Why did they fight?

[Lnwlf]

Please remember that this thread deals with why individual soldiers fought and not the greater, more complex issues that caused the war.

Posted as casual Moderator

 

[jackt62]

In 1861 and 1862, patriotic fervor was probably the main reason why northerners and southerners joined their respective ranks, in one case to preserve the Union, and in the other, to proclaim southern independence. But all of the other personal reasons mentioned above also apply.

 

[Greywolf]

But, the States Right of every citizen of the confederacy to own slaves, was the only guaranteed reason for the states fighting, no matter any other personal reason's of any individual.

Yes, we get your point and it has been beaten to death. It is true that the doctrine of the government you fight for makes you guilty in that regard. However, individual reasons are important also. Whether to protect home and family, conscripted, etc. still matters. I seriously doubt a regiment lined up to charge and the thought on all 1,000 men's minds was "we gotta beat them yanks to protect slavery". Don't mean this to be offensive to anyone but i think you are giving to much credit to a highly uneducated, mostly poor, illiterate, majority of the rank and file enlisted/conscripted solder in the south. You cannot demonize an entire section of the country on an individual basis for the sins of the state. It is easy to look upon the past with our modern views, it's not as easy to try and place yourself in their time, and entirely different world.

 

[Will Carry]

You are right about the reason for the states fighting. I was speaking more of individuals and it's completely subjective. I feel like the fear of former slaves "Behaving badly" was part of the propaganda spewed out by the Southern power brokers. Fear is a powerful tool. Look at the media. They are always starting off by saying "Be Afraid!", so you will watch the news. I don't think this worked on everyone.

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi
<side bar>
I don't mean to get too personal but I have to ask about your own service, if you in fact did. I do note your avatar, so I can assume you did. If so, why did you enlist and serve?

I did grow up with the Vietnam war in a private militaristic secondary school. So one could say I was trained but never served. I am a 1954 model and learned ping pong from a one handed adviser back in 1962. So, I was a little young then but could have enlisted ten years later.
</end side bar>

To the ACW topic

I find the ACW debate wholly different from other US conflicts but the states had some standing militias leaning one side or the other, I think part of the State's Rights argument, in part, does relate to those standing militias.

I feel many may look at the Confederacy while entirely looking at cotton farming and slavery with a post earlier listing 33% of the southern homes owning slaves. If true, that means there were 67% of the households that did not. Let's wonder, if we must, about the loyalty of that 67% of households and why those families went to war.

I can find but one instance of my surname associated with slavery, with a preponderance of my paternal ancestors enlisted with the south. At the same time, several in the same state enlisted with the north.

Chees

GC

Lots of reasons for non slave owning whites to enlist in the Confederate Army.
1. They want to someday own slaves of their own.
2. Confederate propaganda emphasized the horrors of racial equality and miscegenation.
3. So they could achieve social status,and date pretty girls.
4. It seemed like fun.
5. One will be hunted down with dogs if one does not enlist. Yes I have sources from the OR and other sources.
Leftyhunter

 

[Glen_C]

Lots of reasons for non slave owning whites to enlist in the Confederate Army.
1. They want to someday own slaves of their own.
2. Confederate propaganda emphasized the horrors of racial equality and miscegenation.
3. So they could achieve social status,and date pretty girls.
4. It seemed like fun.
5. One will be hunted down with dogs if one does not enlist. Yes I have sources from the OR and other sources.
Leftyhunter

Re 3 and 4, those reasons/answers underline my own thoughts on how stereotyped the perceptions are of the Confederate mustered troops.

Missouri seems to be coming up a bit in this thread and as to why someone enlisted one way or the other in MO goes beyond all but one of your 5 point checklists. Take Sullivan and Boone counties as two examples of brothers and first cousins fighting with each other. Convince me that MO Confederates were fighting to light a beacon to draw more slaves to the state. Convince me that those Boone county pastors and politicians were propagating the horrors of racial equality or that if a young man fought, he would surely own slaves. Or, that by enlisting he was assured a bride.

These two counties of merchants and farmers were not by and large slave owners, far from ignorant, nor easily swayed and had some pretty strict morals as far as "dating" went. These were not the plantations of Gone With The Wind and cotillion filled weekends of bbq. One might better be supported by the notion that it provided an opportunity for employment.

