Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Jantzen64]

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.

Very interesting . . . thank you DanSBHawk for posting.

 

[Saphroneth]

You've got to admit, it'd be hard for a reference to be much earlier!

 

[Andersonh1]

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.

I'm familiar with that article. It's a contemporary opinion about why the lower classes should fight, but it does not tells us whether they did or did not fight for those reasons, given that it appeared in January 1861 before the war began. It's a good pre-war attempt at persuasion (and I wonder how many of those non slave owners read DeBow and saw it?), and worth sharing, so thanks for doing so, but it's not the type of historical analysis I'm asking about.

 

[Saphroneth]

I'm familiar with that article. It's a contemporary opinion about why the lower classes should fight, but it does not tells us whether they did or did not fight for those reasons, given that it appeared in January 1861 before the war began. It's a good pre-war attempt at persuasion (and I wonder how many of those non slave owners read DeBow and saw it?), and worth sharing, so thanks for doing so, but it's not the type of historical analysis I'm asking about.

Then we come back to the question of what it would take to convince you; what I mean by that is that by the sounds of it the type of historical evidence you're after is not necessarily the same type of historical evidence as we would expect to exist.

 

[Andersonh1]

Then we come back to the question of what it would take to convince you; what I mean by that is that by the sounds of it the type of historical evidence you're after is not necessarily the same type of historical evidence as we would expect to exist.

What I would like to see more of is what the men who fought had to say for themselves. Let the people who fought tell us in their own words why they went to war. And I'm reasonably sure that a lot of that type of evidence exists.

 

[Saphroneth]

What I would like to see more of is what the men who fought had to say for themselves. Let the people who fought tell us in their own words why they went to war.

But, as we've discussed, it's quite possible for someone to not tell the whole story - especially given that those reasons can evolve quite quickly.

Taking Union soldiers, for example, the Union government was emphatic that they were not threatening slavery in 1861... and by 1865 it was a primary war aim to destroy it, a change driven in no small part by a change in public perceptions.

 

[Andersonh1]

But, as we've discussed, it's quite possible for someone to not tell the whole story - especially given that those reasons can evolve quite quickly.

Taking Union soldiers, for example, the Union government was emphatic that they were not threatening slavery in 1861... and by 1865 it was a primary war aim to destroy it, a change driven in no small part by a change in public perceptions.

I think each individual could certainly tell us why they went to war. If we're looking to understand why non-slave owners were the majority of the CS army in a war ostensibly all about preserving slavery, a good majority of the men who fought were literate and left a record, and they will often tell us why they went. A pre-war article attempting to make the case that their interests were the same as those of the rich slaveowners and post-war analysis that ignores individual motivations of these men in favor of doing the same thing both assign these men an opinion that they may or may not have held.

High level analysis is well and good, but must be confirmed by individual testimony, in my view.

 

[wausaubob]

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.

In this case it would be that a Southerner would consider "owning a slave" to be the sign of someone who's really "made it" in life, and something to aspire to.

In addition, the structure of slavery in the South was such that it was possible to rent slaves, and thus get the benefit of the service of a slave without actually being a slave owner. But the portion of slave owning families was higher than you might think:

In the 1860 census:

1860 Census	Families Owning Slaves (%)
Delaware	3
Maryland	12
Missouri	13
Arkansas	20
Kentucky	23
Tennessee	25
Virginia	26
North Carolina	28
Texas	28
Louisiana	29
Florida	34
Alabama	35
Georgia	37
South Carolina	46
Mississippi	49

(per snopes)

For these reasons, I do not consider it inconsistent that most Southern families would fall into at least one of these categories:

- Owned slaves themselves (the numbers in the above table)
- Had the option to rent a slave and get the benefit that way
- Could not own or rent slaves, but considered it something to aspire to

Basically, owning one or two slaves was middle-class; owning a lot was upper class.

This is correct. Between 1830 and 1860 there was a good deal of pooling of sentiment in the south. People who did not think slavery was going to work for their family from Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, crossed over the Ohio into the paid labor states, or moved to non slave owning frontier in Texas, Arkansas and Missouri. Opinion became more sharply divided between those who wanted to expand the system and those who wanted it strictly confined to the south and particularly applied to cotton and tobacco farming. Opinion in the 10 states involved in cotton agriculture probably saw slavery and prosperity strongly linked.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think each individual could certainly tell us why they went to war. If we're looking to understand why non-slave owners were the majority of the CS army in a war ostensibly all about preserving slavery, a good majority of the men who fought were literate and left a record, and they will often tell us why they went. A pre-war article attempting to make the case that their interests were the same as those of the rich slaveowners and post-war analysis that ignores individual motivations of these men in favor of doing the same thing both assign these men an opinion that they may or may not have held.

