If slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and 75% of white southerners did not hold slaves, why did they fight for the confederacy?

If slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and 75% of white southerners did not hold slaves, why did they fight for the confederacy?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they had no choice.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ask them.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because one day they aspired to be slaveowners themselves and didn't want their dreams crushed

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >we was southern gents and sheeeyit

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Confederacy had a conscription law that every able bodied white male had to fight.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What was the desertion/AWOL rate? Surely a few cornfeds had enough sense to realize it's not worth dying for Master Shekelstein and his harem of house naggers.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Judging by what the GOP did during reconstruction, southern whites has plenty of reasons to fight.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I havent studied this topic, but I know /misc/tards. If there is an answer that doesn't agree with your views on race, you will just disregard it, or attempt to minimize it.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They wanted to maintain a hierarchy so they could have someone they felt superior to.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Their states (led by a slaveowning aristocracy) seceded and they were loyal to their homes and didn't want damn yankees coming in to tell them what they could and couldn't do and the point of a bayonet. Also growing up in a region where slavery was an unquestioned way of life they easily believed that it was simply the natural order and that abolitionists were troublemakers who wanted to incite bloody servile war and so should be kept out.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lincoln had slaves.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      If Lincoln wanted slaves to be free, he would have done something simple and easy to free some.

      He choose not to. Lincoln didn't gave a shit about slave and wanted to deport them all to Liberia.

      >he thinks anyone believes the anorth gave a fuck about slaves
      That's only a "gotcha" in your retarded circles where you false flag eachother constantly to own the libs.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because it wasn't about just slavery. Some people don't like tyrants who suspend Habeus Corpus for their own benefit.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    If Lincoln wanted slaves to be free, he would have done something simple and easy to free some.

    He choose not to. Lincoln didn't gave a shit about slave and wanted to deport them all to Liberia.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn’t he change his mind on deporting the slaves to Liberia after speaking to Frederick Douglas?

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. Because they were conscripted.

    >Although most of the soldiers who fought in the American Civil War were volunteers, both sides by 1862 resorted to conscription, primarily as a means to force men to register and volunteer. In the absence of exact records, estimates of the percentage of Confederate soldiers who were draftees, are about double the 6 percent of Union soldiers who were conscripts.[5]

    2. Because most people who didn't own slaves still worked in slave-driven businesses.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Because they were conscripted.
      most of the soldiers who fought in the American Civil War were volunteers,
      We call that a contradiction. Some of them were, but what about the majority of them?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but his second bullet point might be relevant to your interests.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Signing up to avoid being conscripted in worse circumstances.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Conscription_Acts_1862%E2%80%931864

        >The First Conscription Act, passed April 16, 1862, made any white male between 18 and 35 years old liable to three years of military service. On September 27, 1862, the Second extended the age limit to 45 years. The Third, passed February 17, 1864, changed this to 17 to 50 years old, for service of an unlimited period.

        Basically if you were a young male without a vital job (or lots of money), you were going into the army whether you wanted to or not.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Signing up to avoid being conscripted
          The point of avoiding conscription is to not live the harshness and the dangers of war.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If a southerner avoided conscription until the end if the war, would they be charged with anything? Their government is defunct and the army dissolved.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              No in fact they would be rewarded as one of the few white people in the south who still had voting rights.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                this is LULZ you can't just come here and make shit up

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can't just make up shit about made up shit (history)!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                embarrassing post

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Joseph T. Glatthaar on the records of the ANV:

    >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.

    >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.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why did average people sign up to fight against an invasion of their homeland
    Imagine being so stupid that you actually need someone to answer this question for you.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Libtards can’t imagine fighting for their own people. They would probably side with the invaders.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly because they saw freed blacks as competition at best and revolutionaries at worst. Southerners commonly believed emancipation would lead to a Haitian style revolt. Even if they didnt buy that, the entire southern economy was based on slavery so poor whites would suffer economic repercussions to the end of slavery as well.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They fought for the government which their states were a part of. In cases where this was not so, such as West Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, it still came down to a local loyalty.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hi Razorfist

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *