Did the Irish Potato Famine Help Doom the Confederacy?

NH Civil War Gal

Captain
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
1615993226396.png


I happened to read a line today that said that the Irish potato famine helped doomed the Confederacy because of the tremendous amount of immigration that poured into this country. Apparently recruiting posters for the Union side were printed in different languages too and posted where? In New York City? And apparently the 1862 Homestead Act was publicized around the world to attract immigrants and 800,000 came during the war. I didn’t realize that.

There might be two or three issues here in this thread. But the Irish Potato Famine has certainly sparked my curiosity and I never thought about that before. There were certainly Irish units on both sides but were there more on one side or the other? Or were they fairly equal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Census began collecting data on people's naturalization status in 1850. By their count there were 2 1/4 million people of all ages and genders who were not native born Americans. That was slightly less than 10% of the U.S. population. Immigration during the 1850s was 1.9 million; during the 1860s it declined to 1 1/3 million. The immigrant shares of the total population for the Census years were 1860 - 13.2%, 1870 - 14.4%.

 
Vote Here:
I happened to read a line today that said that the Irish potato famine helped doomed the Confederacy because of the tremendous amount of immigration that poured into this country. Apparently recruiting posters for the Union side were printed in different languages too and posted where? In New York City? And apparently the 1862 Homestead Act was publicized around the world to attract immigrants and 800,000 came during the war. I didn’t realize that.

There might be two or three issues here in this thread. But the Irish Potato Famine has certainly sparked my curiosity and I never thought about that before. There were certainly Irish units on both sides but were there more on one side or the other? Or were they fairly equal?
A very interesting topic!
For several years, I ve been working on a manuscript based on an 18th to 19th century Mississippi family. Research for that work led me to an in-depth ancestry research where I ve found a colonial trail leading 18th century Irish immigrants from NY, Boston and Philadelphia into south-western Pennsylvania to southwestern Virginia and southeast Tennessee. This of course has nothing to do with the potato famine but it’s enlightening to read the many replies you received - which has given me ( and I am sure others) a great deal to think about. Thanks again!
 
Vote Here:
"Where-ever in the neighbourhood of Dublin labourers work was proceeding, there the Federal agent appeared, picked out the strongest men, talked them over, and generally succeeded in buying their lives."
Editorial from the March 1, 1864 Irish Times reprinted in the March 1, 2011 Irish Times:
The British believed that these federal agents were acting in direct contravention to the ‘foreign enlistment act’ which prohibited British subjects entering into the service of foreign states, the problem of course was trying to prove that Irish men were travelling to the United States with the full intention of serving within a foreign military. If for example an Irishman was found to have agreed a military contract with the U.S whilst he resided in Ireland then he could be charged under criminal law. The whole issue of federal agents operating in Britain and deliberately recruiting for the military was debated in Parliament and despite their being some evidence nothing could be proven. I think the same law, ‘foreign enlistment act was cited when it came to ship builders and confederate agents in Liverpool. One could argue that the British wanted to appear neutral but I suspect that their was a real fear of having a lot of battle hardened Irish republicans returning with a particular grudge against British rule. I can’t remember where I read it but after the CW there was a comment made by an English Parliamentarian who asked Parliament if anyone else was troubled by the number of men in federal uniforms wondering the streets of Ireland.
 
Vote Here:
How many Irishmen returned to Ireland? Seems to me that not many would have much to return to. The famine wasn’t over, work was scarce.
The famine was totally avoidable, Ireland was exporting large amounts of meat and dairy products to mainland Britain whilst their own people starved, the way in which the Irish were treated was terrible, it only took us Brits 150 years to offer an apology.
 
