Statistics Show Lee's Army Was Fighting For Slavery?

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,023
Location
Jupiter, FL
#1
From http://cwmemory.com/2016/08/25/slaveholding-in-robert-e-lees-army/
IMG_0528-e1472163275747.jpg


Joseph Glatthaar, who recently published a statistical analysis of the ANV: "Add to that those who had family members who were slaveholders [but did not live in that family member's household], those who worked as overseers, and those whose business derived largely from slaveholders, and well over half fell into that category of attachment to slavery." He also notes that this almost 90% of the ANV were enlisted men which limits how much officers could skew the numbers.
 

Attachments


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

Borderruffian

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
4,542
Location
Livingston Tn
#3
Well thats really not new "news" other studies have been done on the AOT, that show that, while many enlistees had no slaves of their own they stood to inherit some,many were overseers or worked in business's that profitted from slave holders or slavery in one form or fashion. It's really not all that surprising. Slavery was legal in the those states, slave holders generally had more ready cah for goods, services etc. Yes slavery drove the econemies of the cotton and tobacco states more than a free labor model, that drove the Northern states. But in retrospect it hurt the south in terms of industrialzation and manufacturing,to the extant that it fairly crippled them after the blockade was in place.

That the South at it's basest was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery cannot be argued, only the individual 's reasons can be debated on a case for case basis. This is no revelation it's been brought forward before.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,024
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#4
Well thats really not new "news" other studies have been done on the AOT, that show that, while many enlistees had no slaves of their own they stood to inherit some,many were overseers or worked in business's that profitted from slave holders or slavery in one form or fashion. It's really not all that surprising. Slavery was legal in the those states, slave holders generally had more ready cah for goods, services etc. Yes slavery drove the econemies of the cotton and tobacco states more than a free labor model, that drove the Northern states. But in retrospect it hurt the south in terms of industrialzation and manufacturing,to the extant that it fairly crippled them after the blockade was in place.

That the South at it's basest was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery cannot be argued, only the individual 's reasons can be debated on a case for case basis. This is no revelation it's been brought forward before.
Borderruffian,

I'm beginning to really worry about replying to your posts, such as the one above.

I have been finding myself in total agreement with them of late. :wink:

Until our next post,
Unionblue
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
5,286
#7
My survey of the 33 members of co. M of the 7th TN Cavalry who stayed with the company and survived to surrender at Citronelle found that all of them had at least one first-degree family member who held slaves in either the 1850 or 1860 census. Even the very poor ones - the poorest one had a father who was an overseer who held one slave.

Infantry would probably look a little different. However, Company M was raised primarily in district 1 of Lauderdale county, Tennessee (Durhamville) and very few residents in that district would have been unaffected by the slave economy.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,068
Location
Austin Texas
#8
I've been looking at slave ownership for the representatives at each States secession convention (1860-61) in comparison to the slave ownership in the general population. For Virginia, about 21% of white males over 20 were slave owners, whereas 78% (118/152) of the convention attendees owned slaves. Moreover, of the the slave owners in the state, 11% owned 20 or more slaves, but at the convention 30% of the slave owners owned 20 plus slaves. Similar numbers show for the other states, meaning that not only was slave ownership vastly over represented at these conventions, but those slave owners with large numbers of slaves (20+) were also over represented.
 

CheathamHill

First Sergeant
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
1,197
#9
That the South at it's basest was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery cannot be argued, only the individual 's reasons can be debated on a case for case basis.
Fantastic statement on an issue that has been debated for 200 years. One of the best ways I've seen it put. Kudos
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
304
Location
Marfa, Texas
#10
From http://cwmemory.com/2016/08/25/slaveholding-in-robert-e-lees-army/
IMG_0528-e1472163275747.jpg


Joseph Glatthaar, who recently published a statistical analysis of the ANV: "Add to that those who had family members who were slaveholders [but did not live in that family member's household], those who worked as overseers, and those whose business derived largely from slaveholders, and well over half fell into that category of attachment to slavery." He also notes that this almost 90% of the ANV were enlisted men which limits how much officers could skew the numbers.

I have given several presentations on this subject. I wonder...has anyone on else this forum studied the statistical sampling from which Gatthaar uses to arrive at his so-called findings? Just curious.
 

Attachments

Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
5,286
#11
I have given several presentations on this subject. I wonder...has anyone on else this forum studied the statistical sampling from which Gatthaar uses to arrive at his so-called findings? Just curious.
The University of Virginia historical census data browser is online here:

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu

However, I'm not aware of where Glatthaar obtained his statistics about slaveholding in the army. Does anyone have that information?
 

AndyHall

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
13,261
#12
Glatthaar matched enlistment records from the Army of Northern Virginia with census enrollment documents from the U.S. Census of 1860, both the household enumeration and the slave schedules. The methodology is described in some detail in his books.

IIRC Glatthaar was working in the 1990s originally, when all this material was on microfilm. But the same work could be done now using Ancestry and Fold3 by anyone who wanted to devote the time to it. The original, primary material is out there and more easily accessible than when he was working originally.
 
Last edited:

AndyHall

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
13,261
#13
I think perhaps more significant than the majority of the army being connected to slavery is that they were connected to slavery at a higher proportion than the general Southern population.
That's correct, and it's highly relevant during the early part of the war. That's when the entire army was volunteer, no conscription. Those were men who, for whatever reason, wanted to be there. The fact that those men were disproportionately slaveholders is significant in showing which Southerners believed they had an important stake in the outcome of the conflict.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,566
Location
los angeles ca
#15
From http://cwmemory.com/2016/08/25/slaveholding-in-robert-e-lees-army/
IMG_0528-e1472163275747.jpg


Joseph Glatthaar, who recently published a statistical analysis of the ANV: "Add to that those who had family members who were slaveholders [but did not live in that family member's household], those who worked as overseers, and those whose business derived largely from slaveholders, and well over half fell into that category of attachment to slavery." He also notes that this almost 90% of the ANV were enlisted men which limits how much officers could skew the numbers.
Based on Richard Current's book " Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy" Union enlistments were much higher if the amount of slaves in that county were low. Unionist soldiers had on the average a lower income then Confederate soldiers.
The more slaves a county had on a per capita basis the more likely young men would enlist in the Confederate Army.
Leftyhunter
 

Attachments

Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
304
Location
Marfa, Texas
#17
The University of Virginia historical census data browser is online here:

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu

However, I'm not aware of where Glatthaar obtained his statistics about slaveholding in the army. Does anyone have that information?
I was talking about the percentages within the army by soldier type he used in his statistical sampling. Having studied his books on this I wondered...has anyone other than myself researched this and as a result realized how skewed the results are?
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
204
#18
those whose business derived largely from slaveholders
How far down did he take this section and exactly how did he go about determining this portion of his numbers? For instance, if someone was teacher, at some point some of his income probably came from some slaveholders.
 



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