Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[Johan Steele]

After the battle of the Hatchie the 35th Mississipi Infantry deserted en masse.  W/ most of the survivors of the Regiment going home.  It was neither the first or last CS regiment to do so.  As a note it should be remembered that several US Regiments copied the 35th Mississippi at times of the War.

Whole Regiments disintegrated at various points in the war w/ the men not stopping till they were rounded up by Provost, home guards or succesfully making it home.

All too often the men voted w/ their feet.

[ole]

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.

Nor is it Dick and Jane. U.S. the proactive party? Opinion is not evidence. Again with the "invasion." Conviction is not fact. Nor is insistence proof.

Guess we ought to start first with the "invasion." When you speak of the "invasion," to exactly what act do you refer?

I'm hoping most read the link I posted. It very clearly that all regions, north, east and west were happily trading with each other, so money couldn't have been involved. Is that how it's done?

ole
 
 

[Catherine Hopley]

"It has been said, w/ some legitimacty, that only 25% of the Colonists supported rebellion against the King during the Revolution."

In which case the United States was simply a criminal conspiracy, and it was impossible to be guilty of treason against it.

"I do not believe more than 30% of Southerners supported Secession, perhaps less."

It does rather depend on what you mean by "supporting" secession. Did Jubal Early, for example, support it? What he - and many, many others - did was to question the expediency of secession but support the right to engage in it.

If you're suggesting that 70% of the white population of the South opposed the right to secession then I'd be interested to know (a) which historical sources support the claim, and (b) how the Confederacy ever managed to offer serious military opposition to the U.S. - much less to hold them at bay for four long years

It was widely accepted by Federal as well as Confederate observers that the infantry corps of the A.N.V. was the finest on the planet - what one Northerner called "that incomparable body of infantry". Its ranks were comprised of the very yeoman farmers whose hearts were, according to many modern-day Unionists, never really with the cause. Does this make sense? Plainly it does not.

"The question then becomes if slavery had nothing to do w/ Secession..."

Who claimed that slavery had nothing to do with secession? I certainly didn't. But what we are currently discussing is why the U.S. government went to war - a completely different subject.

"I assure anyone that had Spain assaulted Gibraltor England would have considered such an act of war and acted accordingly."

Now this is much more to the point. It is fair to assume that any hypothetical war between Spain & England would not have been fought to the point where Spain was completely conquered and annexed. Spain would not have vanished from the map. There is such a concept as proportionality of response, and the simple act of firing on Gibraltar would only have triggered a limited war, if any.


"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."

Please feel free to quote the relevant passages.

[Johan Steele]

"It has been said, w/ some legitimacty, that only 25% of the Colonists supported rebellion against the King during the Revolution."

In which case the United States was simply a criminal conspiracy, and it was impossible to be guilty of treason against it. It was a criminal conspiracy that worked; treason is a matter of winners and losers.  There is no doubt what would have happened to the founders had they failed.

"I do not believe more than 30% of Southerners supported Secession, perhaps less."

It does rather depend on what you mean by "supporting" secession. Did Jubal Early, for example, support it? What he - and many, many others - did was to question the expediency of secession but support the right to engage in it. Early was not a reputable source for much of anything.

If you're suggesting that 70% of the white population of the South opposed the right to secession then I'd be interested to know (a) which historical sources support the claim, and (b) how the Confederacy ever managed to offer serious military opposition to the U.S. - much less to hold them at bay for four long years  It is interesting how only the white southerners count... look to the desertion rates of the CS Army, look at how the CS was forced to resort to conscription at a much larger rate and earlier date than the US.  There was a reason men didn't wish to serve the CS and it wasn't cowardice.  In the harshest terms the CS did not offer serious resistance; by the fall of 1863 more than half of the CS was no longer under CS control.

It was widely accepted by Federal as well as Confederate observers that the infantry corps of the A.N.V. was the finest on the planet - what one Northerner called "that incomparable body of infantry". Its ranks were comprised of the very yeoman farmers whose hearts were, according to many modern-day Unionists, never really with the cause. Does this make sense? Plainly it does not.   Actually ma'am serious military historians have seriously revised that estimation; the AoT US is often given that appelet now and w/ real reason.  The ANV never destroyed an army in the field.  The Western Armies did.  Perhaps you should look to some of the comments by various military observers during the Grand Review.  THe AoP looked pretty, the AoT scared the hell out of them.  FYI as you seem unaware the US Army had as many, if not more, farmers in it's ranks than the CS Army.  It was never the Southern farmer vs the Northern grease monkey that the Lost Cause is so fond of spouting but largely the yeoman farmer against the yeoman farmer.  While the CS had problems feeding it's own people the US did not.  Why, how could that be true if the CS was purely an agricultural region?  The bread basket of the US was not the South; it never had been.

"The question then becomes if slavery had nothing to do w/ Secession..."

Who claimed that slavery had nothing to do with secession? I certainly didn't. But what we are currently discussing is why the U.S. government went to war - a completely different subject.   Scroll up to the top of the page, what is the title of this thread?

"I assure anyone that had Spain assaulted Gibraltor England would have considered such an act of war and acted accordingly."

Now this is much more to the point. It is fair to assume that any hypothetical war between Spain & England would not have been fought to the point where Spain was completely conquered and annexed. Spain would not have vanished from the map. There is such a concept as proportionality of response, and the simple act of firing on Gibraltar would only have triggered a limited war, if any. I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  Look what France tried to do to Spain... what did Britain do to India, Denmark?  The CS was never on any map; it was a dream... or nightmare depending upon who you asked.

"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."

Please feel free to quote the relevant passages.  I've given you the title of at least one book, Apostles of Disunion, feel free to pick it up.  It's a short and quick read.  Well researched and rather eye opening.   The language of the Secession documents is quite clear.  I've posted them on this site before; if you are unaware of the wording I might suggest you take a look at them.  No promise of friendship w/ the US w/in but more than a little hostility.

  The CS wanted war and it got it.  The decision to fire upon FT Sumter was not made in haste but carefully calculated.  Davis was no fool if he didn't know the repurcussins he would have been patently incompetant, he wasn't.

THere is no doubt in my mind the upper echelons of CS govt was made up of about the biggest batch of political power grabbers in US history to that point.  That said they were politicians doing what politicians do best: mucking things up.  The batch North of the Mason Dixon weren't a whole lot better.

You wanted some sources... feel free to read away.

Bacon, Benjamin W. Sinews of War, Presidio Press, 1997.
Desjardin, Thomas A. These Honored Dead, Da Capo Press, 2003.
Dew, Charles B., Apostles of Disunion, University Press of Virginia, 2001.
Engle, Stephen D., The American Civil War, the War in the West 1861-July 1863, Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Fitch, John., Annals of the Army of the Cumberland, Stackpole Books, 2003.
Gates, Paul W., Agriculture and the Civil War, Borzoi Book, 1962.
Glatthaar, Joseph T., The American Civil War, The war in the West 1863-1865, Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Griffith, Paddy, Battle In the Civil War Generalship and Tactics in America 1861-65, Fieldbooks, 1986.
Griffith, Paddy, Battle Tactics of the Civil War, Yale University Press, 2001.
Johnson, Mark W. That Body of Brave Men, Da Capo Press, 2003.
Newton, Steven H. Lost for the Cause the Confederate Army of 1864, Savas Publishing Company, 2000.
Phisterer, Frederick, Campaigns of the Civil War Supplementary Volume Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States, Castle Books, 2002.
Smith, Mark A., & Sokolosky, No Such Army Since the Days of Julius Caesar: Sherman’s Carolinas Campaign from Fayetville to Averasboro, Ironclad Publishing, 2005.
Sword, Wiley, Mountains Touched With Fire, St Martins Press, 1995.
Wert, Jeffry D., A Brotherhood of Valor: the Common Soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, C.S.A., and the Iron Brigade, U.S.A., Simon & Schuster, 1999.
Wiley, Bell Irvin, The Life of Billy Yank, Louisiana State University Press, 1978.
Wiley, Bell Irvin, The Life of Johnny Reb, Louisiana State University Press, 1978.
Woodworth, Steven E., Nothing but Victory The Army of the Tennessee, Knoph, 2005.

[Johan Steele]

The thread has been sucessfully hijacked.

The original idea put forward by the world's preeminent economist of the day: "Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War" is no longer even being talked about on this thread.

[Catherine Hopley]

"It was a criminal conspiracy that worked; treason is a matter of winners and losers."

So the only distinction between the U.S.A. - to which you presumably give heartfelt allegiance - and the Confederacy - which you appear to revile -is that one was successful and the other failed?

"Early was not a reputable source for much of anything."

We're not talking about Early's own analysis of the war. We're talking about what he did. And it is a matter of undisputed fact that he opposed the secession of Virginia every step of the way until it happened.

"It is interesting how only the white southerners count..."

That was the regrettable reality of mid-19th century American life...and it applied as much in the rest of the country as it did in the South.

"In the harshest terms the CS did not offer serious resistance"

Then why did it take four years to defeat it?

