Yeomen’s Impact On The Lead Up To The Civil War

By Austin Straub

The Antebellum South was a society that was completely dependent on slavery.

In 1861, the enslaved population made up 3.5 million of the 9 million people in the 11 states of

the Confederacy. In many counties of the south, the enslaved population was the majority.

However, this was not evenly distributed and most white southerners did not own slaves. The

group of people who owned less than 20 people is commonly referred to as yeomen. Yeomen

owned few to no slaves and consequently did not possess much economic incentive in

maintaining the institution of slavery. Despite this, many yeomen fought for the Confederacy and

its Pro-Slavery interests. In this essay, I will explore the reasons that inspired yeomen to fight

and die for an institution that provided little material benefit to them. Through the examination of

multiple sources, it will become clear that the yeomen were inspired to ally themselves with pro-

slavery interests to preserve southern social, political, and cultural hierarchies. First, I will

explain how social and political motivations led to their alliance with pro-slavery interests. Next,

I will examine how yeomen’s moral considerations influenced their view of slavery. Finally, I

will explain how geography influenced the politics of yeomen households. Each section will be

examined through the lens of the crises of the 1840s, 50s, and how they culminated in the crisis

of 1860-61 and the Civil War.

A slave society is inherently based on coercion and violence. It is demonstrated most

clearly through the transatlantic slave trade where millions of people were forcibly taken from

their homes and transplanted in the Americas. To maintain order in a slave society there must be

an alliance between the slave owners and the free population. The Antebellum South is no

different that is why the slave owners made it imperative to create a social and political alliance

with the yeomen. The slave-owning elite accomplished this by creating a parallel social and
political hierarchy in the South. Stephanie McCurry explains in her article, Politics of Yeoman

Household in South Carolina, that since yeomen were granted control of their household by the

slave-owning elite they saw themselves as politically and socially equal.1 This was not

necessarily the case given that the three-fifths clause of The Constitution gave slave owners

increased representation. However, the yeomen seemed to be content being the privileged class

of white men who were still allowed to vote, hold land, and dictate the affairs of their household.

Through an alliance of privilege, the slave-owning elite was able to link the institution of

slavery to their household and argued that any incursion on slavery would mean further

incursions on the patriarchal dominance of yeomen households as well. The white man’s

dominance over the affairs of his household was a common justification for the institution of

slavery. Pro-slavery advocates like James Henry Hammond argued that slavery was a natural

hierarchical relationship like husband and wife or father and child, “Some of them, as you may

suppose, do not at all time restrain them. Neither do husbands, parents, and friends. And in each

of these relations, as serious suffering as frequently arises from uncontrolled passions, as ever

does in that of master and slave” 2 This characterization further connected slavery as a matter of

the household and signaled to yeomen that encroachment on slavery would mean encroachment

on their households. Given that, yeomen were encouraged to support the interests of the slave-

owning elite to protect the dominance of their households.

The crises of the 1850s showed the solidness of the yeomen and slave-owning elite’s

1. McCurry, Stephanie “The Politics of Yeoman Households in South Carolina” Divided Houses: Gender

and The Civil War , 1992.

2. Hammond, James Henry. Letter to Thomas Clarkson. “Letter to an English Abolitionist.” Silver Bluff,

South Carolina, January 28, 1845.

alliance. The expansion of slavery would do little for the material benefit of the yeomen but the

institution was intrinsically linked to the social way of life of the patriarchal South. We can see

this by the South’s continued solidarity throughout the 1850s elections in favor of the

Democratic party. Evidence of the patriarchal alliance can be seen in the crisis of 1860-61 too in,

Declaration of the Immediate Causes, where South Carolinians cite “domestic tranquility” as a

justification of rebellion. The declaration also stipulates “free persons” as having, distinct

political rights, a characteristic only white men possess.3 In both cases we can see how the

preservation of the social and political hierarchy lead to the yeoman support of the slave-owning

elite.

