Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But then couldn't the same be said about the average northern soldier?
You think Billy Blue in Ohio gave a crap whether Georgia remained in the Union or not?
There were rich northerners that had a major stake in the southern states remaining in the Union...
In general I think it could be said of any soldier in any war that they were fighting more for their buddies and the chance to come home alive then anything else. Soldiers tend to not pontificate too much on the reasons they are fighting. My comments were mainly directed at someone who most likely has strong neo-Confederate sympathys and the typical revisionism that goes with such views.
However, I don't think the average northern soldier thought they were fighting for anything but the preservation of the union, which was always the stated intent of the war from day one. Freeing the slaves was ancilliary to that and a later addition to the cause. Therefore, the reason the north was in the fight would be the same reason stated by its troops, put down a rebellion and preserve the union.
The contrast is the average southern soldier fighting to either defend his home against a perceived invader or for his "rights" that were being "infringed". I seriously doubt that any of them would have answered that they were fighting because the southern slave owning aristocracy had lost its grip on federal power and they wanted to "take their ball and go home".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65
I think that the average poor white in the south would have stated their reasons for fighting were because the Union army was in the South fighting them.
I think it was much easier to raise an Army behind a slogan of "lets protect our homeland" vs "lets go take their homeland".
I think the North made their job easy for them.
Except that the CSA raised forces before there were any moves by the north to do so or enforce a military solution. The CSA also rapidly ran out of volunteers and resorted to a draft based on quotas in order to continue to prosecute the war.
I covered the other points above and I fully agree that many southern soldiers fought for what they perceived as "protecting their homeland", but that was not the reason the south was in the war. On the other hand the north was fighting not to "take their homeland" but to preserve the integrity of the nation by putting down a rebellion. Going off to put rebellious traitors back inline is not the same as waging a war of conquest, even if that is how the south itself seems to prefer to view the war.
In general I think it could be said of any soldier in any war that they were fighting more for their buddies and the chance to come home alive then anything else. Soldiers tend to not pontificate too much on the reasons they are fighting. My comments were mainly directed at someone who most likely has strong neo-Confederate sympathys and the typical revisionism that goes with such views.
However, I don't think the average northern soldier thought they were fighting for anything but the preservation of the union, which was always the stated intent of the war from day one. Freeing the slaves was ancilliary to that and a later addition to the cause. Therefore, the reason the north was in the fight would be the same reason stated by its troops, put down a rebellion and preserve the union.
The contrast is the average southern soldier fighting to either defend his home against a perceived invader or for his "rights" that were being "infringed". I seriously doubt that any of them would have answered that they were fighting because the southern slave owning aristocracy had lost its grip on federal power and they wanted to "take their ball and go home".
.
Oh I agree completely. Just saying that while "Preserving the Union" might have been a fantastic rallying cry for the average northern soldier, I think they too were sold a bill of goods in being convinced that this somehow benefited them in some way....
There were powerful people in the North in who's best interest it was to keep the South in the Union...
It isn't 100% the same, but just saying that the average foot soldier in the US Civil War on both sides were pawns in a game being played by the rich... It wasn't a uniquely southern thang...
Oh I agree completely. Just saying that while "Preserving the Union" might have been a fantastic rallying cry for the average northern soldier, I think they too were sold a bill of goods in being convinced that this somehow benefited them in some way....
There were powerful people in the North in who's best interest it was to keep the South in the Union...
It isn't 100% the same, but just saying that the average foot soldier in the US Civil War on both sides were pawns in a game being played by the rich... It wasn't a uniquely southern thang...
We seem to be in general agreement now that our points are clarified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler
I'd say the Union did their fair share of conscripting soldiers as well....
"Hi Mr. O'Brien!!! Welcome to America!!! Time to fight for your country!!!"
I just find southern conscription to be a great example of irony. The southern states claimed they were railing against encroachment by the federal government and that they were the champions of states rights. One of the first things they did however was setup a "permanent federal" government that frequently stepped all over the individual states in an effort to prosecute the war.
I would think the first step after forming a new country would be to raise an army to protect the country. Without defending their right to secession, I would defend CSA's or any new nation right to raise an Army for defense. Keeping in mind that the Army they raised were simply Union soldiers forced to pick a side... These men were already in the Army.. they just changed colors.
Still, there is no doubt they were well aware of what was coming. They (they being the Southern powers or lawmakers) knew the North would not sit idle by and allow them to secede from the Union.
I recognize that the North was not in the War to TAKE the South's homeland but rather to preserve the Union and put down the rebellion but I have the benefit hindsight which the poor white southern farm boy did not.
Even to this day, the emotions run very deep. The pain is very real.
And the socio-economic disparities remain.
This is not just the case in the United States--but also in such Latin American countries as Brazil and the Dominican Republic.
Why is this so? Why does slavery still haunt us?
And how can we move forward as a nation?
.
Slavery haunts the US because the country never really reconciled and wrote the wrongs. Instead of sustainable reconstruction the descendants of slaves were met with Jim Crow, voting discrimination, persecution, oppression, lynchings, etc. To this day racism runs through the soul of many...
I would think the first step after forming a new country would be to raise an army to protect the country. Without defending their right to secession, I would defend CSA's or any new nation right to raise an Army for defense. Keeping in mind that the Army they raised were simply Union soldiers forced to pick a side... These men were already in the Army.. they just changed colors.
Still, there is no doubt they were well aware of what was coming. They (they being the Southern powers or lawmakers) knew the North would not sit idle by and allow them to secede from the Union.
I recognize that the North was not in the War to TAKE the South's homeland but rather to preserve the Union and put down the rebellion but I have the benefit hindsight which the poor white southern farm boy did not.
It wasn't just existing US Army personnel who switched. They also made extensive calls for volunteers and began to organize and mobilize their militias before Lincoln even called for troops. It was the south that called up troops first and it was the south that fired first. I don't disagree that all of that was a prudent move from their point of view, but it was also an extremely aggressive move by the south from the norths point of view. Making speeches and having votes is one thing. Raising a rebel army and opening fire on a federal garrison is something completely different.
I'd say the Union did their fair share of conscripting soldiers as well....
"Hi Mr. O'Brien!!! Welcome to America!!! Time to fight for your country!!!"
The South turned out to be much more effective at conscription. Despite their intent, the North wound up with just 6 % of all soldiers being the product of the draft. In the South it was close to a third of all serving in the eastern theater, and 20 % of the troops serving in the west.
The South got their draft started a full year before the Federal one, tightened the restrictions more severely than did the Union, and expanded the age limits well past the northern standards.
It is understandable that the South would have relied more heavily on the draft, they faced the greater manpower shortage, one that reached crisis level by 1864. While the Federals were arming and training 190,000 black troops for the coming year, all volunteers, the Confederates were reduced to sending large, well armed posses into the mountains of the Carolinas to haul out what had become entire communities of draft dodgers who had made common cause with the primitive living mountain men of the region who had zero interest in the war.
We seem to be in general agreement now that our points are clarified.
I just find southern conscription to be a great example of irony. The southern states claimed they were railing against encroachment by the federal government and that they were the champions of states rights. One of the first things they did however was setup a "permanent federal" government that frequently stepped all over the individual states in an effort to prosecute the war.
Political theory is great, but usually falls by the wayside except for propaganda when it runs into reality. The desertion rate with Southern units was eventually so high that deserters were shot on the spot. One of the great ironies was that the North had soldiers less involved in the cause but more of them. For them going home meant getting the war over so they had plenty of motivation. For the south, the leadership was actually more skillful, but raising an army AND keeping it proved the problem, especially when those forced worried about family and went home. So one of the considerations has to be how willing and motivated are the individual soldiers. For the north it was easy. For the south it was much more complex.
It wasn't just existing US Army personnel who switched. They also made extensive calls for volunteers and began to organize and mobilize their militias before Lincoln even called for troops. It was the south that called up troops first and it was the south that fired first. I don't disagree that all of that was a prudent move from their point of view, but it was also an extremely aggressive move by the south from the norths point of view. Making speeches and having votes is one thing. Raising a rebel army and opening fire on a federal garrison is something completely different.
From what I understand..
the Confederate government authorized the establishment of an army in Feb of 1861 but they did not begin to organize until late April, after Sumter... So the announcement was made to organize an army but they didn't have extensive call up until after Sumter.. again, this is how I understand it. Plus, four of the upper confederate states had not even seceded yet. Therefore, I do not think the Union felt the Confederate Army was a threat until after Manassas. Firing on the Federal Garrison was a dog and pony show, nothing more and just what Lincoln needed to garner support for his preservation of the Union.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
