This Is The True Way The South Thought 1855-64

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
Thank you for adding that heads-up Miss Markie. Doggone shame that Mary Chesnut edited her diary. The originals would have provided more insight and less Lost Cause excuses. Unfortunately, when I do get to her place in the stack, I'll be trying to figure out if each entry is wartime feeling or second-thoughts.

The Union had an advantage from the get-go: Those SOBs fired on our flag! A unifying cause that, no matter what else you believed, you could rally 'round the flag. The Confederacy had no such rallying point. This one believed and fought for the state's rights argument. That one, for a return to the constitution of the founders. This one for slavery. That one to repel the invasion. They mostly fought for their state. No central national goal guided their steps. There was no true way the southerner thought.
Ole
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,928
Location
South of the North 40
ole said:
Thank you for adding that heads-up Miss Markie. Doggone shame that Mary Chesnut edited her diary. The originals would have provided more insight and less Lost Cause excuses. Unfortunately, when I do get to her place in the stack, I'll be trying to figure out if each entry is wartime feeling or second-thoughts.

The Union had an advantage from the get-go: Those SOBs fired on our flag! A unifying cause that, no matter what else you believed, you could rally 'round the flag. The Confederacy had no such rallying point. This one believed and fought for the state's rights argument. That one, for a return to the constitution of the founders. This one for slavery. That one to repel the invasion. They mostly fought for their state. No central national goal guided their steps. There was no true way the southerner thought.
Ole
Amen... yes her diaries are seriously damaged goods due to the editing. IIRC she dramaticly changed several entries because she heard other accounts of specific event and thought those accounts better than her own. I don't recall the historian but the premise is interesting. "The most convincing liar is memory."
 

muzzleloader

Cadet
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
59
What is striking about a lot of your replies to my post is that many parties look at it jaded from a North or South bias. That was not the intent or meaning of the post. The sole meaning was to show NOT only in Chestnuts writings but ALL over the South- the main states- S. Carolina all the way to Louisiana- this is the way they felt- It was relentless, at least 80% of the populace of those states and they were resolved. Nothing could have changed the charged up feelings they felt- War for them and States Rights-AND IT was STATES RIGHTS inherently- right or wrong-that was their total goal. To say that it was not a states rights argument would be revisionist history. They hated Federal government interference in many matters-not just slavery. That War could not have been prevented. Period. Unless Lincoln was willing to divide the Union. And that was not to be. Thank God. We are so thankful to have the Union we do today.
 

Wild_Rose

Cadet
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
520
ole said:
The Union had an advantage from the get-go: Those SOBs fired on our flag! A unifying cause that, no matter what else you believed, you could rally 'round the flag. The Confederacy had no such rallying point. This one believed and fought for the state's rights argument. That one, for a return to the constitution of the founders. This one for slavery. That one to repel the invasion. They mostly fought for their state. No central national goal guided their steps. There was no true way the southerner thought.
Ole
I beg to differ. Southerners were highly united and motivated. The rallying point, "independence from a people that would chose to subjugate the South into a submission of their superiority". All the varying reasons boiled down to this one.

Southerners may have had varying reasons, but they had one common goal. That was to repel the invaders and to gain independence. Why they did it is interesting from a historical point of view, but it does not change the fact that they were united for whatever reasons.

While there was no "one true way the Southerner thought", the fabric that was the South had been woven with common threads that bound them all to the same cause. The North may have been able to grasp on to the fact that the flag was fired on at Ft. Sumter, but prior to that the reasons for denying the South independence was varied, indeed. Mainly it was for economical reasons, for some it was simple arrogance and a show of power and more than few that claimed the South should be allowed to leave in peace.

Regards,
Rose
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
Wild_Rose said:
While there was no "one true way the Southerner thought", the fabric that was the South had been woven with common threads that bound them all to the same cause.
Rose,
IMHO, you've romanticized this a little much. I doubt any of the sections were "woven with common threads." Many left, many fought for ideals, many fought for rhetoric, many fought because they had no alternative. Its too bad we can never ask all the dead men if it was worth it.

The North may have been able to grasp on to the fact that the flag was fired on at Ft. Sumter, but prior to that the reasons for denying the South independence was varied, indeed. Mainly it was for economical reasons, for some it was simple arrogance and a show of power and more than few that claimed the South should be allowed to leave in peace.
I"ll guarantee that it would be rare indeed to have been able to find a man who fought for the Union because he was troubled at the prospect of lost federal tariff revenues or that he bought into the "milking the South for northern benefit" baloney. If you were really trying to represent the most common reason for unionists to deny secession, how could you omit the sincere belief that what the rebels was doing was treasonous?

Cedarstripper
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
muzzleloader said:
The sole meaning was to show NOT only in Chestnuts writings but ALL over the South- the main states- S. Carolina all the way to Louisiana- this is the way they felt- It was relentless, at least 80% of the populace of those states and they were resolved.
And yet Mary Chesnut admitted her hopes that the Union could be preserved. So Mary is either not consistent, is steeped in rhetoric (hmm...imagine that from a political family), or is not necessarily representative of the relentless zeal for disunion you claim.
Nothing could have changed the charged up feelings they felt- War for them and States Rights-AND IT was STATES RIGHTS inherently- right or wrong-that was their total goal.
Perhaps you can be more specific about which state right was being violated by the federal government. It was easy to get on the soapbox and speak of the US Constitution being "trampled underfoot," but unless we are to consider that this was just inflammatory language designed to persuade southerners to jump on the wagon, it needs to be specified what state's rights were indeed being trampled, wouldn't you say? Shouting doesn't make it so.

They hated Federal government interference in many matters-not just slavery.
Federal interference is a product of federal acts, which are the products of US congressmen. The South had more than their fair share of federal representation in antebellum America and they fully enjoyed using it. The federal government was not foisted upon them by industrialist yankees.

Cedarstripper
 

jkeith21

Cadet
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
107
Location
Alpharetta (Atlanta), GA
cedarstripper said:
Its too bad we can never ask all the dead men if it was worth it.

Cedarstripper
Ask dead men? Why? I've read thousands of letters, diaries, and other writings by those who fought. And although in later writings many/most regretted the necessity of the fight, I can count on one hand those who even remotely spoke of it as not having been "worth it". Those that fought basically say that we disagreed, we fought, it has been decided, now lets get on with life.

Why all this stuff STILL gets thrown into peoples faces is beyond me.

This thread started with a quote by Chestnut which I understood and to a point agreed with... that, for me today, it resonated with some truth, some compliance. It felt good to me. Simple as that... But THE reason(s)? ...how the South as a WHOLE felt? Nah... probably just real good and interesting information positioned in an arguable fashion.

Then to further split the hair, to say that since she felt different later to a degree invalidates her earlier sentiments is hard for me to understand. Time passes... people (and feelings, and circumstances, and opinions) change. The present may cause us to look at the past from a different perspective from time to time but does it invalidate it?

And then to argue it ...to use it like a sidewalk alumni would use "their" team's won-lost record to rub in the face of another. I just don't understand.

You may know what what it is like to be negatively confronted with something you said or did 20 years ago regardless of where you are in your life now. You may know how it feels to have your family or friends ridiculed or held up for examination for what they said or did in the past by people who do not know or love them. You may wonder why people might feel the need to do so. I sometimes do 'cause it royally p#ss@s me off when it happens. Doesn't it you?
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
Then to further split the hair, to say that since she felt different later to a degree invalidates her earlier sentiments is hard for me to understand. Time passes... people (and feelings, and circumstances, and opinions) change. The present may cause us to look at the past from a different perspective from time to time but does it invalidate it?
The change does not invalidate an earlier observation. But to hold up a single pre-war paragraph as the way the entire south thought throughout the war is quite stretching it.

I'll invite you to cite an instance where a sidewalk alumnus used a won-lost record to rub into the face of another. You may be reading more into good-natured banter than there actually is.
Ole
 

jkeith21

Cadet
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
107
Location
Alpharetta (Atlanta), GA
ole said:
I'll invite you to cite an instance where a sidewalk alumnus used a won-lost record to rub into the face of another. You may be reading more into good-natured banter than there actually is.
Ole
Ole - You are right, of course. I'll go take a Valium. ... but when that Valium wears off...
 

Miss Markie

Cadet
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Wisconsin
I think Mary Chestnut would like that she is still talked about!

I think perhaps jkeith21 is taking my long post to task in which I bring into the discussion that Mary Chestnut highly edited her diary into a journal in the 1880s, is that correct?

