Yes, you read that correctly. Give me a little time, and I’ll set the stage…
As many who follow this blog know, one of my favorite areas of study is western Maryland… most especially, the Clear Spring and Conococheague Districts in Washington County. Likewise, I spend a good deal of time researching the men from this area who were members of Col. Henry Cole’s 1st Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry (US). As most of the men in Co. B were from these two districts, and considering the fact that this area was, indeed, south of the Mason-Dixon Line, many of the men could be classified as Southerners. Even C. Armour Newcomer, author of the only standing history of Cole’s Cavalry, considered himself Southern (though not a Washington Countian, but native of Baltimore, and member of Co. A).
Although connected by ties of birth and blood with the South, I loved my country and flag better than my State or section.
Being culturally Southern, and being in support of Union, the label “Southern Unionist”, therefore, seems only fitting for these people.
Still, in that there were several “tiers” of Southern Unionists, I need to be clear. While some Southern Unionists were, without a doubt, unconditional Unionists, there were a good number, even among the unconditionalists, who continued to embrace the institution of slavery. There was, at least at the early point in the war, no need to draw a line between the two – slaveholder and Unionist. In fact, it appears that some of these slaveholding, unconditional Unionists clung to the Union even tighter, thinking that following the Union, not secession, was the best way to preserve the peculiar institution.
So, this gets me to the point where I can explain a little about the reasoning behind the title of this post…
This has all been in the back of my head for sometime, but tonight, I sat down, for just a little while, to tap into the 1860 slave schedules for Clear Spring… and, I was not disappointed at my findings. On the first page (there are only three pages for Clear Spring) I selected (page 2), I found Mr. Henry Firey. Henry was born about 1795, and was still kicking in 1860. Not only was he kicking, but he was also the owner of seven slaves (ranking third in most slaves held by anyone, at that time, in that district).
Firey/Fiery Family Monument, St. Pauls Lutheran Church Cemetery, Clear Spring, Md.
Yes, I know, Henry was too old to fight… but he did have sons who merit further attention.
One son, William F. Firey, was the captain of Company B of Cole’s Cavalry (1st Potomac Home Brigade Cavalry).
Another son, Lewis P. Firey, carried huge anti-secessionist sentiments, and not only played a powerful part in securing a strong following for Bell and the Constitutional Union party in Clear Spring, but was a lion for the early Union war effort in the district. When the 1st Potomac Home Brigade Infantry formed, Lewis was initially on the books as a major and enrolling officer, but declined further service once he was tapped for a spot in the wartime Maryland legislature.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Believe me, I know all too well that sons did not necessarily carry-over the sentiments of their fathers. I’ve encountered this on more than one occasion in the Shenandoah Valley… some fathers being devout Unionists, while sons were Confederates… sometimes even Confederate officers. But, we’re left to wonder just what that relationship was between the sons and their father’s slaves, and how, and if, it had any influence on their decisions in 1861, and even into 1862. Were they ashamed, was it simply part of life as they understood it, or were they men of action, doing what they did, in part, with the hope of seeing the continuance of slavery?
I think it merits further thought and discussion… and, of course, research.
Cenantua's Blog 
Adam Rybczynski
February 19, 2011
That makes sense. I imagine many Union supporters were in favor of keeping slavery.
Great post and originality
Robert Moore
February 19, 2011
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
Richard
February 19, 2011
In “Creating a Confederate Kentucky” Anne Marshall, in chapter one, contends that one arguments that supporters of the Union used in trying to oppose secession was that staying in the Union was the best way to protect slavery, based on laws then in effect. She further argues that part of the reason for Kentucky’s “joining the Confederacy after the way was over” was that the act of emancipation (and then the arming of African Americans) left many Kentuckians feeling betrayed – they had supported the Union, expecting slavery to be protected, as the Republican party had promised .
If you accept this argument and believe that it factored into the reasoning of a large number of people, your post title could be correct, at least for them.
It might even be the case for my family. My g-g-g-g-grandfather lived in the mountains of eastern Kentucky as of 1860, and owned 14 slaves according to that year’s census. One of his grandsons (a distant uncle to me) fought for the Union.
Now, I have no evidence showing the political feelings those men had, but it is conceivable they fit into the group of people who thought that staying in the Union was the best way to protect slavery.
Robert Moore
February 19, 2011
I also have the hunch that this might even apply to two of my distant uncles from eastern Kentucky. Both wore blue. In fact many of the men had to fight through the lines just to join the regiment. One brother died at Corinth in late 1862. The other skeedaddled in early 1863, not terribly long after the EP. He never went back. Can’t prove it this was why he deserted , but it’s my hunch.
joe
August 16, 2011
Hello Robert
This is an interesting possibility did the union go to war in an effort to preserve the existing union with slavery or was there a hidden agenda of the ‘black’ republicans to end the south’s particular institution.
