The South was Wrong: An Account of Confederate Motivations

[The Spartan]

Rogue, do you have a particular approach for dealing with the apologists claims about the soldiers not fighting for slavery, but, rather, to defend their homelands (as it's usually taken as gospel that Americans were from their state first and their country second in that era)?

My usual approach is to point out that in doing so they were defending slavery by default since, well, pretty much everything we've said in the thread to this point. The problem is that this brainbug has gotten so entrenched that it takes a damn backhoe to remove. It even popped up in Gettysburg as I recall.

[Rogue 9]

"Permanent federal government." So they weren't any happier about secession from the Slave Power than the Union was about secession from itself. Which was amply demonstrated by Confederate treatment of the Unionists of eastern Tennessee, who wished to rejoin the Union; namely, eastern Tennessee was put down and occupied by military force, and pro-Union inhabitants conscripted into the Confederate armies, but that's peripheral to the point.

Hello Rogue 9. I was wondering if you could point me to a good resource about this particular incident? I am not disputing the accuracy of the statement at all, and I want to high five you on an excellent post, but I am very interested in that part of the civil war as it is new to me.

<snip>

It seems I was mistaken when I thought I was mistaken about Confederate conscription of Union loyalists. One more document to go, this one a transcript of testimony before the Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction.

WASHINGTON, February 2, 1866.
David T. Patterson, sworn and examined.

By Mr. GRIMES:

Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. I reside in Greeneville, Greene county, East Tennessee.

Question. State, if you please, so far as you may know, the condition of the public sentiment in Tennessee so far as regards the whole of the State, as well as the different sections of it; the condition of the Union people and the freedmen in those different sections; and what you know in regard to the changed condition of the industrial pursuits of the freedmen.
Answer. I can speak from my own personal knowledge of the condition of the loyal people of East Tennessee. In regard to the condition of loyal people in Middle and in Western Tennessee, I can only speak from information derived from correspondence and conversations with people who live there. In Eastern Tennessee the loyal people have an overwhelming majority; they are the dominant party now. But during the war they were subjected to the bitterest persecution; they were driven from their homes; they were conscripted and sent into the rebel armies; they were persecuted like wild beasts by the rebel authorities, and hunted down in the mountains; they were hanged on the gallows, shot down and robbed; every imaginable wrong was inflicted upon them. From 20,000 to 25,000 loyal men of East Tennessee left their homes, went through the mountains into Kentucky, there joined the federal forces, and fought their way back home under General Burnside in 1863. Perhaps no people on the face of the earth were ever more persecuted than were the loyal people of East Tennessee in 1862 and 1863; the persecution commenced just after the burning of bridges in 1861. The first conscript law passed by the rebel congress, I believe, was passed in April, 1862, and as soon as they got their machinery at work they commenced attempting to conscript the Union men of East Tennessee. As soon as they organized their bureaus of conscription and appointed their enrolling officers, a great many Union men in East Tennessee escaped from the country, while others concealed themselves in the mountains and in houses.

At the June election in 1861, on the question of separation from the Union and representation in the rebel congress, we had in East Tennessee a majority of about 20,000 against those issues. Both questions were presented together. Those who opposed them voted "no separation", "no representation;" those who were in favor voted "separation," "representation."

Upon the occupation of East Tennessee by General Burnside, in September, 1863, the rebels themselves, those who had made themselves obnoxious, fled from East Tennessee, and but few have returned. We have now but few rebels in East Tennessee. The Union men, when they were enabled to return, were not very amiable, and they resorted to retaliation, and executed a great many rebels - paid them back in the some sort of coin they had received at their hands. The Union men were guilty of a great many excesses, and can only be excused upon the ground that they had themselves been made to suffer terribly by those rebels.

Really, so far as East Tennessee is concerned, we have now very few rebels there. We have nothing to fear from rebel votes or from rebel influence in my section of the State. I doubt very much whether there are more than three counties in Eastern Tennessee where a rebel would present himself for any office of any character. East Tennessee can take care of itself. The trouble is in Middle Tennessee and in Western Tennessee.

So that's that.

FOG3, I still await your response.

Rogue, do you have a particular approach for dealing with the apologists claims about the soldiers not fighting for slavery, but, rather, to defend their homelands (as it's usually taken as gospel that Americans were from their state first and their country second in that era)?

My usual approach is to point out that in doing so they were defending slavery by default since, well, pretty much everything we've said in the thread to this point. The problem is that this brainbug has gotten so entrenched that it takes a damn backhoe to remove. It even popped up in Gettysburg as I recall.

