The ideological conflict

[atlantis]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

 

[Irishtom29]

Basically, yeah. That the Unionist motive didn't directly clash with the Rebel motive has been a cause of much confusion.

 

[wausaubob]

No.
The United States was a slave nation in 1860. Five years later slavery was abolished, and secession was no longer politically viable,

 

[brass napoleon]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

Not at all. It has been well documented on this forum that there were plenty of ****s on the Union side, and there were plenty of unionists on the Confederate side as well:

"But we have heard it argued--have seen it published--a petition has been circulated for signers, announcing that there was an incompatibility between the sections; that the Union had been tried long enough, and that it had proved to be necessary to separate from those sections of the Union in which the curse of slavery existed. Ah! those modern saints, so much wiser than our fathers, have discovered an incompatibility requiring separation in those relations which existed when the Union was formed. They have found the remnants only of a diversity which existed when South Carolina sent her rice to Boston, and Maryland and Pennsylvania and New York brought in their funds for her relief.

They have found the remnants only; for from that day to this the difference between the people has been constantly decreasing, and the necessity for union which then arose in no small degree from the diversity of product, and soil and climate, has gone on increasing, both by the extension of our own territory and the introduction of new tropical products; so that whilst the difference between the people has diminished, the diversity in the products has increased, and that motive for union which your fathers found exists in a higher degree than it did when they resolved to be united."

- Jefferson Davis, Boston, October 11, 1858

Source: https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-speech-boston​

 

[Irishtom29]

Not at all. It has been well documented on this forum that there were plenty of ****s on the Union side, and there were plenty of unionists on the Confederate side as well:

"​

That unionists fought the Confederacy and ****s for the Union reinforces the notion that the Confederates fought for slavery and the Federals out of a sense of nationalism.

 

[wausaubob]

"Remnants only"? That is pretty funny.

 

[Southern Unionist]

Take a close look at almost anything written or said in Columbia, SC during 1859 and 1860. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

[leftyhunter]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

That might be to simple an analysis. Some Northern states even in 1860 allowed blacks to vote,serve on juries and marry whites. Some non Southern schools were intergrated decades before Brown v. Tulsa Board of Education .
White Nationalism is a latter political construct. The U.S. did not have any major laws banning non white immigration untill much later after the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[ForeverFree]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

Why do you ask?

What is your answer to the question?

- Alan

 

[leftyhunter]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

1. Let us not forget that blacks , Indians and even a few Asians fought in the ACW. How is someone who was Union soldier or guerrilla a"white nationalist" would Newt Knight be a "white nationalist"? Would James Pond who fought under Brown in Kansas and a Medal of Honor winner be a"white nationalist? Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

1. Let us not forget that blacks , Indians and even a few Asians fought in the ACW. How is someone who was Union soldier or guerrilla a"white nationalist" would Newt Knight be a "white nationalist"? Would James Pond who fought under Brown in Kansas and a Medal of Honor winner be a"white nationalist? Leftyhunter

What percent made up the non-white portion of the Union army?

 

[huskerblitz]

What percent made up the non-white portion of the Union army?

To answer my own question it is roughly half of the Union army. But also remember who was making decisions about the war. In that sense, it was pretty much all white native born so regardless of who made up the fighting ranks, were they not fighting for what those white native born people wanted on not their own desires? I mean, that's the argument made for Confederate soldiers. So only fair, correct?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Was the civil war a conflict between ****[confederates] and white nationalism[unionists]?

No

 

[leftyhunter]

To answer my own question it is roughly half of the Union army. But also remember who was making decisions about the war. In that sense, it was pretty much all white native born so regardless of who made up the fighting ranks, were they not fighting for what those white native born people wanted on not their own desires? I mean, that's the argument made for Confederate soldiers. So only fair, correct?

On the other hand most black soldiers were eager volunteers and unlike many Confederate troops they did not desert and fight for the other side. Yes they fought for a government that only included whites. On the other hand the USCT had the supreme joy of getting some payback got to love that.
I don't know about non whites being half the Union Army. 170k black men plus a few thousand Indians vs total Union enlistments won' equal half. Still plus 170k on the Union side certainly helped out the Union cause.
Leftyhunter

 

[ForeverFree]

What percent made up the non-white portion of the Union army?

The standard answer is that African Americans were 10-15% of the Army, and 15-20% of the Navy. Note that, when black enlistment began, the army had standardized on 3 year enlistment terms. The portion of enlistment days served by Negroes was undoubtedly higher than the portion of enlisted men who were black.

Also of importance is that there was a huge African American civilian contingent that supported the Army. The role of black labor is illustrated in the following letter from WT Sherman, in which he complains about black laborers who are enlisted in the army:

Hdqrs. Military Division Of The Mississippi,
In the Field, Big Shanty, June 21, 1864.

General Lorenzo Thomas,
Chattanooga:

It has repeatedly come to my knowledge, on the Mississippi, and recently Colonel Beckwith, my chief commissary, reported officially that his negro cattle drivers and gangs for unloading cars were stampeded and broken up by recruiting officers who actually used their authority to carry them off by a species of force. I had to stop it at once.

I am receiving no negroes now, because their owners have driven them to Southwest Georgia. I believe that negroes better serve the Army as teamsters, pioneers, and servants, and have no objection to the surplus, if any, being enlisted as soldiers, but I must have labor and a large quantity of it. I confess I would prefer 300 negroes armed with spades and axes than 1,000 as soldiers.

Still I repeat I have no objection to the enlistment of negroes if my working parties are not interfered with, and if they are interfered with I must put a summary stop to it. For God's sake let the negro question develop itself slowly and naturally, and not by premature cultivation make it a weak element in our policy. I think I understand the negro as well as anybody, and profess as much conviction in the fact of his certain freedom as you or any one, but he, like all other of the genus homo, must pass through a probationary state before he is qualified for utter and complete freedom. As soldiers it is still an open question, which I am perfectly willing should be fairly and honestly tested. Negroes are as scarce in North Georgia as in Ohio. All are at and below Macon and Columbus, Ga.

W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General, Commanding.​

Source: THE MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND CONGRESS, 1891-'92.

Sherman feared a loss of black labor due to the aggressive soldier recruitment efforts of General Lorenzo Thomas. Thomas had been tasked with enlisting former slaves into the Union army along the Mississippi River and Mississippi Valley, and he was doing too good a job as far as Sherman was concerned.

In his communication, Sherman makes it clear: "I must have (negro) labor and a large quantity of it." The fact that the army needed the support of African Americans was not up for debate. But Sherman wanted them as laborers, whereas Thomas wanted them as soldiers.

I've heard people say that over a hundred black civilians supported the Union effort outside of black enlistees. I think this is an area that requires more research.

One other way that black civilians helped the Union was through spy craft and military intelligence. On May 26, 1863, Gen R E Lee warned LT Col J Critcher that the "chief source of information to the enemy is through our Negroes." A very good article on African Amerians as sources of military intelligence for the Union is here.

Thus, the Union benefitted from the support of black soldiers, sailors, and civilians.

- Alan

 

[ForeverFree]

To answer my own question it is roughly half of the Union army. But also remember who was making decisions about the war. In that sense, it was pretty much all white native born so regardless of who made up the fighting ranks, were they not fighting for what those white native born people wanted on not their own desires? I mean, that's the argument made for Confederate soldiers. So only fair, correct?

Lincoln made it clear, time and time again, that his objective in fighting the war was to preserve the Union. But he recognized that to win, an alliance with African Americans was needed, particularly with those African Americans in the South. Hence, we see the Emancipation Proclamation (EP), which was one of many steps that led to the emancipation of slaves and and the abolishment of slavery.

The EP was controversial. Democrats blasted it, many in the Border States hated it, and many people in the West disliked it. In an August 1863 letter, Lincoln defended his policies of emancipation and black enlistment:

But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not. Yet I have neither adopted, nor proposed any measure, which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively by other means.

You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the constitution invests its Commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemies' property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes, and non-combatants, male and female.

You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.

I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistence to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you?

But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.
​

Lincoln's letter states unambiguously that his goal is to save the Union. But if the Union is to gain the support of negroes, it had to give them a "strong motive" to "stake their lives for us." "Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them?", asks Lincoln.

Thus, Lincoln and the Union made ending slavery an objective of the war. Emancipation and abolition were clearly the means to an end, not ends in themselves, for white Union men. But for whites to achieve what they wanted, they had to achieve some things that the negroes wanted. This was a case where Union men and enslaved Confederate residents had a common goal - the end of the slaveholding Confederate nation.

- Alan