Common Misconceptions/Myths

[archieclement]

If I recall correctly wasn't it more like 25% owned or rented slaves? Slave owners made money from renting out slaves as well so it wasn't uncommon for people who couldn't afford to buy one to rent one for periods of time. There were only 393,000 slave owning families across all the slave states and 76,000 in the border states.

I'm not great at math so maybe it does go up to 1/3rd if you take out the border states.

Not sure how one could find a number that included everyone who occasionally rented slaves.

Also as one went west towards the frontier, the economy also includes alot of bartering.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The most likely motive was probably best summed up [in the quotes from Foote's The Civil War] when Union Soldiers captured a Confederate and asked him "What are you fighting for, anyhow?" The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting because you're down here." Foote regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer".

It is not a quote but something invented by Foote.
It got no footnotes or sources.

Stick to actual history books for your historical knowledge. Not narratives that would not pass in a highschool history class.
(at least not here in Denmark)

 

[archieclement]

It is not a quote but something invented by Foote.
It got no footnotes or sources.

Stick to actual history books for your historical knowledge. Not narratives that would not pass in a highschool history class.
(at least not here in Denmark)

But it would seem rather common sense as it's rather timeless and universal.

Common soldiers seldom serve because of politics or party affiliations, but because of community.

 

[Saphroneth]

If I recall correctly wasn't it more like 25% owned or rented slaves? Slave owners made money from renting out slaves as well so it wasn't uncommon for people who couldn't afford to buy one to rent one for periods of time. There were only 393,000 slave owning families across all the slave states and 76,000 in the border states.

Slave ownership was:

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

So about 25%-30% owned slaves, with Delaware/Maryland/Missouri the outliers below that and SC/Mississippi the clear outliers above it. Kentucky was in keeping with the rest of the CSA.

This is before considering renting.

 

[Quaama]

It is not a quote but something invented by Foote.
It got no footnotes or sources.

Stick to actual history books for your historical knowledge. Not narratives that would not pass in a highschool history class.
(at least not here in Denmark)

That's a terse and offensive response. Also, I note that you do not offer any comment of your own as to the motive let alone one supported by sources.

I used a quote from Foote [and I see nothing wrong with Foote] as it summed up what I consider is the main motive why the Confederate soldier fought and continued to do so through the war. I am not aware of any Confederate quotes that would say that they were fighting to protect or preserve the right of "rich planters" and "aristocrats" [or simply someone other than themselves] to own slaves which is probably why @Piedone "can't make heads nor tails of it" because neither can I - it just makes no sense.

As I said in my previous post there is a more likely motive which was best summed up by "I'm fighting because you're down here". Also as I said "underlying that is the notion that they were fighting for their State and the Confederate nation". I should think it is not too difficult to find sources to support that as I'm confident that defending their State and the Confederate nation was their primary motive for joining and continuing the fight.
Anyhow, here's two documented quotes in support of that claim.
1. Fourteen hundred and 91 days in the Confederate Army. A journal kept by W. W. Heartsill for four years, one month, and one day. Or, Camp life, day by day, of the W. P. Lane Rangers from April 19, 1861, to May 20, 1865 Edited by Bell Irvin Wiley
"there was a perfect rush to enlist, as the impression prevailed that the Company would be ordered immediately from Austin to Galveston. On the 7th Inst, I registered my name, at the same time with my friends Henderson, Duke, and Curtis. By the 10th the list was full to overflowing; as the surrounding counties have furnished their full numbers. Mr Crawford appointed the 19th of April, as the day for the organization of the Company, and this is the day on which my journal of the Company begins, and as to when, or how it will end; the Great "I AM," alone knoweth. Believing that our cause is just; a strict sense of duty has impelled me to the course I have pursued in enlisting; as military fame I do not desire, even had I the ability of earning it";
and later [end of war]
"So our bright dream is or'e, our country is subjugated, our armies are scattered to the "Four winds of the Heavens," our cause is lost,! lost,!! LOST.!!! My heart swells, my lip quivers, my tongue refuses to give utterance, the very depths of my soul is stired up; Yes, I could fall down in the dust and weep over our great misfortune, our great calamities. Yet I hope l am mistaken; then again I dare not hope anything. Did I not as firmly believe we would gain our Independence, as there was a sun in the firmament above me; humiliated; bowed down, and with almost despair I picture out the future with all its dark and gloomy promises, and here is my determination, should our oppressors bear down too heavily; there are other lands where there is peace and happiness"
2. Reminiscences of four years as a private soldier in the Confederate army, 1861-1865 by Gill, John, 1841-1912
Therefore, when the question as to the right of these States to separate peaceably from the compact formed by their forefathers was resisted and denied by one section of the country, I was not long in deciding the question for myself. I determined at once which cause to espouse, and to take up arms to defend it.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Slave ownership was:

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

So about 25%-30% owned slaves, with Delaware/Maryland/Missouri the outliers below that and SC/Mississippi the clear outliers above it. Kentucky was in keeping with the rest of the CSA.

This is before considering renting.

If you trim off western and northern Virginia, the % left in central va goes way up

 

[Saphroneth]

If you trim off western and northern Virginia, the % left in central va goes way up

Got the numbers? It might be interesting to see if the boundary between low-% and high-% ownership is at the modern state border or whether it's elsewhere.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

But it would seem rather common sense as it's rather timeless and universal.

Common soldiers seldom serve because of politics or party affiliations, but because of community.

Some southern rebels knew exactly what they were fighting for.

Quotes from Soldiers fighting the civil war

"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20] <p>

"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, Ibid.] <p>

"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last." [William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863, Ibid., p. 107] <p>

"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." [William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861, Ibid., p. 109]<p>

"A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed 'to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors.' " [Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863 Ibid., p. 107] <p>

"Even though he was tired of the war, wrote a Louisiana artilleryman in 1862, ' I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free n----rs. . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions.' " [George Hamill Diary, March, 1862, Ibid., p. 109] <p>

"A private in the 38th North Carolina, a yeoman farmer, vowed to show the Yankees ' that a white man is better than a n----r.' " [Jonas Bradshaw to Nancy Bradshaw, April 29, 1862 Ibid.]<p>

"A farmer from the Shenandoah Valley informed his fiancée that he fought to assure 'a free white man's government instead of living under a black republican government.' " [John G. Keyton to Mary Hilbert, Nov. 30, 1861, Ibid.] <p>

"The son of another North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees, who were 'trying to force us to live as the colored race.' " [Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, April 11, 1864, Ibid.]<p>

"Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the n----rs.' " [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, Ibid.] <p>

"An Arkansas captain was enraged by the idea that if the Yankees won, his 'sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors.' " [Thomas Key, diary entry April 10, 1864, Ibid.] <p>

"Another Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also 'declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal.' " [William Wakefield Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan 2, 1864, Ibid.] <p>

"[If Atlanta and Richmond fell] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The negro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant.' " [Allen D. Chandler to wife, July 7, 1864, Ibid.]

 

[archieclement]

Again I was referring to the majority......One will find in most wars throughout time, most soldiers are not political ideologues fighting for specific policies, that indeed includes the ACW.

Same for the Union, both Republicians and Democrats would answer their states call.....also covering a gamut on specific issues like slavery.....because local community and state was the common cause......not protecting slavery where it existed in 1861, or freeing southern slaves after 1863.......indeed the majority of those who enlisted for community served regardless of what or how the specific slavery policy changed....

 

[Saphroneth]

One of the strangest things about the psychology of citizen soldiers is that the announcement of a conscription law can actually increase volunteerism, if volunteerism is already largely tapped out absent that impetus. It happened in the UK for example in WW1 - when the Derby Scheme was announced it caused a boost in volunteers, as people didn't want to wait to be "fetched".

 

[19thGeorgia]

"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20] <p>
"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, Ibid.] <p>
"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last." [William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863, Ibid., p. 107] <p>
"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." [William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861, Ibid., p. 109]<p>

In his book, McPherson admits that letters of slave owners/slave owning families are over-represented by 100%.

 

[Saphroneth]

In his book, McPherson admits that letters of slave owners/slave owning families are over-represented by 100%.

Is that over-representation in terms of "about 1/3 of letters are from slave owning families, I have increased that so that it's 2/4 so 1/2 of letters are from slave owning families"?

 

[19thGeorgia]

Is that over-representation in terms of "about 1/3 of letters are from slave owning families, I have increased that so that it's 2/4 so 1/2 of letters are from slave owning families"?

