Why did the AVERAGE soldier fight in the ACW

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

bama46

Captain
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,366
Location
Alabamian, living behind enemy lines in Illinois
Larry, much as we both would wish it otherwise, the mountain men of Tennesee and North Carolina are not reflective of the average Southerner.

No one (or at least very few) answered the call to arms in 1861 to deal with pig stealers, either.

In what way(s) were the men of Tennessee and North Carolina not reflective of the average southerner?

Ed
 

Severon

Cadet
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
475
Location
Good ol' Texas
The main reason for a soldier to fight is based on what side he was on. For Confederates, it was all about protecting the home and loved ones. For the North, it was about preserving the Union (and later abolishing slavery). Motives are powerful things that can drive a man to do desperate things in order to survive his own mind.
 

bama46

Captain
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,366
Location
Alabamian, living behind enemy lines in Illinois
I must admit I do derive a certain grim amusement from the desperate contortion of facts and convoluted reasoning of modern day Neo-confederates to avoid the simple fact that most csa leaders were proud to proclaim to the world, their right to own slaves as their Cause.
Does Rebelrose, believe there would have been a CW if their had been No slaves Or if emancipation had been accepted by the south?


P.S. of course I understand the extreme stress such contortions and convolution does to southern defenders thought processes, but it derives from knowing(or at least suspecting) that they cannot be as pround and truthful as their ancestors were about the southern 'cause' they fought a war to defend.
were the "csa" leaders "average soldiers"...I thought this thread was about why average soldiers fought, not what the leaders believed or said...

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

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,492
Location
Right here.
Academic literature is supposed to present both sides of an issue, so we can acquire a "balanced view" of the subject matter. We're not talking about an editorialized rendition of a subject, i.e. a position paper.
No. Academic literature should give you the truth. We read history to find out what happened, not to pick and choose for ourselves among a menu of possible explanations.


You ask why the South wanted independence from the Union. Let's hear the reason from a couple of folks:

"The cause of the South was the cause of Constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public servants. No nobler cause did ever man fight for!"
(From- The Case of the South Against the North; or Historical Evidence Justifying the Southern States of the American Union in Their Long Controversy With Northern Statesby Benjamin Grady),
Postwar mythmaking. Let's see something from the actual time it happened.

and then there's the words of Robert E. Lee,
"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be admininstered in purity and truth."
(I think they stated the reason better than I ever could).
Postwar mythmaking. Give us what they said from when things were happening, not their attempts to justify things after the fact.


I stated that the Southern States attempted to peacefully withdraw from the Union. Of course there was violence i.e. the vicious threats against Lincoln to the point that he had to secretly enter Washington, D.C. before his inauguration, to insure his safety. Secession wasn't to blame...Lincoln's political positions put him in this dilemma.
Well, Lincoln's position was that slavery was wrong. So that's what put him in that "dilemma."

But I'm referring to violent acts committed by secessionists in various states, in some cases prior to even the state's secession.


The secession of the Southern States would destroy the U.S.Constitution? Give me a break...were the Northern States going to forego the Union, also? I never heard that one before. What proof do you have of such thinking?
Thomas Jefferson, for one.

"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to others. They are circumscribed within such narrow limits, & their population so full, that their numbers will ever be the minority, and they are marked, like the Jews, with such a peculiarity of character as to constitute from that circumstance the natural division of our parties. A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt. But who can say what would be the evils of a scission, and when & where they would end? Better keep together as we are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can, & from all attachments to any portions of it." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 June 1798]

The Federalist Papers for another. See The Federalist 2-13.

Then there are newspaper editorials such as:

THE RIGHT OF SECESSION Cincinnati Daily Commercial, November 14, 1860:

"This extreme doctrine of Mr. CALHOUN has hitherto found little favor among American statesmen or parties. The test to which it came near being subjected, in 1832, rather served to strengthen the opposite doctrine of Federal supremacy, than to give weight to the nullification side. ... While three-fourths of the States are required to amend the Constitution in the smallest particular, the government which it founds may be dissolved, and the Constitution in effect abolished by the act of the smallest member. The right of secession, like the right of nullification, implies that each State has a veto upon all the others. What kind of a confederacy is that, in which a single member rules the majority, under penalty of dissolving the concern? How can treaties be made with foreign powers be valid, if each State has the right to reject, or refuse to be bound by them? On this hypothesis, foreign governments would have to negotiate with each of the United States separately. In short, the doctrine of secession not only violates the majority principle, on which our whole institutions rest, but it is incompatible with the existence of any national government whatever. If the right of secession exists, a federal government having any of the attributes of sovereignty, does not exist, and vice versa."

