Southern Aristorcracy

[matthew mckeon]

The above post is a little scattered.

[trice]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

In the North, anecdotes compare the bounty jumping, criminal, immigrant concripts with the patriotic volunteers are common enough--gosh, could they be exaggerating?

They weren't driven by the same fervor as the original Volunteers -- and the war had become quite different. There was nothing in 1861-1863 to compare with the continuous fighting of 1864, or the constant attrition in the trenches, that are seen in both Sherman's and Grant's fronts in 1864.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

That 6 %percent of concripts: did they all go into the AoP as riflemen?

Nope. There are very few conscripts at all before 1864, and most of them come in the 2nd half of 1864 and 1865, with the trend accelerating.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

As far the "old army game" there were plenty of politics in the CSA, but I think the Union had it worse, with politics playing even a greater role in officer selection, especially.

The Union certainly had it, but I doubt it was anywhere, on either side, worse than it was in the AoT with Bragg or Hood.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

The South benefited from two excellent military colleges, VMI and the Citadel, and their officer corps had a degree of professionalism, the North had to painfully acquire.

Hmm, yes, but not as uniquely as you think. Citadel was tiny at the time, founded in 1843, and most VMI grads ended up in the ANV, where they did make a big difference. The Union got the lion's share of West Point/Regular Army officers (about 70%). The 2nd biggest source of Union officers is now called Norwich University in Vermont, founded in 1819 by Captain Alden Partridge (1785-1854), and the first civilian engineering school in the country. It was originally called American Literary, Scientific and Military Academy. http://www.norwich.edu/about/legacy.html

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

We seem to be stigmatizing the conscripts a little ourselves, but really the bulk of CS conscripts were really volunteers, and wide spread conscription if yet another example of the "modern" nature of the CW. After all the American army in World War I and II was mostly conscripts, but the men were serving willingly enough.

There is a difference between a draft system and a conscription system. The Confederacy enacted universal conscription with few exceptions. The Union enacted a draft system that tried to encourage "voluntary" enlistments with bonuses (the carrot) and the threat of the draft (the stick). The Confederacy went to conscription because the carrot and stick approach failed for them; the Union was able to keep to it longer because it worked better for them.

BTW, in 1940 the Congress passed a peacetime draft and men were drafted for 12 months service. The first of them was due for release in October 1941. In August, with Hitler rumbling through Russia and the British reeling in the Battle of Britain, the Congress did what the Confederate Congress had done, they extended the term of service of the draftees they already day. There was lots of talk about what would happen come October (this was the OHIO, or "Over The Hill in October" scare), but when October came there was nothing.

I actually met someone who's father was in that group once. His Dad was in Oahu when the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, eventually volunteered for the paratroops, and was in the "Easy Company" of the 101st the book and TV miniseries was about.

Regards,
Tim

[matthew mckeon]

Tim,
It's my eastern bias showing: I was thinking about the effect of VMI and the Citadel specificially on the ANV.

Now, I might be reaching, but instead of individual replacements to existing regiments, most Northern governors prefered to raise fresh units, because of the patronage possibilities in appointing officers. The AoP outnumbered the ANV to be sure, but it was also had many more corps, regiments etc. of smaller size than the ANV units with the same titles. I think it made the ANV a more flexible and faster force, but the units themselves were more uniform in experience.

I'm thinking about the draftees--there was an effort to comb out the heavy artillery units and other fortress troops to beef up the AoP for the Overland Campaign, and the bulk of the conscripts served as replacements during that campaign--that's what I meant by the conscripts going into the AoP as infantry.

Of course, since CW infantry were all of one type: riflemen, a unit could be very small, but not lose fighting power proportionate to its size. It was just take up more or less room on the firing line.

[trice]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

It's my eastern bias showing: I was thinking about the effect of VMI and the Citadel specificially on the ANV.

And you are quite correct there: it was a major benefit to the ANV. The AoT and other western Confederate armies suffered from a lack, though. Another thing to notice, though, is the relatively unusual number of officers associated with Forrest who did have a military background. He was good at recognizing, attracting, and using talent.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Now, I might be reaching, but instead of individual replacements to existing regiments, most Northern governors prefered to raise fresh units, because of the patronage possibilities in appointing officers. The AoP outnumbered the ANV to be sure, but it was also had many more corps, regiments etc. of smaller size than the ANV units with the same titles. I think it made the ANV a more flexible and faster force, but the units themselves were more uniform in experience.

Generally true. Northern units were usually raised this way, and it was a problem that Regular officers recognized but were unable to do much about. It also wasn't 100% accurate (some Union units did get reinforcements from home via new recruits), but it is a good general description.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

I'm thinking about the draftees--there was an effort to comb out the heavy artillery units and other fortress troops to beef up the AoP for the Overland Campaign, and the bulk of the conscripts served as replacements during that campaign--that's what I meant by the conscripts going into the AoP as infantry.

The Heavy Artillery units were actually Volunteers, having often been sitting in the Washington defenses for a couple of years. Grant just had the pull to get them rousted out of the forts and barracks and sent to the front. Very few conscripts were in the AoP units when the Overland Campaign started. Lots of bonus men were.