Vote Here:
The British believed that these federal agents were acting in direct contravention to the ‘foreign enlistment act’ which prohibited British subjects entering into the service of foreign states, the problem of course was trying to prove that Irish men were travelling to the United States with the full intention of serving within a foreign military. If for example an Irishman was found to have agreed a military contract with the U.S whilst he resided in Ireland then he could be charged under criminal law. The whole issue of federal agents operating in Britain and deliberately recruiting for the military was debated in Parliament and despite their being some evidence nothing could be proven. I think the same law, ‘foreign enlistment act was cited when it came to ship builders and confederate agents in Liverpool. One could argue that the British wanted to appear neutral but I suspect that their was a real fear of having a lot of battle hardened Irish republicans returning with a particular grudge against British rule. I can’t remember where I read it but after the CW there was a comment made by an English Parliamentarian who asked Parliament if anyone else was troubled by the number of men in federal uniforms wondering the streets of Ireland.
The problem was that there were both legal and illegal reasons for the federal agents to be trying to induce Irishmen to emigrate. And the Homestead Act provided a lot of cover for the illegal reasons.
 
Vote Here:
Sorry for the incomplete highlighting but the iPad is not cooperating this morning!

I’ve read where families thought it was the “hight of shame” to be drafted and to buy a substitute was “not be considered.”

In fact, in the diary I’ve just finished. Oney Sweet, in a letter from his mother learns that a couple of families from his home town hired substitutes. He writes back to his mother asking for a list of the men who hired substitutes. I’m assuming there would be future shame and payback in store.
On the contrary, nationwide there would have been almost no consequences for a "failure" to serve. You're conflating today's values with those of the 1860's. In any city, town, village in the US there would have been hundreds of men working at commonplace jobs compared to those who volunteered or were drafted. Plus America had not become a middle class dominated society yet. The people who could afford to pay a substitute would simply be exercising the US equivalent of noblesse oblige. Can you imagine a common farmer or tradesman/factory worker in Europe criticizing the local lord, baron, earl, duke, count, etc. for ANYTHING?

You would expect the Confederate armies would have been wall to wall plantation owners, especially given the basic thing the Confederate armies were fighting to protect--slavery. To the contrary, very few were like Wade Hampton who served with great skill. The plantation owners had to stay at home and run the plantations.

I know you have seen/heard constant references to the "greatest generation" who fought in WWII. And believe me I am not criticizing them. But the overwhelming majority of men who served in WWII were not volunteers they were drafted. It was not until Vietnam reached it's apex that all men became eligible to the draft. I remember vividly being in college and catching the newspaper in mid air the morning the draft numbers were first printed. (I was #344 so I'm still waiting for WW 13 to be called to serve.) Even in 1968, although the concept was beginning to change, the basic concept of college was that it was reserved for middle and upper classes so they could learn how to run the country, while those "lesser" people bled and died.
 
Vote Here:
The 1870 census depicted where they ended up after they emigrated to the US. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-31.pdf?#
Industrial jobs, port jobs, entry through Canada, and railroad jobs in Omaha and Kansas City attracted many immigrants from Ireland. I doubt that their military impact was that significant during the US Civil War. However their economic impact and the impact on Democratic urban politics was enormous.
 
Vote Here:
The 1870 census depicted where they ended up after they emigrated to the US. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1870/population/1870a-31.pdf?#
Industrial jobs, port jobs, entry through Canada, and railroad jobs in Omaha and Kansas City attracted many immigrants from Ireland. I doubt that their military impact was that significant during the US Civil War. However their economic impact and the impact on Democratic urban politics was enormous.

Beautiful maps!

The immigration numbers from this era suggest to me that while many immigrants served faithfully in the US armed forces, their numbers were in no way determinative of the outcome of the War.
 
Vote Here:
On the contrary, nationwide there would have been almost no consequences for a "failure" to serve. You're conflating today's values with those of the 1860's. In any city, town, village in the US there would have been hundreds of men working at commonplace jobs compared to those who volunteered or were drafted. Plus America had not become a middle class dominated society yet. The people who could afford to pay a substitute would simply be exercising the US equivalent of noblesse oblige. Can you imagine a common farmer or tradesman/factory worker in Europe criticizing the local lord, baron, earl, duke, count, etc. for ANYTHING?

You would expect the Confederate armies would have been wall to wall plantation owners, especially given the basic thing the Confederate armies were fighting to protect--slavery. To the contrary, very few were like Wade Hampton who served with great skill. The plantation owners had to stay at home and run the plantations.

I know you have seen/heard constant references to the "greatest generation" who fought in WWII. And believe me I am not criticizing them. But the overwhelming majority of men who served in WWII were not volunteers they were drafted. It was not until Vietnam reached it's apex that all men became eligible to the draft. I remember vividly being in college and catching the newspaper in mid air the morning the draft numbers were first printed. (I was #344 so I'm still waiting for WW 13 to be called to serve.) Even in 1968, although the concept was beginning to change, the basic concept of college was that it was reserved for middle and upper classes so they could learn how to run the country, while those "lesser" people bled and died.
I hear you and respect what you are saying. I took the shame thing straight from a family diary of the time period. It was from a letter by the mother of Oney Sweet who served in the 1st Penns. His mother said, “drafting was considered a shame on the family and a substitute was not to be thought of.”

Later, in his diary, he and others from their town in the 1st Penns learn that others bought substitutes. He writes that he directs his mother to provide a list of them and send it to him. So at least in that little subsection of men, they considered, very strongly, that it was something to be ashamed of.
 
Vote Here:
I think it was something like 25% of Union soldiers were immigrants - that’s a considerable amount of men to draw upon, no matter how you look at it. I’m not sure you can’t say it didn’t make a difference to helping win the war. Maybe not strategic difference but in sheer manpower and keeping things manned it might have.
 
Vote Here:
The "draft" for the United States began with the passage of the Enrollment Act of 1863. The long title was "An Act for enrolling and calling out the national Forces, and for other Purposes". The "draft" was a command to the individual States to provide their quote of soldiers. The quota was to be determined by the President. The authority for the legislation by Congress were its powers under Section 8 of Article I "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The legislation goes into very specific exemptions for "sons" depending on their birth order and family status. The main thrust of the legislation is not conscription but the grant of authority to the Provost Marshall for each enrollment district to chase after deserters.
The famous "draft riots" in New York City were that occurred only two months after the law was signed by Lincoln were not about the draft but a reaction to the Provost Marshall was going after the people who had made an art of collecting a State bonus for enlisting and then deserting. Under Fernando Wood as Mayor, New York City was notorious for being the place where you could go and hide and not be bothered by the local law. The Provost Marshall and Wood's successor as Mayor, George Opdyke, changed all that. The "race" part of the riot came from the fact that some of the Provost Marshall's men were "black".
 
Vote Here:
The "draft" for the United States began with the passage of the Enrollment Act of 1863. The long title was "An Act for enrolling and calling out the national Forces, and for other Purposes". The "draft" was a command to the individual States to provide their quote of soldiers. The quota was to be determined by the President. The authority for the legislation by Congress were its powers under Section 8 of Article I "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The legislation goes into very specific exemptions for "sons" depending on their birth order and family status. The main thrust of the legislation is not conscription but the grant of authority to the Provost Marshall for each enrollment district to chase after deserters.
The famous "draft riots" in New York City were that occurred only two months after the law was signed by Lincoln were not about the draft but a reaction to the Provost Marshall was going after the people who had made an art of collecting a State bonus for enlisting and then deserting. Under Fernando Wood as Mayor, New York City was notorious for being the place where you could go and hide and not be bothered by the local law. The Provost Marshall and Wood's successor as Mayor, George Opdyke, changed all that. The "race" part of the riot came from the fact that some of the Provost Marshall's men were "black".
Many immigrants were angry about the draft because one could be drafted without being a citizen if one had expressed an intent to become a citizen. Many thought a draft unconstitutional.

