Were some Union soldiers fighting to preserve slavery?(!)

Couple of points:
In Freedom National, the author describes Kentuckians, some in the Union army, working against the emancipation measures being ordered from Washington. So some Union soldiers were at least trying to preserve slavery.

However, since 1861, the Federal government had been undermining slavery pretty consistently, with the "contraband" policy, the Confiscation Acts, and so on. The EP is more of a significant step, rather than a 180 degree turn in policy.

If Union troops were fighting for slavery, they were doing it wrong.
 
1364584890_426_FT0_southernwatchmanjul21862page2yankee.jpg

The pusher pushes his poison while the user buys it for his use.

So who is the worse, the pusher or the user?
 
When it comes to slavery no one side is clean. It was a dirty business top to bottom. I have never blamed either the importers of the slaves or planters for using slaves to make a profit. The point I want make is that by 1861 the end of slavery was in sight. Try to convince me that slavery would have not ending in less than a generation in the south even if the confederacy won. Who believes that slavery as practiced in the south in 1861 would have lasted much past 1920 or 1930? I find it very hard to believe that slavery could have lasted until 1960 or 1970. Would slavery exist in the Confederate today even if they won? Maybe, but the probability of slavery still existing in the South in 2013 is rather low.

Major Bill
 
Regarding the question in the OP: I'm not sure what how much of a controversy there is here. When the War began, the Union had 4 slave states. The Union government, in hope of maintaining the loyalty of Unionists in the Union and Confederate slave states, said that it would not infringe on the rights in human property; that it would aid in putting down slave insurrections (see Benjamin Butler and Maryland); and that it return slaves to their owners.

So, regardless of whether a particular Unionist was actually fighting to preserve slavery, there were certainly many pro-slavery Unionists who operated under the assumption that the institution would be safe no matter what the outcome of the war. Official Union government pronouncements would have led then to that conclusion.

By the end of the war, though, any illusions that anyone had about the sustainability of slavery were dashed. The ultimate end of the bondage system led to anguish in the border states, and even outright horror and outrage in Kentucky most prominently. I've seen many say that Kentucky was a Union state during the war and a Confederate state during Reconstruction, as their slave-based society was dismantled just like it was the former Confederate states.

- Alan
 
I think it has been discussed innumerable times as to why men fought this war, because they were drafted, they volunteered, they were homicidal maniacs, they wanted to preserve slavery, they wanted to abolish slavery, because it was less boring than farm work.

But if you were a Union Soldier how could you fight to preserve slavery? it is the definition of the house divided.
 
The article is from the Southern Watchman Newspaper July 2nd, 1862 Page 2. I will search for more details. Southern Watchman is a Athens, Georgia Newspaper.
 
The Southern Recorder was a Milledgeville Newspaper.

Southern Recorder, Jun. 24, 1862 -- page 2

The Yankees Turning their Contrabands to Account.

The New York Herald's Fortress Monroe correspondent give that paper an account of the manner in which the negroes who have ran away from their masters and gone into the Yankee lines are being disposed of. The writer says a bark had been lying for some time at anchor near Cape Henlopen. The writer says: " A number of contrabands have been induced daily in go down to work on this vessel, but in no istance have they been allowed to return until 270 Negroes were safely secured on board of the slaver that night, amid the storm and rain, she went out to sea." The correspondent adds,"Most of the contrabands taken are sprightly lads worth in Cuba from $800 to $1,200 each." "Of Course, says the writer, " we learn nothing from Naval officers in regards to this strange affair, an officer in high rank assuring us that thier mouths are sealed in reference to naval intelligence."

This affair, which took place in view of the flag ship, the writer intimates was conived at by the Yankee blockading squadron. We have no doubt that a flourishing slave trade will soon spring up between the Yankees and Cuba. Negroes who prefer to labor in the sugar fields of Cuba to remaining on the plantation home of their Southern master, have only to escape to their Yankee friends, who will furnish them free transportation.


- Savannah News.
 
Here is another article from 1866 talking about the subject.

Southern Watchman, Jan. 17, 1866 -- page 3

Congressional

Washington, Jan 9 - Tee Secretary of the Treasury today communicated to Congress the statement of the Internal Revenue for the 3rd District of Georgia, and earnestly requesting a modification of the test oath; and setting forth the great difficulty experienced in consequence of its provisions in securing proper assistance to transact the business of the department of that section.

Washington Jan. 9 - In the Senate, Sumner offered a resolution to protect the freedmen from being kidnapped and carried to Cuba and Brazil, there to be held in Slavery. He read a letter from persons in Alabama, stating that such had been done, and remarked that Federal Officers were among the guilty parties.

It was moved that the Judiciary Committee be directed to inquire whether any further Legislation is needed to prevent a revival of the slave trade.

Davis had no doubt the Yankees were opening the slave trade, they would do so if money could be made by it.

The resolution was adopted.

Wilson gave notice that he would call a bill Wednesday, to increase and fix the number of men in the regular army; after the executive committee adjourned.
 
Here is another article from 1866 talking about the subject.

Southern Watchman, Jan. 17, 1866 -- page 3

Congressional

Washington, Jan 9 - Tee Secretary of the Treasury today communicated to Congress the statement of the Internal Revenue for the 3rd District of Georgia, and earnestly requesting a modification of the test oath; and setting forth the great difficulty experienced in consequence of its provisions in securing proper assistance to transact the business of the department of that section.