My point in bringing that to light is not that her edited journal is not of value, but it is of a different value than had it been left as the (fairly) unedited version that was written at the time. For historians, there is a difference between the two as primary sources.
I believe I also made a comment that she edited out mainly items that would, in hindsight, prove embarrassing to a lady's vanity, and I included myself in that observation! I have had to keep journals for various educational activities, and I am extremely self-conscious about re-reading them, in fact, it is very difficult to do objectively. I always feel my writing about myself is a vanity to begin with, so I can commiserate with Mary's wanting to remove those types of items.

I think it safe to say that, as I previously stated, her diary/journal is valuable, but it would be more interesting and arresting in its freshness if it was not read as a memoir but left as a diary.

There is no doubt she added stories for reader interest, and as several historians conclude, to emphasize the sentiments of the 1880s. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that is what she is doing. It is no different than reading the memoirs of US Grant, although, as I have read them, he is not the hero of his story. This is what Mary Chestnut also did as she rewrote her diary into what should more appropriately be called a memoir.

I still would have to come down on the side of caution in taking any one person's writing or viewpoint as representative of the whole. I'm turning into one of those old ladies whose been around enough and read enough to know there is always room for many viewpoints and interpretations. We have to be careful, and it is human nature to do this, to not just read the ones we agree with.
 

Miss Markie

Cadet
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Wisconsin
And a thousand pardons to you all and the kind board member who corrected my spelling of Mary Boykin Chesnut's name... I must be more careful.
 

jkeith21

Cadet
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
107
Location
Alpharetta (Atlanta), GA
Miss Markie said:
I think perhaps jkeith21 is taking my long post to task in which I bring into the discussion that Mary Chestnut highly edited her diary into a journal in the 1880s, is that correct?
Miss Markie - Not specifically your comments. My rant was directed in a general direction and even so was misguided. I am old, frustrated and overly sensitive. Sometimes I fight those attributes and win; at other times I lose. My apologies (to all) for the offense.

I have used Chesnut's writings selectively, but heavily in helping to tie things together and for her personal insight / eye-witness reports into places and events that are hard to find or collaborate using other more formal sources.

In doing so with Chesnut and with all other similar sources I strive to be totally objective, to take it purely at face value and avoid reading anything between the lines. If I do not adhere to this practice and allow the source's or my own bias or intrepretations to contaminate the information, that information when connected to other pieces of the puzzle could affect the integrity of the whole changing the work from the intended collection of facts to unintended and possibly/probably innaccurate suppositions. Therefore, I am extremely wary of micro-analysis of individual snippets.

I reserve the right to form my own personal suppositions based on the facts but only after the facts are collected.

I've been working on collecting the facts for over 25 years now. In another 25 years, I'll probably feel comfortable that I have close to 1% of the facts. With 1% of the facts, how valid will my suppositions be? Yet the facts can, will and should always stand alone.
 

Wild_Rose

Cadet
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
520
cedarstripper said:
Rose,
IMHO, you've romanticized this a little much. I doubt any of the sections were "woven with common threads."
I don't know exactly what you believe is romanticized, but the Southern people, with all their varied reasons, were united with a common goal... various threads woven togather to form the fabric of a united South.

cedarstripper said:
Many left, many fought for ideals, many fought for rhetoric, many fought because they had no alternative. Its too bad we can never ask all the dead men if it was worth it.
We can't ask dead men if it was worth it, but we can get an indication of what they believed from the words they left behind.

"We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be
compelled to act in precisely the same manner."
General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

'Tis the cause, not the fate of the Cause, that is glorious!" --Maj. R.E. Wilson, CSA

"If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray heaven may let me fall with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right."-Patrick Cleburne

"Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." General Robert E. Lee

"I shall come out of this fight a live major general or a dead brigadier."
- Confederate Brigadier General Albert Perrin

"General, unless he offers us honorable terms, come back and let us fight it out!"- James Longstreet said this to Robert E. Lee as he rode off to discuss terms for surrender with General Grant at Appomattox.

