Question on the Civil War

Now, keep in mind that I am only 21 years old. I am a history major who did not fight in the Civil War. I thought a new thread was needed because the old one was long and hateful in certain parts. Here are some questions that I would like answered, for those who think the Civil War was simply about Slavery:

Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy? Only the wealthiest 2% (give or take half a percentage) owned 50 or more slaves.

Why did the Native American tribes, including my own, support the Confederacy?

Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy? (Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.)

Judah P. Benjamin, a Jew, moved to Richmond and became the "brains of the confederacy." Why?

If the Confederacy had so many allies, why did they become allies?

Finally, since I don't have my Constitution in front of me at the moment, was there even a mandate preventing secession of states prior to the Reconstruction amendments?

Don't think too hard, but think hard enough and reply. I want some good answers.

On edit: corrected mistakes by adding "50 or more" to the first question.

...and, I presume, a Southerner, you know the answers, or have a historical interpreation on what you are basing your answers on.

The last question first.

From what I understand the Constitution was not ratified by the individual state governments, but by state ratifying conventions. So for states to seceed they would, presumabably, have to have held secession conventions.

As for slavery being the driver of secessionist sentiment, I recall the first two secession crisis in US history...the New England "Hartford Convention" during the war of 1812 and the SC Nullification Crisis, where driven by economic considerations...war hurting trade and a tariff. Economic reasons (and imperialist ones) where why the English PM supported the war, too.

Yet the secession issue sort of remained open until the Southern states actually did leave the union. I guess the issue is moot now, but it was an open question in the antebellum era. I think Jackson addressed the Nullification Crisis with a threat of military action, which averted SC secession.

Not much time but here are many of the factors involved in the questions you raised. Get a copy of James McPherson's Ordeal by Fire for more on all this.

1. White Southerners supported the CSA for a variety of reasons, including a real fear of being subjugated by those they saw as foreign invaders. Some did fight to defend slavery (read Alexander Stephens' "cornerstone speech" for this). Some fought in order to establish a new Southern nation that they felt would give them a fairer shake economically than that of the North, where they believed the wage system and industrialism would impoverish them or "enslave" them.

2. Native American tribes fought on both sides. Because they'd experienced such depredations from men in blue, fighting under the US flag, many felt the Southerners would deal with them more fairly. Some had regional affiliations they deemed important and would have fought whoever sought to disturb those. Some were approached by Southerners because of their reputed prowess in war and persuaded to throw their lot in with the South for reasons listed above.

I'd imagine any bio of Lord Palmerston and Judah Benjamin would answer the remainder. Brief ones I'm sure could be found through google.

There was no mention of secession in the Constitution, but no mention of how to prevent it either. But various clauses and amendments have been pointed to by partisans of both sides that justify their respective stances.

Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy?
- It wasn't a one-issue conflict, & even if it had been, it's always easy for the ruling elite to get the people to go along with what they (the elite) want, by (cf. the immortal words of Hermann Goerring) simply telling the people that they are under attack & making appeals to "patriotism." Modern-day Americans were made to believe 4 months ago that Iraq posed a great threat to them! -- Certainly, the North posed a far more real threat to the South 140 years ago, than did modern-day Iraq. Issues like states' rights had some measure of validity. Actually, the conflict was one of struggle for supremacy between 2 rival economic systems & 2 ruling elites: Northern industrialists & bankers vs Southern plantation owners. Slavery was related to this struggle but in important ways, only indirectly related.

Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy?
- I don't think he actually did. Both France & England were wooed by the CSA, but without real success. Both countries were tempted, however. The South had cotton; England had textile mills. There certainly was some substantial basis for them to strike a deal. // If the South had won a few more crucial battles (Antietam or Gettysburg), the European powers very conceivably would have decided to support the South.

- Judah Benjamin was not exactly a Northern Jew. He was "Born in the West Indies in 1811 to observant Jewish parents, Benjamin was raised in Charleston, South Carolina. A brilliant child, at age 14 he attended Yale Law School and, on graduation, practiced law in New Orleans..."
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Benjamin.html

I just answered this the other thread. Here's a cut and paste without the links, as I don't want to format it all again.

Question: Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy? Only the wealthiest 2% (give or take half a percentage) owned slaves.

Answer: You are wrong.

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (

The plantation class were a minority, but lots of ordinary white men owned one or two slaves to work their farm. Further, many non-slave-owning poor white men supported slavery out of racism. Being white gave one a little bit of status in that culture, and for a poor dirt farmer that little bit of status was a point of pride.

Question: Why did the Native American tribes, including my own, support the Confederacy?

Answer: Probably because they were pissed at being relocated to Oklahoma by the federal government.

Question: Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy? Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.

Answer: Cotton. At that time the American south was the biggest supplier of high-quality cotton in the world. The blockade put a lot of Brits out of work and cost mill owners a lot of money.

Question: Judah P. Benjamin, a Northern Jew, moved to Richmond and became the "brains of the confederacy." Why?

Answer: I dunno. You'll have to dig him up and ask him.

Question: In Brazil, "Confederados" still celebrate the history of the confederacy. Obviously the reasons for the foundation of the Confederate States of America was not so simple as "them southerners wuz stupid an evil an wanted slaves and that's why."

Obviously? After the war, some plantation owners and other southerners moved to Brazil because it was one of the few places on the planet where slavery was still legal. Brazilians deposed their Emperor, who was a real good guy, when his daughter said something about abolishing slavery.