2/3 of his sample of letters are from slaveholding families.

McPherson:
"Nonslaveholding farmers are underrepresented in the Confederate sample. Indeed, while about one-third of all Confederate soldiers belonged to slaveholding families, slightly more than two-thirds of the sample whose slaveholding status is known did so."

— James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (1997), p. ix.

 

[Saphroneth]

From the way that's put it sounds like it might be a confounding factor or two at work:

1) Those who hold slaves are more likely to mention it in some way that makes it clear than those who do not (i.e. mentioning the family slave in a letter is more likely than mentioning "We don't have slaves, just reminding you" in a letter)
2) A wealth filter on literacy and being able to afford sending letters, which would also tend to preferentially sort for slave-owning families (as being well to do in the South usually meant having a slave).

 

[19thGeorgia]

From the way that's put it sounds like it might be a confounding factor or two at work:

1) Those who hold slaves are more likely to mention it in some way that makes it clear than those who do not (i.e. mentioning the family slave in a letter is more likely than mentioning "We don't have slaves, just reminding you" in a letter)
2) A wealth filter on literacy and being able to afford sending letters, which would also tend to preferentially sort for slave-owning families (as being well to do in the South usually meant having a slave).

Yes, so any random collection of letters would have the slave-owning interest over-represented.

McPherson could have found more letters from non-slaveholders and dropped some from the other group until he had the correct ratio, but he chose to not do that.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes, so any random collection of letters would have the slave-owning interest over-represented.

McPherson could have found more letters from non-slaveholders and dropped some from the other group until he had the correct ratio, but he chose to not do that.

I wonder how much of that is the first problem. Let's say you have three hundred letters.

Of those letters, 80 of them are clearly identified as being letters from slaveowners or slaveowning families, in that you can confirm that the person owns slaves as a result of what they say.
And 40 of them are clearly identified as being letters not from slaveowners, because of what they say.

Now, are you going to assume that you need to chuck out 60 of those 80 letters, to get the right balance? Or do you not have enough information to tell if the balance is right or not?

 

[lurid]

One of the strangest things about the psychology of citizen soldiers is that the announcement of a conscription law can actually increase volunteerism, if volunteerism is already largely tapped out absent that impetus. It happened in the UK for example in WW1 - when the Derby Scheme was announced it caused a boost in volunteers, as people didn't want to wait to be "fetched".

The reason for it here in America has do with joining a good unit to up your chances of staying alive, instead of being placed in a rag-tag unit full of conscripts where your life expectancy is about ten seconds. During Vietnam the army drafted way more people than the marine corps, which showed because after a few years the army fell apart and the marines were still strong.

 

[lurid]

From the way that's put it sounds like it might be a confounding factor or two at work:

1) Those who hold slaves are more likely to mention it in some way that makes it clear than those who do not (i.e. mentioning the family slave in a letter is more likely than mentioning "We don't have slaves, just reminding you" in a letter)
2) A wealth filter on literacy and being able to afford sending letters, which would also tend to preferentially sort for slave-owning families (as being well to do in the South usually meant having a slave).

I think class hegemony was prevalent in the south in those days. Can anyone prove that the south had a middle class during the Antebellum era, because I can't?

 

[Saphroneth]

I think class hegemony was prevalent in the south in those days. Can anyone prove that the south had a middle class during the Antebellum era, because I can't?

If having at least one slave makes you upper class and a quarter of the population has slaves, that's a big upper class. If being able to rent a slave also makes you upper class, then it's even bigger.


Apparently 0.5% of Southern households owned upwards of 50 slaves, so I would say that that qualifies as upper class and "has at least one slave but not many" would be a reasonable definition of middle class. It makes Grant for example middle class.

 

[lurid]

If having at least one slave makes you upper class and a quarter of the population has slaves, that's a big upper class. If being able to rent a slave also makes you upper class, then it's even bigger.


Apparently 0.5% of Southern households owned upwards of 50 slaves, so I would say that that qualifies as upper class and "has at least one slave but not many" would be a reasonable definition of middle class. It makes Grant for example middle class.

I suppose, but what about the 75% who didn't own slaves? If you are not counting the slave population that's enormous working class.