A Division
in Slavery
There
are numerous opinions and excellent facts to support those opinions as to why
the South lost the Civil War, but the repeating theme continues to show that
the South lost as a result of the same division that caused secession: slavery.
The issue of slavery in itself caused severe separations within the
South, which led many Southerners to eventually oppose slavery.
The
South, itself, became divided over the issue of slavery, which brought in the
factors of the Border South states, and their having to decide for whom to
fight. Even prior to the Civil War,
Border South Whites, and to a lesser degree Middle South Whites, did not have
the same sentiments about the institution of slavery as did Lower South
Whites. One reason could have been due
to the discrepancy in slave population.
The Border South contained a 12.7 percent slave population on the eve of
the Civil War, compared to the 46.5 percent in the Lower South. Many Border South Whites did not have daily
interactions with slaves or slaveholders, nor did they rely economically upon
either of them. (Freehling 18-23)
Simply, Border South Whites did not have as much invested into slavery
as did Lower South Whites. This resulted
in an increased division between Border South Whites and Lower South Whites at
a time when they needed to be united.
The
lack of connection between Border South Whites and Lower South Whites became
ever more visible during the Civil War.
At the outbreak of the Civil War several Border South states maintained
a position of neutrality. These
attitudes would not sustain for long, and eventually all Border South states
voluntarily joined the Union, including the new state of West Virginia . What was more important was the enlistment of
Union soldiers from these states. The
Union was able to garner over 200,000 border-state Southerners, along with
another 100,000 Middle South Southerners for its cause. (Freehling 61) Losing over 300,000 southern troops to the
enemy was devastating. In addition, when
one adds the inertia of possible soldiers within Kentucky ,
the 71 percent of Kentucky ’s
white males of fighting age who decided on inaction during the Civil War, it
becomes obvious that anti-confederate white Southerners severely injured the
Confederacy’s chances to win the Civil War. (Freehling 54)
The
inability of the Confederacy to align itself with the border states reduced its industrial
capabilities. St.
Louis and Baltimore
were the primary industrial cities in the Border South. St. Louis was
vital for its ship building and repairing expertise, while Baltimore was even more important because of
its railroad industries. Baltimore had the ability
to construct railroad bridges, cars, engines and countless miles of track. The failure of Baltimore to join the Confederacy would prove
to be devastating. Baltimore was a main railroad hub that could
deliver troops throughout the South.
Confederate soldiers were spread all across southern territory. As military action fluctuated from theatre to
theatre at different times throughout the Civil War, the South needed the
capabilities to transfer soldiers effectively.
The failure of the Confederacy to move soldiers to their desired regions
significantly injured southern efforts for victory. If the South could have garnered the Border
South states they would have doubled their industrial output; nevertheless, it
was the North who emerged with additional men and resources. (Freehling 61, 63)
The
issue of slavery also caused many draft riots, draft dodgers and deserters in
the South. The Confederacy introduced
their first military draft law in 1862, which contained the “twenty nigger”
rule. This rule stated that a southerner who controlled twenty or more slaves
did not have to fight in the Confederate army.
This aggravated the growing tensions between non-slaveholding Whites and
slaveholding Whites. Some Southerners
looked at the war as a “rich men’s war and poor men’s fight.” (Freehling
145) The South was fighting to uphold
the institution of slavery, but the institution itself was dividing the ones
who were fighting to protect it.
As
the South became divided over the slavery issue, it opened the doors for the Union to take advantage in many ways. The Union ’s
ability to persuade Border and Middle South anti-confederate White men to
enlist against the Confederacy was a major factor for their victory. This, along with the integration of freed
slaves into the Union army and economy, helped their already superior numbers
and resources. Furthermore, the Union ’s capability of controlling Border South cities
improved its aims toward victory. It was
with the help of these anti-confederates and runaway slaves that the North was
able to win and sustain occupancy in the western theatre of the Civil War, thus
allowing for a greater concentration of Union men and resources to be allocated
to the eastern theatre. Additional
explanations for the outcome of the Civil War have attempted to focus on other
external and internal causes to the South’s demise. However, there are serious questions about
the validity of these arguments, which deserve some additional discussion. Despite these other attempts, the evidence
remains: just as slavery was the cause
of the Civil War, it would also become the reason behind southern defeat.