"Actually ma'am serious military historians have seriously revised that estimation; the AoT US is often given that appelet now and w/ real reason."

Out of interest, what is an "appelet"?

We can all make a case for our personal favourites. That's not the point. The point is that the performance of the ANV was, by any standard, high enough for long enough to dispel the notion that those without a personal stake in the institution of slavery had little motivation to fight for their country. 

"The thread has been sucessfully hijacked. The original idea put forward by the world's preeminent economist of the day: "Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War" is no longer even being talked about on this thread."

If one disagrees with the contention that the main cause of the war was slavery - as I do - it is entirely legitimate to draw attention to what one believes to have been the main cause. That necessarily involves talking about something else, but that isn't a case of "hijacking".

"I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."

That's a little rude, don't you think? I really cannot discuss this particular aspect with you until you find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself.

[ole]

All Declarations of Secession and Declarations of Causes are available on line. I don't think Dew's Apostles of Disunion is, but a decent library or network of libraries will have it. Actually, it is arguments of commissioners sent to other states to persuade them to secede with everyone else. Their arguments very much echo the "Declarations" -- with some rather gruesome details added.

All the Declarations mentioned avoidance of the demise of slavery. A couple mentioned oppressive taxes. At least one whined, "they kept saying bad things about us."

These few documents are primary sources. What you think about them, or I think about them, or Johan or DiLorenzo thinks about them is irrelevant. These are what the departing sisters said and signed. It does become a bit ingenuous to espouse causes that they didn't consider important enough to include in their official papers. (I forgot: Just because they didn't say it doesn't mean they weren't thinking it.)

Everyone: Access and read the "Declarations." Google "Declarations of Secession." I don't have the link handy, but it is easily found. Your individual interpretations of what they really meant is cordially invited.

ole

[ole]

That's a little rude, don't you think? I really cannot discuss this particular aspect with you until you find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself.

Reminds me of a story. Construction was going on at the convent. A novitiate came to Mother Superior and complained about the language of the laborerss. Mother Superior smiled and said, "My child, you must remember that these are men of the world and tend to call a spade a spade."

"But Mother Superior," she said, "they call it a "*******" shovel!"

Politcally correct strikes again. How else might it be advanced in a more genteel fashion? "I submit that you haven't given appropriate attention to all the available, germaine information?" If you have read the "Declarations," you haven't provided much evidence. Do that and I'll bet Shane will shop for spicy mustard to go with his crow. (Keep the leftover little packs you get at the Chinese take-out. They're super!)

I've been acquainted with Shane for a few years now. And I know that he will be eternally grateful to be convincingly corrected. Really! I've watched him change his tune when someone shows him where he is wrong. All he wants is to be accurate. If he's wrong, and corrected, he is just as happy as if he were right all along.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

"Politcally correct strikes again."

Nice try, Ole, but I'm not biting.

There is nothing PC about good manners. It isn't a question of finding a mealy-mouthed euphemism for "you don't know what you're talking about"....there is simply no need for a civilised person ever to say it. 

I am actually very well acquainted with the documents in question. But, because I see no evidence in them of Confederate aggression, I was asking if the offending passages could be identified. Apparently they couldn't. Cue collapse of argument. 

[Johan Steele]

"It was a criminal conspiracy that worked; treason is a matter of winners and losers."

So the only distinction between the U.S.A. - to which you presumably give heartfelt allegiance - and the Confederacy - which you appear to revile -is that one was successful and the other failed? No, one had it's cornerstone upon slavery the US did not.  One had legitimate (if overstated) reasons for Rebellion & Revolution bringing into a being a Nation superior to most others.  The CS did not.  One's primary complaint was that English Law no longer governed but had been replaced by tyranny and despotism (arguable).  When it came to Secession slavery and the threat to property in slaves was threatened.  And that threat was to only a few, say less than 10% of the population of the CS.

I have no problem w/ the average fighting man of the CS, they were men doing what ythey thought was right, often w/ no choice as all CS soldiers after 1862 were conscripts w/ volunteers being a minority.  The CS govt extended all enlistments for the "duration" w/out an as you please.  Desert and face a firing squad, hanging party or charge of cowardice... oh yes the CS Army was an army of the willing.  The irony is the battle flag was a flag of the Army, their comrades in arms, not the state.  Men fighting for & with their comrades because their "country" gave them no real choice.  And the desertion rates show me that all too many voted w/ their feet.  A study of the campaigns and the men who actually did the fighting and dieing shows me that.  The stay behinders and politicians made the mess.  And as history so often shows it was the fighting man on the sharp end of the spear who paid for their ignorance/arrogance.

