There’s a great deal of time and effort spent at looking at Southerners in the Civil War, and in the years leading-up to the secession crisis. We see several books, articles, blog posts, etc. focused on “what they were fighting for” (in this instance, one could say this statement applies to both Southern Confederates and Southern Unionists), and, on a much lesser degree… what they were not fighting for (and, in this, I’m inclined to place emphasis on many Southern Unionists and “leave-aloners”… and, in the case of some leave-aloners AND those who cast their lot at the beginning of the war with the Confederacy, there were those who grew intolerant and disillusioned of/with the Confederacy, even to the point of fighting back)… but we rarely see what got the South and Southerners to that point. We can see a great deal regarding political and sectional differences, but that often doesn’t go quite as deep as it should, in explaining the people of the South.
I think, in scattered Confederate-leaning content on the Web, we see a lot of assuming, with very little basis for such assumptions. The “foundations” for such thinking are incredibly weak. In particular, there are quite a number of people who are limiting themselves to seeing their immediate lineage (and nothing further… well, that is, in some cases… until convenient), and often see the South as a culture carried over from Celtic origins… indeed, I often see way too much emphasis being placed on Scots-Irish origins. If this was really the case, then how does one explain away the diverse cultural content found within one of the most famed Confederate units in the field? Of course, as one whose writing is regularly centered on the Shenandoah Valley, I’m talking about the Stonewall Brigade. Sure, there are people of Scots-Irish origin in the ranks, but I assure you… they did not dominate the ranks. I can go through the rosters and pick out many a person of German origin, and others as well… to include English, Swiss, and Welch.
I’m not saying that “as the Shenandoah Valley went, so did the South”. Indeed, that would be absurd. In the reverse, I wouldn’t dare say that the South represented a single culture or the collective of regions within the South (something like saying… “the actions of the South represent those found in the Shenandoah Valley”… again, absurd). One could just as easily make the assumption that the mid-west Northern states thought in the same manner as the New England states. It’s without basis, and it requires a better understanding of the people. Once again, this is a situation that requires a “bottom-up” approach, as opposed to the “top-down” approach.
O.K., I suppose I’m rambling… or you’re witnessing a thought process in motion… hence the beauty of a blog…
There comes a time whereby one needs to dig deeper than being content with scratching the surface.
I spend a great deal of time writing about Southern Unionists in the Valley, and yet my appetite for an even better understanding is still not quite satisfied. I want to know where the lines of division were… internally. It’s useful to know where people within different regions, within the South, thought in harmony and without question… and where they began to divide, and branch out on alternative roads. If all of Southern culture (as it existed, or as it had developed, up until the 1850s) did not embrace the Confederacy, what explains the difference in opinion among others… even among neighbors… AND, more importantly, a difference in opinion among family members… even under the same roof?
Likewise, for those who were conditional Confederates… to what end would they commit to an idea of an independent South, and what was their level of tolerance for the very government that they opted to side with early on… and yet decide to abandon (as disillusioned/disaffected Confederates) later?
I’ve mentioned tolerance and conditional/unconditional before… conditional Unionists and unconditional Unionist (understanding that the definition of ”unconditional Unionism” is “capped” within a particular timeline, of course), and, as I mentioned above, conditional Confederates. I don’t think that the best examination of Southern Unionism can go without consideration of the others, in the same area. All must be considered to form a more complete picture. But, how far back, before the 1850s, is it necessary to take such a study?
While it won’t dominate my posts, I believe it’s time to begin probing this subject matter… just a little more. Who knows what I might find?
Steam at Harper's Ferry
September 22, 2012
1842? I’m thinking since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made slavery much more lucrative, the years between the Supreme Court ruling in 1842 (in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/41/539/case.html) stating that the states were not required to help the federal government (with enforcing the existing federal fugitive slave law of 1793) and 1850 (where the states were required to assist), there could be some interesting numbers on the domestic slave trade. Maybe you could show that in the north, slaveholders were more frequently selling their slaves to those in southern states between 1842 and 1850. The border states would be very interesting during that time and you would see a lot of change in probate and property-related cases. You would most certainly see a trend in families where the slaves were emancipated. When money is involved, as it would be with estate issues, there may be much grist for your mill.
Robert Moore
September 23, 2012
Thanks for commenting! Interesting theory as to the date. Taking away considerations of what was taking place in the North, what do you think distinguishes the different groups of people (and their future sentiments, during the war) within Southern culture, because of that date? Can you identify divisions within it because of the fugitive slave law?
Steam at Harper's Ferry
September 24, 2012
Federalism? It is one thing to ask the government to have laws to protect property, quite another to do the enforcement on the government’s behalf. I have read, and I can’t put my finger on the exact material, that some families would encourage escape to avoid providing health care and food to their slaves, as well as direct emancipation. If the Supreme Court, and I have some inkling that this is true, tries to not only uphold the Constitution, but considers popular sentiment, the 1842 decision may have been a reflection of popular feeling (even if not based on morality but rather economics). If the decision was a reflection of popular sentiment, those emanicipating their slaves or encouraging escape could rest a little easier. They would not be called upon as often to pay fines for their escaped slaves who were captured because enforcement would be lax (no incentives). I imagine that there would be those looking to the fugutive slave law as a strict interpretation of the Constitution in 1850 and, much like today, encourage vigilantism, under the guise of the law. Families may have been divided regarding whether the government has a right to interfere with “family business” …
Robert Moore
September 24, 2012
Without a doubt, the economic ties to slavery were factors, but strange enough, in the decisions of both those with secession leanings and some Southern Unionists.
Also, when it came to lingering, older-era political sentiments… they were certainly a factor in the decisions of some, and when reflecting on Southern Unionists I think that connections to the Whig ideology may have been a very real element in reluctance among older Southerners when it came to abandoning the Union.
If you haven’t already, take a look at yesterday’s post for another path I’m considering. Reader/blogger Vince has given more even more to consider as I look deeper at religious influence on sentiments.
mib8
September 23, 2012
By 1860, those Germans, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, French, Quaker, plus the tidewater “cavalier” families were already pretty well blending. A surname/nachname won’t reveal the mixtures.
Even if we look at the Shenandoah Valley, alone, there was mixture from the beginning of European settlement in the winter of 1730-1731, and that increased over time, with each bringing along and mixing or trying to sustain various aspects of the cultures they brought with them. With people moving down after a few generations from MA and NY and PA I can’t imagine being able to sort out the blend and pin-pointing the various conflicts and relationships it gave rise to. (For instance, I’ve discovered recently that some of those Ulster Scots-Irish had roots in the Irish and Saxons, because the records were obscured by the Norman clerks’ mangling of names and such to adapt them to naming practices to which they were accustomed, just as happened when people moved to America.)
Robert Moore
September 24, 2012
There were overlaps, and there were those who had been, over the generations, much more “Anglicized” (or even “Tidewater-ized”), but I wouldn’t say that the culture of the Valley had been “pretty well blended”.
As I point out, in the case of those of Lutheran German descent, many had been “Anglicized”, but were still influenced by cultural backgrounds, including ideology… some more so than others. I’ve indentified different instances in which one might say some were “keeping up with the Joneses” and trying to fit it what I would consider… not entirely, but to a degree… more of a Tidewater society in the Valley (I’ve even found evidence where social affiliation with Lynchburg altered some Valley families), rather than a true-to-the-Valley society (which really wasn’t a “society” at all, and was more reflective of a rural lifestyle and culture than what was seen in the “Tidewater slaveocracy”). Additionally, communities such as the Brethren say something quite to the contrary regarding “assimilation” into the mainstream.
There are two factors that are highly influential in keeping complete assimilation at bay… geography and religion.
Janet
September 24, 2012
I am confused about your statement:
“What I’m focused on is… why… by the time of the war, all of its people did not march in harmony with one another in regards to sentiment in the war.”
Robert Moore
September 24, 2012
When secession (and later the war) came, not every Southerner was enthusiastic about either. They did not all embrace the Confederacy. The reason for this was a division in sentiments… for example, some embraced the Confederacy, some were less enthusiastic and did so reluctantly and with limits, some continued to hold firm to the old Union, and some would rather just be left alone and stay out of it. These are easily seen in various examples I’ve given in different blog posts. What cannot be seen, however, is the reason for these differences, and how deeply early ideologies were rooted in them, that led them to their conclusions regarding secession and the Confederacy… even when it came to those who might be considered “conditional Confederates”.