THE RIGHT OF STATES TO SECEDE New York Daily News, November 16, 1860:

"No decree of a Court can dissolve the States as it can a Corporation. The only power is with the States themselves, and a State once a member of the Confederacy cannot secede without the consent of the others--the majority must rule. If there was any other power to decree the dissolution of the Union, it should be left to that power; but there is none. The General Government cannot coerce a Territory to become a member of the Confederacy. But once having signed the compact and become a member of the Union, it cannot withdraw without the consent of the other members.

"If one State has a right to withdraw, all may withdraw; and we should have loss of name, loss of national existence, civil war, servile war, loss of liberty, and, ultimately, the subjugation and overthrow of the most glorious Republic which ever existed. ... The compact of these States is binding upon all, and the man who attempts to violate it will be responsible to future generations for the misery which his acts produce."

THE RIGHT TO SECEDE Davenport Democrat and News, November 17, 1860:

"We are yet of the opinion that there will be secession on the part of some of the Southern States, but we cannot yet clearly discover how that 'peaceable se[ce]ssion' which is so much talked of, can be accomplished. It will be difficult to secede without nullification, and with it civil war must ensue. Others view the matter differently, but we can see nothing but union or fight, and we fear the latter will be the ruinous alternative."

THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, AND THE UNION Providence Daily Post, November 19, 1860:

"Such being the relation which the States bear to the Union, what utter folly is it to talk of the right of any State to secede! No one State has even the right of revolution. That right belongs to the people of the whole nation. A State or the people of a State may rebel against the government of the United States, but when such rebellion takes place, it will be the duty of the general government to crush such rebellion with all the power given to it by the Constitution. It is to be hoped that no attempt at rebellion will be made by any considerable portion of the people of this country; but there can be no doubt in the mind of any intelligent person as to the manner in which any such attempt should be treated. Our fathers declared their purpose to be 'to form a more perfect union.' If any State can secede at pleasure, our government is but a rope of sand. A successful rebellion or secession a few States now, will be followed by a new rebellion or secession a few years hence, when the States remaining after the first secession shall adopt a line of policy towards some portion of the country, which shall be deemed a cause or made a pretext for a new declaration of independence or an alliance with some foreign power."

THE INDISSOLUBLE UNION Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette:

"The principle for which the secessionists open their case is thus an impossibility while this government stands. To admit their first claim is to upset the whole body of our national theory of government. Complaint on the part of any State is, or may be reasonable, and remonstrance, urgent representation by deputation, and possibly in extreme cases temporary resistance to oppressive laws, may be tolerable and necessary. But all this is conformable to the principles of our system, as well as according to reason and to law. Secession is the very antithesis of this, and almost as much a burlesque of legality as it is absurd in respect of sense."

SECESSION--HOW CAN IT BE ACCOMPLISHED? Washington (D.C.) National Republican, November 26, 1860:

"No Republicans, we presume, and very few Northern men of any party, are ready to concede the right of a State to separate from the Union, and thus bring about its dissolution, at pleasure. ... In short, it is sheer nonsense to talk about permitting a State to secede from the Union. So long as the present Constitution stands, no State can get out of the Union, except by a forcible and successful revolution."

SECESSION Burlington (Vt.) Weekly Sentinel, December 14, 1860:

"If one State has the right to go out from the Union, and thus to destroy the unity and integrity of the government, what State may not go out? And what portion within any State may not secede from the State? Why may not a man declare that his farm or his house, or his shop, in Burlington, is no longer under the constitution and laws of Vermont; that he will pay no taxes, obey no process, &c., in a word, inform the world in general, and the State of Vermont in particular, that he had seceded? The right of secession exists in and under a government, as the right of suicide exists in the individual, and in no other way or manner."

Then there's the President of the United States. Not just one of them.

"The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." [Andrew Jackson, Proclamation Regarding Nullification, 10 Dec 1832]
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,492
Location
Right here.
[begin quote]
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:

"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing the Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant troth to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain."
[end quote] [James Buchanan, 4th Annual Message to Congress, 3 Dec 1859]

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

"Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" [Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 Mar 1861]

On January 22, 1861, the State of Minnesota adopted a resolution that said, in part, "Resolved, That one of the vital and necessary principles which form the basis of all free governments, is that the constitutional majority must always rule. And therefore, the right of the people of any State to withdraw from the Union, thereby hazarding the liberties and happiness of the millions comprising this Confederacy, can never be acknowledged by us under any circumstances.

"We regard secession upon the part of any State as amounting directly to revolution, and precipitating civil war with all its sad train of consequences."

On 29 Jan 1861 the State of New Jersey adopted a series of resolutions that said, in part, "1. Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly Of the State of New Jersey, That it is the duty of every good citizen, in all suitable and proper ways, to stand by and sustain the Union of the States as transmitted to us by our fathers.

"2. And be it resolved, That the government of the United States is a national government, and the Union it was designed to perfect is not a mere compact or league; and that the constitution was adopted in a spirit of mutual compromise and concession by the people of the United States, and can only be preserved by the constant recognition of that spirit."

On 12 Jan 1861 the State of Ohio passed a series of resolutions that said, in part, "1. That the people of Ohio, believing that the preservation of the Unity of Government that constitutes the American people one people, is essential to the support of their tranquility at home, of their peace abroad, of their safety, of their prosperity, and of that very liberty which they so highly prize, are firmly and ardently attached to the National Constitution and the Union of the States.

"2. That the General Government cannot permit the secession of any State without violating the obligations by which it is bound, under the compact, to the other States and to every citizen of the United States.

"3. That, whilst the constitutional rights of every State in the Union should be preserved inviolate, the powers and authority of the National Government must be maintained, and the laws of Congress faithfully enforced, in every State and Territory, until repealed by Congress or adjudged to be unconstitutional by the proper ,judicial tribunal; and all attempts by State authorities to nullify the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the Federal Government, or to resist the execution thereof, are revolutionary in their character, and tend to the disruption of the best and wisest system of government in the world."

And I have more evidence.

You were doing pretty well until you "slipped" and referred to the legitimate delegates sent to Washington, D.C. from first, South Carolina and second, the Confederate States of America, as "criminals". You just can't help yourself, can you?
They were criminals. Secession was an illegal act and they pretended to be representatives of a foreign power. The confederacy was an illegal organization and anyone who operated under the pretense of being a representative of the confederacy was representing a criminal undertaking.


Huh, that's where you find artillery...forts. They're built for protection from "bad guys".
You are trying to dodge the point. That's not an honest way to participate in a discussion. The secessionists surrounded Fort Sumter with artillery pointed at it. And they were looking for ways to attack Fort Pickens as well.


Why can't you give me an answer as to why the North couldn't accept the peaceful secession of the Southern States? Why did over 600,000 lives have to be lost just to keep the Southern States in a Union where they were so disliked?
I did give you an answer. You just don't like it.


I'm sorry you don't approve of Larry Tagg's opinions, but he has a right to his viewpoints, don't you agree? This is the United States of America and we have the First Amendment to protect our freedom of speech.
Again you try to distract by going off on a tangent and by trying to put words in my mouth I didn't say. Not an honest way to discuss things, and it's becoming increasingly annoying. Please drop the dishonest attempts to claim I said things I didn't say.


I read his comments from an interview he gave re: the book I listed as reference.
So then you don't know what he says in the book? Okay. Can you point me toward the interview so I can see the context in which he made his remarks? As I said, the excerpt you provided is a very simplistic statement that doesn't cover Lincoln's position at all.


In all of your extensive "research", you haven't come across any other issues that lead to the outbreak of hostilities between the North and the South? Interesting...I wonder why?
Because there is no other issue at all that had the power to bring on a war.


Since when did the Congressional hearings always involve the issues of concern to the average American? (Aren't you aware of how political leaders "deliberate"...over select "pork-barrel" projects, that one politician can convince another politician to support, and vice-versa?) And since the issue of slavery was not the major concern of the majority of Americans in the antebellum timeperiod, they could've cared less about Congressional hearings involving slavery.
A very weak comeback that very clearly illustrates you have no background at all in the political arguments that led to secession. Your claim it was not the major concern of the majority of Americans is laughably wrong. Americans at the time were very much interested in the issue. For example, it was THE topic of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Illinois. If the voters weren't interested in it, why would the two candidates be arguing about it?


You're attempting to compare "apples and oranges" here. Yes, the political leaders were consumed with the issue of slavery for reasons I have previously stated. However, the average American was not.
Since you don't include the section of my post that corresponds to this, I have no idea what you're responding to. Please get back to me when you can point to the specific portion of my post that this refers to. Your claim the average American had no interest in slavery is simply wrong.

How do you think the political leaders got elected to their positions?