Anti-confederate
Whites were only one part of how the Union
would exploit the issue of slavery against the South. Another was assimilating runaway southern
slaves into the Union army. At first the
Union was hesitant to incorporate former
southern slaves into the army. Although
there was the introduction of Henry Halleck’s General Orders #3, which stated
that runaway slaves were prohibited in the Union army, this order became
impractical to follow as many Northerners either soundly rejected or often
ignored it. They saw too many benefits
in allowing runaway slaves to join and help the Union . Rejecting slaves and returning them to the
South would only help the Confederacy in its bid to win independence. If the North did not use the slaves, the
South surely would have. In addition,
slaves provided the best resistance against southern guerilla attacks. Slaves had inside knowledge and knew where
Confederate soldiers hid and when attacks would take place. (Freehling
101-102)
In
all, over 178,000 black soldiers joined the Union army against the Confederacy.
(Freehling 121) Largely, they maintained
and resisted Confederate guerilla attacks over areas recently won by Union
forces. For the North to secure an area, primarily an area in the western
theatre, only to lose it again to the South did more harm than good. The North needed to sustain the gains they
made in the western theatre. Leaving
behind tens of thousands of white soldiers to protect forts, contraband camps
and railroad tracks would injure the Union in
future battles. (Freehling 150) The Union army needed the expertise and
training of its white soldiers on the front lines. The North answered this question by
substituting the black soldier for the white soldier. Black soldiers garrisoning conquered territory
became essential to Union victory.
Garrisoning work was often unpleasant, boring and dangerous, which white
soldiers despised. Thus, they welcomed
the idea of black soldiers performing them.
Most importantly, this concept allowed for more trained white soldiers
to fight among the armies of Grant and Sherman.
Their addition also offset the need to draft more Union men. While the North drafted around 200,000 white
men, they gained about the same number of freed slaves. (Freehling 146) Even though the North did suffer from draft
riots, one could make the case that they would have been far worse if not for
the enlisting of black men.
Although,
not as prevalent as garrisoning forts, but nevertheless equally as important,
many Black soldiers also fought on the front-lines in battles for the Union
army. Such battles as Fort Wagner ,
Milliken’s Bend , Port Hudson and Nashville provide
evidence of success due to their assistance.
Even Ulysses S. Grant used black soldiers at the Battle of Petersburg
against Robert E. Lee. (Freehling 135)
Whether it was protecting captured land and resources or fighting
against the southern army, freed black soldiers were crucial to northern
victory.
Former
slaves also expanded the economic capabilities of the North, while diminishing
the Confederacy’s ever more. Freed
slaves could produce for Northerners what they had been supplying to Southerners. Former slaves produced cotton and sugar for
the northern economy, only adding to the growing economy the North witnessed during
the Civil War. The Union army also
benefited by consuming the food the former slaves produced. As ex-slaves were boosting the northern
economy, the South’s already frail economic situation was worsening. Many plantations became unattended because of
the freed slaves. This resulted in
severe bread riots throughout southern cities and Confederate army units. This shortage of food compounded the resource
disadvantage the Confederacy already faced at the beginning of the war.
With
the added naval resource from the obtained border states ,
the Union was able to control the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
of Mexico . This prevented
European intervention and limited shipments leaving the Confederacy to Europe . Cities
such as New Orleans , Baton
Rouge , Natchez and Vicksburg
did succumb to the dominant Union navy, thus providing the Union
with the opportunity to perform its other military objective.
With the fall of New
Orleans in 1862 and Vicksburg
in 1863, along with other major western theatre cities, the North severely
divided the South’s landmass. The Union ’s next step was to encircle Robert E. Lee and his
Army of Northern Virginia in the eastern theatre. The North’s ability to leave behind tens of
thousands of black troops to uphold their military gains in the western theatre
allowed for more trained white soldiers in Sherman’s army to march east to
confront Joseph E. Johnston’s and eventually John Bell Hood’s southern
army. As Sherman
advanced eastward towards the sea, Grant gathered his 120,000 soldiers in Virginia and headed
towards Lee. Sherman devastated several southern states
while Grant was able to surround and force Lee and his army to surrender. The ability of the North to have additional
men and resources to keep Lee and his army occupied in the eastern theatre for
the early part of the Civil War while the North fought and won the western
theatre, proved to be the final reason for northern victory on the battlefield. The North had the added men and resources ultimately
due to the South being divided over the issue of slavery, and the many outfalls
of that fact.
Historians’
interpretations of why the South lost the Civil War extend over a broad
spectrum. Each popular explanation
attempts to show either some sort of internal or external cause for southern
defeat. And since there is not consensus
on why the South lost the Civil War, it becomes necessary to address the
different arguments and dispute their validities.
Many
historians believe that the South lost the Civil War because it “lacked the
will” needed to win, despite the evidence that suggests otherwise. The authors of Why the South Lost the Civil War believe that “lack of will
constituted the decisive deficiency in the Confederate arsenal.” (64) For these authors, Southerners did not have a
firm sense of their own “nationalism” to associate with, thus causing Southerners
to lack in conviction for their cause.