“We may be annihilated, but we cannot be conquered.”
General Albert Sidney Johnston, CSA

“Before this war is over, I intend to be a Major General or a corpse.”
Brigadier General Isaac Trimble

"If it is a crime to love the South, its cause and its President, then I am a criminal. I would rather lie down in this prison and die than leave it owing allegiance to a government such as yours."- Belle Boyd

"As for my part I don't want to survive a subjugation of my country." --Col. J. Goodner

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such statements. I don't think they were only "romanticizing", either

cedarstripper said:
I"ll guarantee that it would be rare indeed to have been able to find a man who fought for the Union because he was troubled at the prospect of lost federal tariff revenues or that he bought into the "milking the South for northern benefit" baloney.
I think Unionists protest just a bit too much about that "baloney". Unfortunately, as you stated, we can't ask the dead men, but if we could, I can guarantee you, that a great number of them fought for all of that baloney and more.

cedarstripper said:
If you were really trying to represent the most common reason for unionists to deny secession, how could you omit the sincere belief that what the rebels was doing was treasonous?
I didn't omit it. It's just that it wasn't the Union's first reaction. The people picked that up from the Northern politicians who did have economic motives and after Ft. Sumter. Prior to that a great many people of the North believed the Constitution did not forbid secession. Maybe those Northerners weren't quite as sincere as you think in their belief that secession was treason. After all, it became dangerous to sympathize with the South once habeas corpus was suspended and Northern prisons began to fill up with people whose only crime was in believing the war against the South was wrong.

Regards,
Rose
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
jkeith wrote:
I have used Chesnut's writings selectively, but heavily in helping to tie things together and for her personal insight / eye-witness reports into places and events that are hard to find or collaborate using other more formal sources.
And in this respect, her writings are extremely valuable -- as evidenced by the frequency she is quoted in other works. There's also a diary written by a teen-age girl before and during Sherman's occupation of Columbia. Unfortunately, she apparently edited it later. For factual information, it approaches useless, but it does paint a vivid picture from a civilian's viewpoint.
Rose wrote: I don't know exactly what you believe is romanticized, but the Southern people, with all their varied reasons, were united with a common goal... various threads woven togather to form the fabric of a united South.
It's very nice to believe that, Rose, but it's simply not borne out by the evidence. One example might be North Carolina. That state sent more soldiers than any other to fight for the Confederacy. That state also hosted more deserters than any other state, primarily because it was very reluctant to turn them around and send them back. North Carolina had also stockpiled equipment and supplies for the sole use of its own troops -- so much so that some WWII POWs were clothed in Confederate gray. She refused to allow this surplus to be used by any other than NC troops. United we stand? Hardly. Georgia was similarly obstructive to the common cause. Occupied Confederate States became officially cooperative with their occupiers. If there are similar examples among the Union states, I wish you'd share them.
Rose also wrote: I didn't omit it. It's just that it wasn't the Union's first reaction. The people picked that up from the Northern politicians who did have economic motives and after Ft. Sumter. Prior to that a great many people of the North believed the Constitution did not forbid secession. Maybe those Northerners weren't quite as sincere as you think in their belief that secession was treason.
You ascribe northern motives to what the northerners were fed after the fighting started, but you won't do the same for the Confederates. If one is true, they both are. Billy and Johnnie fought because they were swept up in a war, the talking points came later.
Ole
 

jkeith21

Cadet
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
107
Location
Alpharetta (Atlanta), GA
ole said:
... North Carolina had also stockpiled equipment and supplies for the sole use of its own troops -- so much so that some WWII POWs were clothed in Confederate gray. She refused to allow this surplus to be used by any other than NC troops. United we stand? Hardly. Georgia was similarly obstructive to the common cause...
Hardly surprising as at the core of the Confederacy was the sovereignty of the States, but true. Just the nature of the beast and an example that they beyond just talking the talk, they walked the walk.

Consider that in the South you can get just about anything you need if you ask graciously. Demand something and you can count on walking away empty-handed. Unfortunately, Jeff Davis was a particularly demanding person and he often got on the wrong side of the Governors. This antagonistic relationship caused by demanding vs asking is oft-commented upon in contemporary writings.

A good reason for not having any examples of refusals in kind in the North may be attributed to the fact that they weren't "allowed"... who in the Union could tell the President "No"? Doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have had they had any grounds on which to "deny the request".

However, as always, there were exceptions. Longstreet's troops hit the field at Chickamauga in new North Carolina-provided uniforms (oddly bluer than gray) picked up on the way, and Georgia State Troops, militia and even the cadet corps of the Georgia Military Academy often served under orders of the President rather than the Governor.
 

Miss Markie

Cadet
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
234
Location
Wisconsin
no offense taken

No offense taken, as I am, as already stated an 'old lady' with some set notions too. I was just putting forth a little caution for all who might have wanted to take Mary Chesnut as the 'be-all', but by no means do I want to negate her work. It is much MUCH more reliable than LaSalle Pickett's!!