"The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury, however, was neither class tension nor ethnic division. Rather it was sectional conflict between North and South over the future of slavery. To many Americans, human bondage seemed incompatible with the founding ideals of the republic. If all men were created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what could justify the enslavement of several millions of these men (and women)? The generation that fought the Revolution abolished slavery in states north of the Mason-Dixon line; the new states north of the Ohio River came into the Union without bondage." [James M. McPherson, _Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,_ p. 7]




You really like to "nitpick", don't you? I said that slaves were discussed in the U.S.Constitution...what was meant by the 3/5 th's reference? Come on, I know you know the answer.
It says "all Other Persons." That's what it means. All other persons who are not covered by previous status. Unnaturalized aliens could be included in that statement.

But all I said was that the words "slavery" and "slave" were not in the Constitution.


Yes, unfortunately the Bible has been used to defend various positions... many times in direct conflict with each other.
So then your use of it is simply specious.

(Sorta like you do with statistics).
That's a personal attack on me, which is funny coming from someone who has regularly tried to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Please show where I have used statistics to defend various positions in direct conflict with each other or admit that you have just lied about me.


What you really mean to say is that I can be just as sarcastic as you are, when the occasion requires such a technique.
No. What I am saying is that you began with condescension and have stuck with it while decrying it in others. Physician, heal thyself.


I know an insult when I see one, and the use of "Mississippi inbred" is an insult, no matter how the "cookie crumbles". I would hope you are too professional to stupe to such depths to try to make a point.
Once again, read my post. I was using that as an example to show your statement to be the result of fallacious reasoning. I'm sure a professional educator can parse the statement correctly, especially when I said, "Is one person an entire region? If so, then I can safely say the entire south is made up of racist inbreds because I can find one racist inbred living in Mississippi. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on one person in 1875 who may or may not have engaged in slavetrading?"
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,492
Location
Right here.
If you have to use insults to convince someone of your point-of-view, then perhaps your point-of-view is faulty.
Thus far, you're the only one who has insulted anyone in our discussion.



Re: the largest slavetrader in North America, the DeWolf family, was located in Rhode Island, and was involved in the slave trade up until 1875. I first learned of them from a PBS series on the slavetrade, as it existed in the United States.
They had a plantation in Cuba they operated with slaves until 1875. But you are claiming one family is the entire "North." Your "logic" on this is preposterous. Again, Is one person (or one family) an entire region? If so, then I can safely say the entire south is made up of racist inbreds because I can find one racist inbred (or one family of racist inbreds) living in Mississippi. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on one person (or one family) in 1875 who may or may not have engaged in slavetrading?

I've been to Mississippi, and I assure you if I looked through the state I can find one such family. Should I then claim they represent the entire south? That's what your "logic" would lead to. So your specious claim that "The North was involved in the slave trade much longer than the South, because of the outcome of the war" is based on nothing but garbage logic.


Why do you think more people lived in the Northern States than in the Southern States? Would it have anything to do with: 1) the availability of more jobs, i.e. cheap immigrant labor, for the business leaders to profit from,
No, because business was in its infancy during the period of immigration, and there simply weren't enough businesses to do what you claim for the number of immigrants who arrived. All sections of the United States were overwhelmingly agricultural at the time.

and 2) the availability of more land for agricultural use, than was available in the Southern States?
No, because the climate was better for agriculture in the south, and southern areas had plenty of land available in the 1840s.

Oh, I know, you attribute it to the dislike of slavery. Is that correct, Cash?
Most of the immigrants were antislavery.


There had been too much dissension between the North and the South by that time for Southerners to put much trust in the court system.
Stop making things up.


They believed the only solution to their survival was to secede from the Union, which they did, because secession was not illegal.
According to the entire United States legal system it was.


I am well-aware how historians operate,
Apparently not.


Northerners wanted nothing to do with slaves...period. Abolitionists had a problem with the Fugitive Slave Law, not the average American...North or South.
Nine Northern states passed Personal Liberty Laws in direct reaction to the FSL of 1850. Vigilance Committees sprang up across the North. Fugitive rescues were conducted in the North. There was even violence. At Christiana a slave catcher was shot and killed when he tried to capture a fugitive slave from some Quakers. In reaction to the Christiana Riot, the New York Tribune said, "But for slavery such things would not be; but for the Fugitive Slave Law they would not be in the free states."

