What was it that made any slave state more of a sister state to S.C. than any Free State?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#1
Should make for an interesting new thread.
As revealed I believe, by the tendency of the mountainous regions of the South, to remain loyal to the Union. But, more importantly to me, is the question I have asked many times before, What was it that made any slave state more of a sister state to S.C. than any Free State?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
168
#3
I think, quite simply, that their economic and social systems (underpinned by slavery) made Southern states more akin to each other than to sister Northern states.

Having said that, there are significant regional differences across the US at the time, while socially similar (particularly in the reliance on free labour) there were substantial economic differences between the Northwest and Northeast in the years leading up to the civil war.
 

byron ed

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,607
Location
Midwest
#4
Should make for an interesting new thread.
Am I missing something? This seems the most non-question question ever, hardly interesting.

We all know without any doubt whatsoever what it was that made any slave state more of a sister state to S.C. than any Free State: Slavery .

(I'm no genius. It's kind of embarrassing to have to be the one to declare this simple, obvious and correct answer).
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#8
Am I missing something? This seems the most non-question question ever, hardly interesting.

We all know without any doubt whatsoever what it was that made any slave state more of a sister state to S.C. than any Free State: Slavery .

(I'm no genius. It's kind of embarrassing to have to be the one to declare this simple, obvious and correct answer).
Indeed, but we've been at it for 20 years with no sign the interest is abating. You have the right to go do more interesting things if you wish.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
#10
I think, quite simply, that their economic and social systems (underpinned by slavery) made Southern states more akin to each other than to sister Northern states.

Having said that, there are significant regional differences across the US at the time, while socially similar (particularly in the reliance on free labour) there were substantial economic differences between the Northwest and Northeast in the years leading up to the civil war.
Then there was a bonding identification among Southerners as a people different from those from the rest of the country.

“Wartime governor [NC] Zebulon B. Vance later wrote that he “was pleading for the Union with hand upraised when news came of Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops. When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation, it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”

He went on to say: “If war must come I preferred to be with my own people. If we had to shed blood, I preferred to shed Northern rather than Southern blood. If we had to slay, I preferred to slay strangers than my own kindred and neighbors; and it was better, whether right or wrong, that communities and states should go together and face the horrors of war in a body – sharing a common fate, rather than endure the unspeakable calamities of internecine strife… The argument having ceased and the sword drawn, all classes in the South united as by magic, as only a common danger could unite them.”
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#12
...interest in the CW, yes, but not the painfully obvious. That's uninteresting. Do I have to say IMHO?
I am unsure why you are complaining about participating.

However, historians are still debating slavery, lately slave law court cases for example and how intrusive slavery was in federal law. Once we admit it was 'slavery' whole vistas open up regarding how, why slavery was so integrated into the United States and exactly what drove England-> the North to abandon it upsetting the fragile balance of powers that established the United States and kept it together long enough to survive the American Civil War.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
168
#15
Then there was a bonding identification among Southerners as a people different from those from the rest of the country.

“Wartime governor [NC] Zebulon B. Vance later wrote that he “was pleading for the Union with hand upraised when news came of Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops. When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation, it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”

He went on to say: “If war must come I preferred to be with my own people. If we had to shed blood, I preferred to shed Northern rather than Southern blood. If we had to slay, I preferred to slay strangers than my own kindred and neighbors; and it was better, whether right or wrong, that communities and states should go together and face the horrors of war in a body – sharing a common fate, rather than endure the unspeakable calamities of internecine strife… The argument having ceased and the sword drawn, all classes in the South united as by magic, as only a common danger could unite them.”
I think that's generally true, in that many White Southerners (who might not have been fire-eating secessionists) may have been swept up in events and went along because their family, friends, neighbours, etc. were doing so. I certainly agree that many White Southerners saw themselves as regionally, culturally, etc. different from Northerners, but I think the same can be said of many Northwesterners to Northeasterners, etc.

I've heard a lot about the strength of Southern regionalism (particularly as a unifying force), but do you think this was substantially different from the community and regional bonds which united many who fought for the Union and motivated them to fight?
 

byron ed

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
1,607
Location
Midwest
#16
I am unsure why you are complaining about participating.
I wasn't complaining. I merely said it was kind of embarrassing to have to be the one to declare such a simple, obvious and correct answer (i.e Slavery) to the question "what it was that made any slave state more of a sister state to SC than any free state?"

...historians are still debating slavery, lately slave law court cases for example and how intrusive slavery was in federal law...
?? Historians are not debating slavery. They all agree what slavery is. Anyway there's no relevance in a conversation about South Carolina and it's relationship to its sister states, that I can see. Whether slavery had been intrusive in federal law was not something South Carolina was concerned with any more. It was seceding and joining a Confederate nation with new laws whereby slavery was not intrusive.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
18,128
Location
Laurinburg NC
#17
I think that's generally true, in that many White Southerners (who might not have been fire-eating secessionists) may have been swept up in events and went along because their family, friends, neighbours, etc. were doing so. I certainly agree that many White Southerners saw themselves as regionally, culturally, etc. different from Northerners, but I think the same can be said of many Northwesterners to Northeasterners, etc.

I've heard a lot about the strength of Southern regionalism (particularly as a unifying force), but do you think this was substantially different from the community and regional bonds which united many who fought for the Union and motivated them to fight?
I didn't mean to imply Southern identity as a people was unique to Southerners, only that is why the majority of Southerners stood together in the face of danger. The same instinct has always been present among cultures throughout history, it wasn't anything new..
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
33,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#18
I wasn't complaining. I merely said it was kind of embarrassing to have to be the one to declare such a simple, obvious and correct answer (i.e Slavery) to the question "what it was that made any slave state more of a sister state to SC than any free state?"



?? Historians are not debating slavery. They all agree what slavery is. Anyway there's no relevance in a conversation about South Carolina and it's relationship to its sister states, that I can see. Whether slavery had been intrusive in federal law was not something South Carolina was concerned with any more. It was seceding and joining a Confederate nation with new laws whereby slavery was not intrusive.
"embarrassing " seems akin to complaining IMHO, just remember you have the right not to participate if it embarrasses you. Thanks for the remainder of your comments.
 

JAGwinn

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
696
Location
Bloomington, IL Corvette Gold
#19
There are certainly exceptions, but, the population of the South moved from the coast to the West - South West and in the simile of One Large Family with a large common blood line.
In New England, Groups of immigrants from Europe came in waves, ie., Scotts, Poles, Italians, Germans and moved inland mostly in the Northern States that had geography similar to Europe.
Like I said, there were exceptions, such as the Jew in Georgia and the Scotts in the Carolinas.

The blood connection was stronger in the Southern than the Northern. The South was run like a family farm and the North like a business with a board of directors and with Unions.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
168
#20
I think the question of what bound the sections together is a really interesting one. I certainly agree that slavery (as both an economic and social factor) was the primary bond that made slave states more akin to each other than to free states.

But I think there are other elements that bound White Southern society together. Here's a few items for discussion:

I think as @CSA Today pointed out, regional/community bonds were significant and very powerful in dividing North from South.

Among the elites of the sections, you find differences in how they culturally viewed themselves and each other:
  • Generally Northerners saw themselves as industrious, pious and frugal. Whereas they saw the South as generally luxurious, lax and extravagant.
  • Southerners tended to view themselves in the Cavalier tradition, that is chivalrous, noble and honorable versus Northerners who were greedy, false and uncharitable in their view.
In the North (again especially in the Northeast) a larger proportion of the population lived and worked in urban/industrial settings. Whereas the larger proportion of White Southerners were rural, yeoman farmers.

Related to this, the North was significantly more industrialized than the South, where the economy was dominated by agriculture. So, the economies of the two sections had traveled in entirely different directions (largely, of course, because of the implementation of slavery).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



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