Washington Jan. 9 - In the Senate, Sumner offered a resolution to protect the freedmen from being kidnapped and carried to Cuba and Brazil, there to be held in Slavery. He read a letter from persons in Alabama, stating that such had been done, and remarked that Federal Officers were among the guilty parties.

It was moved that the Judiciary Committee be directed to inquire whether any further Legislation is needed to prevent a revival of the slave trade.

Davis had no doubt the Yankees were opening the slave trade, they would do so if money could be made by it.

The resolution was adopted.

Wilson gave notice that he would call a bill Wednesday, to increase and fix the number of men in the regular army; after the executive committee adjourned.


To be honest with you, Barry, these accounts from the last two posts seem bogus. Lot of passive voice, and no details(names of people or ships) They're written by enemy newspapers with a stake in preventing runaway slaves, and with no access to where these things were supposedly happening. Anytime a newspaper in the 1800s reports on something across the lines, its lector caveat.
 
Another point is that as ForeverFree noted, both sides had criminals, so it would be ridiculous to claim that no crimes ever occurred. The significant question is whether the actions were legal and therefore an example of federal policy.

If we're going to say that all "Yankees" were responsible for the crimes of a minority, and therefore any illegal activity by Yankees should be included in what they were fighting for, there was that underground railroad thing...
 
To be honest with you, Barry, these accounts from the last two posts seem bogus. Lot of passive voice, and no details(names of people or ships) They're written by enemy newspapers with a stake in preventing runaway slaves, and with no access to where these things were supposedly happening. Anytime a newspaper in the 1800s reports on something across the lines, its lector caveat.

I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt. It could be a scare tactic the ship the Kate and Cape Henlopen were named. The correspondent was from the New York Herald. If say there was a trade going on and it was illegal there won't be anything listed in the Official Records. If any slave trade was going on then it was indeed illegal ads mentioned in the 1866 article where Senator Sumner passed the resolution. The only other was to determine if anything is true would be to look at Cuban records to see if slaves or others showed up around that time.

There was a later article where General Grant sought to emancipate the slaves in Cuba.
 
This rumor is discussed by several of the "Gideonites" in Letters From Port Royal (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24722). These are the civilians ( mostly committed abolitionists) who are engaged in the free labor "experiment" to grow cotton on the Sea Islands near Port Royal. These folks certainly commented on events that deprived them of their labor force ( ie, recruitment/impressment of men into the army), but regarded the rumor of slaves taken to Cuba to be sold as a disruptive propaganda campaign undertaken at the behest of the former slave owners. The type of newspaper articles posted above, in the lack of more specific evidence, tend to confirm that viewpoint.
 
In 1860 there were about 4 million slaves, but by 1866 there were zero. Given that the Union _won_ the war, if they were fighting to preserve slavery, they don't seem to have done a very good job of it.
 
Another point is that as ForeverFree noted, both sides had criminals, so it would be ridiculous to claim that no crimes ever occurred. The significant question is whether the actions were legal and therefore an example of federal policy.

If we're going to say that all "Yankees" were responsible for the crimes of a minority, and therefore any illegal activity by Yankees should be included in what they were fighting for, there was that underground railroad thing...

The OP and title refer to "some" not "all." I think there is some legit nuance here.
 
I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt. It could be a scare tactic the ship the Kate and Cape Henlopen were named. The correspondent was from the New York Herald. If say there was a trade going on and it was illegal there won't be anything listed in the Official Records. If any slave trade was going on then it was indeed illegal ads mentioned in the 1866 article where Senator Sumner passed the resolution. The only other was to determine if anything is true would be to look at Cuban records to see if slaves or others showed up around that time.

There was a later article where General Grant sought to emancipate the slaves in Cuba.

The articles are in Southern newspapers, claiming that the New York Herald correspondent reported this. What does the New York Herald actually say? As far as Port Royal in SC is concerned, a strong community of abolitionists settled there, and it seems unlikely such a trade could be carried out, without anyone commenting on it.

I see this is any newspaper reporting across the lines. A Wisconsin paper reporting on troubles among the Confederates in North Carolina would also be suspect.
 
The OP and title refer to "some" not "all." I think there is some legit nuance here.

Oops, yeah. Meant to include that I was referring more to this post than the OP:

At the beginning of the war, the Union goal was keeping the Union together with the least disruption possible. I would argue that at the beginning of the war, all Union soldiers were fighting to keep slavery intact, where it was in the slaveholding states where it already existed. After the Emancipation Proclamation, they were all fighting to abolish slavery.

Individual Union soldiers had their own reasons for fighting, just as individual Confederates did, but like soldiers everywhere, they fought for their political affiliates' reasons no matter what. The Confederacy's goal was always to preserve and expand slavery, and their soldiers always fought for that. The Union goal re: slavery changed in 1863.
 
At the beginning of the war, the Union goal was keeping the Union together with the least disruption possible. I would argue that at the beginning of the war, all Union soldiers were fighting to keep slavery intact, where it was in the slaveholding states where it already existed. After the Emancipation Proclamation, they were all fighting to abolish slavery.

Individual Union soldiers had their own reasons for fighting, just as individual Confederates did, but like soldiers everywhere, they fought for their political affiliates' reasons no matter what. The Confederacy's goal was always to preserve and expand slavery, and their soldiers always fought for that. The Union goal re: slavery changed in 1863.


I don't think this is correct. Federal policy, with the election of Lincoln, meant a change from Buchanan/Pierce. Slavery would be forbidden in the federal territories. Potentially the FSL could be repealed. So federal policy was a mild and indirect anti slavery policy from the start.
 
Back
Top