Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
- Feb 20, 2005
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
dvrmte,That would be Chandra Manning's small amount of letters used as evidence to show the motivation of every soldier in the Confederate army.
I have read letters and diaries over the past few weeks and some writers never state there motivations. Both sides seemed to just want the war over.
I wonder how many letters she didn't use that just didn't state their reasons or motivations?
I see your objection, along with others, that the sample Manning uses is too small, but I have yet to see any real refutement of her methods by any statistical means by those who find fault with her 'small' sample.
If I may, I would like to introduce another book which contains a similar study.
I take the following from the book, General Lee's Army; From Victory To Collapse, by Joseph T. Glatthaar.
From Chapter 3, The Volunteers of '61, (speaking of the volunteers who enlisted in the Army of Northern Virginia) pg.19-20:
"...Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. Tha contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.
The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by nonfamily members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For the slaveholder and nonslaveholders alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.
More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,6--) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth..."
The author then presented the following to support his views on the above in the section of his book entitled, Appendix I: The Sample, pg. 473-474:
"The sample was designed by Dr. Kent Tedin, the formar chairman of the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston. The sample consists of 600 soldiers who served in Lee's army. Because there was no single list of names, we chose a stratified cluster sample. Each infantry, cavalry, and artillery unit that ever served in Lee's army received a number. I then determined through army strength throughout the war that 81.8 percent of all troops were in the infantry, 11.3 percent were in the cavalry, and 6.9 percent were in the artillery. We then randomly selected fifty artillery batteries and fifty cavalry regiments and seventy-five infantry regiments. We then randomly selected three names from each chosen battery and cavalry regiment and four from each infantry regiment. The sample consists of 150 artillerists, 150 cavalrymen, and 300 infantrymen. The artillery and cavalry samples are large enough to make them statistically significant. The infantry sample is much larger because of the proportion of infantrymen in Lee's army.
I then gathered all the information I could locate on soldiers from Complied Service Records, Census Records, Pension Files, obituaries, county histories, family histories, and other sources. Dr. Michael S. Parks, a professor of Decision and Information Sciences in the Bauer School of Business at the University of Houston, set up an Access Document to hold the data and calculated hundreds of charts based on the data. I then calculated dozens more. All results were determined by branch of service, and the percentage was multiplied by the percentage of representation within Lee's army to provide accurate totals for the army.
Although the sample is not designed to represent the precise percentage of units from each state, that sample does include units from each Confederate state, plus Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia. The breakdown by home state is:
The data were grouped into fifty-four categories ranging from prewar to wartime to postwar. They are: census records found; last name; first name; middle name; branch; unit name; state of unit; company; officer or enlisted man; ranks; other units; year of birth; state of birth; state at time of enlistment; how he entered service; date of entry; martial status; numbers of children; prewar occupation; class status; personal wealth; family wealth; nonfamily wealth; personal slaves owned; family slaves owned; nonfamily slaves owned; occupation of head of household; name of nonfamily head of household; county of soldier; slave-to-white ratio in county; date soldier left service; how soldier left service; battle in which soldier was killed in action; number of times wounded in action; locations of wounds; battle(s) in which wounds occurred; number of absences without leave (AWOL); date of AWOL(s); length of AWOL(s); number of desertions; date of desertion(s); length of desertion(s); numbers of illnesses; types of illnesses; number of time prisoner of war (POW); length of time POW; number of general courts-martial; postwar occupation; postwar residences; location of death; state of death; date of death; manner of death; and general remarks. For some of the data recorded I did not have a separate category. For example, I recorded real property (land) and personal property (all other wealth) from U.S. Census and state tax records, but in the database, I combined them into wealth. Nonetheless, because I recorded them separately, I could calculate how many farmers did not own land, which enabled me to determine how many were tenant farmers..."
The author then presents three charts concerning who owned slaves (personal & family) and who owned slaves (including nonfamily), with lines concerning nonfamily wealth (including and excluding such wealth) along with other charts concerning his sample. Due to formatting problems, I did not present them here, but will attempt to do so if requested.