Regards,
Cash
 

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
Well then, Larry Cockerman, do You think there would have been a CW if there had been no slavery Or if the south had accepted emancipation?
The leadership of the south made the war that the Avg. soldiers on both sides were fighting. Without them(and their stated reason for secession) there would have been no war for soldiers to be fighting At All. (whatever the varied reasons of an AVERAGE(or otherwise) soldier)
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,492
Location
Right here.
More southerner's quotes:

"It is marvellous with what wild-fire rapidity this tune of Dixie has spread over the whole South. Considered as an intolerable nuisance when first the streets re-echoed it from the repertoire of wandering minstrels, it now bids fair to become the musical symbol of a new nationality, and we shall be fortunate if it does not impose its very name on our country."
"The word 'Dixie' is an abbreviation of 'Mason and Dixon's line', as the line separating Maryland and Pennsylvania is called."

Henry Hotze, Mobile Cadets, May 5, 1861​
That's not the derivation of "Dixie." And this doesn't fit with the thread topic.


I was never a Secessionist, for I quietly adopted father's views on political subjects without meddling with them. But even father went over with his State, and when so many outrages were committed by the fanatical leaders of the North, though he regretted the Union, said, "Fight to the death for our liberty." I say so, too. I want to fight until we win the cause so many have died for. I don't believe in Secession, but I do in Liberty. I want the South to conquer, dictate its own terms, and go back to the Union, for I believe that, apart, inevitable ruin awaits both. It is a rope of sand, this Confederacy, founded on the doctrine of Secession, and will not last many years - not five. The North Cannot subdue us. We are too determined to be free. They have no right to confiscate our property to pay debts they themselves have incurred. Death as a nation, rather than Union on such terms. We will have our rights secured on so firm a basis that it can never be shaken. If by power of overwhelming numbers they conquer us, it will be a barren victory over a desolate land. "
Sarah Morgan Dawson
Confederate Girl's Diary, p32.
And what did they mean by "subdue us?" It's the dreaded "abolition doctrine" they are fearing.


"It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes."
Colonel Richard Henry Lee, C.S.A.
Postwar fabrication to justify their acts. Show what they said at the time.

"As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union."
Major General John B. Gordon, from his book, Causes of the Civil War.
Already shown to be a false claim by a guy who has been proven to have lied in his book.

"My shoes are gone; my clothes are almost gone. I'm weary, I'm sick, I'm hungry. My family have been killed or scattered. And I have suffered all this for my country. I love my country. But if this war is ever over, I'll be ****ed if I ever love another country." --- Confederate Soldier During Retreat To Appomattox
Gotta love that slavery, eh? :smile:

"We'll fight them, sir, 'til hell freezes over, and then, sir, we will fight them on the ice."


A Confederate soldier at Gettysburg, in The Civil War by Shelby Foote



Off the topic of the thread.


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

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,492
Location
Right here.
Quotes of Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." ~ Lincoln, on whether blacks – slave or free – should be allowed in the new territories in the west, October 16, 1854.
Taken out of context and has nothing to do with this thread.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Root, hog, or die" ~ Lincoln's suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.[/FONT]​


No, it's not. Also, nothing to do with this thread.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land." ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.[/FONT]
Dishonest claim of "ethnic cleansing." And nothing to do with this thread.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization." ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.[/FONT]
Not all blacks. Those who voluntarily agree. So another dishonest claim. And nothing to do with this thread.

This is nothing more than a troll post.

Regards,
Cash​
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,181
Location
Nashville
Well then, Larry Cockerman, do You think there would have been a CW if there had been no slavery Or if the south had accepted emancipation?
The leadership of the south made the war that the Avg. soldiers on both sides were fighting. Without them(and their stated reason for secession) there would have been no war for soldiers to be fighting At All. (whatever the varied reasons of an AVERAGE(or otherwise) soldier)
Answer to your question: no. I'm also in agreement with your statements following.

I contend that perhaps there was no AVERAGE Confederate soldier. Average has to do mostly with mathematics as I understand the term. Soldiers weren't numbers, alas they were individuals, as many as one could count in a lifetime.

My feeling is simply that the soldiers who fought for their own reasons, whatever they may have been, don't deserve to be bridled with this **** about all soldiers fighting for or against slavery. Survival...... that was the name of the game.

War is evil. Slavery is evil. Going to war against one's own cousins and brothers is a very serious matter. A few million lives and fortunes would have been saved had that not happened. Men were caught up in something that was far bigger than any AVERAGE soldier. They didn't create the mess. Many agreed, many disagreed and some really didn't care. Which one was average? Why worry about it. Let us make sure collectively that it never happens again.
 

Glorybound

Major
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
9,060
Location
Indiana
Ole's on vacation I believe so I'm monitoring the threads a little more closely to help with moderation. There's a fine line between being insulted and not and it looks as though some posts have approached that line and gotten quite close. Please, there's lots of information going back and forth, it's a great thread to learn on, let's keep the sarcasm and the cutting instruments in the drawer, and proceed without them. There's much to learn from this thread. Thanks.


Posted in the capacity of moderator



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

OpnOlympic

Cadet
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
662
If, there would have been no war without slavery, then the fact that there was a war is proof that slavery was the cause of the war.
Every soldierthe ranks of the csa, would be fighting for Independence and Slavery, even if he had no slaves or believed the north more right than the south. Just as every soldier in the Union was fighting to preserve the Union And Emancipation, even if he was the most bitter of racists or believed that the south was more right than the north.
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,181
Location
Nashville
If, there would have been no war without slavery, then the fact that there was a war is proof that slavery was the cause of the war.
Every soldierthe ranks of the csa, would be fighting for Independence and Slavery, even if he had no slaves or believed the north more right than the south. Just as every soldier in the Union was fighting to preserve the Union And Emancipation, even if he was the most bitter of racists or believed that the south was more right than the north.
You still haven't grasped my point or you have chosen not to. Probably my fault, either way. Ain't nobody, certainly not I for one, arguing that slavery didn't cause and or get used as an excuse for starting the war. After that is where I have problems with your post. The SOLDIER wasn't fighting for that stuff (independence, slavery or the northern right), he was fighting to stay alive and to get back home to start the original baby boomer generation. He may have had an emotional state in the stuff you seem to worry about, or he may not. Each and every soldier was different. Trying to generalize that there was an average soldier and that such fictional character fits into a mold making one fill with pride, be it northern or southern, is hogwash. Just an opinion. Like lots of other stuff, we all have one.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by bama46 Expired Image Removed
In what way(s) were the men of Tennessee and North Carolina not reflective of the average southerner?

Ed




They were better looking and were my ancestors.



My Grandmother from Swain County, NC was the purtiest thing in the hills.
It seems that most people in the Appalachian Mountains didn't care much for secession until Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the South. From looking at the records of my Appalachian ancestors, brothers, brother-in-laws and cousins would volunteer on the same day or in groups of 4 or 5. Most volunteered in the fall of 1861 or early in 1862. I'm sure they all left there wives and children in the mountains to fend for themselves just so the Planters could keep their slaves.
Lincoln spoke many times about what he feared would happen if the slaves were just released at once. He knew the trouble it would cause and the southerners knew as well. I doubt anyone has any figures but I'd bet 99% of white Americans in 1860 didn't want slaves released into society with equal rights as whites.

Sincerely,
dvrmte
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
Thomas Jefferson, for one.

"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to others. They are circumscribed within such narrow limits, & their population so full, that their numbers will ever be the minority, and they are marked, like the Jews, with such a peculiarity of character as to constitute from that circumstance the natural division of our parties. A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt. But who can say what would be the evils of a scission, and when & where they would end? Better keep together as we are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can, & from all attachments to any portions of it." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 June 1798]

The Federalist Papers for another. See The Federalist 2-13.

Then there are newspaper editorials such as:

THE RIGHT OF SECESSION Cincinnati Daily Commercial, November 14, 1860:

"This extreme doctrine of Mr. CALHOUN has hitherto found little favor among American statesmen or parties. The test to which it came near being subjected, in 1832, rather served to strengthen the opposite doctrine of Federal supremacy, than to give weight to the nullification side. ... While three-fourths of the States are required to amend the Constitution in the smallest particular, the government which it founds may be dissolved, and the Constitution in effect abolished by the act of the smallest member. The right of secession, like the right of nullification, implies that each State has a veto upon all the others. What kind of a confederacy is that, in which a single member rules the majority, under penalty of dissolving the concern? How can treaties be made with foreign powers be valid, if each State has the right to reject, or refuse to be bound by them? On this hypothesis, foreign governments would have to negotiate with each of the United States separately. In short, the doctrine of secession not only violates the majority principle, on which our whole institutions rest, but it is incompatible with the existence of any national government whatever. If the right of secession exists, a federal government having any of the attributes of sovereignty, does not exist, and vice versa."

THE RIGHT OF STATES TO SECEDE New York Daily News, November 16, 1860:

"No decree of a Court can dissolve the States as it can a Corporation. The only power is with the States themselves, and a State once a member of the Confederacy cannot secede without the consent of the others--the majority must rule. If there was any other power to decree the dissolution of the Union, it should be left to that power; but there is none. The General Government cannot coerce a Territory to become a member of the Confederacy. But once having signed the compact and become a member of the Union, it cannot withdraw without the consent of the other members.

"If one State has a right to withdraw, all may withdraw; and we should have loss of name, loss of national existence, civil war, servile war, loss of liberty, and, ultimately, the subjugation and overthrow of the most glorious Republic which ever existed. ... The compact of these States is binding upon all, and the man who attempts to violate it will be responsible to future generations for the misery which his acts produce."

THE RIGHT TO SECEDE Davenport Democrat and News, November 17, 1860:

"We are yet of the opinion that there will be secession on the part of some of the Southern States, but we cannot yet clearly discover how that 'peaceable se[ce]ssion' which is so much talked of, can be accomplished. It will be difficult to secede without nullification, and with it civil war must ensue. Others view the matter differently, but we can see nothing but union or fight, and we fear the latter will be the ruinous alternative."

THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, AND THE UNION Providence Daily Post, November 19, 1860:

"Such being the relation which the States bear to the Union, what utter folly is it to talk of the right of any State to secede! No one State has even the right of revolution. That right belongs to the people of the whole nation. A State or the people of a State may rebel against the government of the United States, but when such rebellion takes place, it will be the duty of the general government to crush such rebellion with all the power given to it by the Constitution. It is to be hoped that no attempt at rebellion will be made by any considerable portion of the people of this country; but there can be no doubt in the mind of any intelligent person as to the manner in which any such attempt should be treated. Our fathers declared their purpose to be 'to form a more perfect union.' If any State can secede at pleasure, our government is but a rope of sand. A successful rebellion or secession a few States now, will be followed by a new rebellion or secession a few years hence, when the States remaining after the first secession shall adopt a line of policy towards some portion of the country, which shall be deemed a cause or made a pretext for a new declaration of independence or an alliance with some foreign power."

THE INDISSOLUBLE UNION Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette:

"The principle for which the secessionists open their case is thus an impossibility while this government stands. To admit their first claim is to upset the whole body of our national theory of government. Complaint on the part of any State is, or may be reasonable, and remonstrance, urgent representation by deputation, and possibly in extreme cases temporary resistance to oppressive laws, may be tolerable and necessary. But all this is conformable to the principles of our system, as well as according to reason and to law. Secession is the very antithesis of this, and almost as much a burlesque of legality as it is absurd in respect of sense."

SECESSION--HOW CAN IT BE ACCOMPLISHED? Washington (D.C.) National Republican, November 26, 1860:

"No Republicans, we presume, and very few Northern men of any party, are ready to concede the right of a State to separate from the Union, and thus bring about its dissolution, at pleasure. ... In short, it is sheer nonsense to talk about permitting a State to secede from the Union. So long as the present Constitution stands, no State can get out of the Union, except by a forcible and successful revolution."

SECESSION Burlington (Vt.) Weekly Sentinel, December 14, 1860:

"If one State has the right to go out from the Union, and thus to destroy the unity and integrity of the government, what State may not go out? And what portion within any State may not secede from the State? Why may not a man declare that his farm or his house, or his shop, in Burlington, is no longer under the constitution and laws of Vermont; that he will pay no taxes, obey no process, &c., in a word, inform the world in general, and the State of Vermont in particular, that he had seceded? The right of secession exists in and under a government, as the right of suicide exists in the individual, and in no other way or manner."

Then there's the President of the United States. Not just one of them.

"The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure." [Andrew Jackson, Proclamation Regarding Nullification, 10 Dec 1832][/quote]






Off topic. Why do you keep posting this info here? What has it got to do with why the average soldier fought?
Show us some soldiers thoughts during the war. From your former posts you've made it known what someone wrote after the war is myth, so what was wrote by someone before the war must be a myth.
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina


Letters of Union soldier Newton Scott:

http://www.civilwarletters.com/letters_toc.html



HD Quarters Co. E. 2nd Regt Arkansas A. D.
Camp Prentifs Helena Arks
To Miss Han. M. Cone
Dear Friend
I will Inform you with Pleasure that I am well at the Present & I Hope that when this Reaches you that it may find you well I Recd. your letter written May 18th to day I was Glad to Hear from you & that you was well If the letter was writen amonth ago the letter Has Bin to the 30th Iowa Below Vicksburg on account of the Directions not Being Plain. I will Inform you that I Have left the 36th Iowa I left on the 10th inst I am Appointed Ordy Sergt in the 2nd Regt Arks Vols A. D. the A. D. means African Devils Jacob Elder is Capt of my Co. & David M Warren is 1st. Lieut
You Better Beleive that I Have Some Big times with the Darkies. My Duties are much easyer Here than the Duties of a Private Soldier I loose no Sleep & Have no Garding to do
Our Regt is about 300 Strong at Present & will Soon Be full & then I Exspect that we will Go South to Vicksburg Port Hudson or New Orleans
I would love to Be at Home with My Friends But So long as this war last & I Remain in Good Health I Exspect to Stay in the Service & If it Should End Soon I may Stay longer But the Future Can only tell Comeing Events
Well Han I will Inform you that I & Will Had our Pictures taken & Sent one Each to you & Manda By Luint Walker I Suppose that you Have Recd. them Ere this time & when you write again Please tell me If I look anything like the little White-Headed Boy that used to Visit Mifs Hattie Kester
Well Han. you must Excuse my Foolishness For you Know that I allways would gab I See Will P yesterday He was well we are Camped about 1 1/2 mile from the 36th Iowa I pay them a visit every day or two.. I will tell you that the weather is Getting Pretty Warm Down Here now & you may Be Shure that I Stay in the Shade as much as Possible
You Spoke a word or two in Refference to my Darling Hattie & that the Cavalry Boy would Be to fast for me there But If He is I cannot Help it But will Cry If I can Shed a tear. You Speak verry excittingly about your Sabbath School I am Glad to Hear that you are Haveing Such Good times & only wish that I was there with you all to Enjoy the Pleasures of Home & Friends But I can not & Smile not Grumble about it But Do the Best that I can
- - - - - - - -
Well Han I Believe that I Have writen all worth writing at the Present We Have no News from Vicksburg or Below of Interest at the Present more than you Have Heard- - - - - - -
Now Han Haveing Sent you my Picture I will make one Request of you & that is I wish you & Amanda to Have you Pictures taken Both on one Plate If you can get Good ones that way & If not Have them taken Single & Send to me I wrote to Manda the Same Amanda will Pay the Exspense
I will Close for the Present Please give my love to all & Reserve a share for your Self I will give you my address on a nother Piece of Paper & Please write Soon & Direct-Plain
In Friendship love & truth
I am verry Respectfully yours Newton Scott
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,887
Location
South Carolina
Booker Letters at:

http://etext.virginia.edu/civilwar/booker/
Camp near Chambers Burg
Franklin County Pennsylvania

(June the .30. 1863 1


My Dear Cousin) 2



I write you afew
lines this morning which
will inform you that my
self & brother are both well
and geting on finely. and
I much hope this may reach
you in due time and find
you all injoying the best
of health and all other
blesing, I have no news
of importance to write,
we have bin near Chambers
Burg for several days. and I
reaconwe will stay several
days longer, we have quite
a nice time sence we have
bin Pennsylvania in the way
of something to eat we can
get plenty of milk [ &] & butter and
apple butter that is verry good
the citerzens in this country
all seem to be afraid of us
thay treat us verry [ kind] though
I beleave it is don through fear
the most of our Virginia boys
treat them verrykind though
thare is some [ of] our extream
southern troops has treated
the people badley I [ am] sorry thay
do so. it is against [ ed] Gen Lees
orders to interrupt private prop
erty, this is a verry flourishing
looking Country the crops all
look fine. [ the country has]
it has never felt the affect
of the war, though I guess
if we stay here long it will
feel the affect of it, our quater
masters & Commisarys has goten
agreat meney nesarys for our
army sence we have bin in
this state
there is but verry few people
that charge us eney thing for
milk or butter, I beleave that
had aslive give us such things
as to take our money, and thay
are afraid to refuse us while
thay have such things,


the people in this Country are
verry much split up about the
war thay dont unite like our
people do. I dont think this
war can last much longer
if it does I beleave the North
will have war with its self
the Dimocrats say thay will
not take sides with the
abolitionist, thay say we are
fighting for our rights and
the abolitionist are fighting
for money, and I beleave
the Dimerats will raise against
them if the war last much longer,
I am staying at aprivate
house guarding the man &
property he bourds me
free while I stay with
him. I am fairing finely,
I beleave I have writen
enough for the presant
unless it was better than
what it is. So I will
Close you must write to
me soon and gave me all
news the last letter
I got was dated the .13. inst 3
if [ you] dont here from us again
soon you may not be uneasy
for it is verry doubtful about
our mail pasing again soon,
Nothing more but gave my
love to all the family and
share a large portion for your
self,


I remain as ever your
frend and Cousin,

Jimmie Booker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top