These authors point to the fact that the Confederacy’s Constitution was
nearly verbatim that of the United States Constitution, the Confederacy had
many of the founding fathers on their money and stamps, and the Confederate
flag resembled that of the American flag.
What these authors fail to understand is that the Confederacy believed
they were the rightful heirs of American nationalism. The Union
was the one that had departed from the founding fathers’ ideals, not the Confederacy. The Confederacy seceded from the Union to preserve these original American principles.
(McPherson 30-31) If the Confederate
money, stamps and flag were not enough to show a sense of “nationalism,” then
the fighting on the battlefield was.
Confederate soldiers were fighting for their home, land and family. Most battles and fighting were on southern
territory, making southern commitment more conceivable than that of their
enemy. Even Confederate soldiers’
letters and diaries from the battlefield referred to their country as “my
country,” “our nation,” and “the South.”
(Gallagher 63) “Nationalism”
proved to be a strength for the Confederacy, not a weakness.
Kenneth M. Stampp’s hypothesis of
southern “lack of will,” goes beyond that of the previous authors. Stampp does agree that the lack of southern
“nationalism” was one motive in southern defeat, but his main reason for defeat
is that Southerners “lacked a deep commitment to the southern cause.” (Stampp
255) For Stampp, this “southern cause”
was slavery. Stampp argues that Southerners
were “tormented by guilt about slavery,” and that many welcomed defeat to
escape from this burden. (Stampp 264)
The main problem with Stampp’s concept is that most of the evidence
suggests otherwise. As Gary W. Gallagher
explains in his book The Confederate War,
“direct evidence that sizeable numbers of Confederates harbored serious doubts
about the morality of slavery is scarce.” (Gallagher 46) Another problem with Stampp’s assertion is: if Confederates were “tormented by guilt” over
slavery, why did they fight for so long? (Stampp 264) Even in the last years of the Civil War when
it became clear that the North would win, Confederate soldiers continued to
fight. If Southerners did have an inner
guilt about slavery, their actions before, during, and after the Civil War did
not show it.
Some historians, namely Frank Owsley
and David Donald, have held firm to the idea that state rights caused southern
defeat. Owsley’s main contention was
that certain southern governors withheld men and arms from the Confederate
government just to strengthen their own state militias. (Owsley 1) Donald, in addition, reasons that democratic
practices kept during the Civil War within the southern army and the
Confederate government led to the South’s defeat. The difficulty is, once again, the evidence
confirms the opposite. As the authors in
Why the South Lost the Civil War
illustrate, “The tangible effects of state rights…had little negative effect on
the Confederate war effort.” (Beringer 429)
These same governors and others were the same governors who mobilized
men and resources for the Confederate army.
As for Donald’s proposal, the case can be made that the Confederacy did
as good a job as the Union did in enforcing
the draft and suspending civil liberties; and the Confederacy was harsher on
dissenters than the North. (McPherson 25)
When the Civil War began, southern states did not allow state rights or
democratic procedures to interfere with their main objective, which was to win
the war.
For many historians it was
inevitable that the North would win against a weaker opponent. The North held a large advantage in men and
resources. The Union had a far-superior navy
and held a more substantial amount of railroad trains and tracks. Not only did the North have more resources,
but their production capabilities were greater.
(Current 34) Also, most of the fighting and devastation would occur on
southern territory and in southern cities.
For historians like Richard N. Current, he seems to find it is obvious
to see why the North won: they had the
far-superior numbers. Yet, there are
several problems with this thesis. First,
the Confederacy knew the disadvantage they were up against. Nevertheless, they believed and fought as if
they would win. Secondly, there are
numerous instances of the smaller opponent defeating the favorite. A prime example was America ’s war of independence against Great Britain . Lastly, the South nearly won the Civil War on
a few occasions. If the South had won a
few more battles earlier in the Civil War, or if even one battle, the Battle of
Gettysburg, would have ended differently, then the history of the Civil War
might be different. As the evidence
confirms, the North winning the Civil War was not inevitable.
Each explanation fails to live up to
its claim as the reason for southern defeat, thus, bringing one back to the
original assertion. The South lost the
Civil War because of the issue that created it, slavery. Slavery divided the Lower South from the border states , and to a
certain degree the Middle South. This
allowed for 450,000 anti-confederate Whites and freed slaves to join the Union
army. This does not count the tens of
thousands of anti-confederate Southerners and freed slaves who helped in the
factories, in the cities and on the plantations for the war effort. It was with these extra men and resources
that the North was able to conduct its military objectives, first in the
western theater and eventually in the eastern theater. Slavery had embodied Southern society and had
led the South to secession, but slavery would also lead the Confederacy to
defeat.
No comments:
Post a Comment