obviously, you can't win an election with just the upper classes - though you can win with a platform which is in favour of the upper classes if you can get at least some segment of the lower classes to buy into it.)

 

[Andersonh1]

One reason I question this is what James McPherson wrote about motivation in "For Cause and Comrade" where he did in fact look at what the men fighting the war had to say, and he finds a minority expressing pro-slavery sentiments. His explanation is that they didn't discuss it because it wasn't controversial, but if the protection of slavery and protection of social hierarchy was the driving force for a majority of the Confederate army, I would expect far more than 20 percent to have said so at some point. That more soldiers from slave holding families expressed pro-slavery motivation is an indication that slave ownership made some difference in how one viewed the institution.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that Confederate soldiers were constantly preoccupied with this matter. In fact, only 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries. As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent. Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater, as the next chapter will show. There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox. Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, NONE AT ALL dissented from that view. But even those who owned slaves and fought consciously to defend the institution preferred to discourse upon liberty, rights, and the horrors of subjugation." - James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, pp. 109-110​

 

[Saphroneth]

I'm not sure that that's conclusive, because in the hypothesis I'm envisaging (invested in the slavery system because it offers the potential for advancement into that category etc.) then you're not fighting to advance the cause of slavery so much as to protect your rights (i.e. your right to, at some point in the future, own slaves). The internal framing is that it is the Union (specifically "Radical Republicans") who are trying to shake up the established order, and you are protecting it.

To use an analogy with modern politics, the estate tax is widely disliked among partisans of one political party. It only applies to large estates (several million) but is still used by politicians as an example of the other party wanting to take away "your hard-earned (fill in blank)" from ordinary Americans - even though no "ordinary" Americans would ever be assessed for estate tax.

Would someone who voted the way they did partly because of what they'd heard about the estate tax describe themselves as in favour of allowing millionaires to inherit more money? Probably not...

 

[Jantzen64]

One reason I question this is what James McPherson wrote about motivation in "For Cause and Comrade" where he did in fact look at what the men fighting the war had to say, and he finds a minority expressing pro-slavery sentiments.

Just following up from last week. I echo Saphroneth's recent comments, and add the following article for your consideration: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought . In this article historian Gordon Rhea analyzes this issue and reaches similar conclusions as Saphroneth and I posited, with the important addition that fear of slave uprising led people to support the system. While we do not have surveys, the statements of leaders (political and religious), election returns (cited by Saph) and the antipathy in the South toward abolitionism in general strongly suggest that the average Southerner was vested in the system of the "peculiar institution"; while the particular reasons for such vesting I suspect vary from person to person (and likely manifiested themselves in various combinations, assuming that human nature has remained the same), I think McPherson has it right when he concludes that the average Southern soldier was fighting to preserve the way they had structured their society and rejected perceived/potential interference with that system.

 

[Andersonh1]

Just following up from last week. I echo Saphroneth's recent comments, and add the following article for your consideration: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought . In this article historian Gordon Rhea analyzes this issue and reaches similar conclusions as Saphroneth and I posited, with the important addition that fear of slave uprising led people to support the system. While we do not have surveys, the statements of leaders (political and religious), election returns (cited by Saph) and the antipathy in the South toward abolitionism in general strongly suggest that the average Southerner was vested in the system of the "peculiar institution"; while the particular reasons for such vesting I suspect vary from person to person (and likely manifiested themselves in various combinations, assuming that human nature has remained the same), I think McPherson has it right when he concludes that the average Southern soldier was fighting to preserve the way they had structured their society and rejected perceived/potential interference with that system.

How old is this particular school of thought about why Southern soldiers fought? When did it first appear?

 

[DanSBHawk]

How old is this particular school of thought about why Southern soldiers fought? When did it first appear?

Here is an article from January 1861 in De Bows Review titled The Non-Slaveholders of the South, Their Interest in the Present Sectional Controversy Identical with that of the Slaveholder:

De Bow's review v.30 1861.