The guarantee of equality created by the yeoman alliance with slave-owning elites made

their moral consideration of slavery very similar. The social hierarchy of the south was

embedded with white supremacy, we can see this in Andrew Stephens Corner Stone Speech. In

the speech, Stephens is attempting to rally the yeomen-dominated slave states during the crisis of

1860-61 to the Confederacy. In his speech he uses racially charged language to inspire the

yeoman, “they assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal

privileges and rights with the white man”.4 The “they” in this quote is referring to the

Republicans and it plays on the yeoman fear that they will be removed from their special status

in southern society. This was done intentionally to detach slavery from the economic argument

used by politicians like Hammond. Stephens uses a racial argument to inspire the yeomen, who

may not have economic incentives, to fight and die for their status in the south’s

3. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal

Union: And the Ordinance of Secession. Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, printers to the Convention, 1860.

4. Cleveland, Henry. “Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Before, During,

and Since the War”, (1886): 717-729

social and political hierarchy. This demonstrates the yeoman’s moral view of slavery because of

its efficacy. After this speech, four additional slave states Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina,

and Arkansas all seceded after many like it were given inciting the yeomen’s belief in white

supremacy.

Some may say that the final four states seceded because they were forced to after the

attack on Fort Sumter. The attack on the fort may have inspired the four final states into action

but it still took persuasion to decide to rebel. Four slave states did not rebel after the attack:

Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. This demonstrates that there must have been

extraneous factors that pushed the four final states of the Confederacy to rebel. One of those

factors is the appeal to yeomen’s sense of racial superiority. In addition to Alexander Stephens’

arguments for secession, Virginian moderates used racial superiority to convince the yeomen

class to join in secession. Robert Turner a politician from Virginia used white supremacy as a

reason to secede, “ Recognizing the variety of opinion in Virginia over the issue of secession

Hunter attempted to unify his state and prepare it for “Southerner independence” with an appeal

to popular racial fears which tolerated no diversity”.5 Hunter exemplifies the type of arguments

that would sway yeomen to support secession despite their lack of economic incentive. White

supremacy was a unifying factor that all southerners, yeomen and elites, could get behind. Its

unifying effect was because of its necessity to the south’s social hierarchy. Consequently, it

convinced moderate states with large yeomen populations like Virginia to join the Confederacy.

When understanding the events that led to the civil war it is impossible to ignore the role

of geography. Yeomen did not have the same economic interests as that the slave-owning elite

had in expanding slavery but they still had some in addition to their social and political rationale.
5. Hitchcock, William S. “Southern Moderates and Secession: Senator Robert M. T. Hunter’s Call for Union.” The

Journal of American History 59, no. 4 (1973): 871–84.

In Stephanie McCurry’s article, she describes an instance where a yeoman rents an enslaved

person to help with the harvest of cotton.1 Cotton was not the only crop yeomen grew but it still

comprised a portion of many yeomen's incomes. Cotton as a crop degrades the soil very quickly

and thus new land must be secured. If slavery was not allowed to expand and cotton agriculture

with it would destroy a portion of many yeomen’s income. Wealth and income have always been

a factor in social and political standing. Thus, the yeomen’s position in the social heirarchy

would be affected by the expansion of slave labor and cotton agriculture. In addition, to the

economic factor was the geographic expansion of southern social hierarchy. Yeomen

intrinsically linked their status in the southern hierarchy to the institution of slavery and thus if it

was not allowed to expand neither would their social status and way of life.

The yeomen of the south enjoyed a special status in southern society as white men,

because of that they allied themselves to the southern elite’s slave-owning interests. First,

Yeomen were given exclusive political and social rights as heads of their households. Second,

White superiority influenced their moral view of slavery as just and necessary to their position.

Finally, geography impacted southern economic and social expansion which threatened their

social and political status. Americans should be wary of falling into the yeomen’s position

because today we have many people who are politically and socially aligned with elites that do

not have their best interest at heart. A situation that the yeomen paid dearly for in the end.

1. McCurry, Stephanie “The Politics of Yeoman Households in South Carolina” Divided Houses: Gender

and The Civil War , 1992.

Word Count: 1495