The men on the sharp end of both sides were M E N of flesh and blood with an iron conviction.  Those who started the ball rolling were not.  History has weighed and measured the CS and found it sorely wanting.  The only way to defend it is to attack what defeated it and both ignore and bury the lies that flew men better than you or I.
"Early was not a reputable source for much of anything."

We're not talking about Early's own analysis of the war. We're talking about what he did. And it is a matter of undisputed fact that he opposed the secession of Virginia every step of the way until it happened. I would trust absolutely nothing written by the man; he had the integrity of... the Lost Cause.

"It is interesting how only the white southerners count..."

That was the regrettable reality of mid-19th century American life...and it applied as much in the rest of the country as it did in the South. And you bring it to the 21st Century... greatly appreciated I'm sure.  180,000 odd men of the USCT would disagree w/ you; most were southerners.  They made their presence felt.  Are they to be discounted?  Apparently.  There is a reason Jim Crow was allowed to survive as long as it did.

"In the harshest terms the CS did not offer serious resistance"

Then why did it take four years to defeat it?
G E O G R A P H Y.  15,000 soldiers in the US Army w/ approx 1/3 in CS prisons after Ft Sumter.  Incompetance.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Wars are not won by the most competant army but by the least incompetant.

"Actually ma'am serious military historians have seriously revised that estimation; the AoT US is often given that appelet now and w/ real reason."

Out of interest, what is an "appelet"? name or title, short for appellation or appellative.

We can all make a case for our personal favourites. That's not the point. The point is that the performance of the ANV was, by any standard, high enough for long enough to dispel the notion that those without a personal stake in the institution of slavery had little motivation to fight for their country.  The performance of the ANV was stellar by any standards; the US soldier has historically had a reputation for doing the impossible under abysmall leadership, aka the "My hill syndrome."  They were almost never more than 100 miles from their capital.  Both AoT's were IMO superior to the ANV & AoP and I'm giving my opinion upon territory fought over, number of engagements, strategic victories, armies destroyed, prisoners taken, miles marched, overall cussedness and how in God's name did they take that mountain?  All the way up into WW2 the success of Armies was judged upon miles marched, flags, guns & prisoners captured & victory.  The ANV comes up short.
"The thread has been sucessfully hijacked. The original idea put forward by the world's preeminent economist of the day: "Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War" is no longer even being talked about on this thread."

If one disagrees with the contention that the main cause of the war was slavery - as I do - it is entirely legitimate to draw attention to what one believes to have been the main cause. That necessarily involves talking about something else, but that isn't a case of "hijacking". You're quite right, it's also sometimes referred to as "drowning the subject" to draw attention away from it; a very common tactic.

"I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."

That's a little rude, don't you think? I really cannot discuss this particular aspect with you until you find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself. I thought it less galling than calling such an idea ignorant.  Your position shows a complete lack of knowledge of warfare from antiquity to the 1940's.  Whether willing or not I don't know.  The British, French, Russian, German, Turkish track records are quite clear as is the US... I would suggest looking at the Mexican War to start as most of those in the thick of the Civil War were quite familiar w/ the aspects of the Mexican War and the territory gained from Mexico w/ victory.  It was a contemporary event all were familiar w/ from Davis on down.  Now look fifty years in either direction of the ACW at various wars across the globe.  Post: Franco Prussian, Russo Turk War & Boer War. Then look at the Tai Ping Rebellion (which made the ACW look like a pillow fight trust the Chinese to take "abject lesson" to a whole new level), Indian Mutiny, During the Napoleanic Wars there was a wee little dustup between England and Denmark (England invaded Denmark & blasted the capital into submission because they refused to surrender their Navy to the King!), Crimea War etc.  So yes, I think there is ample evidence to suggest your knowledge on the subject of 19th Century warfare is... lacking.  I hope that's better and less offensive to your tender sensibilities.

I've seen these same arguments and assertions over and over again.  The US was sooo mean; more brutal than anyone in history!  Total War for the first time in history, and against their own citizens!  What?  The only way someone can claim such w/ a straight face is to be wholly ignorant of the goings on across the world and even contemporary to the 1860's history.  For God's sake what the French did to Spain during the Napoleanic Wars makes the worst of US depradations look like a kindergarten party.  The Brits in India were far more brutal than the US in the former CS.  The "niceness" in which the Brits treated the Chinese in the Opium Wars should be enough to drive your sensibilities apopolectic.  The world was ugly in 1860, had been for a long time prior and I dare say still is not all that pretty.