Reddit reviews General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse

> I would love to see you source that number.


"Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth."

https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1

Fun facts:

> Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

> The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

> More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

Source

Lol. One reviewer is not happy about this book at all:


>VERY one-sided view of the War of Northern Aggression

>Sad to say, biased writers are still leaving out the facts. I was disappointed in this thick book with page after page of the same old revisionist history we've been fed since the North invaded the South and denied them their Constitutionally guaranteed State's Rights. The South had no desire to fight, they simply wanted to secede quietly, then live and let live. A better book to read that is succinct, completely factual and not nearly as drawn out is "Facts The Historians Leave Out" John S. Tilley : The author states his facts well and clearly. He acknowledges that both the North and the South were responsible for the Civil War. The book was thought-provoking, making me really consider what I believed.

Emphasis added for irony.

> I've seen estimates indicating that around 10% of Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves.

Actual ownership of slaves is a poor metric. After all, slave renters, slave patrols, overseers, and the wives and children of slave-holders did not necessarily hold legal title to any slaves, either. Yet it would be foolish to suggest that they were not intimately involved in the institution.

I suppose that if you're trying to quantify the connection between Confederate soldiers and slavery, you could do worse than looking at the number of Confederate soldiers who came from slave-holding families. Glatthaar, in General Lee's Army, estimates that 25% of Confederate soldiers volunteering in 1861 (before the draft, and before the extension of enlistments for the duration of the war) came from such families, making them "42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population."

Of course, this quantification is all rather academic and irrelevant. As Christopher Graham at the American Civil War Museum explains, "[o]ne did not need to own slaves to commit to the broad Confederate national vision that was based on slavery, or to fear the outcome of slavery’s destruction." The Confederate South was, in its own mind, a Herrenvolk democracy in which every white man had an interest in the maintenance of a racial order defined by slavery and white supremacy, regardless of whether they owned slaves themselves.

> I tend to agree with Shelby Foote that the average Confederate soldier was fighting because the southern way of life, which clearly included an economy fueled by slave labor, was threatened, or, at least they perceived it to be under threat. So, there were a tapestry of reasons that can't just be distilled down to support for slavery or white supremacy (although, the vast majority clearly were both).

Sure. I agree.

> I think it's totally legitimate to discuss why the average Confederate soldier fought in the war because, without the formidable man power confronting the Union, there would have been no rebellion.

Of course it's legitimate. That's why prominent historians have been doing it for decades. But we have to draw a bright line of demarcation between talking about "the cause of the Civil War" and talking about "why the men fought." Those are two very different questions. Each has a distinct, if related, answer. Confusing the two is a common tactic of Lost Cause writers who either are not historians or are historians committing professional malpractice.

> Somehow, the cultural elites and the media were successful in mobilizing men to die for their individual states and /or the Confederacy itself.

This is exactly the sort of "incomplete picture" I talked about above. Seeing the Confederate story as one of common men mobilized by elites to fight a war removes moral and political agency from those common men. This is a dangerous oversimplification.

> Lee didn't own slaves, his family freed them years before.

In 1857, George Washington Parke Custis - the father of Mary Custis Lee (the wife of Robert E. Lee) died. In his will, he stipulated that all of the Arlington slaves should be freed upon his death if the estate was found to be in good financial standing or within five years otherwise (technically, this was a court ruling interpreting the relevant clause).

Robert E. Lee was the executor of his estate, and his wife inherited the Arlington estate (and slaves).

Robert E. Lee issued his Emancipation Proclamation freeing those slaves on January 2, 1863. The day after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Regarding slaves on the Arlington estate in Northern Virginia, which had been in the hands of the Union since secession, and which had been occupied by Union troops since May 24, 1861.

> This is repeated again and again for many people fighting. People fought in that war for a bunch of reasons.

"Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution’s central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders." - historian Joseph T. Glatthaar, General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse

They may have fought for many reasons... but an awfully large portion of those reasons involved slavery.

Pick up General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse. Very good book on the Army of Northern Virginia.

Here's a link:

https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976

It’s actually a myth that slaveowning was confined to the confederate elite. Sure, the elite 1% were the big plantation owners with dozens to hundreds of slaves, but upwards 30% of white families in the Confederate states owned slavery per the 1860 census, with that number climbing toward 50% in the most pro-secessionist states like South Carolina and Mississippi. Another sizable chunk of the population supported the slave economy in other ways even if they didn’t win slaves themselves.

The whole 1% thing comes from a somewhat willful misreading of the statistics to convince people that slavery wasn’t that big a deal. 1% of the US population owned slaves. Which includes the northern free states. About 3% of the Southern population owned slaves. But “Southern population” includes the slaves themselves. About 5% of free Southerns owned slaves. But only one person in the household usually “owned” the slaves, so (usually) the wife and children are excluded from that number too.

Looking specifically at volunteers for the Army of Northern Virginia in 1861, about 1 in 10 soldiers personally owned slaves and another 25% or so lived with parents who owned slaves. Still another 10% lived in households where a non-family member owned slaves, which usually meant they lived as workers on a slave-based farm. Source That means somewhere between 40 and 50% of the Confederate Army had a personal stake in preserving slavery, even before you count those that had a role in it without living in a household that owned spaces.

I’m sure far fewer Union soldiers had such a personal stake in “Northern industry” or “high tariffs,” which is what the neoconfederates try to say the war was all about.

> I have the same cognitive struggle.

If you have the time read this book and itll clear it right up for you.

>Historian Joseph Glatthaar’s statistical analysis of the 1861 volunteers in what would become the Army of Northern Virginia reveals that one in 10 owned a slave and that one in four lived with parents who were slave-owners. Both exceeded ratios in the general population, in which one in 20 owned a slave and one in five lived in a slaveholding household. “Thus,” Glatthaar notes, “volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.” In short, Confederate volunteers actually owned more slaves than the general population.  

>In fact, non-slaveholding soldiers from regions with fewer African Americans likely received greater exposure to slavery for having joined the army. The military regularly used slaves and implemented proslavery policies. The army conscripted slave labor on a massive scale for transportation, and in construction of military defenses. It also captured and returned to slavery thousands of escaped and free black men and women. Soldiers acted on fears of “servile insurrection” when they summarily murdered United States Colored Troops at Fort Pillow and the Battle of the Crater.

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-and-misunderstandings-slaveholding-and-confederate-soldier

Oh I have a relevant study that absolutely demolishes this arguement

https://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

The relevant part from the article which comes from this book


https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1



>Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

>The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution’s central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy



It is not narrow to say that those that joined to resist the north were doing so motivated heavily by slavery

> Here is a good video on this topic

No, it's not - it's by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, either.

Educating yourself via "Rebel Media" youtube videos isn't the wisest move: if you want to learn about the causes of the Civil War, why don't you read the actual words of the people who did the rebelling? You might start here with the 4 declarations regarding the causes of secession issued by seceding states, or with the Vice-President of the Confederacy's cornerstone speech. Or maybe you could just read what other Confederates were saying.

Or if the Confederates' own words aren't good enough, how about some basic reasoning: why do you think it is that all of the states which attempted to secede had more than 20% of their populations as slaves; that no state with more than 20% of the population enslaved attempted to secede; and that secession occurred directly in response to the election of the moderate Republican Abraham Lincoln?

Or if neither reasoning nor evidence helps you, how about math? According to the 1860 US census, among the states which attempted to secede, 30.8% of families owned slaves: according to the exhaustive study of the Army of Northern Virginia performed by historian Joseph Glatthaar, about 10% of the 1861 enlistees personally owned slaves (along with more than half of the officers), and very nearly half either owned slaves or lived in a slaveowning household. And that doesn't count the ones who merely had friends and neighbors who owned slaves; who ran businesses which rented slaves; who made their money by doing business with slaveowners; who aspired to own slaves; or who simply believed that slavery was morally right and liked having someone to feel superior to.

> Do you think with the recent wars the US has been involved in that the people fighting them were the bad guys?

I don't think there has to be only one set of 'bad guys'. And people who aren't particularly nice can still sometimes do the right thing.