1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Did the Southern Soldier Fight and Die to Preserve Slavery?

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by 1842, Sep 6, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trice

    trice Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    10,803
    Since I never said any such thing, I have no idea why you are heading in this direction.

    Since my post said nothing about that, why be upset with me?
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

  3. Ira Berlin in his book Slaves Without Masters has a list of the state manumission laws. Roughly after 1830 in some instances and 1850 in others, the states of Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Delaware did not prohibit manumission by owners and no special request to the legislature or the courts was required. Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina (until 1861), required the slaveowner to petition the court. South Carolina required a petition to the legislature while Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi did not allow manumission. Texas allowed manumission as long as it was done outside of the state while Maryland and Virginia's manumitted slaves were required to leave the state.
     
  4. MajGenl.Meade

    MajGenl.Meade Sergeant Major Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    Bloemfontein, Vrystaat, Republiek van Suid-Afrika
    That may be so - even probably so. It does not negate the point that if Virginia and North Carolina had stayed in, the army they would have formed part of would not have been "abolitionist" and it would not have been "invading" their states. That army would have been headed by R E Lee.
     
  5. Package4

    Package4 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,568
    AP Hill had the opportunity to own slaves and turned it down, Lee inherited slaves from the death of his father in law and manumitted them in accordance with Virginia law once the debt of the estate was cleared. Lee wrote letters to his wife on various occasions decrying the ills of the "institution", the earliest in 1854. AP Hill wrote a letter to his brother after finding out that a negro had been wrongly lynched, stating that they need to round up everyone that participated in the outrage and hang every _____ _____ ____ ___ one of them.

    Strangely enough US Grant inherited slaves from Julia's father and they were only manumitted at the war's end, in fact Grant personally owned a slave, but freed him in 1859. Not trying to pick a fight, but contemporary to the time, it is more complicated than the prism in which we view it 150 years later.
     
    Stony likes this.
  6. Package4

    Package4 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,568
    I think that you have actually have the most succinct and correct summation in this thread.
     
    MajGenl.Meade likes this.
  7. brass napoleon

    brass napoleon Colonel Retired Moderator Member of the Year Honored Fallen Comrade

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    14,988
    Location:
    Ohio
    Which is all irrelevant to the point. The point is that the large number of secessionists slaveholders in Virginia would have fought against that army, whatever words you choose to put in quotation marks to describe it. The result would have been horrendous guerrila warfare in Virginia, with all the dire consequences associated with it. That would have quite naturally been a major concern to the non-secessionist, non-slaveholders.

    Actually, no, it would not have been. Lee turned down command of any army that would "invade" the South BEFORE Virginia seceded from the Union.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2015
  8. Eric Calistri

    Eric Calistri 2nd Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    I'm confused by this. Julia's father died in 1873. The claim is Grant "inherited" slaves from him that were freed in 1865???
     
  9. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Major

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,619
    Location:
    California
    It was not Virginia law that manumitted them, but the terms of the will. Lee did go to court to get the will interpreted to allow him to hang on to the slaves as long as he could.

    He had also inherited slaves on the death of his mother 30 years before the civil war.

    As you say "it is more complicated than the prism in which we view it 150 years later."


    This is false. Grant did not inherit them, since his father-in-law was still alive -- he didnt die until 1873.
     
    Allie likes this.
  10. rpkennedy

    rpkennedy Major

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    9,166
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    Based on recent statistical analyses, I believe that your numbers of men from slaveowning families is far too conservative.

    As was pointed out, A.P. Hill's father owned slaves and he was fairly apathetic towards the institution. Lee owned slaves throughout his life, first inheriting some from his mother, owned a few in his own right, and was an executor of his father-in-law's estate with slaves included.

    Grant was given one slave who was freed by Grant in 1859. His wife had the use of slaves owned by her father until Dent freed all of his slaves in 1864 (IIRC). Grant couldn't free those slaves because he had no authority to do so.

    R
     
    Georgia Coast and K Hale like this.
  11. Horace Porter

    Horace Porter First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,723
    Location:
    Absoltely Nowhere Now, MA
    That is an interesting question.

    I would speculate that while some Confederates did not put the protection of slavery at the top of their lists, somewhere they were aware that for many of them abolition posed a threat to their way of life, even if they didn't own slaves. Some resented the implications of emancipation; others recognized that the abolition of slavery would have an adverse economic impact that would affect them negatively. The question might be the relative importance of slavery in soldier motivations, and that would vary from individual to individual.

