Campfire Chat - General DiscussionsThis is a forum for posting discussion topics, questions, current events, and anything else you'd like to chat about. Please post serious Civil War History threads in appropriate History Forums.
All too common, Rad. Keeping the soldier was a problem for any unit commander. Fortunately for the skedaddler, the country was young and raw enough to make it fairly easy to disappear for the duration. As the war ground on and it became obvious to Johnnie that he would likely die for nothing, the problem became severe among the Confederates.
It was one of the reasons Western Union armies became so formidable -- all those likely to desert had already done so. These were frequently 3- and 4-year veterans. They did not panic; nor did they run. At a time when the Confederacy was filling its ranks with conscripted boys and 55 year-olds, Sherman's army had consolidated into a "lean, mean, fighting machine."
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
When the South seceded those that remained loyal to the Union, to the detriment of the South, were traitors to their country and should have joined the Union army. More than 200,000 did and a sizeable portion of the South was pro Union. Minority rights meant nothing to the CS when roles were reversed.
The South did not invade the North. So how is it logical that the South made a mistake or that the South cost the country?
There were multiple invasion by CS forces, the two into the East that ended w/ Antietem & Gettysburg, an invasion of a neutral party, Kentucky, and an invasion of Missouri. There was also the inavsions into the Nation, modern day Oklahoma, Arizona New Mexico etc. The CS was by no means a victim.
There seems to be a lot about women that astounds men. Why is it difficult to understand that women were passionate and patriotic and willing to sacrifice their men? Southern women were not going to hang on to the shirt tails of their men and beg them not to go. She considered it her duty to send her man to war with the assurance that she was strong and that all would be well on the home front so as to give her soldier one less thing to worry about. It was the ultimate act of selflessness.
Was it? Whether a man wanted to go or not his wife was going to badger him into doing it... Regardless Southern women of the CS were far more hateful, I think, after the war. Perhaps it was that they had not shared the hardships of blood and mud that created a bond between soldiers North & South.
There is far more to it than simple emotion; there is also reason. The continued knowledge that can be gleamed from reading the words of the men and women who were there is priceless. If you note my sig that is doubley true for the CS.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
There is far more to it than simple emotion; there is also reason. The continued knowledge that can be gleamed from reading the words of the men and women who were there is priceless. If you note my sig that is doubley true for the CS.
I lean toward the words of the men and women of the era for my history. More than the politicians, the citizens thoughts and feelings are the ones that count. The emotions of the people give indication of their passion for their cause and it tells us what motivated them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
More than 200,000 did and a sizeable portion of the South was pro Union. Minority rights meant nothing to the CS when roles were reversed.
Among the border states a great many people were divided between North and Southern loyalties. Often times single families were divided. I'm hearing more and more often implications that the South was not tightly united. This isn't true.
Minority rights meant little in the nineteenth century to any section of the country. The South was no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
There were multiple invasion by CS forces, the two into the East that ended w/ Antietem & Gettysburg, an invasion of a neutral party, Kentucky, and an invasion of Missouri. There was also the inavsions into the Nation, modern day Oklahoma, Arizona New Mexico etc. The CS was by no means a victim.
I was referring to who started the war. It wasn't the South that initiated the war by invading the North. I've never said the South was a victim, however, they would never have initiated a war had the U.S. not been on their soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
Was it? Whether a man wanted to go or not his wife was going to badger him into doing it... Regardless Southern women of the CS were far more hateful, I think, after the war. Perhaps it was that they had not shared the hardships of blood and mud that created a bond between soldiers North & South.
Yes, it was. I doubt women "badgered" their men to go and fight. Nineteenth century women were not acustomed to doing the work of a man, although she worked hard. She knew little of the business end of farming, either. She was not anxious to be left alone to deal not only with her heavy burden of child rearing, housekeeping, and all that goes with being a farmers wife, she now would have to plow, plant, harvest, get produce to market, all of the things she knew little about. Yes, she was selfless to make her farmer husband comfortable with her support and encouragement.
I agree, the women were far more hateful. The sacrifices they had made for their country was more than perhaps a lot of us realize and she was bitter after the war. Emma LeConte wrote in her journal:
"They say right always triumphs, but what cause could have been more just than ours? Have we suffered all - have our brave men fought so desperately and died so nobly for this? For four years there has been throughout this broad land little else than the anguish of anxiety - the misery of sorrow over dear ones sacrificed - for nothing! Is all this blood spilled in vain - will it not cry from the ground on the day we yield to these Yankees! We give up to the Yankees! How can it be? How can they talk about it?