High level analysis is well and good, but must be confirmed by individual testimony, in my view.

What we have to do however is to analyze the extent to which those people might not feel they should write it down - or, for that matter, write down a reason which aligns with "pro slavery" in their minds but not in ours (such as "defending rights").

 

[CowCavalry]

That's why I say it's a misconception that McClellan could have exploited SO191 to destroy Lee's army.

This begs the question then, why was McClellan so supremely confidant that with the intercept of the orders, he could destroy Lee?

 

[Saphroneth]

This begs the question then, why was McClellan so supremely confidant that with the intercept of the orders, he could destroy Lee?

Did he say he could "destroy" Lee, or that he could "whip" Lee?

I'm fairly sure it's the latter.

With that in mind, my understanding of this comment is that what McClellan meant was that so long as Harpers Ferry held out - something it would have been able to do if the commander had followed his instructions to occupy the heights around the town, especially the Maryland Heights - he'd be able to pin McLaws and Anderson's divisions in the Pleasant Valley between the Harpers Ferry garrison and Franklin's force. This would force Lee to either try and break McLaws and Anderson out (i.e. fight McClellan at a disadvantage, because McClellan's other column with the majority of his army was going to aim to break through South Mountain) or withdraw south of the Potomac and abandon two divisions to capture - either of which count as a victory.

Effectively McClellan had been assured that Lee was not planning some kind of massive trap to hit him with overwhelming force as soon as he passed through South Mountain, and that meant that McClellan could force Lee to end his invasion of the North (and inflict significant casualties in doing so, especially if Harpers Ferry held out).


Of course, the other possibility is simply that McClellan was overcome with enthusiasm. Or that he genuinely did (briefly) think he could destroy Lee's whole army - but if he did believe that then either he was wrong or he saw something I cannot, i.e. how to trap Jackson.

 

[Zack]

From WHAT THIS CRUEL WAR WAS OVER:

White Southerners of Morgan's Confederate Brigade said that, "any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar."

A Georgia regimental newspaper, The Spirit of '61, said that personal liberty laws, "those previous enactments of some of the free state legislatures in regard to fugitive slaves" proved that Northerners were, "black hearted abolitionists."

Private James Williams of the 21st Alabama wrote to his wife on December 20, 1861, "confound the whole set of Psalm singing 'brethren' and 'sistern' too. If it had not been for them…preaching abolitionism from every northern pulpit I would never have been soldiering."

An Alabama soldier wrote the popular song "Run, Yank, or Die" with the chorus, "Hurrah for Slavery!" It also said that once "old Andy Johnson…join[ed] Lincoln to set the negro free" meaning he no longer counted among the true "Southern boys" and had revoked claims to liberty, equality, and even manhood.

Non-slaveholding Confederate soldiers marching through Missouri in August 1861 seized slaves from local plantations for their own use.

Wisconsin Chaplain AC Barry spoke to residents of Virginia's eastern shore and was struck by their insistence that they went to war because "the institution of slavery was in danger."

In January 1863 Arkansas soldier James Harrison imagined a dinner at his Aunt Polly's house, only for it to turn sour when he realized, "I had too eat by the side of a negro." Even worse, the black man "had a plate to eat on and I had none." That was his fear of what would happen if abolition occurred.

At a meeting of Louisiana students attending the University of North Carolina, 19-year-old Thomas Davidson recorded that the Louisianans accused "fanatics of the North" of robbing "the South of her most cherished liberties" and pledged their lives to protect slavery "that Institution at once our pride and the source of all our wealth and prosperity."

Georgia soldier AH Mitchell linked abolitionism to moral pathologies like "spiritualism and free love."

Charles Trueheart of the 8th Alabama believed secession was unconstitutional but that abolition meant, "there is no other alternative left us unless we come down from the high ground that we have taken, and humble our heads in the dust at the feet of Black Republican masters, disgraced in our own eyes and before the whole world."

Alabama private Thomas Taylor described the "hellish undertaking" of "Lincoln & his hirelings" as an attempt to ensure that all white Southerners are "doomed to slavery."

In APOSTLES OF DISUNION, the author lays out numerous examples of speeches about the threat of abolishing slavery that were met with raucous cheers and applause from massive crowds. I list examples below but recommend just reading the book.

On November 13, 1860 Andrew Calhoun spoke to the South Carolina Agricultural Society, indicating that the North had elected an "abolitionist" president who threatened the South with "political and social destruction." He referenced the Haitian rebellion. Local press said the speech "was listened to with marked attention, and received with loud applause."