So anyway, back to the proportion of slave owners and the reason to fight. How many MO Boone county families owned slaves and sent sons off with hopes their right to own slaves would somehow make their work right? Ignorance of the cause? That there were two governments in MO, one supporting slavery in such a way to draw more to the state?

I read much of the ACW MO truly as more a case of folk not wanting to get pushed around, with the Glory, Glory crusade a reason for sections of MO welcoming the rationale of unity more than the slavery issue alone ("why can't we all just get along" the missing lyric in that song).

Cheers

GC

 

[leftyhunter]

Re 3 and 4, those reasons/answers underline my own thoughts on how stereotyped the perceptions are of the Confederate mustered troops.

Missouri seems to be coming up a bit in this thread and as to why someone enlisted one way or the other in MO goes beyond all but one of your 5 point checklists. Take Sullivan and Boone counties as two examples of brothers and first cousins fighting with each other. Convince me that MO Confederates were fighting to light a beacon to draw more slaves to the state. Convince me that those Boone county pastors and politicians were propagating the horrors of racial equality or that if a young man fought, he would surely own slaves. Or, that by enlisting he was assured a bride.

These two counties of merchants and farmers were not by and large slave owners, far from ignorant, nor easily swayed and had some pretty strict morals as far as "dating" went. These were not the plantations of Gone With The Wind and cotillion filled weekends of bbq. One might better be supported by the notion that it provided an opportunity for employment.

So anyway, back to the proportion of slave owners and the reason to fight. How many MO Boone county families owned slaves and sent sons off with hopes their right to own slaves would somehow make their work right? Ignorance of the cause? That there were two governments in MO, one supporting slavery in such a way to draw more to the state?

I read much of the ACW MO truly as more a case of folk not wanting to get pushed around, with the Glory, Glory crusade a reason for sections of MO welcoming the rationale of unity more than the slavery issue alone ("why can't we all just get along" the missing lyric in that song).

Cheers

GC

A subset of Missourians fought for several years to bring slavery to Kansas. So yes there was I deed a desire to increase the boundaries of slavery by some Missourians.
Some Missourians such has the Youngers joined the bushwackers because their father was killed by the Union troops from Kansas.
The Confederacy is an ideology and there were also Confederate troops from Northern states although not in large numbers per cent of the population.
Also has the author Bruce Nickols pointed out Confederate recruiting commands in Missouri would yhreaten young men with death if they would mot ac ompany the comnsnds south to Arkansas.
So why is it surprising that men from Missouri voluntarily or not would serve in the Confederate Army?
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

Lots of reasons for non slave owning whites to enlist in the Confederate Army.
1. They want to someday own slaves of their own.
2. Confederate propaganda emphasized the horrors of racial equality and miscegenation.
3. So they could achieve social status,and date pretty girls.
4. It seemed like fun.
5. One will be hunted down with dogs if one does not enlist. Yes I have sources from the OR and other sources.
Leftyhunter

The number one reason.

Men and boys may or may not understand the political reasons for war, but one thing they do understand is an invasion or the threat thereof.

 

[Glen_C]

A subset of Missourians fought for several years to bring slavery to Kansas. So yes there was I deed a desire to increase the boundaries of slavery by some Missourians.
Some Missourians such has the Youngers joined the bushwackers because their father was killed by the Union troops from Kansas.
The Confederacy is an ideology and there were also Confederate troops from Northern states although not in large numbers per cent of the population.
Also has the author Bruce Nickols pointed out Confederate recruiting commands in Missouri would yhreaten young men with death if they would mot ac ompany the comnsnds south to Arkansas.
So why is it surprising that men from Missouri voluntarily or not would serve in the Confederate Army?
Leftyhunter

Oh gourd
Missouri was as split during the federal period as it was in the ACW, that is a given. 40 odd years after statehood, little had changed yet the majority of MO slavery was way down south in Dixie, as it were. That leaves most of the states demographic little different than several other western states (Illinois, fer instance).

My points have been targeted to those very northern communities that contributed to and were mustered in by Confederate forces. Even the St Louis/Camp Jackson events leading to civilian bloodshed had more to do with military intervention than racial equality. I believe I mentioned standing militia in my initial post to this thread. I would be repeating myself in pointing out that by the time of the ACW, there was comparatively little slavery in the state and that even the politicians and military of the state were no less moderate in stance than Lincoln himself.