    I believe that where people get more upset is when one jumps from "my ancestors did not fight for slavery" to "the Confederacy was not about the protection of slavery." That reasoning doesn't work very well. FWIW, that's why I think the argument over "black Confederates" draws so much fire. The fact of the presence of blacks with Confederate forces (and the idea that some blacks, especially free ones, sought service with the CSA in 1861) is one thing: deriving from that fact that thus the Confederacy was not about slavery, that Confederate armies were "integrated," and so on creates the controversy. So you get some people who deny facts because they don't agree with interpretations based on those facts that seem in conflict with other facts about the nature and purpose of the Confederacy.

    You see the same sort of reasoning elsewhere. Take the claim that Lee didn't own slaves and so the Confederacy could not have been about the protection of slavery. That claim's based on a lot of ignorance about what Lee himself said as well as the facts of his life.

    Confederate soldiers, whatever their motivation, knew that their success in the field would enhance the Confederacy's ability to protect slavery, and that without that purpose there was no reason to have a Confederacy. To argue otherwise is to imply that Confederate soldiers weren't very bright.

    There are those who will disagree. No amount of evidence or logic will change their mind, and that's that.
     
    major bill, ivanj05 and rpkennedy like this.
  12. Package4

    Package4 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,568
    Far too conservative based upon what analysis? My research indicates that officers most likely owned slaves, but the common grunt or enlisted man did not. I used the 1860 census and Historical Data Systems records of Confederate soldiers, though not spot on, I imagine very close.
     
  13. Package4

    Package4 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,568
    Completely agree, there is no doubt the war was fought for economic reasons, therefore the supporting pillar of the agrarian South, slavery, but as to the thread and the reason the individual soldier fought..........
     
  14. Package4

    Package4 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,568
    He was responsible for them and the farm, his father in law was no longer capable and thus farm was transferred
     
  15. brass napoleon

    brass napoleon Colonel Retired Moderator Member of the Year Honored Fallen Comrade

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    14,988
    Location:
    Ohio
    But for that to be the case, the war would have to have been a war of abolition. I think most people on this forum will agree that at least prior to 1863, it was not. The slaveholders tried to convince non-slaveholding Southerners that it was, but there was plenty of evidence available to them that it was not. "To argue otherwise is to imply that Confederate soldiers weren't very bright."
     
  16. Horace Porter

    Horace Porter First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,723
    Location:
    Absoltely Nowhere Now, MA
    Southerners were rather explicit that they thought a Union victory would damage if not destroy slavery. There's plenty of evidence about that, too.

    They saw confiscation legislation passed in 1861 and 1862 by the USA as moves in that direction. We're the ones that reduce the threat to slavery to the Emancipation Proclamation. They knew better.
     
    NedBaldwin likes this.
  17. brass napoleon

    brass napoleon Colonel Retired Moderator Member of the Year Honored Fallen Comrade

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    14,988
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes, there was very certainly a long-term threat to the institution of slavery and the secessionists made it very clear that's why they were seceding. And that certainly would have been a major concern to slaveholders whose wealth was largely in slaves, and who looked to pass that wealth down to their children and grandchildren. But for non-slaveholding Southerners that was generally not a concern. Which is why the slaveholders tried to foist it off as an immediate threat, which, in the absence of war, it very clearly was not.
     
  18. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Major

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,619
    Location:
    California
    It was not transferred.
     
  19. R. Alex Raines

    R. Alex Raines First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,044
    Location:
    Monte Vista, Colorado
    Not to mention, the examples of Kentucky and Missouri and Maryland.
     
    brass napoleon likes this.
  20. Eric Calistri

    Eric Calistri 2nd Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    2,963
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Terming the Union side as "Abolitionists" or "The Abolition Forces" is quite common in the OR. Searching volume XIV for "abolition" reveals the following results:



    Page 185
    • ... at Bees Creek Hill, 4 miles from Coosawhatchie, Colonel Johnson was informed that a portion of the Abolition forces was land- ing at Seabrook Island, in his rear, a point which indicated an attack up ...
    Page 187
    • ...XXVI.] SKIRMISH AT COOSAWHATCHIE, S. C., ETC. 187 70 or 80 men. The next morning not a sign of the Abolition fleet was to be seen in the npper waters of Broad River. I have the honor to remain, very ...
    Page 213
    • ... the briga- dier-general commanding the following report of the engagement of this battery with the Abolition fleet, which took place yesterday, the 1st instant: At 7.45 a. m. the battery was attacke ...
    Page 216
    • ...ort. I arrived at my mortar battery a few minutes after 9 a. m. arid immediately opened fire on the Abolition fleet. At 10.40 a. in. my platform gave way, and I was compelled to remove the planking an ...
    Page 227
    • ... the arrival at Jacksonville of five gunboats and transl)orts, and the landing of a large number of Abolition troops, said to be negroes. I immediately issued orders by telegraph and ex- press trains ...
    Page 259
    • ...the sunken Keo- kuk as a monument of their attack and discomfiture. In this the first trial of the Abolition iron fleet against brick fortifica- tions and their first attempt to enter theharbor of Ch ...
    Page 261
    • ...fer for such information as is not included in this report. * I have also to transmit herewith two Abolition ensigns obtained from the Keokuk, a~ she lies off Morris Island Beach, by Lieutenant Glass ...
    Page 264
    • ...TILI~ERY, Fort Sumter, April 13, 1863. CAPTAIN: I have the honor to make the following report: The Abolition iron-clad fleet, consisting of the frigate New Ironsides and eight monitors, appeared in s ...
    Page 286
    • ...newall Jackson, just from Nassau, was fired into last night and chased ashore on Long island by the Abolition. ists. She was set on fire at daylight by her captain, and will prove a total loss. Her pa ...
    Page 292
    • ... body will proceed by the Stony Creek road over the Hospa Bridge. Should the greater portion of the Abolition forces proceed over the ilospa Bridge, a courier will be dispatched by the road from Camp ...
    Page 299
    • ...R, s. c. 299 have visited the scene and made investigation of the facts connected with the recent Abolition raid upon the Combahee River and. the atro- cious conduct of the enemy engaged in it, and ...
    • ...nemy. (See Exhibit B.~ llisspecial attention was very soon thereafter called to an extract frGIn an Abolition paper giving intimation of some projected raid by the enemys forces from Hilton Head~ He w ...
    Page 310
    • ...ited the scene and made a thorough investigation of the facts connected with the recent raid of the Abolition forces at Bluffton, on the South May River, aiid the wanton and wicked destruction of valu ...
    Page 639
    • .... W. MERCER Commanding District ol Georgia, Savannah, Ga.: GENERAL: There are indications that the Abolition commander at Port Royal may undertake some raid into the Third Military District. In view ...
    Page 730
    • ...l a large l)ortiou of whose population was (lisloyal to our Goveriimnemmt. Time result was that the Abolition fleet receive(l our newspapers as well as other limfor- ination as regularly as our owim c ...
    Page 755
    • ...LESTON, S. C., January 25, 1863. General S. COOPER, Adjutant and Inspector Oeneral, Richmond, Va.: Abolition fleet at Hilton Head reported four frigates, four gunboats, and forty transports; latter a ...
    • ... G. T. BEAUREGARD. CHARLESTON, S. C., January 25, 1863. Brig~ Gen. H. W. MERCER, Sarannak, Ga.: Abolition fleet at Hilton Head reported four frigates, fonr gunboats, and forty transports. Be on al ...
    Page 795
    • ...body will proceed by the Stony Creek road over the ilospa Bridge. Should the greater portion of the Abolition forces proceed over the ilospa Bridge, a courier wiLl be dispatched by the road from Camp ...
    Page 836
    • ...e not renewed anything like a complete sys- tem of defenses for Savannah must go by the board. The Abolition programme for the day is not being carried out, I sup- pose. Yours, truly, H. W. MERGER. [ ...
    Page 962
    • ...ecure a hearing. If this is permitted the advantages of such intercourse will be entirely with the Abolition forces and we will be debarred from them. An opportunity is now presented of briuging the ...
    Appendix

    Page 1015 - Appendix
    • ...partment, dated October 7, inquiring concerning the truth of the state- ment of William II. Seward, Abolition Secretary of State, as follows: An attack by the fleet, made on the 7th of April last, up ...
    • ...d~, & c. These would probably have fouled the screws, besides producilzig other effects, but no Abolition iron-clad came within 300 yards of them. 2d. After passing the fire of the batteries. But ...
     
    Georgia Coast and K Hale like this.
  21. NedBaldwin

    NedBaldwin Major

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,619
    Location:
    California
    I disagree. Slavery was much more than just an investment of wealth. I quote Zeb Vance earlier who stated in a 1860 speech why it would concern non slaveowners
     

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)