On January 8, 1861 Calhoun spoke to the Alabama Convention with the same argument. A reporter in the audience noted that despite "the rule which had been passed suppressing applause, the closing part of his address was received with the most vociferous shouts of approbation, from members of the convention, not less than outsiders."

On January 17, 1861 James L Orr spoke to the delegates in Georgia as well as a large crowd about the threats of "the Black-Republican party" and the threat of "southern degradation and dishonor." The "immense crowd" in attendance greeted the speech "with a wildness and an enthusiasm, that told well, for the effect being produced by this gifted and honored son of Carolina."

Many of these speeches also indicated that abolition would subject their, "wives and daughters to pollution and violation to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans?"

This latter point is very important - over and over there is an emphasis in arguments made to large crowds that abolition would lead to "miscegenation" and, likely "a war of extermination" against Southern whites.

On February 18, 1861 election commissioners spoke to an "immense crowd" at Mechanics' Institute Hall in Virginia. One speaker said that the men and women of the South would "become a degraded and subject class" forced "to bend our necks to the yoke which a false fanaticism had prepared them." The next day, another speaker at the hall addressed a "throng more dense than yesterday." He spoke extensively about the issue of slavery and what would happen if it was abolished. He had to pause because he kept being interrupted by wild applause.

I could keep listing examples, but I'm not precisely sure how many would be needed to qualify as "widespread evidence" when any example I provide can be dismissed as one person's opinion. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say besides the fact that slavery is all over the writings of Confederates from top to bottom.

The South was a racist, slave-holding society. If they had won the war, slavery would have continued. I'm not sure what else is needed to prove that slavery was a core tenet of Southern identity than the fact that it was a slave-holding society in a country and even world that was moving away from slavery. This does not mean that the North was not also a racist society - it was - but the North being racist does not make the South less racist.

 

[eeric]

I am reading Leroy Gresham diary and he was pretty clear on what is was all about as just a 12 year old, his pap had 2 plantations and life was good, he wasn't mean at all, but he understood at 12 the social order was in peril, just an anecdote but possibly his experience was not unique among the privieledged class in GA and etc

 

[Saphroneth]

This latter point is very important - over and over there is an emphasis in arguments made to large crowds that abolition would lead to "miscegenation" and, likely "a war of extermination" against Southern whites.

I think honestly this is one of the important points. The conflation of "slavery" and "the prevention of miscegenation" is one of the ways in which the fear of the "other" is harnessed, and indeed I wonder whether the "blacks should be sent back to Africa" argument from northern Abolitionists was as widespread as it was precisely to avoid that concern.

 

[Georgia]

Again no Southern home was taken from it's owners and not all Southern whites thought the Union was invading them. General Burnside was welcomed by people in Knoxville Tennessee has a liberator.
Leftyhunter

Pardon?
Homes were taken. They were repurposed as hospitals, officers locations and the like.
In what way are you meaning that homes were not taken?

 

[Georgia]

And I was correct because I said no Southern home was taken from it's owners other then land from Lee which his heir's were compensated for.
If a home was burned that's just how it goes in war time.
Leftyhunter

And, that statement is incorrect. Homes most certainly were taken. You mention nothing about the duration of time involved or for what uses.
So, you left that statement quite open. But, yes, homes were taken. Might you remember that all of Savannah was "given" to Lincoln?

 

[leftyhunter]

And, that statement is incorrect. Homes most certainly were taken. You mention nothing about the duration of time involved or for what uses.
So, you left that statement quite open. But, yes, homes were taken. Might you remember that all of Savannah was "given" to Lincoln?

No homes was taken. The Constititon forbids any govermental body to sieze a home unless it's paid for per the Emienent Domain Doctrine.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Pardon?
Homes were taken. They were repurposed as hospitals, officers locations and the like.
In what way are you meaning that homes were not taken?

As in the goverment siezed permanent ownership of said home. The US government has the right to borrow a home during wartime. Per the Southern Claims Commission law if the owner of any property could prove his loyalty to the Union he was entitled to compensation. If said individual could not prove loyalty to the US then to bad about any property damage.
Leftyhunter

 

[Georgia]

No homes was taken. The Constititon forbids any govermental body to sieze a home unless it's paid for per the Emienent Domain Doctrine.
Leftyhunter

 

[Georgia]

Randall, James G. "Captured and Abandoned Property During the Civil War." The American Historical Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 1913, pp. 65–79. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1834807. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

This document also discusses the selling of cotton and profits received from it as well as rent, properties and other items which were sold at a profit and the difficult situation and a statute of limitations based on a date which was not given as the "official" ending date of the war which made it nearly impossible for Confederates to ever receive restitution for items taken during the war.