Actually, yes. You can often tell what the troops themselves value by what their commanders use to exhort them. This is a proclamation issued by Brigadier General Beauregard on July 5, 1861, before the First Battle of Bull Run.

To the People of the Counties of Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince William:--

A reckless and unprincipled tyrant has invaded your soil. Abraham Lincoln, regardless of all moral, legal, and constitutional restraints, has thrown his abolition hosts among you, who are murdering and imprisoning your citizens, confiscating and destroying your property, and committing other acts of violence and outrage too shocking and revolting to humanity to be enumerated.

All rules of civilized warfare are abandoned, and they proclaim by their acts, if not on their banners, that their war-cry is "Beauty and Booty." All that is dear to man,--your honor and that of your wives and daughters,--your fortunes and your lives, are involved in this momentous contest...

G. T. Beauregard,
Brigadier-General Commanding.

I think by this point we can easily infer what "property" he refers to as being confiscated, but more to the point, of all the pejoratives he could have chosen, he referred to the Army of the Potomac as the "abolition hosts." The text of the proclamation is extracted from here.

Much more material can be gleaned from this repository of primary source documents of the era; I've quoted but a small fraction of them in this thread. The site preserves, among other things, many newspaper editorials; you can find what you seek in there.

[The Guid]

I hope its not considered too "spammy" to just add a note of thanks to Rogue 9 for his response. It was very informative and I have saved it to return to in future.

I have friends who might be interested in what you have pointed me towards. Whilst I would of course fully credited you do you mind if I reproduce your work, cut down slightly for brevity's sake? (They have short attention spans)

[Rogue 9]

I hope its not considered too "spammy" to just add a note of thanks to Rogue 9 for his response. It was very informative and I have saved it to return to in future.

I have friends who might be interested in what you have pointed me towards. Whilst I would of course fully credited you do you mind if I reproduce your work, cut down slightly for brevity's sake? (They have short attention spans)

Feel free. The documents are, of course, free for anyone to use; I was hardly around and writing Confederate war records in 1861. I don't care if my arguments are reproduced, though if it's in message board format, I ask for (but don't require) a link to the thread so I can see how it fares and refine my own arguments accordingly.

[Isolder74]

One important political thing to consider in the topic of Tennessee, and almost all of the swing slave states, is that with the 3/5ths compromise meant that areas that had plantations the owners of those plantations could use the 300(or however many) slaves they owned to give themselves an unfair advantage when it came to voting for political office. If a plantation owner had a large enough plantation and enough slaves he could conceivably have his plantation as his own state voting district. You can imagine how quickly this can lead to massive corruption and disproportional power in the matters of representation in the state legislature.

[Elfdart]

That isn't even taking into account the fact that Southern secession had nothing to do with John Brown; South Carolina and the Deep South states would have done it in 1856 if Fremont won, at least.

South Carolina threatened to secede at least two other times, but backed down when Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor threatened to hang secessionists who tried it.

[Isolder74]

That isn't even taking into account the fact that Southern secession had nothing to do with John Brown; South Carolina and the Deep South states would have done it in 1856 if Fremont won, at least.

South Carolina threatened to secede at least two other times, but backed down when Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor threatened to hang secessionists who tried it.

Which was whom Lincoln was basically quoting when asked about the subject of secession. Buchannan basically stood by and let it happen.

[Kitsune]

Question is (if it does not change the subject too much), Could he have actually stopped it.
The call for troops caused the mid-south states to succeed.

[Isolder74]

Question is (if it does not change the subject too much), Could he have actually stopped it.
The call for troops caused the mid-south states to succeed.

A strong stand against South Carolina might have kept the others from doing it.

[Samuel]

Question is (if it does not change the subject too much), Could he have actually stopped it.
The call for troops caused the mid-south states to succeed.

South Caroline commited treason on December 20th. 4 more states joined the next month with another 2 more the next. It wasn't until then that they sent together representatives and raised an army.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ ... cfm?AID=34

[CarsonPalmer]

Question is (if it does not change the subject too much), Could he have actually stopped it.
The call for troops caused the mid-south states to succeed.

If a typically pro-Southern president like Buchanan took a firm stand, lukewarm states like Tennessee and North Carolina might have stayed in the Union, or at least fought harder to stay in, but the Deep South was probably gone. The other problem is that Buchanan's whole administration was built around bowing to Southern pressure. You'd have to change his cabinet and his character to get him to that point.

[Kitsune]

I guess I have a (sometimes bad) habit of considering historic events inevitable.
Even being pro-South, Buchanan could be considered to have virtually committed treason if he could have stopped events from spiraling out of control and it can be proved that he knew that a decisive action would have stopped events.

