War Between the States Conditions at Home
©2003 by Amanda Brooks  Home 

According to the accounts compiled by Sutherland, several themes pervade the struggle on the home front. Both pro-Confederates and dissenters claimed to "defend home, family, and community."⁽²⁾ In the midst of the violence, each side was moving in an effort to "restore order."⁽³⁾

This theme of violence to retain order is vivid throughout the Southern home front. The dissenters saw the Confederacy as the cause of the war which had turned the lives of all southerners upside down. On the other hand, Confederates viewed the Union and those who sided with the Union as the cause of the turmoil. They were all fighting for the same things, only on different sides. Another theme common to Sutherland's collection is most of the deserters were non-slaveholders.⁽⁴⁾ It is more likely they were "farmers, laborers, or carpenters" or some other sort of skilled labor.⁽⁵⁾ With this in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that they did not have the vested interest in the war that slave holders did because there was no threat to their income. For the slave holder, the fate of their livelihood was in the outcome of the war. Perhaps the most pervading theme in the accounts was the idea that the War Between the States was a "class war."⁽⁶⁾ Some have called it a "rich man's war but poor man's fight."⁽⁷⁾ Union sympathizers accused the Confederacy of using the "poor man" to fight the war of the rich plantation owners. Dissenters used this excuse to abandon the Confederacy.

Many more similarities existed between the two sides although their importance is left to the interpretation of the reader. For example, especially in border states neither side would accept the other's government as legitimate.⁽⁸⁾ In each case, the families of the accused deserters were harassed and in some cases killed despite whether they were involved or not. Unionists used guerrilla warfare in many different extremes against pro-Confederates.

Despite the many themes common to the accounts, there were many differences that arose in the battle on the home front. In Georgia and North Carolina, for example, accused Unionists were hanged with no semblance of a trial.⁽⁹⁾ They did not get to "enjoy a formal trial, [but] they did experience an informal process of community judgement.⁽¹⁰⁾ Texas, on the other hand, did conduct trials for accused unionists in "citizens court."⁽¹¹⁾ It should be noted though that the court decided to execute only seven of the one hundred fifty men accused. The crowds demanded that at least twenty men be punished, so the court handed over a list of fourteen additional names.⁽¹²⁾ This fact is important because it demonstrates the power the people still held in such cases. In this case, it can be concluded that the power of the courts and the power of the people differed in different parts of the region. It appears that the people in the Deep South maintained more control of power than other regions. Not only did they maintain more control, but they were much harsher. For example, there is the story of Solomon Stansbury, Iley Stuart, and William Witt who were marched to a river bank and executed as the town watched. Their charge: "being bushwhackers."⁽¹³⁾ Compare this story with the one cited previously that took place in Texas. At least they got a trial; at most they could walk away with their lives.

Another regional difference is the reason people abandoned the Confederacy and joined the Unionist cause. In North Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia, deserters left due to fear and the lack of desire to fight. In Texas and Louisiana, many deserters left for the purpose of avoiding conscription. This difference may simply have to do with the location of the people. Those in the Deep South were closer to the cause of the war whereas those in Louisiana and Texas were distanced somewhat from the system the Confederacy was seeking to maintain (and I do not necessarily mean slavery). Therefore they may not have had reasons to care one way or the other about the war's outcome. They just did not want to be told what to do.

Guerrilla warfare is another thing that was different in the Deep South from other regions. It was much harsher and unorganized in this region whereas in Louisiana it gained a measure of order.⁽¹⁴⁾ This, too, may be reflective of the perceived threat of each region. Those who lived where the perceived threat was high may have been more likely not to take time to organize but would rather strike out when possible. Those living where a perceived threat was lower may have been more likely to have taken time to organize.

The War Between the States was not fought merely on the battlefield but also on the Confederate home front. There were many similarities as well as differences in how each state participated in this war. Many would agree that this war on the home front was in some ways more brutal than the war on the battle field.

1. Sutherland, Daniel, ed. Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence on the Confederate Home Front. Arkansas: The University of Arkansas Press, 1999.

2. Ibid. p. 44.

3. Ibid. p. 39.

4. Ibid. pp. 22, 47, 48.

5. Ibid. p. 48.

6. Ibid. p. 80.

7. Ibid. p. 24.

8. Ibid. p. 23.

9. Ibid. pp. 40, 46.

10. Ibid. p. 42.

11. Ibid. pp. 137-138.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid. p. 42.

14. Ibid. Taken from the stories "The Free State of Jones," pp. 17-29; "Shot for Being Bushwhackers," pp. 44; and "A People's War: Partisan Conflict in Tennessee and Kentucky," pp. 116-132.