Replies

If one looks at the census figures available on line it becomes clear that DeBow's figures are not that far off if you broaden the definintion of slave-owners. Looking at it one way you have the individual head of household who holds title to the chattle slave. This figure made up about 8% or 9% of southerners. Looking at it another way one would realize that these men had families, wives and children. These people would not be listed as slave owners but they would certainly benefit from the ownership of slaves. If you compare the number of slave owners to the number of families then it becomes clear that in some states like Mississippi and South Carolina close to half the families owned slaves. In states like Virginia and Kentucky close to a quarter of all families owned slaves. Over all 26% of white southern families owned slaves. So while you wonder why a civil war could be fought over slavery when less than 10% of the people owned them I would reply that it is easy to understand how they would rebel if they thought that the institution that one in four people drew direct benefit from was in danger.

The slave-owner figures may be correct, or they may not be. I do not doubt that slavery played a big role in the Civil War, but it was not the only reason. The causes of the Civil War are much more complex than simply saying, "Slavery did it."

Regardless of what you thought you were fighting for, the men who started the rebellion had an agenda of their own. And that agenda was the defense of slavery. Their agenda was your agenda.

Again, you paint a partial picture. If you want to be a complete historian, you have to be fair. The south was fighting against INVADERS - who was the invader? In addition, many were defending their homes against marauding federal cavalry ("kill calvary" - remember that?).