[Mayabird]

Rogue, do you have a particular approach for dealing with the apologists claims about the soldiers not fighting for slavery, but, rather, to defend their homelands (as it's usually taken as gospel that Americans were from their state first and their country second in that era)?

Something to note is that the apologists like to pretend that all the people born of the Slave Power stayed to defend their homelands or something along those lines and ignore the many people, like General George Thomas who came from the there and fought for the Union.

Also, to everyone who wants to thank Rogue but doesn't want to spam up the thread, you can PM him. That's why it's there.

[Rogue 9]

Question is (if it does not change the subject too much), Could he have actually stopped it.
The call for troops caused the mid-south states to succeed.

Except they didn't succeed; they failed rather spectacularly, in fact.

More seriously, the answer to your question is "Maybe, maybe not." We can't know for sure because he didn't try; he made half-assed attempts to resupply Fort Sumter and did... not much else, not even when the resupply steamer was fired upon and forced to turn back by rebel forces. He effectively abandoned the garrison to their fate; that they held out as long as they did is a result of Major Anderson moving his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Sumter without orders to do so five days after South Carolina's secession. (Incidentally, this troop movement is claimed by certain Slave Power apologists as an armed invasion of South Carolina, and therefore casus belli on the part of the Union, because while Moultrie and Sumter were both federal property, they had to cross a narrow civilian beach to reach the artificial island that supports Fort Sumter. Of course, this only stands if you recognize the secession as legal.) It's possible that he would have sped along the secessions of the mid-South, but then again they might have taken the order more readily from him than from Lincoln. The one thing that is certain is that had he taken immediate action, the war would have ended much sooner; his delay gave the Slave Power time to raise armies and consolidate its defenses.

[Axis Kast]

Actually, yes. You can often tell what the troops themselves value by what their commanders use to exhort them. This is a proclamation issued by Brigadier General Beauregard on July 5, 1861, before the First Battle of Bull Run.

This is the cherry-picking of evidence. Having proven the unrelated argument that the political act of secession was generally motivated by an interest in the preservation of the plantation (i.e., slave) system does not give you license to mill two words from two paragraphs and call it credible analysis.

Your argument about what "property" must mean loses credibility unless it cannot also mean possessions other than chattel slaves, and, in particular, homes, livestock, small valuables, and harvests. But, as you well know, the prospect of invasion of Federal troops meant all of that. Ken Burns put it right in the introduction of his 1990 classic documentary: "[G]reat armies ... foraging ..."

Civil War regiments were recruited on a local basis, amplifying the notion that military service was an essential form of civil duty. Prior to the Civil War, the South was largely rural. Attachment to wider conceptions of a nation would have been most unlikely even for those who were not completely or largely illiterate, and commonplace jargon like, "these United States" serves as much to remind us of the rather limited role played by government in the lives of men who were not merchants, politicians, or else heavily involving in the carrying trade (which covers the owners of large plantations, but excludes small-holders) as it does the primacy of States Rights' as a rallying point in Congress.

[Rogue 9]

Actually, yes. You can often tell what the troops themselves value by what their commanders use to exhort them. This is a proclamation issued by Brigadier General Beauregard on July 5, 1861, before the First Battle of Bull Run.

This is the cherry-picking of evidence. Having proven the unrelated argument that the political act of secession was generally motivated by an interest in the preservation of the plantation (i.e., slave) system does not give you license to mill two words from two paragraphs and call it credible analysis.

He asked for what I had, and I gave it to him. I didn't say I had much. I'm unlikely to have much either, as the largely illiterate poor whites of the South were unlikely to write their feelings down for posterity one way or the other. I know what my great great grandfather thought, but then, my mother's side of the family was plantation aristocracy and he was a colonel in the Confederate army, so his thoughts were 1.) a given and 2.) not relevant to the objection The Spartan asked an answer to.

Your argument about what "property" must mean loses credibility unless it cannot also mean possessions other than chattel slaves, and, in particular, homes, livestock, small valuables, and harvests. But, as you well know, the prospect of invasion of Federal troops meant all of that. Ken Burns put it right in the introduction of his 1990 classic documentary: "[G]reat armies ... foraging ..."

Of course, but putting it right after "abolition hosts" and in combination with the fact that slaves were often simply referred to by the euphemism of "property" (as was done in several places in the Declarations of Causes) makes it likely that he had slaves in mind. I do not claim it is conclusive.

Civil War regiments were recruited on a local basis, amplifying the notion that military service was an essential form of civil duty. Prior to the Civil War, the South was largely rural. Attachment to wider conceptions of a nation would have been most unlikely even for those who were not completely or largely illiterate, and commonplace jargon like, "these United States" serves as much to remind us of the rather limited role played by government in the lives of men who were not merchants, politicians, or else heavily involving in the carrying trade (which covers the owners of large plantations, but excludes small-holders) as it does the primacy of States Rights' as a rallying point in Congress.