Why does not the President call out the women? If there aren't enough men? We would go and fight too - we would better all die together. Let us suffer still more - give up yet more - anything, anything that will help the cause - anything that will give us freedom and not force us to live with such people - to be ruled by such horrible and contemptible creatures - to submit to them when we hate them so bitterly. It is cruel - it is unjust."
Regards, Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Looking back more South guys should have refused to fight because the Union was more important then a divided Nation .
Muzzle, being a yankee in the 21st century, I surely cannot speak for a southern male in the 19th century, but from what I've read, many southern males considered the Confederacy as their "nation", and joined the fight to preserve the "union" of their nation, which was the Confederate States of America.
As far as peer pressure goes, in all of America's wars there have been many who did not want to fight, but did so because of peer pressure, or fear of being labeled a coward. They were brave men for going, even if peer pressure was the primary motivator. Conscientious objectors who declare they won't fight because of their religious convictions, many times were called cowards. I think that in a war that is supported by most of the population, and called a "just" war, or a "worthy cause", a conscientious objector, or any man, for that matter, who refuses to fight for any moral objection, may well find things much tougher for him for not going to fight, than they would be if he kept silent and did go to fight. In such cases the disapproval and condemnation he might have to endure from his fellow citizens might be worse, and affect him for a longer period of time, than an actual battle wound. It takes real courage to refuse military service, based on religious faith, and/or moral conviction, and in my opinion, considering the stigma attached to that person by many in society, the refusal to serve is worthy of admiration, and I would call that man brave also. Of course, someone who uses a moral pretext to avoid service, falsely, because he's afraid or just doesn't want to be inconvenienced has to deal with not only the disapproval of the public, but with his own cowardice, too.
Quote:
Peer Pressure Among Southerners To Fight- Huge Factor
I think I strayed from my point somewhat. I guess what I'm trying to say is the title of the thread you started is very true, for both southern and northern males in the Civil War. To go against peer pressure and refuse service was very difficult then , and in all wars since, really, even during the Vietnam war, when, in the last years of that war the peer pressure was there from both sides; pressure to serve, and in many cases pressure to not serve.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Muzzle, being a yankee in the 21st century, I surely cannot speak for a southern male in the 19th century, but from what I've read, many southern males considered the Confederacy as their "nation", and joined the fight to preserve the "union" of their nation, which was the Confederate States of America.
Terry
Yep, the USArmy had 1080 officers on the active list, apointed by states to their posistion, all but one (W Scott), stay with their state during the seccesion crises.
Yep, the USArmy had 1080 officers on the active list, apointed by states to their posistion, all but one (W Scott), stay with their state during the seccesion crises.
Hanny
Is that correct? Thomas was not the only Virginian to serve the Union, or Tennesean etc.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Is that correct? Thomas was not the only Virginian to serve the Union, or Tennesean etc.
Yes, its all to do with who appoints you, either the State or the Government, now if your commision was from then Government agencys, Pres/War Dept then iirc the split was quite strong in favour of staying with the Government, its all to do with law, and who has a lawfull claim to your alliegence in law, ie the wording of the oath you gave, and thus if your following in law who has a primal claim on your allegience.
Edit
Of the 1080 officers on active duty at the start of 1861, every officer
appointed from civilian life, with one exception, followed his state, whether
that state was North or South: the exception was Winfield Scott.
All but 16 of the West Pointers from the North stayed loyal. The 16
exceptions had all married into Southern families. However, of 330 West Point graduates from Southern states on active duty, barely half (168) resigned. And almost half (162) stayed loyal and fought for the Union. (Source:
Boatner, CW Dictionary, p. 495)
I'm curious if the officers who joined the Confederacy had confidence in the new government as a whole from a financial standpoint. The US Army was far more likely to meet payroll, which became a considerable concern for Confederates as the war lengthened. Hardly any payroll at all in 1864-65 for the Confederacy. Lots of families were not getting support from their soldier fathers and husbands. The desertions by the Confederates were mostly linked to that problem.
At the beginning of the war, peer pressure was a leading element in southerners joining the army.
Towards the end of the war, the Confederate armies had another peer pressure, the desire to desert, fostered by a peer group.
Towards the end of the war, they saw the Confederate loss coming and the inability of the Confederate government to protect their home county and state.
Even Robert E. Lee wrote of it in a dispatch in early 1865, mentioning those who influenced the desertions from the Army of Northern Virginia.
It was the Confederate private who led them in battle; it was in my analysis the Confederate private who led them out of war, by desertion.
The soldier was unable to fed his family and himself. The Confederate government accepted the loss, long after the Confederate private knew it was coming.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