Union control of the state having little or nothing to do with slavery when ushering in martial law controlling the state while very northern non slavery homeowners and merchants gathering in Confederate musters borne out of those local militia. Price and the boys a figurehead of that. A part of that loyalty to those seniors remembered back to the Mexican War.

Kentucky and Virginia the other two major split states as far as musters went and again, more raised against push come to shove amongst many that never had and never would own slaves. A reactionary muster, clamoring and waving a don't tread on me attitude.

To finish as I began this post, the slavery powder keg as volatile before 1820 as it was in 1860. MO was more a matter of Union logistics controlling transportation than fighting to free slaves.

Cheers

GC

 

[BlueNGrey]

Don't forget the power of the women.

In the beginning of the war, Southern women wanted their men to leave — in droves, and as quickly as possible. They were the Confederate Army's most persuasive and effective recruitment officers, shaming anyone who shirked his duty to fight. A young English immigrant in Arkansas enlisted after being accosted at a recruitment meeting. "If every man did not hasten to battle, they vowed they would themselves rush out and meet the Yankee vandals," he wrote of Southern women. "In a land where women are worshipped by men, such language made them war-mad."
New York Times
The Civil War and the Southern Belle
BY KAREN ABBOTT AUGUST 18, 2014

 

[Lost Cause]

How many books are for sale that are all about why World War Two soldiers fought or why World War One soldiers fought? Now compare the number of these book to the number of books about why Civil War soldiers fought.it does make one wonder.

Perhaps, the difference was because countrymen fought or another. There seems to be a more personal level when there were instances of members of the same families and communities on opposing sides.

 

[archieclement]

"I commenced at the first of this war to fight for my country, not to steal from it. I have chosen guerrilla warfare to revenge myself for wrongs that could not be honorably avenged otherwise. I lived in Kansas when the war commenced, because I would not fight the people of Missouri, my native state, the Yankees sought my life, but failed to get me. Revenged themselves by murdering my father, destroying all my property, and since that time have murdered one of my sisters, and kept the other two in jail twelve months"

Capt Bill Anderson

Why he fought in his own words during the war.

 

[Glen_C]

Don't forget the power of the women.

In the beginning of the war, Southern women wanted their men to leave — in droves, and as quickly as possible. They were the Confederate Army's most persuasive and effective recruitment officers, shaming anyone who shirked his duty to fight. A young English immigrant in Arkansas enlisted after being accosted at a recruitment meeting. "If every man did not hasten to battle, they vowed they would themselves rush out and meet the Yankee vandals," he wrote of Southern women. "In a land where women are worshipped by men, such language made them war-mad."
New York Times
The Civil War and the Southern Belle
BY KAREN ABBOTT AUGUST 18, 2014





View attachment 172172

Yet the image relates the Richmond bread riot, well into the war. so not exactly an enlistment drive.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Bread_Riot_Richmond

Cheers

GC

 

[BlueNGrey]

Yet the image relates the Richmond bread riot, well into the war. so not exactly an enlistment drive.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Bread_Riot_Richmond

Cheers

GC

The cartoon named "Sowing and Reaping" shows the dichotomy of the beginning and the end. First when the women sent off their men, and second (the riot) when they have reaped what they have sown. But thanks for your input.

 

[Tin cup]

The number one reason.

Men and boys may or may not understand the political reasons for war, but one thing they do understand is an invasion or the threat thereof.

Some said:
"The vandals of the North… are determined to destroy slavery… We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861
A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed "to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us… We are fighting for rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors." Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863
"I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free [n-word]s… now to suit me, let alone having four millions.'" [George Hamill Diary, March 1862
"Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the [n-word]s." Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864
Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote to his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also "declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens.' So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal." [William Wakeful Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan. 2, 1864.
"the poisonous germ which must have sooner or later brought about a conflict between the two sections of the United States' was Northerners' apparent determination to bar slaveholders from introducing slavery' into the territories." Pvt. John Lyon Hill, Churchville Cavalry (Later Va. Cavalry), diary, 9 Aug 1861, Camp Alleghany, Va.
"adoption citizens stand by your own countrymen and race against the murder and arson, hanging and stealing that were sure to accompany the 'liberation of the half-civilized cannibal." Pvt. Joseph Bruckmuller, 7th TX, Address delivered to other prisoners at Ft. Douglas Prison, Chicago, June, 1862.
"Confound the whole set of Psalm singing 'brethren' and 'sistern' too. If it had not been for them preaching abolitionism from every northern pulpit, I would never have been soldiering." [Pvt. James Williams, 21st AL to wife, 20 Dec. 1861.