Much to George Washington's dismay, but this is true. That government played a limited role in their lives does not in itself mean that they were unconcerned with slavery, however. Really, the entire issue is a wash unless someone can come up with evidence one way or the other; I've never seen anything truly conclusive that speaks to the feelings of large bodies of soldiers (as opposed to individuals).

[Axis Kast]

He asked for what I had, and I gave it to him. I didn't say I had much. I'm unlikely to have much either, as the largely illiterate poor whites of the South were unlikely to write their feelings down for posterity one way or the other. I know what my great great grandfather thought, but then, my mother's side of the family was plantation aristocracy and he was a colonel in the Confederate army, so his thoughts were 1.) a given and 2.) not relevant to the objection The Spartan asked an answer to.

You'd have been better served by saying you had nothing of merit on which to structure an argument in the affirmative.

Of course, but putting it right after "abolition hosts" and in combination with the fact that slaves were often simply referred to by the euphemism of "property" (as was done in several places in the Declarations of Causes) makes it likely that he had slaves in mind. I do not claim it is conclusive.

This is a purely subjective interpretation, and it seems we are in agreement on that. It is, of course, equally plausible that "abolition hosts" had little relevance to the audience, who presumably (I would even say, without evidence, probably) considered the institution of white power worth defending, but may have, in the end, gone and actually picked up a rifle for very different reasons. "Property" can be read as "slaves," but, again, there is also the classic definition.

Much to George Washington's dismay, but this is true. That government played a limited role in their lives does not in itself mean that they were unconcerned with slavery, however. Really, the entire issue is a wash unless someone can come up with evidence one way or the other; I've never seen anything truly conclusive that speaks to the feelings of large bodies of soldiers (as opposed to individuals).

My objection was on the basis of methodology only.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, you're saying "abolition hosts" is not a concise definition of the anti-slavery movement but something else entirely, Axis?

It is, of course, equally plausible that "abolition hosts" had little relevance to the audience, who presumably (I would even say, without evidence, probably) considered the institution of white power worth defending

Using irrelevant concepts when speaking to soldiers is hardly a sensible theory. The "abolition hosts" were relevant for the commander at least. For his subordinates, quite possibly as well. Or, should I be precise, more probable than not.

[TC Pilot]

Am I reading the same quote as you? Because it clearly has next to nothing to do with slavery. He's exhorting people to fight because the enemy is a pack of merciless rapists, thieves, and murderers, not because they're abolitionists.

[K. A. Pital]

Abraham Lincoln, regardless of all moral, legal, and constitutional restraints, has thrown his abolition hosts among you, who are murdering and imprisoning your citizens, confiscating and destroying your property, and committing other acts of violence and outrage too shocking and revolting to humanity to be enumerated.

This one? I agree I'm not a native speaker, but I can't figure out if anyone, ever used "abolition hosts" to describe destroyers, thieves and murderers. In fact, I can't find a singular example of the use of this phrase outside the US Civil War.

Surely I'll agree with Kast's interpretation, and your own, if you will demonstrate that "abolition" here does not refer to the abolition of slavery but to something else? But actually, if you type in "Abolition host", you would find out that this is a refernce to Lincoln's army which is made due to Lincoln's support of Abolition, and it was even used with a capital "A" in Confederate diaries.

Is it Kentucky where an Abolition General dare enforce such ignoble measures of despotic power?

War for the Union transmogrified by metempsychosis into an abolition crusade

Xerxes stands in awe at Lincoln's Abolition host 40000,000 He never boasted half of that.

other Abolition Governors make urgent calls for a few more thousand of one hundred day volunteers to finish up what little is left of the rebellion

[TC Pilot]

Surely I'll agree with Kast's interpretation, and your own, if you will demonstrate that "abolition" here does not refer to the abolition of slavery but to something else?

Yes, "abolitionists" are mentioned. But look at what he claims they're doing: "has thrown his abolition hosts among you, who are murdering and imprisoning your citizens, confiscating and destroying your property, and committing other acts of violence and outrage too shocking and revolting to humanity to be enumerated."

So what is this abolitionist host doing? "Murdering and imprisoning your citizens," "confiscating and destroying your property" (so obviously not talking exclusively about slaves, if at all), and, on top of all that "committing other acts of violence and outrage too shocking and revolting to humanity to be enumerated."

