The argument can be common.
The war was about slavery vs. the war was not about slavery.
Usually, when those two points of view collide, the result is a string of reasons why… coming from both sides.
More significant to me are the accounts of people who lived in that time… and even better if written during the war years… especially if coming from a Southerner in the midst of slavery.
While this comes from the decade after the closing of the Civil War, a portion of the Southern Unionist claim deposition of Elizabeth Mummaw, of Frederick County, Virginia still gives us something to consider.
During the war, she and her husband, Jacob M. Mummaw, lived “about 3 ½ miles from Middletown in Shenandoah Co. at Willow Mills on Cedar Creek.” For those who prefer to touch base with the nativism of the Mummaws, as a sort of litmus test as to where their Unionism was coming from, Elizabeth was born in Baltimore, and her husband was a native of Frederick County, in the Shenandoah Valley.
We both sympathized with the north and with the cause of the Union all the time from beginning to end of the war and so did all our family.
My husband did all he could for Union soldiers when they were about: he helped my brother to escape from the rebel army and kept him concealed when the rebels were around… We took the Union side and stuck to it all the time.
When the state seceded my husband said he was not going to vote for secession, that he had no blacks to vote for and was not going to vote for a slave government. This was after persons had called on him and told him to go and vote, and I asked him what he was going to do. We did not believe in slavery; we were members of the United Brethren Church.
Of course, my primary interest in bringing this up was the quote pinning slavery on the Confederate government. It’s rich stuff… a native of the Shenandoah Valley, living at that time in the midst of slavery… in that area… stating outright that he (and his wife) did not side with the Confederacy because he saw it as being a slave government.
There’s something else here as well…
As I pointed out the other day, there were Southern Unionists who were slaveholders… and that might have come as a surprise to some.
Then too, as we see here, there were Southern Unionists who were anti-slavery… and that might not come as any great surprise to most.
But we also have religion coming into play in this case of Southern Unionists with anti-slavery viewpoints. There has been much attention placed on this in the Shenandoah Valley, but when it comes to the Brethren, it’s usually in the area around Rockingham County. In these parts (Frederick County), however, the influence of the Quaker faith usually comes to mind more often (and this also spills over into neighboring Loudoun County, just beyond the Valley, on the east side of the Blue Ridge).
Southern Unionism was not limited in its origins.
Good stuff.
Cenantua's Blog 
Vince
July 11, 2012
Your post captured my attention for the last name Mummaw, which I recognize as (1) a common name among Lancaster County Mennonites and Brethren and (2) the farm on the Antietam Battlefield. So, I did some quick searching, and it turns out both relations exist:
Click to access Mumma_slaves.pdf
The Mumma(w) who settled near Sharpsburg was the great uncle of Jacob M. Mummaw, and came with his family from Lancaster County in 1796.
From that link, you can also see the family’s history of slave-owning, and that Jacob M. Mummaw held one elderly woman as a slave in 1860. Also, it says the Mummaws were not necessarily Brethren, but also Lutheran and Reformed. Did you confirm their Brethren affiliation?
I’d give more of my thoughts about the relationship between the migration of Anabaptists and others from Lancaster County up the Shenandoah Valley and sentiments about the war/slavery, but I should yield to Lehman and Nolt’s Mennonites, Amish, and the Civil War since I believe it very directly addresses this topic.
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
I was wondering if there might be a connection. Thanks for doing that legwork to confirm it.
As far as them being Brethren, no, I haven’t confirmed this, but as this was stated by the wife, I feel comfortable that it was accurate.
I’m now curious as to just how many, among Frederick County Unionist (at least through the claims) were Brethren. It jumped out at me rather quickly and may have just been random luck… and I’m not sure just how many more I’ll really find from Brethren in the northern end of the Valley. I anticipated a greater number of claims from Quakers in this area, being more familiar with the greater concentration of Brethren claimants in Rockingham County.
Vince
July 11, 2012
Also, I might not directly connect opposition to a slave government with anti-slavery sentiments. After spending a lot of time with primary sources for Lancaster County, it’s apparent that some of the strongest support for the war against the rebellion came not from abolitionists (there were few, although they did send Thaddeus Stevens to Congress) but from the agricultural merchant class (e.g., millers, storekeepers, cattle drovers), who often had Anabaptist heritage.
My inference is that the idea of a slavery so fully offended their sensibilities about business, work, and society that they hated the idea of government run by Southern slave owners and lent their full support to the war. It’s sort of a capitalist argument against slavery by the people who were thriving in nineteenth-century Lancaster County’s idyllic form of capitalism. Here’s one of my favorite examples of a soldier with such a background: http://www.lancasteratwar.com/2011/10/better-know-soldier-elias-h-witmer.html
It would be interesting to know whether this notion applies to Jacob M. Mummaw.
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
“Also, I might not directly connect opposition to a slave government with anti-slavery sentiments.”
That’s a good point, though when comparing people of the same religious background in another geographic area (with different social and cultural factors), I’d also be cautious. Being in the midst of active slavery, in Virginia, I think, may have been a factor in this regard.
Vince
July 11, 2012
Ah, yes. I missed or misread part of the text excerpted from the claim. Your original point in the post makes a lot more sense to me than what I wrote.
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
Not a problem. I was thinking you might have missed that part of the quote.
Vince
July 11, 2012
On the subject of Southern Unionists with Pennsylvania heritage, check out this wacky story of a soldier who was a private (maybe even a sergeant) in the 26th Virginia Infantry, deserted in July 1862, fled to Lancaster, and recruited a cavalry company there that became part of the 20th Pennsylvania Cavalry. I found more information about him that I’ll post on my blog in the upcoming days:
http://wpcamiandrich.wordpress.com/family-history/christian-b-hebble-civil-war-service-and-hebbles-independent-co/
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
This is yet another form of Southern Unionism… and one that I’m hesitant to classify as such (though these folks need to be considered within the big picture of Southern Unionism). Culturally, he was Pa.-born and raised. Only situationally did he became “Southern”. Likewise, his new-found locale found him wrangled into Confederate service. An equally sad state of affairs more commonly found in the border counties of Virginia.
That being said, however, this wasn’t always the case. Jed Hotchkiss, for example, was a New Yorker by birth (and by culture, at least as raised), and did not come to Virginia until the 1850s. Ultimately, he embraced his new locality, and was quick to back the culture that he embraced.
*I also see the author of the Hebble post states that he was conscripted. That wouldn’t be possible in 1861, since the first conscription act didn’t come about until ’62. He may, however, be considered “pressed”. I’m curious to see now (and may have to look in the records) if it’s documented as a “conscription” in his service record.
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
I’ll be tapping into the Northern-born/raised Southern Unionists in an upcoming post, but that also opens up another area that needs examination… Southern-born/raised folks who relocated to the North before the war and backed the Union. Still Southern Unionists, but with yet another twist. There’s even a subgroup in the subgroup, I guess one could say… some of those (or their parents or grandparents) had left the South over the issue of slavery, though they were deep-rooted Virginians.
Robert Moore
July 11, 2012
One other thing about Hebble. I’d be particularly interested to know what is in his pension records. I wonder if they grilled him on the point I’ve seen with others who went from gray to blue. There is usually something about having to prove that one did not “willfully bear arms against the US”.
Janet
July 11, 2012
The wiki article on the Southern Claims Commission uses the term “Southern Loyalists.” The term loyalist rang a bell, because I had just read news articles about a case of disloyalty in Charles City County on Dec. 2 and 5th 1862, while compiling articles for that county. A woman and her children were arrested for entertaining Yankees during their occupation, which probably refers to McClellan’s occupation of Harrison’s Landing, etc. right after the Seven Days Battle – July 1 – mid-Aug. She was acquitted after witnesses testified in her support. I doubt if such a person would succeed in a Southern Claim – – another example of the evils of war – a no-win situation.
I tried to find the Crime of disloyalty in the Code of VA 1849, which is online, but no luck. All I could find were crimes of treason and inciting rebellion among slaves. After a little hunting around, I found the Encyclopedia Virginia article on “Civil Liberties in Virginia during the Civil War.”
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Civil_Liberties_in_Virginia_during_the_Civil_War
A Habeas Corpus Commissioner was established, among other things. The article in the Richmond Daily Dispatch, in fact, began with the term “Habeas Corpus.”
Robert Moore
July 12, 2012
That sounds like an interesting case. Thanks, Janet.
I’ve also come across a case in Page County, whereby a Unionist was brought in and held in the county jail. Ultimately, the county felt that they had no jurisdication in a treason case. He was sent to Richmond, but escaped along the way. He later became a surgeon with a West Virginia regiment.