I have more quotes from actual soldiers, but I get it that they KNEW, and had a pretty good idea what was at stake, and what was the cause!

Kevin Dally

 

[leftyhunter]

Oh gourd
Missouri was as split during the federal period as it was in the ACW, that is a given. 40 odd years after statehood, little had changed yet the majority of MO slavery was way down south in Dixie, as it were. That leaves most of the states demographic little different than several other western states (Illinois, fer instance).

My points have been targeted to those very northern communities that contributed to and were mustered in by Confederate forces. Even the St Louis/Camp Jackson events leading to civilian bloodshed had more to do with military intervention than racial equality. I believe I mentioned standing militia in my initial post to this thread. I would be repeating myself in pointing out that by the time of the ACW, there was comparatively little slavery in the state and that even the politicians and military of the state were no less moderate in stance than Lincoln himself.

Union control of the state having little or nothing to do with slavery when ushering in martial law controlling the state while very northern non slavery homeowners and merchants gathering in Confederate musters borne out of those local militia. Price and the boys a figurehead of that. A part of that loyalty to those seniors remembered back to the Mexican War.

Kentucky and Virginia the other two major split states as far as musters went and again, more raised against push come to shove amongst many that never had and never would own slaves. A reactionary muster, clamoring and waving a don't tread on me attitude.

To finish as I began this post, the slavery powder keg as volatile before 1820 as it was in 1860. MO was more a matter of Union logistics controlling transportation than fighting to free slaves.

Cheers

GC

Per the Missouri Historical Society approximately 30k men from Missouri enlisted in the Confederate Army vs 110k in the Union Army. Unknown how many Confederate guerrillas in Missouri. An estimated 50k plus men were in various Union militias or homeguards. Obviously some Union militia such has the Paw Paw militia,were actually pro Confederate.
So yes Missouri was a divided state. So was Tennessee approximately 120k in the Confederate Army vs 42k Union Army.
The political leaders of the Confederacy were,quite clear why they were fighting and it all boils down to slavery.
Some Missourians supported slavery and some did not.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The number one reason.

Men and boys may or may not understand the political reasons for war, but one thing they do understand is an invasion or the threat thereof.

What about black Southerners who fought against the Confederacy? We're they afraid of invasion? What about the white Southners in East Tennessee who cheered General Burnside when he liberated Knoxsville, Tennessee?
Also what @Tin cup just posted. Sexual politics is a very powerful recruitment tool.
Leftyhunter

 

[Glen_C]

The political leaders of the Confederacy were,quite clear why they were fighting and it all boils down to slavery.

Price was a politician and was a moderate, as was Lincoln at the onset of the war.

Some Missourians supported slavery and some did not.

Yes, some did not support slavery and did muster with the Confederacy.

Cheers

GC

 

[Glen_C]

The cartoon named "Sowing and Reaping" shows the dichotomy of the beginning and the end. First when the women sent off their men, and second (the riot) when they have reaped what they have sown. But thanks for your input.

You are welcome I guess but the 1863 op ed cartoon and 2014 NYT article may not clearly relate some women's movement in Richmond leading recruitment drives. Nor some majority of women driving companions to war.

Cheers

GC

 

[BlueNGrey]

You are welcome I guess but the 1863 op ed cartoon and 2014 NYT article may not clearly relate some women's movement in Richmond leading recruitment drives. Nor some majority of women driving companions to war.

Cheers

GC

I don't understand how much clearer the cartoon or the article could be. Let me reiterate. The first sentence of the article I posted as reference reads......

In the beginning of the war, Southern women wanted their men to leave — in droves, and as quickly as possible. They were the Confederate Army's most persuasive and effective recruitment officers, shaming anyone who shirked his duty to fight.