Comment: If you want to study history, study history. If you want to watch TV, watch TV. Try not to get the two confused.

Or, in your case, don't confuse history with neo-confederate myth.

Oh, you mean the question was rhetorical? It was only an attempt at character/intellect assassination? oh, ok.

You are both right and wrong. I did word 'slaveowners' question wrong. While less than 2% of White Southerners owned 50 or more slaves or more, many did own less than that. However, the highest number I have EVER heard was 25%, so I'm not sure where the 1/3 came from. None own slaves now, because they're all quite dead.

I'll not bother to respond to the stuff that I allowed to die on the other thread. However, if you think I'm actually, a "neo-confederate," you may bite me.

Why did more than 2% of Southerners support the Confederacy? Only the wealthiest 2% (give or take half a percentage) owned slaves.

While only 2% of the pop may have owned slaves, the economy and culture was built around slavery. Under slavery poor whites were not at the bottom of the heap, blacks were. And never underestimate the power of racism and nationalism.

Why did the Native American tribes, including my own, support the Confederacy?

Simple, a divided United States was less likely to be able to expand than a united one. Promises were made by the Confederacy that would have been broken if the Confederacy had been successful.

Why did the Prime Minister of England support the Confederacy? (Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s.)

Fear of America as a world rival. A successful Confederacy would prevent what was an obvious trend: the eclipse of the British Empire and the rise of an American Empire.

Judah P. Benjamin, a Northern Jew, moved to Richmond and became the "brains of the confederacy."

Benjamin was born in the Danish West Indies and moved to the South when he was 5. He never lived in the North.

If the Confederacy had so many allies, why did they become allies?

France was friendly as it was left free to take over Mexico and also for economic reasons.

This arguement that the Civil was was not in huge part because of slavery is one of my biggest pet peeves. Any cursory examination of American history (especially from the 1830s on) shows the clock ticking to the explosion in 1861: Missouri Compromise, The Caning of Charles Sumner of Mass, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Bloody Kansas, the John Brown Raid, etc.

I did not read my post closely enough.

I should have finished my remarks and noted that 2% may have held a sizable number of slaves (I'd have to check the figure) but a relatively large number held 1,2,3 slaves, a quarter to a third of the south. Areas with low slave ownership favored and assisted the North: Parts of Tennessee, West Virginia (became a state in 1863), parts of North Carolina and other areas.

I'll learn to be more careful with the Preview v Post Meassage buttons.

war for liberation.


By the way, I just finished watching Gods and Generals. Some critics called it a homage to the Confederacy. After seeing the movie I disagree.

I just think some of the more interesting and colorful characters were on the southern side.

This excerpt seemed to imply that he was not from a Southern state:

http://www.jewish-history.com/judahpb.html

However, he was indeed from the West Indies.

because it was in the European powers national interest to have a divided United States.

How many of us did fight in the Civil War? I was alive though when the last Civil War veteran died, but I don't think you were. :-)

"The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854" 1991 William Freehling

The Civil War was about "property". The plantation owners of the south knew that running financially viable plantations required slavery. There has been much said about the "withering away" of slavery. In a way, the southern plantation owners were in a catch-22.
Slavery was an inefficient system on the face of it. For a slave, there was absolutely no reason to work other than to avoid punishment.
They saboutaged equipment; saboutaged crops; stole their masters blind; refused to work; ran away frequently (not always in an almost hopeless attempt to the north - just into towns, neighboring plantations, the woods); and rebelled. But, the owners couldn't hire white workers because local whites wouldn't do "nigger" work at any price and immigrant labor failed because better jobs were available in the north. Also, even if they freed the slaves, what would they do with millions of newly freed, uneducated, people with a grudge? There was a real terror of the likelihood of vengeance by a released underclass. You have only to read journals, letters, newspapers of the time to see this.

Southern politicians, who were mostly, almost exclusively, slaveholders sought to protect their "property" from interference from the US government and the growing power of the abolitionists. For the most part, the white south was divided between a oligarchy of wealthy, educated, powerful, landowners and merchants, and a large, poor, uneducated (or, ill educated), powerless, peasantry in debt to the rich. The decisions made by the governments of the southern states to secede, were made by the oligarchs. To get the support of the poor whites, they claimed that the north was going to invade the south and free the slaves. Besides the perceived danger of freed blacks running amok, there was the more real threat of a new and cheap labor force taking what little work, and land, there was for the already impoverished "crackers". Which is why the propagandized poor whites fought.

As has been pointed out, Judah Benjamin came from the West Indies with a system of slavery even more brutal than that in the south.

As for the British supporters of the confederacy. The British government of the time was made up of property owners, manufacturers, merchants, that needed the product of cheap labor - namely cotton. The south did everything possible to manipulate the British into the war. At first, before the blockade, they even withheld cotton. The Brits tried to intervene politically, but was rebuffed by the north. They threatened military help, but the British public was always on the side of the North.

Secession was engineered by the wealthy oligarchs of the south who wanted only to protect their property.

Also, for an "inside" view of it all, read "Secret and Sacred: The Diaries of James Henry Hammond, a Southern Slaveholder." He was Governor of South Carolina, congressman, and U.S. Senator. His diaries are very revealing as to the maneuvering towards secession long before the civil war. It also paints a good portrait of life for the rich and powerful in the antebellum south.

Those two books alone should convince you that the Civil War really was about slavery - or, more succinctly property rights and money.