- This topic has 6 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
What was their reason to fight the north?I don't know if this is correct or not, but I've read a few places that the majority of southerners were not slave owners.
As I understand it, they loved their State more than the Union. Remember, in 1787-9, they did not know that once a State joined voluntarily, it was in forever according to the Unionists. Mafioso style?
I don't know much at all about the Civil War and it's why I was asking. I would think the rich slaveowners employed and bought from the other southernerns? Maybe they were just protecting their own interests.
Yes, you are correct that most white southerners were not slaveowners. As to motivation to fight, I have read several explanations, the most common being State loyalty and hoping to preserve slavery because most aspired to be slaveowners as well.
Slavery provided income for the rich, which provided for the economy of the South. The non-slaveholders fought collaterally… they needed the rich slave holders to retain their wealth.I also believe whole-heartedly in the comment Shelby Foote used in the Ken Burns documentary that when a northerner asked a southern prisoner why they were fighting, the southerner replie, "because you're down here".Sums it up nicely.
Slavery provided income for the rich, which provided for the economy of the South. The non-slaveholders fought collaterally... they needed the rich slave holders to retain their wealth.
A very valid point.There are, I think, other reasons besides the hope of one day being a plantation owner that caused non-salve holders to support slavery (and fight for the Confederacy). One is found in the dark part of human nature that wants to feel superior to somebody else.Many of the poor whites in the South could comfort themselves with the thought that they were better than the slaves. Abolishing slavery would destroy this comforting perception.Additionally, freeing the slaves would have created competition for low wage paying jobs. Which was part of the reason for the anti-draft riots in New York City and the animosity of the Irish to Northern war effort. (The Irish at the time were at the bottom of the socio-economic totem pole and did not want freed slaves competing with them for jobs.)Lastly there is the issue of outright racial prejudice. The desire of the abolitionists to free the slaves was upsetting to many non-slave owners for racial reasons. (In order for a society to countenance slavery ideas of the racial inferiority of the slaves had to be both widespread and deeply seated.)
Walter Williams has a good section in his new book, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?, about how slaves engaging in economic activity competed with non-slave owning whites and the legal sanctions against this practice put in place in many southern states. The discussion is in chapter 2, page 21. It is a very interesting book and well worth reading, even if you don't agree with everything he says. The economic argument is probably very valid. Blacks would have been willing to work at lower wages than whites and thus depress the ability of some whites to earn as much as they wanted to.
The economic argument is probably very valid. Blacks would have been willing to work at lower wages than whites and thus depress the ability of some whites to earn as much as they wanted to.
This is one of the reasons for the New York City Draft Riots in 1863. Poor immigrants did not want to go fight for a people that would take their already meager existence and depreciate it even further.
I am not so sure about that. Immigrant were a minority in the Union Army, though a large one. I can see how perceptions could be created though. Much like with the Occupy idiots from the fall. In some ways perception can become reality. I am certain that happened to an extent during the Civil War as well. Gary Galagher's The Union War was recently favorably reviewed in JMH, apparently he makes a good case that the idea of “Union” was a strong motivating factor for Union soldiers. The books sounds good and I will probably add it to my wish list if it becomes available for the kindle. I think the biggest issue with the draft riots was not immigrant background but that rich people could buy exemptions while they were out of reach for the working poor.
I am not so sure about that. Immigrant were a minority in the Union Army, though a large one. I can see how perceptions could be created though. Much like with the Occupy idiots from the fall. In some ways perception can become reality. I am certain that happened to an extent during the Civil War as well.
I think the commutation fee was the smaller factor, and the racial tensions the higher. This would account for the number of blacks that were attacked, lynched, and beaten. Add in the number of black institutions that were attacked and all in all the majority of the targets were black. I think this is a spot on realization:Firstly, you must keep in mind that nine days before the riots began was the Battle of Gettysburg. And not long before that came the Emancipation Proclamation. This broadened the goal of the Union from just focusing on preserving the Union to also abolishing slavery. In New York City and other highly populated northern cities, numerous immigrants were present, many from Ireland. The free African-American population in New York City and the Irish immigrants were competing for jobs. So this thought was most likely in the mind of the average Irish worker: Why should I fight to end slavery when all they do is come and steal my work?
So this thought was most likely in the mind of the average Irish worker: Why should I fight to end slavery when all they do is come and steal my work?
Good point but do you really think that was the major motivating factor? Blacks were fighting too, and often in the worst places to campaign such as the Outer Banks, thus freeing up whites for the "serious" fighting.