Clearly, abolitionism is not the main concern here. This should be hammered home by the very next paragraph, which starts "All rules of civilized warfare are abandoned, and they proclaim by their acts, if not on their banners, that their war-cry is "Beauty and Booty.""

You can replace "abolition hosts" with anything and it would still have the same meaning: fight or you'll be murdered, your homes destroyed, and your family raped.

[Duckie]

Yet clearly, if instead of slavery the north and south were divided racially between Blacks and Whites and the quote instead said:

"He has thrown his negro hosts, who are raping, murdering, stealing, et cetera"

You would not deny it was a call to fight against blacks and linking blackness to crime and further asking people to fight for whiteness, no?

Abolitionist is clearly being used as a moral condemnation of the North here, thus its use in a sentence talking about Northern 'crimes', and as an impetus to motivate the south to fight against them and for Slavery- perhaps not all of it, but certainly some of the impetus.

[K. A. Pital]

Clearly, abolitionism is not the main concern here.

Yeah, it's not the main thrust of his accusation, but the very phrase "abolition hosts" indicates that abolitionism is a very serious issue for Confederate soldiers. Actually, the confederate diary referenced above indicates it as well.

P.S. Oh, I see Duckie explained that better than me.

[Axis Kast]

Wait, you're saying "abolition hosts" is not a concise definition of the anti-slavery movement but something else entirely, Axis?

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

Using irrelevant concepts when speaking to soldiers is hardly a sensible theory. The "abolition hosts" were relevant for the commander at least. For his subordinates, quite possibly as well. Or, should I be precise, more probable than not.

It wasn’t necessarily irrelevant. Yet nor was the speech itself sufficiently particular or unambiguous enough to be able to make a conclusive (or even strong) argument that slaves > livelihood in the arithmetic of mass mobilization in the American South.

Yet clearly, if instead of slavery the north and south were divided racially between Blacks and Whites and the quote instead said:

"He has thrown his negro hosts, who are raping, murdering, stealing, et cetera"

You would not deny it was a call to fight against blacks and linking blackness to crime and further asking people to fight for whiteness, no?

Abolitionist is clearly being used as a moral condemnation of the North here, thus its use in a sentence talking about Northern 'crimes', and as an impetus to motivate the south to fight against them and for Slavery- perhaps not all of it, but certainly some of the impetus.

But the number of black soldiers in the Federal Army was zero when the speech was issued, in July 1861. Therefore, it could not mean “negro hosts.”

The term “abolitionist” is being used as condemnation, and presumably the speaker believed that the audience would not wonder why this pejorative term, of all others, was chosen. But it cannot be considered a decisive proof of primary motivation.

[Duckie]

But the number of black soldiers in the Federal Army was zero when the speech was issued, in July 1861. Therefore, it could not mean “negro hosts.”

Let me abuse the word clearly once more- clearly you have difficulty reading. I said, and I quote:

Yet clearly, if instead of slavery the north and south were divided racially between Blacks and Whites and the quote instead said:

"He has thrown his negro hosts, who are raping, murdering, stealing, et cetera"

You would not deny it was a call to fight against blacks and linking blackness to crime and further asking people to fight for whiteness, no?

Abolitionist is clearly being used as a moral condemnation of the North here, thus its use in a sentence talking about Northern 'crimes', and as an impetus to motivate the south to fight against them and for Slavery- perhaps not all of it, but certainly some of the impetus.

First Sentence: I presume a hypothetical world where the US was divided ethnically, as many nations are.
Second Sentence: I state that a sentence which uses an ethnic adjective is much more clear to the confederate apologist mind that it is being used as a pejorative and propaganda tool in order to make confederates dislike northerners, by example.
Third Sentence: I make this clear in case drooling retards or moderately intelligent english-as-a-second language speakers are reading.
Fourth Sentence: I explain the thrust of the point, that the word "Abolitionist" is being used in the same way one would say "Negro hordes" or "Paki hordes" in a call to fight against Blacks or Muslims, and thus implies disapproval.

But the number of black soldiers in the Federal Army was zero when the speech was issued, in July 1861. Therefore, it could not mean “negro hosts.”

So anyway I'm glad you cleared that up, in case any one else read the complete opposite of what I was saying.

The term “abolitionist” is being used as condemnation, and presumably the speaker believed that the audience would not wonder why this pejorative term, of all others, was chosen. But it cannot be considered a decisive proof of primary motivation.

Who says it needs to be primary motivation? I didn't- Fourth Paragraph/Sentence. The very fact that "Abolitionist" is considered an insult to the common southerners, let alone the motivation to fight at all, makes it clear that it is part of the Slavery Protection motivation that southerners to this day claim poor whites did not have.