To be fair, however, it wasn’t really loyalty to the Union that motivated the Winstonians. It was more of a complete detachment from and disinterest in the secession.
Talk about your mixed blessing! Am I right, rest of the world, or am I right?
When I lived in Louisiana, I had the definite impression that while there was a statue of a general in downtown Lafayette, most of the Cajuns had nothing to do with the war, living in the middle of the swamps and being hard to get to, or vanishing into the swamps when necessary.
Perhaps with some, but there was far more than disinterest. They supplied about a third of the 5,000 or so Alabamians who fought for the Union (about 1,200 infantry and 200+ cavalry) and referred to themselves as Southern Unionists. Some joined immediately, others joined after they were harassed by guerrilla units for their refusal to contribute men and supplies to the Confederacy, but they saw very heavy action. (Ironically their last engagement resulted in their capture by [my great-great-grandfather’s unit] the 51st Alabama Cavalry days before Johnston surrendered.)
Having lived in Johnson County, TN (the north-eastern tippy point of the state), Sampiro, I thought it was all of eastern TN. At least that’s what a Civil war re- enactor (TN Union sergeant) told me who lived in Bristol, TN. It was his contention that eastern TN would have broken away (ala West Virginia from Virginia), had it not been a strategic transportation hub for the south.
Thoughts?
I think y’all are exagerrating a bit here. For instance, a statement like “the vast, vast majority of Southerners didn’t own slaves” can be mathematically true, but very misleading.
Let’s look at South Carolina. South Carolina was, as previously noted in the thread, the most ardently pro-Confederate, anti-Unionist of the states; the first to secede. Not coincidentally, South Carolina was also, by almost any measure, the most heavily invested in the institution of slavery. And yet, of the total population of South Carolina in 1860 (703,708), a mere 26,701–about 3.8%–were slaveholders. (All data from the 1860 census, from the United States Historical Census Browser at the University of Virginia Library). Now how the heck did less than 4% of the population get the whole darned state to secede over their “peculiar interest”?
Well, to start with, less than 4% of the population of South Carolina were slave owners, but 57% of the population were slaves; another 1.4% were free blacks, with the white population making up only a little over 40% of the total population. Right there, that indicates that even non-slave owners amongst the white population might have an interest in slavery; free all those slaves, and all of a sudden the white folks are going to be outnumbered–and outvoted if you don’t just free the slaves but also make them citizens. And of course almost any white South Carolinian in 1860, whether or not he owned slaves, would likely be convinced that freeing 400,000 slaves would result in Haiti-on-the-Congaree–looting and pillaging and “Negroes” making off with the flower of Southern damselhood. Note also that all of a sudden the percentage of slave owners of the white population climbs dramatically, from less than 4% to over 9%. (Some parts of the South did have black or mixed-race slave owners, particularly Louisiana. Even there it was not the norm–that is, most slave owners were white–and in most of the South outside of New Orleans, slave owners were even more likely to be white.) Slaves, of course, were not consulted in the debates as to whether or not South Carolina ought to secede. (I don’t reckon the less than 10,000 free blacks in 1860 South Carolina got a vote either.)
Secondly, even now we don’t consult little children on such weighty matters as secession and war. “Free, white, and 21”, as they used to say. I believe the age of inheritance of property back then would have been 21; the census data categories for age go from “15-19” to “20-29”, so there’s going to be a little slop in the data here, but the adult white population of South Carolina in 1860 (that is, 20 years old and up) was around 137,000; slave owners made up about 20% of that group. Far from a majority, to be sure, but not the tiny, tiny minority of rich swells that some people seem to envision, either.
Finally, in 1860 women didn’t vote, North or South. The total number of adult white males in South Carolina in 1860 was a little over 68,000. The slave owning population of South Carolina would come to just under 40% of the adult white male population. Now, I honestly don’t know exactly how property and gender worked in South Carolina in 1860–I believe instances of a woman controlling property would be rather rare, but I know any number of influential men in American history in the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Antebellum periods got control of substantial estates by marrying rich women (especially rich widows). I really don’t know how a married female property owner would be counted in the census–she wouldn’t control her property, but I guess the census would still count her as owning her property.
So, in 1860, somewhere between 20% and 40% of the electorate in South Carolina owned slaves. This is not an inconsiderable number. Throw in the fact that even non-slaveowners might have a direct economic interest in the slave-based plantation economy (in the same way that in east Texas a real estate agent, an owner of a Cadillac dealership, and a seller of cowboy hats all have a direct stake in the price of oil, even though none of them owns a single oil well). Throw in the fact that non-slaveowners might have non-economic interests, real or imagined, in the maintenance of a system of white supremacy, in a state where the majority of the population were oppressed blacks. It’s not at all clear that the secession of South Carolina was a case of some tiny minority of plutocrats forcing their will on the “vast, vast majority” of the electorate who got a voice in deciding the matter.
South Carolina, as said, was the most heavily enslaved of all the states. The only other state where a majority of the population were slaves was Mississippi. (Probably not a coincidence that Mississippi was the second state to secede, either. They were pretty damned clear about why they were seceding, too.) The other Southern states ranged from having slave populations of over 40% (in most of the other Deep South states), to 25 or 30-odd% (in the second, post-Sumter wave of seceding states: Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia), to 10 or 20% slaves in the divided states of Kentucky and Missouri. A similar gradient can be seen for the proportion of slave owners among the adult white population–unsurprisingly, Georgia, where almost one-sixth of the adult white population owned at least one slave, seceded more quickly than Arkanas, where less than one voting citizen in ten was a slave owner.
Oh, yes: in 1860 there were very damned few white Americans, North or South, who were not racists by our standards. Nonetheless, the Republican Party–whose coming to power in the 1860 election precipitated the secession and the war–was born as an anti-slavery party. Not necessarily pro-black, it’s true, but definitely opposed to slavery, regarding slavery, and especially the expansion of slavery, and the “Slave Power” in general, as dangerous to liberty, republicanism (in the “small-r” sense), and American ideals, and conversely tending to spread corruption and tyranny. It was because the North elected an anti-slavery party to control of the national government that the South seceded. Clearly, more of the Northern population than a few religious hippie-dippie abolitionists gave a shit about slavery: enough Northerners gave a shit about slavery to vote an anti-slavery political party into power.
And although it’s often claimed that “gee, slavery was on the way out anyway”, Southerners were sufficiently enamored of the institution that they chose to seek to destroy the Union and fight the bloodiest war in American history, rather than put up with a party which sought merely to contain slavery, never mind “rollback”. So to suggest that absent the war Southerners would have just voluntarily given up on slavery in 1870 or whenever is, at best, mere speculation.
I had one more skin cancer removed yesterday morning; it left a hole about the size of a quarter in the side of my neck. To say I was feeling cranky when I posted what I did doesn’t cut it nor does it excuse my combativeness re your post. The GWTW crack was way out of line, even for the pit, and I apologize. The comment re your use of the word “tow” in place of “toe” was spite and nothing more nor less.
I still dispute the claims that the majority of southern hard scrabble farmers lusted after slaves, though. I’ll grant that most hard scrabble farmers lusted after more land; I’ve never met a farmer, no matter how prosperous, who didn’t. As they say, I only want the land that adjoins mine. Still, when a man can only afford the bare minimum of land needed to eke out an existence, there simply isn’t enough land to support an additional hard working adult; in other words, there wouldn’t be enough subsistence for a slave. Plus, plenty of poor white hard scrabble dirt farmers actively hated blacks simply because many black slaves were better off than he was; since whites were better than blacks (according to the idea of the times) how dare a black be better off than a white?
As to Time-Life purporting to accurately report on conditions and ways of thought that existed in the south prior to, during, and immediately after the Civil War I have to consider that Time-Life was after the largest number of purchasers of their publications; I don’t think they are beyond telling those potential customers what they want to hear.
I don’t remember Ken Burns stating that the average poor white lusted or honed or hankered for slaves and I haven’t read your other source. I remain unconvinced on that score. As for your claim that vast numbers of poor whites did end up buying slaves to get ahead, I simply don’t see vast numbers of them overcoming poverty to that extent; slaves were much more expensive than most farmers of that time earned in several years; see Sampiro’s excellent post regarding prices of slaves vs livestock vs real property.
Forgive me. This sort of BS makes my blood boil. I am a White Southerner, as a group we have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of. It is rare to meet one of us who has enough common sense to tell one from the other.
Sherman is a hero to me. I do not want his name soiled. Here, quoted at length is Sherman’s letter to the people of Atlanta. Tell me if this sounds like genocide. Bolding is mine.
*HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION of the MISSISSIPPI in the FIELD
Atlanta, Georgia,
James M. Calhoun, Mayor,
E.E. Rawson and S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta.
Gentleman: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.
**You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. **
We don’t want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation.** I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different.** You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.
**But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter. **
Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding*
Sampiro, to the best of my knowledge, Middle and the southern part of East Tennessee were both involved in the war. There was the Battle of Lookout Mountain in East Tennessee. Much of the Battle of Nashville was not far from where I live. There was the Battle of Franklin about twenty miles away and the Battle of Stones River about thirty-five miles away. Shiloh is further toward the west. It may actually be in West Tennessee.
Maybe I misunderstood your post.
Eleanor, most Southerners aren’t into the Confederate flag all that much. It makes me wince when I see it used. But I can certainly understand the interest in the history. The battles were fought in our neighborhoods. Our churches served as hospitals. Many of our homes were occupied by our ancestors. We can compare notes and stories and letters and trace common threads even with new friends.
I think most high schools and universities have gotten away from using the Confederate flag, the Rebel figure, and playing “Dixie.” (The later is a shame. That was a good song.) Are there any that still do?
My grandfather was a Confederate soldier, but he knew that the right side won. His participation has had a direct influence on my life even though I never knew him.
Except other nations would inevitably have gotten enmeshed in alliances with either side that would have made more widespread war likely (Britain dabbled in this with its Southern strategy during the Civil War).
And without a united American intervention in World Wars I and II the world map would probably look a bit different now, and not in a blessed sort of way.
I think this issue could be more honestly debated if we lose the smug Yankee denial as well as the stubborn Southern pride.
Rather then being “end of story”, this is a false statement. Approximately 2% of Union soldiers were draftees, and another 6% were substitutes hired by draftees. About 20% of Confederate soldiers were drafted.
You’ve got to be kidding. The American slave population increased by 23%, from 3.2 million to 3.95 million, during the 1850’s, and white Southerners were as fanatically devoted to it in 1860 as they had been at any time in American history. The number of slaves, the acreage worked by slaves, and the value of slaves were all trending upward in the 1850’s, and slaves were being employed in increasing numbers as factory laborers, especially in the upper South. The South had their eyes on the remaining western territories, Cuba, the Caribbean, and central America as fields for further expansion. Nobody, north or south, black or white, thought slavery was dying in 1860.
DOn’t worry about the comments. I don’t hold grudges. And I sincerely hope your mdical problems turn out AOK.
First, a great many non-slaveholding/poir soil areas were centers of pro-union sentiment. This is true. However, their impact and power was essentially nil. They had no political, economic, or cultural heft.
You can argue that, but their information is all cited and sourced propely and does not disagree with any other sources I have read. Sure, there are some small discrepancies for differing levels of analysis, but no more than I would expect from any two seperate publications.
Actually, that was a source for the Civil War generally. Honesatly, I’ve read more than I can count and would have to start tracking the titles down at the library if you wanted specific cites. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom does a very good job of exploring the causes of the war and notes the influence of the planting classes. I recommend it for almost any Civil War purpose; it’s just that good.
I didn’t say they could afford it easily, but take a look at the settlement of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana* in the Antebellum era. Relkatively poor individuals borrowed money, invested in land, and began cotton and sugar production. It was simply the only way to get ahead. And this affected everyone.
*Louisiana, of course, was settled long before, but the Antebelum era and statehood brought many new settlers and vastly expanded the populated area of the state.
Note how few economic alternatives the South had - few cotton mills, few industries, almost all manufactured goods bouthg from the north, fewer higher education institutions (though some very high quality ones). If you wantd to get ahead or leave poverty, slavery was the way to do it. And this is backed up by the extensive family networks which developed. A rich planter most likely had fairly close poor relatives. Mary Chestnut (rich planter lady) and another-Civil-War diarist-whose-name-I-can’t-recall-(but who was a city-dwelling middle-classer) and-will-try-to-look-up had many of the same names in their journals and grieved for the same people of different social classes altogether. Many of them came from the lower classes and worked their way up (which, intrinsically, I think is a good thing) and retained their family ties.
This generally was a time of great economic expansion and huge opportunities. You see the expansion of the US itself, the rise of big business. Look at Lincoln’s rise from farmer to country lawyer to local politician to state politician to president. Jefferson Davis’s ancestors weren’t terribly wealthy, but through hard work and connections he obtained a plantation and some wealth through it.
I am of two minds regarding Sherman.
On the one hand, his men burned an ancestor’s farm in Eastern North Carolina. She was a Quaker whose husband volunteered to provide medical assistance to the militia. She probably would have provided supplies and quarters had she been asked. According to her diary, they just took and burned.
On the other hand, he prevented his men from rioting and burning occupied Raleigh when news of Lincoln’s assassination reached them.
I am glad the North won the war. The Union was stronger as a result. Reconstruction could have gone a lot better. On a more personal note, had the south won, I doubt very much my “Connecticut Yankee” Mother would probably not have gone to college in North Carolina where she met my Father.
An argument could be made that life under slavery was better than life under Jim Crow.
Of course, one could also argue that having your face smashed in by a jackboot is better than having your back broken by a baseball bat.
I think Sampiro was saying that the people in middle in middle and east TN actually formed union regiments. The battle of Shiloh was fought in West TN, near the MS border, not too far from Jackson, TN.
That wa the point. They weren’t after plunder, exactly, or even shelter, or food. They were after the total economic destruction of the South, and to punish South Carolina (it’s possible they got confused about their location, and generally respected property in North Calorina). It was a method of total war in order to not-entirely-figuratively break the back of the the Confederacy. It denied civilians the means to resist by guerrilla warfare, forced them to leave union-controlled areas and thereby increase resources strain else, destroy the resources which existed, starve the armies of men and materials, cut and destroy transportation, and obliterate civilian morale.
It worked, and at a suprisingly low level of civilian casualties, too.
Hey–Atlanta was already burning when Rhett & Scarlett left. That was before Sherman arrived.
“Historical preservation” is an afterthought in busy, growing cities. (As a Houstonian, I ought to know.) Quaint Old Buildings survive longer in sleepy, stagnant backwaters.
I like many things about the South, but the War of Northern Aggression stories nauseate me. Fortunately, Quaint Old Ideas are also less relevant in non-stagnant areas.
[look of distaste] So what you’re saying is, you’re Irish? [/look of distaste]
d&r
Oh yeah. I somehow managed to forget for 2 seconds how you saved all our butts in WW2. Anyways, this is a convo more suited to a thread on Harry Turtledove. 
My ancestry, near as I can tell, is Irish, German, English, French, and African. Our family motto is “Erin uber bloody alles mon nizzles”.