Curiously, citizenship wasn't required to qualify for land act grants; just intent.
 
Vote Here:
The New York State Constitution still has what was the standard "militia" clause granting the State broad authority of conscription.
ARTICLE XII Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
The Enrollment Act was structured to work through the States precisely because the States had greater sovereign power. That distinction was used in Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) to get the Feds off the hook. The Supremos held that military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for their negligence.
 
Vote Here:
Beautiful maps!

The immigration numbers from this era suggest to me that while many immigrants served faithfully in the US armed forces, their numbers were in no way determinative of the outcome of the War.
The 1860 census was not very well done. The 1870 census more accurately depicted the complexity and scope of the emerging world power.
The immigrants were very important in the ports and in the navy. Many of them probably went back to Europe after the US Civil War.
 
Vote Here:
The "draft" for the United States began with the passage of the Enrollment Act of 1863. The long title was "An Act for enrolling and calling out the national Forces, and for other Purposes". The "draft" was a command to the individual States to provide their quote of soldiers. The quota was to be determined by the President. The authority for the legislation by Congress were its powers under Section 8 of Article I "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The legislation goes into very specific exemptions for "sons" depending on their birth order and family status. The main thrust of the legislation is not conscription but the grant of authority to the Provost Marshall for each enrollment district to chase after deserters.
The famous "draft riots" in New York City were that occurred only two months after the law was signed by Lincoln were not about the draft but a reaction to the Provost Marshall was going after the people who had made an art of collecting a State bonus for enlisting and then deserting. Under Fernando Wood as Mayor, New York City was notorious for being the place where you could go and hide and not be bothered by the local law. The Provost Marshall and Wood's successor as Mayor, George Opdyke, changed all that. The "race" part of the riot came from the fact that some of the Provost Marshall's men were "black".
The British believed that these federal agents were acting in direct contravention to the ‘foreign enlistment act’ which prohibited British subjects entering into the service of foreign states, the problem of course was trying to prove that Irish men were travelling to the United States with the full intention of serving within a foreign military. If for example an Irishman was found to have agreed a military contract with the U.S whilst he resided in Ireland then he could be charged under criminal law. The whole issue of federal agents operating in Britain and deliberately recruiting for the military was debated in Parliament and despite their being some evidence nothing could be proven. I think the same law, ‘foreign enlistment act was cited when it came to ship builders and confederate agents in Liverpool. One could argue that the British wanted to appear neutral but I suspect that their was a real fear of having a lot of battle hardened Irish republicans returning with a particular grudge against British rule. I can’t remember where I read it but after the CW there was a comment made by an English Parliamentarian who asked Parliament if anyone else was troubled by the number of men in federal uniforms wondering the streets of Ireland.
Interested points.
Excellent piece of information. Many thanks
 
Vote Here:
The 1860 census was not very well done. The 1870 census more accurately depicted the complexity and scope of the emerging world power.
The immigrants were very important in the ports and in the navy. Many of them probably went back to Europe after the US Civil War.
Why? Please explain this. What was waiting for them in Europe other than other wars that were simmering and rising. Famine was still around in Ireland. Hard times were in parts of Europe and Central Europe. I don't see why many of them would go back to Europe. Convince me.
 
Vote Here:
Why? Please explain this. What was waiting for them in Europe other than other wars that were simmering and rising. Famine was still around in Ireland. Hard times were in parts of Europe and Central Europe. I don't see why many of them would go back to Europe. Convince me.
I'm with you. I know many ended up out west. Examples are the many who worked on the trans-continental railroad and were miners in a number of places (e.g. read about Butte, Montana).
 
Vote Here:
Why? Please explain this. What was waiting for them in Europe other than other wars that were simmering and rising. Famine was still around in Ireland. Hard times were in parts of Europe and Central Europe. I don't see why many of them would go back to Europe. Convince me.
Jobs for sailors with experience on steam propelled vessels shifted back to the European side of the Atlantic.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top