Slavery of true or false?

Question

1)Those southerners who didn't own slaves---poor white, laborers,tenant farmer,and small farmers-were generally opposed to the institution of slavery.
True or false

Answer 1

I suppose I'd have to say "False", but that is a gross generalization that may confuse more than it sheds light.

If you were asked this question by a teacher or textbook, I suspect what they were looking for was roughly what 'bearstirring..' told you. And that answer is certainly the most accurate so far. They were certainly NOT simply "indifferent".

It's rather a common place in writings about the South on the eve of the Civil War that the 'non-slave owning whites' generally supported slavery, and especially that the POOR whites did so because it implied that they had a higher social status than at least ONE group of people.

But note that this lumps MOST of the non-slave owning population, that is, MOST 'Southrons' (white Southerners) together into one common pile. It takes no account of the many differences amongst the sub-groups across the South.

I don't disagree that this sentiment existed. But was it quite that simple? And exactly how widespread was it? So far as I can discover, the main basis for this claim is the fact the the Southern elite ADVANCED this argument. It was part of their propaganda effort. The question is 'to what extent did poor whites buy into it?' If you look closely, you'll find significant groups of Southrons who CANNOT be characterized in this way.
___________________

There are some very important things this generalization IGNORES:

- many poor whites and yeoman farmers RESENTED the wealthy slave owners... and were only to happy to see them brought down (Andrew Johnson's sentiments, and his desire to punish these wealthy folk and elevate the yeoman farmers, are an example)

- strong RACIST sentiment is NOT the same as support for slavery! Note that many working whites in the North were quite racist AND big "free soilers" ... who would prefer NO slavery (and hence no slaves) at least not anywhere near them. Part of this was a simple matter of not wanting the economic competition... but there was a healthy dose of racism mixed in. The sentiments of SOUTHERN laborers were often very similar. (Many of them would prefer to have the slaves repatriated to Africa -- not quite 'abolitionism', but not pro-slavery either!)

- GEOGRPAHY!! This answer ignores the fact that in MANY Southern states -- and esp. the mountainous areas (including Appalachia) of Western North Carolina, Eastern Tennessee, Northern Alabama and the Northwestern parts of Virginia (part of which became "West Virginia") had VERY few slaves and very little interest in having any. THESE regions, oddly forgotten in many people's were VERY pro-Union and anti-secession. They sent many troops to fight on the UNION side in the Civil War (Note that these areas accounted for perhaps 20% of southern whites!! rather a large group to overlook!)

- there WAS Southern opposition to slavery, though it was difficult--sometimes quite dangerous-- for it to be very vocal after about 1832... most visible in border states (e.g., Kentucky) AND in the pro-Union regions just mentioned.

- it was also Southrons from these regions who later supported the pro-Union reconstruction governments (and were belittled as 'scalawags', implying they had betrayed their heritage, though they had ALWAYS been pro-Union)

- more importantly (since one could be pro-Union/anti-secession AND pro-slavery --as many oldtime Southern Whigs were-- among the whites of Appalachia there was a considerable anti-slavery movement. . .

In short, the people and culture of the mountain regions were quite distinct in their views from those near the coast.
See, for example:
http://www.dinsdoc.com/woodson-2.htm

____________________________

So, why is it that these folks are simply lumped together with non-slaveholding whites from, say, South Carolina (no mountainous regions, no large anti-secession/pro-Union groups)? This is not a helpful generalization. I think part of the reason for it is the tendency to listen more to what the Southern elite -- mostly wealthy, slave-holding and NOT from these regions.

There is SOME truth to it (that is, their propaganda met with some success), but it must not be uncritically accepted it. It is of a piece with the "Lost Cause" mythology, which ignores much unpleasant and inconvenient evidence from the ante-bellum period through Reconstruction (and beyond). Unfortunately, this whole mindset STILL shapes the popular understanding, both North and South.


_____________________

To get some sense of these pro-Union groups and their sentiments, esp in Appalachia, check out some of the following (esp. about their pro-Union efforts during the Civil War and Reconstruction, as 'scalawags', but also touching on their relationship to slavery):

http://www.projectsouth.org/programs/Southern%20Strategies/whites.html
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/georgetonian/pages/0303/news.html
http://www.webroots.org/library/usablack/aslonc01.html
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~cescott/yanks.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=322027
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-377877.html

Answer 2

Oddly enough - - - no - - -false - - - Racism reared its head early and the poor whites were actually happy they were not slaves and manage to resent them all the more. In the North a poor white farmer might find himself having to be subservient to a specialist such as a wheelwright or a carpenter - - - you know how modern people will give attitude to a worker as a Fast-Lube or a Plumber-answering a call at 4AM because you flushed a shoe down the toilet?

Well in the South many of those specialist were Slaves. Therefore a Poor WHite farmer could be rude and discorteous to a 'superior.' "Hey, Boy, why isn't my wagon ready," "Hey, Boy, why so late, fix it now," because they were black. And actually quite a few dirt poor farmers owned at least one or two Negroes, since a Negroe was considered Property (Thomas Jefferson's Legacy), one could actually get a loan/ a mortgage based on how many slaves one had. A popular wedding gift in the South was a slave or two!

But I am blathering more than likely this is one of those Mutual M--------- Society questions and all know who gets best answer in advance.

Peace...

Answer 3

Neither. They were generally indifferent. The types of crops they grew didn't really require slaves. A family could usually look after their own farm.

Answer 4

Hi there, I don't know the answer but I wonder if this will help.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave

http://douglass.thefreelibrary.com/Narrative-of-the-Life-of-Frederick-Douglass-An-American-Slave

http://douglass.thefreelibrary.com/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1539.html

Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895

My Bondage and My Freedom. Part I. Life as a Slave. Part II. Life as a Freeman.
New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1855.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglass55/menu.html

"North American Slave Narratives" collects books and articles that document the individual and collective story of African Americans struggling for freedom and human rights in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. More…..

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/index.html

"The Meaning of July Fourth for the *****"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html

Highly Recommended

http://www.multcolib.org/homework/aframhc.html

http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/index.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ListSome.php?category=African%20American%20History

Answer 5

They all whine approximately it at all times, approximately all of the Wall road bankers and tycoons, however it's ok while their hero 0bama will get so much of his crusade investment from those identical men and women the left regularly demonizes.

Answer 6

False they did not need slaves but were indifferent to those that did own them,