Under the US Call of July 0f July 18, 1864, things broke out as follows:

The number called for was 500,000
Reduced by credits on former calls 265,673
To be obtained 234,327

Number of voluntary enlistments under that call:
Volunteers-
White 146,392
Colored 15,961
Regulars 6,339
Seamen 17,606
Marine Corps 1,874
================
Total 188,172

Number of drafted men and substitutes obtained under that call:
Number held to personal service 26,205
Number of substitutes for drafted men 28,502
Number of substitutes for enrolled men 29,584
============
Total 84,291

Whole number obtained under the July call 272,463

Essentially, only 26,205 of the 272,463 men furnished were draftees who actually served. Another 58,086 were substitues of one kind or another. This is in the 2nd half of 1864.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Of course, since CW infantry were all of one type: riflemen, a unit could be very small, but not lose fighting power proportionate to its size. It was just take up more or less room on the firing line.

Hmm, in the sense that heavy weapons weren't lost, yes.

Regards,
Tim

[Texas2nd]

Hi ya'll,
We had a great celebration of Father's day! hope ya'll did too.

Been looking through bookstores in the Big City and actually found the books mention aforehand that explore nationalism of both the North and South.

I think this is important because historians have long bickered over nationalism (patriotism) vs. slavery as the very root cause of the ACW, and this is a relativiely unexplored POV.

Even Chandra Manning has allowed for this concept on page 6 of her introduction in her new book (can't remember the name) that explore's everyday letters of soldiers as to why they fought.

While in the Big City, I looked at a book called On The Alter of a Nation by Stout -It was an eye opener. He says that in 1860, neither emancipation nor freedom for slaves was called for or popular enough in the Old Union to be a cause for the war... and of course cite's Lincoln and other politicians. Hmm...

He also points out that after the ACW, the North had to rationalize and claim divine intervention against slavery because in Europe similar wars were fought without "total war', in which regionalism was accepted as a reason for final seperation of countries.

Fox-Genovese and Genovese wrote about the same thing in The Mind of the Masterclass: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholder's Worldview. It's unbelievable, almost 1000 pages and presents the ACW in a world view.

They point out the Southerners had world precedence for seperating from the Old Union under both regionalism and individual freedom issues.

I enjoyed reading about the world view and the fact that the South was not so focused on states rights but on protecting individual liberty and societal traditionalism (culture).

I don't own these books, yet, so all this is paraphrased and not quoted but I have to admit, with this much evidence along with the evidence in the 1940's (Eaton), these ideas are worth a look.

These ideas change the old arguments and allow us all a deeper look into the how and why.

Texas2nd

[OpnDownfall]

Most of the rationalizing was done by southerners 'After' they lost the war and had to discover another reason for the war besides slavery.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

...
While in the Big City, I looked at a book called On The Alter of a Nation by Stout -It was an eye opener. He says that in 1860, neither emancipation nor freedom for slaves was called for or popular enough in the Old Union to be a cause for the war... and of course cite's Lincoln and other politicians. Hmm...

It's an interesting viewpoint, but I fail to see why it is an "eye opener". It was always known, and I and others have mentioned it here frequently. We only had a Civil War because of actions by Southerners: aggressive, often threatening, and sometimes violent actions. Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the most common opinion in the North was that a state had no right to secede, and the Federal government had no right to use force to make them remain. But all that vanished in the fire of emotion caused by the attack on Ft. Sumter.

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

He also points out that after the ACW, the North had to rationalize and claim divine intervention against slavery because in Europe similar wars were fought without "total war', in which regionalism was accepted as a reason for final seperation of countries.

Doubtful. Some people might have felt that way, but governments had little trouble smashing rebellions in Europe; that's why there were so many immigrants in America in the 1850s. Also, whatever Sherman's genius, what we speak of as "total war" at Sherman's hands is pretty mild by European standards. Prussians had a reputation as looters going back over a century, and Napoleon's French stripped the countries they passed through with a thoroughness Sherman's men never achieved. What the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars brought to places like the Tyrol and Spain and Portugal was worse by far than what Sherman did to the South. Nothing that happened in our Civil War holds a candle to things like the Thirty Years War for sheer sustained violence and horror.

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

Fox-Genovese and Genovese wrote about the same thing in The Mind of the Masterclass: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholder's Worldview. It's unbelievable, almost 1000 pages and presents the ACW in a world view.

They point out the Southerners had world precedence for seperating from the Old Union under both regionalism and individual freedom issues.

Generally, no, they don't have it. Successful rebellions against organized authority are very rare, and the biggest example is really the American Revolution. Kings and governments routinely crushed movements that tried to separate like that in those days.

Regards,
Tim

[cash]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

While in the Big City, I looked at a book called On The Alter of a Nation by Stout -It was an eye opener. He says that in 1860, neither emancipation nor freedom for slaves was called for or popular enough in the Old Union to be a cause for the war... and of course cite's Lincoln and other politicians. Hmm...

He also points out that after the ACW, the North had to rationalize and claim divine intervention against slavery because in Europe similar wars were fought without "total war', in which regionalism was accepted as a reason for final seperation of countries.

Stout's book, _Upon the Altar of the Nation,_ has been panned in scholarly reviews in the _Journal of American History_ and in the _American Historical Review,_ as well as on "Civil War Talk Radio," as factually inaccurate and showing a lack of understanding of the war, which is understandable, since Stout, a professor of Religious History, claimed he "mastered" the war after only three years of studying it.

Regards,
Cash

[Ozark Iron John]

Why don't you delete this one too.

[larry_cockerham]

Y'all still don't understand there was more to the civil conflict than slaves? A bunch of folks were upset when the US Army "invaded" Tennessee. A fact. A bunch of Tennesseans were IN that army and fought to preserve the Union. Not a bad idea either?