I have probably had too much schooling for my own good, with two degrees in history, and two advanced educational leadership degrees. All that means is I have had it pounded into my head for so many papers, theses, and field studies, that we need to constantly examine our sources. I commend you for that self-knowledge of always needing to look for our own biases! I tend to be a little overly romanticized in my view of the south (I can't help it!! I was fed Gone With the Wind from an early age!! my mom kept her copy by the Bible!) and even though a yank by birth, I tend to get swept up in my romance with the south. *sigh*

So green light, everyone keep moving forward. Caution has been removed from the track!:smile:
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,431
Location
Near Kankakee
A good reason for not having any examples of refusals in kind in the North may be attributed to the fact that they weren't "allowed"... who in the Union could tell the President "No"? Doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have had they had any grounds on which to "deny the request".
Oops. You said "fact." That would ordinarily require a source or several concrete examples. You seem to be denying that states remaining in the Union acted as a union not because they felt themselves part of a union, but because they had no choice.

The northerners didn't suffer anywhere near the destruction suffered in the south, but there were deprivations. These were borne, if not cheerfully, in the spirit of a common cause. One cause. Union.

Ole
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
1,275
Location
western New York
Wild_Rose said:
We can't ask dead men if it was worth it, but we can get an indication of what they believed from the words they left behind.
Actually, I was referring to men killed in battle, Confederate and Union alike. Men, many of them mere teenagers, whose life was snuffed out before they barely had a chance to experience it. If they could speak from the grave, would they share in the same enthusiasm for war that they might have naively held before they ever experienced the peril of combat? If they could rewind time, would they decide that their being dismembered with canister shot was of value to their neighbors back home, and then charge again? I wasn't interested in the platitudes of generals who died of old age in their beds, and I'm not referring to the treasured war stories of survivors, retold over countless beers. They have their place, but I wonder if they represented the poor souls who lay rotting in some mass grave, never to see the valley of their home again.

I didn't omit it. It's just that it wasn't the Union's first reaction. The people picked that up from the Northern politicians who did have economic motives and after Ft. Sumter.
:confused:


Prior to that a great many people of the North believed the Constitution did not forbid secession.
You use terms like "the people" and " great many people" and you even represent the thoughts of everyone outside the confederacy en masse as "the Union" or "the North" as if they had one attitude. Don't you find this generalization inaccurate relative to how much it's relied on, particularly in a discussion about how individual people are compelled by individual opinions?

Maybe those Northerners weren't quite as sincere as you think in their belief that secession was treason. After all, it became dangerous to sympathize with the South once habeas corpus was suspended and Northern prisons began to fill up with people whose only crime was in believing the war against the South was wrong.
It isn't necessary to consider the rebel's actions as treasonous in order to stay out of prison, and to imply that is really stretching, as is exaggerated your claim that "Northern prisons began to fill up with people whose only crime was in believing the war against the South was wrong." (and habeas corpus was only suspened in some selected areas in the North, wasn't it?) Surely you don't consider southern sincerity to have been inspired by a threat of being imprisoned under Davis' suspension of habeas corpus.

While there was no "one true way the Southerner thought", the fabric that was the South had been woven with common threads that bound them all to the same cause.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v050/n4/contrib_DIVL7560.html
Here is a paper published in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly at the University of Texas at Austin, which has account after account of holes in the fabric that you describe. Was your own state of Texas just not as "bound" as the rest, or do you think this was typical across the South?

Cedarstripper
 

Wild_Rose

Cadet
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
520
cedarstripper said:
Actually, I was referring to men killed in battle, Confederate and Union alike.

.....I'm not referring to the treasured war stories of survivors, retold over countless beers. They have their place, but I wonder if they represented the poor souls who lay rotting in some mass grave, never to see the valley of their home again.
Yes, I knew what you were referring to. But, since we can't ask the dead, we can at least listen to those that were willing to lay down their life for their country. It's the best we can do. Patrick Cleburne wasn't one of those that spoke in hindsight and the others spoke their sentiments at a time when dying for their country was a distinct possibility, yet they fought on.

Obviously, in hindsight, no one would have willingly died in vain, knowing the South would not win her independence.

cedarstripper said:
You use terms like "the people" and " great many people" and you even represent the thoughts of everyone outside the confederacy en masse as "the Union" or "the North" as if they had one attitude. Don't you find this generalization inaccurate relative to how much it's relied on, particularly in a discussion about how individual people are compelled by individual opinions?
I didn't realize the thread had changed from "This Is The True Way The South Thought 1855- 64", to "Twelve Million Individual Opinions of Southerners". When speaking about a group of millions of people it becomes necessary to generalize.

cedarstripper said:
It isn't necessary to consider the rebel's actions as treasonous in order to stay out of prison, and to imply that is really stretching, as is exaggerated your claim that "Northern prisons began to fill up with people whose only crime was in believing the war against the South was wrong." (and habeas corpus was only suspened in some selected areas in the North, wasn't it?) Surely you don't consider southern sincerity to have been inspired by a threat of being imprisoned under Davis' suspension of habeas corpus.
That is your defense of the Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus? "They did it, too?"

cedarstripper said:
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v050/n4/contrib_DIVL7560.html
Here is a paper published in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly at the University of Texas at Austin, which has account after account of holes in the fabric that you describe. Was your own state of Texas just not as "bound" as the rest, or do you think this was typical across the South?
There seems to be some holes in the UT paper, also:

Texas During The Civil War
Louis J. Wortham, A HISTORY OF TEXAS: FROM WILDERNESS TO COMMONWEALTH, Volume 4, Chapter LX, Worthham-Molyneaux Company, Fort Worth, Texas 1924
"From the most accurate data," he [Governor Lubbock] said in his message to an extra session of the legislature on February 5, 1863, "Texas has furnished to the Confederate military service thirty-three regiments, thirteen battalions, two squadrons, six detached companies, and one legion of twelve companies of cavalry; nineteen regiments, two battalions of infantry, and one regiment and twelve light batteries of artillery—thirty regiments of which (twenty-one cavalry and nine infantry) have been organized since the requisition of February 3, 1862, for fifteen regiments, being the quota required of Texas to make her quota equal to the quota of other states, making 62,000 men, which with the state troops in actual service, viz., 6,500 men, form an aggregate of 68,500 Texans in military service, constituting an excess of 4,773 more than her highest popular vote, which was 63,727. From the best information within reach of this department, upon which to base an estimate of the men now remaining in the state between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, it is thought that the number will not exceed 27,000."
http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/wortham/4345.htm

Texans responded to the call for arms enthusiastically. A count of nearly 5,000 more than her highest popular vote count is pretty good evidence that Texans were solidly behind secession. Did each and every Texan support the Confederacy? Of course not. The majority, however, did.

Rose
 

Wild_Rose

Cadet
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
520
ole said:
It's very nice to believe that, Rose, but it's simply not borne out by the evidence. One example might be North Carolina. That state sent more soldiers than any other to fight for the Confederacy. That state also hosted more deserters than any other state, primarily because it was very reluctant to turn them around and send them back. North Carolina had also stockpiled equipment and supplies for the sole use of its own troops -- so much so that some WWII POWs were clothed in Confederate gray. She refused to allow this surplus to be used by any other than NC troops. United we stand? Hardly. Georgia was similarly obstructive to the common cause.
I'm not aware of the stats on NC's troops or her deserters. I accept your word, but I notice that if she sent the most troops it would naturally follow that she had more deserters than a state sending less troops. It would be interesting to compare other stats like casualties compared to the states that sent less troops.

Most states concerned themselves with their welfare above the other states. That was common in the ninteenth century. The CSA was united, but certainly was not a socialist government.

ole said:
Occupied Confederate States became officially cooperative with their occupiers. If there are similar examples among the Union states, I wish you'd share them.
Officially, perhaps. I think they had no other choice.

Since there were no Northern states under Confederate occupation, obviously, I have no examples.

ole said:
You ascribe northern motives to what the northerners were fed after the fighting started, but you won't do the same for the Confederates. If one is true, they both are. Billy and Johnnie fought because they were swept up in a war, the talking points came later.
Ole
Southerners largely believed secession and independence from the North was for the good of their states and they mostly were passionate about the Southern Cause. In the beginning, Northern people didn't show enough enthusiasm against secession to go to war over it. They had to be convinced, which is why Lincoln wanted so badly for the Confederates to fire the first shot. I realize I've oversimplified the issues, but that is the boiled down version as I see it.

Regards,
Rose
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top