Miz Gardens asks why non slave owners, who after all were the majority in
the southern population and in the southern armies, would fight for the
right to own slaves.  Its a fair question, and one with which good
historians have grappled--I am thinking, just to name one example, of
William Blair's excellent VIRGINIA'S PRIVATE WAR.

But while this is a good question, it nonetheless betrays a basic confusion
about the meaning and purpose of the Civil War, it seems to me.  If we want
to understand why Virginia seceded in 1861, it won't do to examine why
Virginia soldiers fought in 1862, or 1863, or 1864, or 1865.  Once Virginia
was faced with a de facto war, patriotic Virginians fought for a good many
reasons, not the least of which were the ones that today's reenactors
celebrate.  (I would be happier with the version of history promulgated by
the reenactment community if they acknowledged more forcefully that defense
of slavery *was* an important reason why many Confederate soldiers fought,
especially those from the planter class--but they are surely right that
defense of slavery was by no means the only reason why southern soldiers
fought.)  A good analogy here is to Keegan's exploration of why soldiers
fought in WW II--the reasons were considerably detached from the political
calculus of the politicians who led their countries into war.  The same is
true of the South during the US Civil War of 1861-1865.

Secession was a decision made by politicians, not soldiers.  If we want to
understand the political calculations that led to the decision to secede,
it behooves us to examine the political debates in which the decision was
hashed out.  After all, one good place to begin an endeavor to understand a
question about political history is to look at the texts and subtexts of
the actors who made the politics.  And when we do that, we discover that
slavery was front and center the most important issue in the decision.

Secession absolutely was about slavery.  The question of why ordinary
southerners fought to support the decisions made by their political leaders
in 1860 and 1861 is rather different, and to my mind anyway more complex
(for one thing, the rationale for support for the war effort evolved over
time).  You can do a lot worse than to start with Blair in trying to
unravel that story, at least so far as Virginia is concerned.

I should add, by the way, that what you will find is surprising.  If Blair
is correct, the exigencies of war led Virginia to develop a far ranging
welfare state, to cite just one intriguing outcome of his study.  What an
irony *that* is!

Best,
Kevin R. Hardwick
Dept. of History
James Madison University

--On Saturday, February 22, 2003 11:15 AM -0500 "COUNTRY.GARDENS"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Please explain to me what was the psychology that motivated so many
> Southerners who did not and never had owned a single slave to "give their
> all", as well as their lives, fighting for the continuation of slavery.
> Please don't say that it was because they were thinking and hoping and
> praying that someday, THEY TOO, might be lucky enough to own a
> slave......what with this being the Land of Opportunity and all!
> By the way, what was the percentage of Southern soldiers who did own
> slaves? What was the percentage of Southern soldiers that did not own
> them? Miz Gardens

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html