What was the average, everyday, Southern man in the CSA fighting for during the Civil War? I'm aware that most of them didn't own slaves, I would just like to know their psychology going into the war. Was it just pure patriotism?
>>1057620
very, very bad post, my friend.
Because their country was going to war, simple as that. People had much stronger ties to their states than the federal government back in the day.
>>1057634
;_;
>>1057620
that pic you keep reposting in each one of these threads has a shitton of things wrong with it, but I'll just focus on the last bits.
Manning never argues that slavery was the principle motivation for confederate troops, she simply states that it was a factor and that its existence heavily informed their world views (no fucking shit). The last post in that image claims that the majority of Union soldiers were fighting to end slavery, which is a complete load of shit that should be obvious to anyone who's ever read a non cherry-picked collection of Union troop's letters.
Also
>works a very modest farm for himself and his family
quelle horreur, they must be truly miserable
>>1057556
Emancipate the salves suddenly you have a huge influx of people into the general workforce meaning that the low class white people have to compete with the blacks.
Keeping the institution of slavery in place keeps the status quo in place
>>1057853
Wouldnt low class whites already be competing against slaves though?
>>1057828
I'm waiting till one of you edits (corrects?) it and posts you own CSA approved version, then the proper northern version can come from that version and so on until we have the truth.
>>1057556
Most soldiers across different cultures and times say they fought for the men beside them more than any particular belief. This would probably be the most important thing in the mind of a typical farm boy conscript when it becomes very apparent they are risking their life.
Before then they were likely told that the North were belligerent invaders, well read soldiers and officers might not be pro-slavery but believe the North's reaction is out of proportion and unjustified.
How much blood is justified to free a slave? It is easy to take the moral high ground and say no cost is too great, but there are slaves in third world countries right now. How many people who make this claim are willing to give all their time and money to the anti-human trafficking cause?
Someone will say "why are you trying to justify slavery", I'm not, difficult questions like this aren't going to go away, someone has to ask them.
>>1057828
>quelle horreur, they must be truly miserable
Never let it be said I'm unfair to our brothers to the south
>>1057926
I'm not really a confederaboo, I just don't like that bullshit being passed off as objective.
The best tl;dr I can come up with for the immediate causes of the war is this: the Deep South seceded after Lincoln's election because they were afraid of his stance on slavery, particularly the phrase "this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free," which, taken in combination with the fact that this president was elected without receiving a single electoral vote from a Southern state, helps you see why those states believed they would eventually be marginalized to the point that they'd be powerless to stop abolition (and other threats to Southern agrarianism) if it ever came to a national vote. I actually haven't read letters from troops pulled from these states so I can't tell you their motivations, but fears over the future of slavery and their inability to dictate national politics like they once had were at the forefront of why the the governments of the Gulf states, Georgia, and SC seceded.
Most of the Upper South was split on the issue of secession, rich planters in the lowlands and valleys (who were naturally over-represented in state government) agitated for it but their efforts were at first resisted by yeomen, city-dwellers, those who lived along the northern borders, and members of the military. The voting members of the yeomanry were often owners of slaves, the majority rented slaves, and all of them benefited from the existence of that lesser caste that placed white men of all classes on more equal social standing. These people voted against secession in Virginia and Tennessee until Lincoln made his call to arms against South Carolina over the attack on Fort Sumter, which they regarded as an overstepping of federal power (the right of states to secede was not at all a settled question at this point) and also as a sign that the federal government would do whatever it took to further marginalize and weaken the South.
"We're fighting cuz you're down here"
>>1057556
Actually this question was addressed in AP US History for me, but I'm no expert:
The South was an entirely different culture than the North. The North was more commercialized and their culture and ideas of "Success" were much more familiar to us today due to the Industrial Revolution.
However, in the agrarian South, even the poorest of the poor that didn't own slaves (with the exception of West Virginians and some of the border states) saw those large scale plantation owners as objects of success in their society.
Essentially, to 'own' slaves was a sign of success and to become a wealthy plantation owner and move into the aristocracy was the Southern Man's Dream.
That and the idea of Northen economic tariffs that hurt southern farmers very badly too along with the patriotism element fomented into a bloody civil conflict.
Please anyone feel free to correct me.
>>1058523
continued...
Slavery was a core feature of antebellum Southern life and it was a very significant factor in the lead up to the Civil War, but the Civil War could not have happened the way it did without the preceding power struggles between state and federal governments, the ideological conflict between agrarians and urban industrialists, or the political marginalization of the Southern states. Reducing the entire conflict to "it was over slavery" completely ignores the numerous events and nuanced circumstances that led to the southern states to secede, turning it into nothing more than a pro-government propaganda lesson featuring the good guy yankees vs the evil greedy racists.
A little bit of poverty combined with a little wage and a little patriotism.
>>1057992
they don't give no fucking farmboy two goddamn pistols I'll tell you what.
>>1058570
go to bed Zach
McPartlin talked us full of federalist propaganda.
>why did Basque peasants fought for their petty nobility in the Carlist wars
>why did peasants in some domains fought for the shogunate in the Boshin War
>why did the "Briganti" peasants kept fighting for the Bourbons even after Italian unification
Peasants sometimes identify with the aristocracy, that's one of the things that just happens. It's pretty much random and there is no point in keep looking for explanations.
>>1057556
Slavery put them out of work but also gave them status over blacks. Without slavery, they'd have nothing.
Some of the motivation was sectional. "I don't want no northern city boys running my life" and all that.
>>1057556
to stay out of jail.
the CSA used conscription.
>>1057556
Most of them were poor white farmers.
>>1057869
Slaves weren't paid. Also, maybe Whites didn't do cotton picking and stuff.
>>1057556
They were probably fighting for the men who asked them to fight. There's no telling how many of them actually knew what the fuck the war was being fought for.
>the Civil War was about slavery
every time
>>1057556
A spook
>>1058858
How was it not though? Serious question. I mean, South Carolina was the first state to secede and explained why they did so, slavery
>>1058700
>You have the choice to pay one white dude or to simply keep two slaves alive, the latter being both the cheapest and more productive option
>>1057556
Americans during the civil war identified much more with their individual state than the federal government compared to today. So you could say patriotism and most of the normal motivations and stigmas that get men going off to war throughout history. Another large factor was that the war was fought largely in the south so alot of it was really just
>>Get off muh land
>>1059371
It wasn't directly, but there likely would have been no war if there hadn't been so many states that supported slavery. It's kinda like how the Iraq and afghanistan wars werent directly about oil. Yes there was concern about WMD and attacking the terrorist's base of support, but if there was no oil in the middle east then theres no goddamn reason to even be involved in the middle east and thus many of the involved tensions are non-existant and the entire area basically becomes africa in the perspective of the United States - a bunch of shit land full of people we know little about.
I think this is where the states' rights meme is most historically accurate. The North was seen as an aggressor, and average Southerners while maybe not fighting especially for slavery were fighting to keep their autonomy. They didn't want the North dictating law in the South through the federal government. There were cultural factors involved too, and a strong us vs them mentality.
I've read letters written by Confederate soldiers, and most of them saw the North as a hostile foreign country seeking to invade and conquer them.
>>1060915
> Afghanistan
> oil
>>1060998
They were going to build an oil pipeline
>>1060998
>werent directly about oil
>>1057556
They felt more loyalty for their states/regions than they did the North
Don't remember the source, but I remember a reporter traveling all across the south (pre-war) and every southerner basically gave the same answer, "I don't identify with Northern politics and culture, get their businesses out of here"
It was a conflict of two competing cultures
>>1058595
>Reducing the entire conflict to
The "reduction" is states rights in regards to slavery (so basically slavery), not that it was because of slaves and the argument is that it was still a primary cause of the war. The other factors aren't disregarded completely.
>>1062678
Excellent post my friend.
Truly "top quality"
