Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[ole]

You're suggesting that Russell is an unreliable source? Well, that's brave of you - given that the received wisdom is that his diary is one of the most trustworthy sources on the first year of the war.

William Russell placed himself solidly on the side of the Confederacy. I am more than suggesting that he was an unreliable source. His diary is a good source of information, but it is very slanted.

The surest way of determining why the victors went to war is to analyse what they did with their victory once it was achieved. I have supplied you with a range of primary and secondary sources which suggest what the war was fought for; I'm really only going to sit up and take notice when you counter these with sources of your own. Your unsupported personal opinion, while interesting, is intrinsically valueless. I don't mean that to be offensive: it's equally true of all our personal opinions.

Very nice comeback, but I'm not convinced that the surest way to determine determine "why the victors went to war" is of any value. Things change. They almost always do. And naming the postbellum movements as proof of antebellum intent doesn't fly. And you are quite correct, we are talking of  personal opinions.

Bruce Catton, who was hardly a "Lost Causer", gave his opinion that "Russell was a reporter of the first rank - a good deal better, it would seem, than any of the Americans who were practicing the art at that time, if only because he was better able to assume a detached point of view."

Russel was, indeed, a reporter of the first rank, but he had a bend toward the Confederacy that can't be readily denied.

Bruce Catton, who was hardly a "Lost Causer", gave his opinion that "Russell was a reporter of the first rank - a good deal better, it would seem, than any of the Americans who were practicing the art at that time, if only because he was better able to assume a detached point of view."

And here you've given a snippet of a partial comment from the the grandest OLD man ever to casually observe the USCW. Russel was hardly a dispassionate observer.

What you've presented is a quote from an editorial, and there are many sucb panic-stricken editorials in the Chicago Tribune, an observation of a statement of an unkown person by an English reporter, and a few snippets from a historian who is noted primarily for his conviction that the North was wrong.

This is not convincing, Miss Catherine. You've presented an editorial from an alarmist newspaper, a "quote" from a southern-leaning Englishman, and comments from a historian who is known for his leadership of revisionist history.

All of which ought to be taken respectfully. However. none of which reaches beyond 3 guys' opinions. This is not conclusive first and second sources. The case is not made.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

"William Russell placed himself solidly on the side of the Confederacy."

I think you're absolutely, unambiguously wrong about this.

Russell was reviled in the North because he insisted on telling the absolute truth about what he saw during the debacle at 1st Manassas.

But he was equally reviled in the South because he made no effort to hide his extreme distaste for slavery.

Here's a challenge for you: please find me one sentence in his diary which indicates a prejudice in favour of the Confederacy.

As for Avery Craven, it is worth pointing out that he was a native of Iowa who spent his entire career teaching at Northern universities. Those very few Americans who can examine their own region of origin with a critical eye are worth paying attention to. Craven despised the extremists on both sides but that, I'm afraid, is enough to brand him  a Southern sympathiser in the eyes of many Northerners. That the belief in blame attaching to both sides could be called "revisionist" says a great deal about the stifling pro-Northern orthodoxy which prevailed in American academia during Craven's early career.

[ole]

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil-war-history-secession-politics/25810-money-cause-73.html#post77514

Try this link for the opinions of more than one historian.

ole

[Johan Steele]

But I am bound to say that, in my experience, this viewpoint is hugely outnumbered by more patriotic sentiments. A typical example comes from the pen of the truly remarkable South Carolinian, Berry Benson:

Oh, how it thrilled the heart of a soldier, when he had been long away from the army, to catch sight  again of its red battle flag, upheld on its white staff of pine, its tatters snapping in the wind! A red rag, (there be those who will say), - a red rag tied to a stick, and that is all! And yet - that red rag, crossed with blue, with white stars sprinkled the cross within, tied to a slim, barked pine sapling, with leather thongs cut from a soldier's shoe, this rough red rag my soul loved with a lover's love.

[Benson, Berry Benson's Civil War Book, p.24.]

  Two things, the soldier certaily isn't spouting love of country there but love of comrades, I suspect, a far more common instance than love of the CS.  There was far more affection for the battle flag than the CS National.

Most importantly though desertion rates do not bear out your premise.  Upwardsw of 60% of the CS Army were deserters, All enlistments were expanded to "the duration" instead of 3 mos, a yaer or three year like the US and the CS was forced to resort to conscription when?

More than just US Revisionists knew the CS was about slavery... Sam Watkins was not alone w/ his mention of the 20 slave exemption from service caveat and he was not the only one less than impressed w/ the CS govt.  R.E. Lee comes to mind.  ...all they can do is eat peanuts and argue while my army starves.

[BorderRuffian]

Upwardsw of 60% of the CS Army were deserters

Total nonsense.

There is nothing that supports such an outlandish statement.

[Johan Steele]

In retrospect I worded that poorly, and I apologize.  Suffice it to say though that desertion was a severe problem for the CS.

From 1863 desertion had been a severe problem but never really epidemic.
By the fall of 64 w/ the fortunes of war turning against the CS the ANV had a serious issue w/ desertion, many commands approaching 50%.  At the same time the AoT CS had a similar problem and several commands in the trans Mississippi were far worse.  In 1865 the situation only worsened w/companies and the remenants of Regiments deserting en masse.
A goodly portion of the was "French Leave" and straggling where men would return to their commands... but they were AWOL often at times when they were desperately needed.  By the fall of 64 it has been estimated that there were 10,000 CS deserters and draft evaders hiding in Georgia alone (for years I thought that number suspect but have come to accept it as plausible).  10,000 men that voted w/ their feet.  In parts of Alabama & Texas CS onscription parties took their lives into their own hands by venturing into areas where deserters and draft evaders were better organized & armed than the CS army in the area.  I believe I got my numbers from Newton's Lost for the Cause the Confederate Army of 1864 desertion problems are also mentioned in A Brotherhood of Valor: the Common Soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, C.S.A., and the Iron Brigade, U.S.A by Wert.

RE Lee at one point (1864 IIRC) said that desertion was costing his army more men than the enemy.

[ole]

Total nonsense. There is nothing that supports such an outlandish statement.

I have heard the same number Border, but don't know if it is one of those things that are repeated often and without challenge.

Desertion was always a problem, even in the antebellum US Regular Army (I read 32 percent, somewhere.) It's not like the Union army didn't have a problem with it, but when Hood left Tennessee, he left a goodly portion of his Tennessee boys behind without his permission.

As Johan mentioned, many of the boys took "French Leave" and came back at some point. Many of them didn't.

I think the 60 percent figure applies mostly to when the AoNV was bottled up at Petersburg. Unlike their leaders, many of the soldiers could read the handwriting on the wall and went home. Far too many of them.

Here's an interesting factor to consider: If Sherman hadn't cut the Georgia supply, and then the South Carolina supply. How long could Lee have held out at Petersburg?

ole

[ole]

Consider that very nearly all were volunteers or conscripts, on both sides. These were not professionals but occasionals. And the occasionals and volunteers had their own ideas about service. When it was time to plant, a great many went home to plant. And whe it came time to harvest, a great many went home to harvest. Most came back. Many didn't.

However great the motivation or dedication to one's buddies, the necessity of getting home was overwhelming. Much of the desertion statistics incorporated those who vanished for several weeks.

[Catherine Hopley]

Sorry for the delay in replying...I've been busy doing other things.

The link which Ole supplied was interesting, in its way, although hardly full of surprises.

Unionblue quotes an historian who asserts:

"In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."

In fairness to that historian, there may have been more to his argument than Unionblue quoted. But, as it stands, that quote is a mere assertion - it doesn't constitute evidence of anything. Anybody can do that. I could assert that the Second World War had nothing to do with the German desire for lebensraum; I could assert that the English Civil War had nothing to do with religious fanaticism. I'd be wrong in both cases, but there's nothing to stop me making the assertion.

The predominant theme on that thread is that the war was caused by slavery. Well, let's look at the evidence:

1. The U.S. government was the pro-active party in starting the war, in that it decided to invade the Confederacy. The Confederacy's role was passive.

2. The U.S. government made it crystal clear at the time that it was not fighting for the purpose of freeing the slaves.

3. So, if the U.S. government invaded for a reason - and that reason was not slavery - it surely follows that it invaded for a different reason.

This isn't rocket science, you know. 

[Johan Steele]

No it isn't rocket science and if one were to actually look at the facts and at history the US was not the first to invade.  Apparently, it is a contention eagerly put upon the US in an effort to make the US the bad guy, been there done that so often it's trite.  The first invasions were in fact CS w/ CS soldiers from other states in polling places throughout the South.  Virginia's and Tennessee had their minds made up for them and judging from the reactionof those in what is today West Virginia it was not necessarily a welcome or what they felt legitimate vote.

It has been said, w/ some legitimacty, that only 25% of the Colonists supported rebellion against the King during the Revolution.  I do not believe more than 30% of Southerners supported Secession, perhaps less.  If 180,000 southerners served in the US military that cannot be a shrill and groundless charge.  Large areas of very pro US or anti CS existed throughout the CS.  Large areas of Georgia, NC, TN, Virginia, TX, Alabama, Florida etc w/ every state of the Cs providing troops to the US Army.  All had areas of such pro US feeling that CS troops, politicians and conscription parties took their lives into their own hands when entering them.

One thing that is very intriguing is in any study of the areas of pro US feeling one will discover a lack of slave ownership, an almost total lack of such.  A quick look upon the govt of the new CS will find almost no non slaveowners in high positions in govt.  The question then becomes if slavery had nothing to do w/ Secession why then were so many non slave areas so pro US?  Did those living next to the slaveocracy see something some of the modern era choose to ignore?

Ft Sumter cannot be viewed in a vacuum, it must be looked at in context.  She was neither the first US military or govt installation to be taken by arms.  In fact a whole host of actions that many a nation would consider an act of war had been taken upon the US prior to the first lanyard being yanked.  I assure anyone that had Spain assaulted Gibraltor England would have considered such an act of war and acted accordingly.  Scores of forts and arsenals, several mints and approx 1/3 of the US Army were unlawfully imprisoned by a self styled, and arguably illegal, govt that had declared itself at odds and for all practical purposes at war with the US.  And they had done so prior to President Lincoln even taking his oath of office.  Ft Sumter was merely the straw that broke the camels back; the point of no return.  The CS never had any intention of peacefully seperating from the US, this is patently obvious to any who would read either the Secession Documents or the words of the Secession Commisioners.

If one looks at military history throughout the ages one will be faced w/ a stark fact.  Wars are not won by the most competant army and govt but by the least incompetant.  I would say that holds quite true in the US Civil War.

Why does one nation invade another?  Conquest, reconquest, liberation, envy of wealth?  All of the above can be attributed to both sides of the ACW.  The CS started the war, the US ended it.

A book that goes a long way in illustrating that slavery was at hte forefront in Secession is:  Dew, Charles B., Apostles of Disunion, University Press of Virginia, 2001.

A book looking at the political manueverings of the Democratic Party, that would lead the Secession drive, prior to FT Sumter:  Jones, James Pickett, Blackjack John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era, Florida State University, 1967.

There are others.