In 1861 the north went to war to restore and preserve the union not taking up the question of slavery. The perceived idea that the south’s particular institutions were threatened is the under-current that forced the south to seek independence. The south went to war in an effort to become independent in which the fruits of the constitution could be enjoyed.
John C ‘path-finder’ Freemont issued a proclamation freeing slaves as the commander of the Missouri department but was forced by President Lincoln to retract the statement.
General Butler also issued a statement ending slavery but was also forced to retract the freedom of slaves. President Lincoln feared freeing slaves would force border-states as Maryland and Kentucky into the confederacy. President Lincoln went so far as to offer to purchase all the slaves in Kentucky if Kentucky would end slavery his offer was declined.
After of General Lee’s Maryland campaign President Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation which ended slavery in the confederate states as of January 1, 1863. President Lincoln with this proclamation offered the southern states a chance to come back into the union including their particular institution by December 31, 1862. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in the United States.
In conclusion we must admit that the north fought to restore the old union; one with slavery for the first two years of the war. As of January 1, 1863 the union fought to establish a new union without slavery. The south fought for independence from both the old and new union.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished slavery. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.
President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in the Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states or any other areas where slavery was still technically legal.
Robert Moore
August 16, 2011
“This is an interesting possibility did the union go to war in an effort to preserve the existing union with slavery or was there a hidden agenda of the ‘black’ republicans to end the south’s particular institution.”
Well, no, not really. The point that comes to mind is if some of those who remained Unionists, and yet still embraced the institution of slavery, went to war with the intent to protect that, under arms.
“In 1861 the north went to war to restore and preserve the union not taking up the question of slavery. The perceived idea that the south’s particular institutions were threatened is the under-current that forced the south to seek independence. The south went to war in an effort to become independent in which the fruits of the constitution could be enjoyed.”
That’s not necessarily correct either, as there were some in the North, who went to war with abolitionist sentiments, and no doubt that carried over to their purpose for going to war. Both of these sentences are rather broad-brush, and that approach should not be taken, considering the complexities of reasons behind different people.
“John C ‘path-finder’ Fremont issued a proclamation freeing slaves as the commander of the Missouri department but was forced by President Lincoln to retract the statement.
General Butler also issued a statement ending slavery but was also forced to retract the freedom of slaves. President Lincoln feared freeing slaves would force border-states as Maryland and Kentucky into the confederacy. President Lincoln went so far as to offer to purchase all the slaves in Kentucky if Kentucky would end slavery his offer was declined.”
You can see more details about Lincoln’s approach to colonization, in 1862, in one of my earlier posts… and the border states reply to it.
“After of General Lee’s Maryland campaign President Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation which ended slavery in the confederate states as of January 1, 1863. President Lincoln with this proclamation offered the southern states a chance to come back into the union including their particular institution by December 31, 1862. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in the United States.”
Yet, a couple of the border states took action before the 13th Amendment was passed. Maryland, for example, freed its own slaves in November 1864.
“In conclusion we must admit that the north fought to restore the old union; one with slavery for the first two years of the war. As of January 1, 1863 the union fought to establish a new union without slavery. The south fought for independence from both the old and new union.”
I hesitate to summarize in such a way, knowing that this can’t be applied to all, in either region.
joseph m bott
August 18, 2011
Recapitulate:
Your post suggests one reasonable view and is true when looking at a single individual or small group. Another reasonable view is general, one about the government and the laws of the land which disregards the goals and beliefs of individuals..
Consider when an individual responded to Lincolns call for volunteers they joined state militia were trained and then their units inducted into union service.
Speculation —
If one was inducted into federal service they were required to take oaths of loyalty supporting the government and preserving the constitution.
These oaths to the government and the constitution override all individual sentiments.
Since the government exist only on the authority of the constitution and the constitution protects slavery
Therefore: individuals in union service were protecting the government and preserving the constitution that protects slavery.
Most folks even the ones with abolitionist sentiments at the time never realized that they were engaged in protecting slavery due to oaths given to preserve the constitution.
The logic and reasoning is undeniable until President Lincoln using the war powers act issued the emancipation proclamation which ended slavery in the confederate states.
Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation went into effect January 1, 1863.
By invoking the war powers act President Lincoln over-rides the liberties and protection of the constitution ending the protection of slavery in states in rebellion. At this moment folks in the union forces no longer sought to protect slavery but to end slavery in the confederate states. Thirteenth Amendment ended the constitutional protection of slavery.
US Senate passed the 13th amendment on April 8, 1864 and the House January 31, 1865
Your point Maryland, for example, freed its own slaves in November 1864 and I might add ratified 13th Amendment on February 3, 1865. Other border states Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 8, 1865) and Kentucky (March 18, 1976, after having rejected it on February 24, 1865)