Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So? My point is that the soldiers of the nation are not the same as the leaders. And the reasons why leaders take their nations to war are not to be judged on whether the soldiery agreed with them or not. And in both cases, many of the soldiers were drafted/conscripted, and so their opinions are irrelevant in that sense.

Not at all. Confederate soldiers were not fighting for slavery. Nazi soldiers were fighting for the "glory" of Germany in offensive wars. Confederate soldiers were fighting to defend their homes from "northern aggression."

Now, there were other political considerations, but most Confederate soldiers were not willing to die for slavery.

Even Robert E. Lee fought for Virginia, not for slavery. There is a State component that seems to have fallen from memory.

This obviously suggests that defending slavery was a very big motivation for enlisting

Kentucky never seceded. They did send 35,000 troops to the Confederacy and 90,000 to the U.S." Loewen said. "Today Kentucky has 74 Civil War monuments. Two are for the U.S. and 72 are for the Confederacy."

Sassenach wrote:OK, since I just quoted some percentages above without any source I thought I'd have a quick check to see if I could confirm them (since I was going from things I'd heard in the past). This article covers it reasonably well:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... lie/61136/

My numbers were slightly out, but that's to be expected. Either way though, if you look at the lengthy section quoted from an academic (as opposed to the more polemical contribution by the journalist himself) it's clear to see that at least half of the soldiers in the Confederate army had a direct involvement in slavery and that the proportions compared to the citizenry as a whole were significantly higher. This obviously suggests that defending slavery was a very big motivation for enlisting.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally.

While Lee viewed secession with horror and the union with honor, he ultimately asked, "How can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?" He could not. Once Virginia chose to secede from the Union in 1861, with it went Robert E. Lee.

Lee is an interesting man because he was seemingly a man of contradictions. Because of legal obligations, he freed the slaves he and his wife inherited from her father before the Emancipation Proclamation. As a Christian, he hated slavery, yet he ended up fighting essentially for its continuance.

He favored the Union, yet he chose to apply his incredible military skill to the side that was dissolving the Union.

2. Robert E. Lee's reluctance to join the CSA. I suspect he was not the only one

When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee—the executor of the estate—determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor.

1. The Confederates were outnumbered all through the war, yet most often outperformed their Union counterparts. I would suggest one of the reasons was they were motivated to defend their homes

rickyp wrote:fate

2. Robert E. Lee's reluctance to join the CSA. I suspect he was not the only one

Robert E Lee was a slave owner.

When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee—the executor of the estate—determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor.

http://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historycu ... lavery.htm

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
—Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

The evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery included his direct statements and his actions before and during the war, including Lee's support of the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia,[65] the success of his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation,[66] the freeing of Custis' slaves in 1862, and, as the Confederacy's position in the war became desperate, his petitioning slaveholders in 1864–65 to allow slaves to volunteer for the Army with manumission offered as a reward for outstanding service.[67][68]

In December 1864 Lee was shown a letter by Louisiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emancipate the slaves and put all men in the army who were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get black soldiers, saying "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."

But none of that points to whether or not they were fighting for slavery.....
Here's something that does ... If they were fighting for "their homes" its clear that almost half did have slaves back home

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.

Now, that was clearly racist--but it is in keeping with the prevailing thought of many at the time. However, it does show he was not in favor of slavery itself.

"Almost half?" Your source?

Sassenach wrote:

Now, that was clearly racist--but it is in keeping with the prevailing thought of many at the time. However, it does show he was not in favor of slavery itself.

It shows nothing of the sort. What it shows is that he was in favour of the maintenance of slavery for an indeterminate period until such a time as black people could be deemed 'worthy' of freedom, which it certainly doesn't look like he envisaged happening anytime soon.

"Almost half?" Your source?

If they were fighting for "their homes" its clear that almost half did have slaves back home ...

Sassenach wrote:The fact that slave owners or those from slave-owning households were proportionately over-represented in the army of the Confederacy is a telling statistic. But seriously, what kind of mitigation would it be even if some of them were not motivated by slavery ? We know full well that slavery was the reason for secession and that the cause these men volunteered to fight for was the maintenance of slavery. There are a very large number of direct primary sources which prove this to be the case, even if it wasn't intuitively obvious.

Here's the Vice President of the CSA on the subject of the Confederate Constitution:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.

Frankly, anybody who signed up to fight a war after reading that speech knew damn well what he was fighting for. In reality however, he was almost certainly voicing sentiments that were widely shared by his fellow Southerners, and surely by those who signed up to fight.

"To Have" equals "to own," so he's wrong.

Oh, for Pete's sake, every Confederate soldier could read? Most of them could read?

Sassenach wrote:The speech illustrates neatly the reasons why the South seceded from the Union and it's hardly likely to have been an isolated example. It's ludicrous to suggest that the common soldiers were unaware of what they were signing up to fight for.

Of those Northerners who donned rebel gray, none had a more unusual biography than Bushrod Rust Johnson.

Born in Belmont County Ohio, on October 7, 1817, Johnson’s family were Quakers, pacifists and strongly opposed to slavery. Prior to attending West Point, Johnson worked with an uncle on the Underground Railroad, smuggling slaves to freedom.

Graduating with the class of 1840 from West Point, Johnson served in the Seminole and Mexican Wars. In 1847 his military career was cut short when he was dismissed from the Army for selling contraband. Academia being less choosy usually than the military, Johnson taught as a Professor of Chemistry and Philosophy at the Western Military Institute in Georgetown, Kentucky and went on to be Professor of Engineering at the University of Nashville. Throughout this time period Johnson was active in the Kentucky and Tennessee state militias.