Was The Confederacy Popular?

Well, the CS had to resort to conscription in 1862 - a year before the Union did so. This might suggest that southern support for the was was less solid than northern, but then again it might just be a consequence of the south's smaller manpower

In addition, at least ten percent of the white men who served in the War from the 11 states of the Confederacy wore blue instead of gray. And more men from the border slave states of MD, KY and MO wore blue than gray.

(snip of long post)

Dear Joyce,

I read your post carefully and would like to make a few comments....

The description above is probably fairly accurate for a poor boy from the piney woods section of southern Georgia, but is not a good description of other soldiers from other sections of the South. Of course all sections had their uneducated dirt farmers, but they were in the minority and often unfit for military duty. You mentioned some so-called soldiers who went AWOL from Jackson because they didn't want to fight anywhere but their own neck of the woods. These men were not real soldiers and are not the kind of men who make an army. The Confederate Army did not consist of men like that.

I am sure that you came by some of the stories about your relatives honestly, but you must realize that stories are not always accurate, nor do they remain so after years of repetition. As far as 'marching by' Monticello and Mount Vernon is concerned, I doubt it. Monticello is on the top of a mountain east of Charlottesville and probably could not be seen from the road. Mt. Vernon is on the bank of the Potomac River, across from Washington, DC. It was held by the Union army during the whole war and no CSA units 'marched by'.

Mark,

Could you tell me how you know that this is true? If I could show you where the leading secessionists stated that their cause was rooted in slavery, would that persuade you that slavery was in fact the cause of secession and thus the war?

Regards, Jim Bales

|If you read your history(the facts not the opinions) you will see that it was |not slavery at all that started the war, but the rights of the states to |determine their own destiny. Some have argued that slavery was part of the |determination and maybe you can throw that in the ring with the rest of it, but |the primary reason the civil war started was because of the federal goverments |refusal to acknowledge the rights of the states in matters of trade and |commerce.

I think you should have finished your sentence:

'the primary reason the civil war started was because of the federal goverments refusal to acknowledge the rights of the states in matters of trade and commerce' in slaves by not ensuring the protection of slaveowners in taking their property and 'domestic institutions' with them into the territories, as well as requiring other states to return their property via fugitive slave acts, not to mention wanting to stop the slave trade and slavery itself in the nation's capital.

scott s.

Yet the Vice President of the Confederate States of America made a speech that expressly stated that slavery _was_ the cause of the war. So apparently you claim to have a greater knowledge about the causes of the war than the Vice President of the CSA.

Steven Witmer

That's the revisionist view of the Civil War at least. But the argument doesn't hold much water because this would imply that had the North and South disagreed on other trade and commerce issues such that the war would have been inevitable. This is the Gail Norton 'bad fact' argument. It completly ignores the legislative, exeucive and judicial branches of the US government being tied up in slavery related issues for over 20 years preceding the Civil War, the political factionalization including the death of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings along the issue of slavery, the violence in Kansas, Dred Scott, and all of the other slavery related issues in the decades preceding the war.

If the war was about trade and commerce in general, and not about trade and commerce *of slaves* I would ask what else was so bitterly argued that would lead to secession. I would also ask why every seceding state put into their articles of secession clauses stating that they were doing so because their right to hold slaves was in jeopardy. I would also ask why Southern support for the extraterritoriality of the Fugitive Slave Laws, probably the most egredious infringement on States Rights prior to the Civil War, was so strong. The South cared not about States Rights beyond the 'State Right to own slaves'. They wanted their laws enforced in other states and they wanted to prevent Congress from regulating slavery in the territories.

The Civil War started because the South wanted to continue to hold slaves. As holding slaves was a State Right, the very term State Rights becomes a euphamism. That the scale and impact of the war irrevocably changed the nature of the Federal Government to severely weaken *all* States Rights in the aftermath is somewhat an ironic conclusion. But I cannot find a major State Right beyond slavery that was politically threatened in the 1850s and 60s. There were no 'anti-states-rights' political parties. There were no 'pro-federal-power' political parties. Yet somehow there was a 'pro-slavery-expansion' party (Democrats) and a 'anti-slavery-expansion' party (Republicans).

But I admit 'The War for States Rights' sounds catchier than 'The War for the State Right to Own Slaves'. . .

David Campbell

[snip]

Mark: I do not share your view but I am interested in learning. Please cite your facts so I might study them. Thanks,

I mostly agree with you:

|That the scale and impact of the war irrevocably changed the nature of the Federal |Government to severely weaken *all* States Rights in the aftermath is somewhat an |ironic conclusion. But I cannot find a major State Right beyond slavery that was |politically threatened in the 1850s and 60s. There were no 'anti-states-rights' |political parties. There were no 'pro-federal-power' political parties. Yet |somehow there was a 'pro-slavery-expansion' party (Democrats) and a |'anti-slavery-expansion' party (Republicans).

but IMHO there was a 'pro-federal-power party', namely Whigs. However, by the 1850s most of the old economic arguments on which the party was based had been mooted by good economic times (the panic of 37 was long-forgotten). The remaining national economic issue, railroading, seems to have been embraced by all parties. Tariffs certainly had a potential for rallying voters in certain states, north and south, but I think the growth of the country by 1860 had blunted it as a national issue.

scott s.

Jim;

In all my reading of records and historical documents from South Carolina I see that there is often mention of slavery and how dependant the southern states were on it for the goods that were produced and exported to the north. You can indeed infer by what some of the seccesionist said that the cause was slavery and in hindsite they may well have come to that conclusion because of the total loose of productivity on the plantations and the mass migration north of previously held slaves. But, look at the issues that were pertinant PRIOR to the start of the war and that is where I draw my conclusions that it was commerce and trade that was the cause of the start. Maybe not the cause that garnered the most recognition but the cause that started it none the less. States argued, like one of the other respondants pointed out, for 20 years prior to the start of the war about how important it was for the states to maintain the right of self determination in matters of commerce and trade and that argument did on many occassions include discussion about slavery and who important it was to the continued productivity of the southern plantation system. When it was all said and done, the big picture issue that got it all going here in Charleston was commerce and trade. I guess alot of it boils down to how you view the whole process. I have tried to look at it from a standpoint and understanding that history has proven that given the option to fight over a moral or a fiscal issue, goverments will fight over money before morals anyday and I think that is exactly what happened in 1861.

Any thoughts on this line of thinking?? Always welcome

Mark PS BTW, I am no scholor or historian, just a guy who enjoys the debate of southern

Not just South Carolina. This is from Mississippi's 'Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union:'

'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery