US Civil War with better-trained troops

'the number of actual slaveholders in the South of the Union does not amount to more than three hundred thousand, a narrow oligarchy that is confronted with many millions of so-called poor whites, whose numbers have been constantly growing through concentration of landed property and whose condition is only to be compared with that of the Roman plebeians in the period of Rome's extreme decline. Only by acquisition and the prospect of acquisition of new Territories, as well as by filibustering expeditions, is it possible to square the interests of these poor whites with those of the slaveholders, to give their restless thirst for action a harmless direction and to tame them with the prospect of one day becoming slaveholders themselves.' (Karl Marx, 20 October 1861)

this book, which came out a few years ago, looks very closely at who made up the Army of Northern Virginia and a very high proportion of the officers and a substantial number of the enlisted men either owned slaves or their families did. Worth a read as it is excellently written and very thorough

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

as to the Poor Whites issues.... you should read this one, which indicates that you are oversimplifying a bit.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-11-nations-of-north-america.254456/

Basically it depends on which part of the South you are discussing.... and the Appalachia, which has by far the most poverty both then and now was actually pretty pro-Unionist. The Tidewater (North Carolina and points north) had a lot more cities and towns than the Deep South and thus more middle class people. It is in the Deep South... and the coastal plains specifically, that you have the area you are talking about and a lot of those counties had larger populations of Blacks, both free and enslaved, than White populations. Which holds true even now also.

But I will agree with you that the landed gentry that controlled the South then still has disproportionate power now.
 
this book, which came out a few years ago, looks very closely at who made up the Army of Northern Virginia and a very high proportion of the officers and a substantial number of the enlisted men either owned slaves or their families did. Worth a read as it is excellently written and very thorough

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

as to the Poor Whites issues.... you should read this one, which indicates that you are oversimplifying a bit.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-11-nations-of-north-america.254456/

Basically it depends on which part of the South you are discussing.... and the Appalachia, which has by far the most poverty both then and now was actually pretty pro-Unionist. The Tidewater (North Carolina and points north) had a lot more cities and towns than the Deep South and thus more middle class people. It is in the Deep South... and the coastal plains specifically, that you have the area you are talking about and a lot of those counties had larger populations of Blacks, both free and enslaved, than White populations. Which holds true even now also.

But I will agree with you that the landed gentry that controlled the South then still has disproportionate power now.
The main problem with Marx's analysis is that he counts slaves owned by individuals and not by family. If the family consisted of a man and his wife and three children and he owned a slave that would be counted as one per five people even if all of them benefited from the work of the slave.
 
Top