The war within the Confederacy

[leftyhunter]

The War Within the Confederacy White Unionist of North Carolina by Michael Honey is a good overview of Unionism
in North Carolina.
www.ncgenweb.us/ncuv/honey1.htm
Honey covers many subjects such has Unionist guerrillas and soldiers plus voter intimidation,desertion and political opposition to the Confederacy. The article is well sourced and has a key quote from Confederate Governor Zebulon Vance" the great popular heart is not now and never had been in this war.It was a revolution of the politicians not the people"
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

www.ncgenweb.us/ncuv/honey1.htm

I believe, however, that further study of the dissent and conflict in the Confederacy would lead us to a different set of conclusions. This short study of North Carolina Unionism certainly raises questions about the supposed solidarity between the white upper and lower classes. For many white Union supporters, the war intensified antagonisms to the slaveholding class that had been smoldering for years. Their bitter language and attitude indicates that many Unionists hated not only secession but also the Southern upper class. Others opposed the Confederacy mainly out of patriotic sentiment in favor of the Union and because of the Confederacy's encroachments on their liberties. All of the Confederacy's nonslaveholding opponents reviewed in this article, however, shared the belief that secession ran counter to their interests. It remains questionable whether any of these Unionists ever belonged to the "solid South."

Yet the farmers, artisans, and mechanics who came before the Claims Commission in most ways represented the typical white Southerner. It is therefore not surprising that few of them expressed real sympathy for or solidarity with the slaves. Prior to the war many of these people may have even aspired to own slaves. The events of the war, and particularly Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, however, closed that route to wealth and power to Southern whites forever, undermining the last material incentive for nonslaveholders to support the existing system. One Unionist explained his opposition to the Confederacy concisely: "I had no Negroes to fight for." Nor would he ever. This single fact, accurately perceived by masses of nonslaveholding whites, probably did more to destroy the Confederacy from within than anything else.

If there ever was a "solid South," the Civil War tolled its death knell. By 1863 whatever sense of unity existed between the plain folk and the aristocracy before the war seems to have collapsed, at least in North Carolina. There the war provided a turning point in class relations among whites. In its wake followed a period of prolonged conflict between the upper and lower classes during the eras of Reconstruction and Populism. Significantly, during these eras former Unionist whites and former black slaves joined together in voting alliances several times to elect reformist state governments inimical to the power of the old plantation aristocracy. Only the imposition of segregation and black disfranchisement at the end of the nineteenth century ended these threats to entrenched economic power.63

 

[jgoodguy]

Another source
by BARTON A. MYERS -
"'REBELS Against A Rebellion': Southern Unionists In Secession, War And Remembrance"
By Barton A. Myers

 

[John S. Carter]

www.ncgenweb.us/ncuv/honey1.htm

Is not the term Solid South refering more to the fact that the majority of the states always voted Democrat after the war? In fact it was not till the Civil Rights of 1963 that the South turned Solid Rebuplican,thank you Lydon.To think that the party which brought you the war and reconstruction would now the one that brings the States Rights back.Roll over Lincoln!

 

[jgoodguy]

Is not the term Solid South refering more to the fact that the majority of the states always voted Democrat after the war? In fact it was not till the Civil Rights of 1963 that the South turned Solid Rebuplican,thank you Lydon.To think that the party which brought you the war and reconstruction would now the one that brings the States Rights back.Roll over Lincoln!

Looks like the term "Solid South" starts in the late 1880s. "solid south" (case insensitive). The author of the article uses in a different manner.

 

[leftyhunter]

Is not the term Solid South refering more to the fact that the majority of the states always voted Democrat after the war? In fact it was not till the Civil Rights of 1963 that the South turned Solid Rebuplican,thank you Lydon.To think that the party which brought you the war and reconstruction would now the one that brings the States Rights back.Roll over Lincoln!

Actually no the South did not always turn solid Republican post 1963. I can think of some huge exceptions to that rule. I will defer to @jgoodguy about posting them.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi @CSA Today you might find the above referenced article on your state especially the one by Gov. Vance to be quite interesting. Feel free to pick the article apart!
Leftyhunter

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Honey covers many subjects such has Unionist guerrillas

I'm guessing Kirk's raiders come under this description, as per your post yesterday @leftyhunter . Really interested to read about this.

To think that the party which brought you the war and reconstruction would now the one that brings the States Rights back.Roll over Lincoln!

That's one take on it Politics sure are fascinating...

 

[atlantis]

Is conscription the straw that broke the camels back. Without conscription would southern unionists have just washed their hands of the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Is conscription the straw that broke the camels back. Without conscription would southern unionists have just washed their hands of the war.

Not so much in East Tennessee where from the begining Unionists led by " Mountain Pilot's" crossed into Kentucky to make their way to Camp Dick Robertson.
Overall though conscription may of hurt the Confederacy more then helped it. I have a thread to debate that proposition in my thread " Did Conscription help or hurt the CSA".
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I'm guessing Kirk's raiders come under this description, as per your post yesterday @leftyhunter . Really interested to read about this.

That's one take on it Politics sure are fascinating...

Yes his Royal badness Kirk is mentioned.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerseyBart]

Hi @CSA Today you might find the above referenced article on your state especially the one by Gov. Vance to be quite interesting. Feel free to pick the article apart!
Leftyhunter

If the thread is for informative and debate purposes, I see no problem. If it's intention is to "pick" a fight, I will be quick to step in.

Posted as casual moderator.

 

[CSA Today]

Hi @CSA Today you might find the above referenced article on your state especially the one by Gov. Vance to be quite interesting. Feel free to pick the article apart!
Leftyhunter

Are you referring to the Goodguy's link post# 3?

It sounds like an interesting read. It's over 300 pages so I've saved the link and I will read it when I get the chance.

What did you find interesting about Governor Vance? He had been a strong unionist until Lincoln's call for troops. Vance was the first colonel of the 26th North Carolina Infantry. Vance was elected governor on the more moderate Conservative Party ticket in 1862 but by 1864 he had switched parties and was elected to a second term on the Confederate Party ticket.

 

[leftyhunter]

Are you referring to the Goodguy's link post# 3?

It sounds like an interesting read. It's over 300 pages so I've saved the link and I will read it when I get the chance.

What did you find interesting about Governor Vance? He had been a strong unionist until Lincoln's call for troops. Vance was the first colonel of the 26th North Carolina Infantry. Vance was elected governor on the more moderate Conservative Party ticket in 1862 but by 1864 he had switched parties and was elected to a second term on the Confederate Party ticket.

Hi CSA,
The article that I refernced is a quick read maybe three to five pages. Five to ten minutes reading at most. I would never suggest 300 pages. I was surprised that a Confederate govenor in 1864 admitted that the people of North Carolina were not strongly in favor of Secession.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

Not so much in East Tennessee where from the begining Unionists led by " Mountain Pilot's" crossed into Kentucky to make their way to Camp Dick Robertson.
Overall though conscription may of hurt the Confederacy more then helped it. I have a thread to debate that proposition in my thread " Did Conscription help or hurt the CSA".
Leftyhunter

Link
Did Conscription help or hurt the Confederacy?

 

[leftyhunter]

Are you referring to the Goodguy's link post# 3?

It sounds like an interesting read. It's over 300 pages so I've saved the link and I will read it when I get the chance.

What did you find interesting about Governor Vance? He had been a strong unionist until Lincoln's call for troops. Vance was the first colonel of the 26th North Carolina Infantry. Vance was elected governor on the more moderate Conservative Party ticket in 1862 but by 1864 he had switched parties and was elected to a second term on the Confederate Party ticket.

My link is on post#1. Again its a very quick read 10 minutes tops.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

The decision to oppose the confederacy was a gamble because if the CSA won independence, what then for the unionists.

 

[John S. Carter]

The decision to oppose the confederacy was a gamble because if the CSA won independence, what then for the unionists.

If you read any bio. on Lincoln then you would know that Lincoln was not a gambler.In politics he was the master.He would analyze his movement before taking it.He was also aware of the North's strenghts in population and industrial strenght.There is a saying that as to deal with dareing to oppose and then to possible loss.Just compare the logists of the two who do you think,since you are the gambler,would you think the Wheel of Destinty would land on?The Republican party was founded to oppose the spread of slavery and if you read Lincoln's speeches you will find a man who was not to be turned I am a GA. AL REBEL

 

[jgoodguy]

If you read any bio. on Lincoln then you would know that Lincoln was not a gambler.In politics he was the master.He would analyze his movement before taking it.He was also aware of the North's strenghts in population and industrial strenght.There is a saying that as to deal with dareing to oppose and then to possible loss.Just compare the logists of the two who do you think,since you are the gambler,would you think the Wheel of Destinty would land on? I am a GA. AL REBEL

I did not know that. Could you list all the political positions he won before he became president.

 

[leftyhunter]

The decision to oppose the confederacy was a gamble because if the CSA won independence, what then for the unionists.

Either adopt, runaway or fight it out. Many Unionists did flee to Union lines. Many took to the swamps and mountains and some just kept it on the down low. The CSA might of granted a conditional amnesty. Actually the same pattern go's for every civil war in history. Even after the ACW Unionists and former Confederates absolutely battled it out. I have a thread"post civil war violence" that so far just covers post war fighting in the great state of Alabama.
Leftyhunter