Home Guard and militia

Leonard you should write a book on Home Guards or guerrilla warfare. While I have studied about it quite a bit in East TN ( because my ancestors were in the TN National Guard and Mounted Infantry units. ) and have studied about East KY, you have a knowledge about it in many states.
 
Are militia and Home Guard two terms for effectively the same thing? Did Northern states have any Home Guard units? Or just western Union states?

mike
As a general rule Militia or Home Guards didn't do well vs conventional troops.
The Third North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union definitely had it in for Confederate Home Guards. See my thread on George Kirk about the raid on Camp Vance.
I don't have all the details but the Georgia State Militia had a run in with the 20th Indiana Infantry armed with Spencer Rifles during the March through Georgia. Not a good day for the GSM.
Leftyhunter
 
Leonard you should write a book on Home Guards or guerrilla warfare. While I have studied about it quite a bit in East TN ( because my ancestors were in the TN National Guard and Mounted Infantry units. ) and have studied about East KY, you have a knowledge about it in many states.
Thanks I appreciate the compliment. I just read a lot and have spoken to various people when I can who have participated in counterinsurgency from various armies. I don't have direct experience in counterinsurgency. My son accompanied Filipino Marines in Mindanao who were on patrol when his Marine unit was in the Philippines.
Counterinsurgency is a very interesting topic and all counterinsurgency involve militia.
Leftyhunter
 
So when a deserter was captured by a Home Guard unit - was there a legal distinction between those that were hanged for desertion and those that were sent back into service? Or was it whatever mood the commander was in at the time?
I would go with it depended how Uncle Elmer felt that day. If Elmer knew that if he offed a deserter and his kinfolk might off him then that might be a factor for clemency.
Leftyhunter
 
That must have been very interesting for your son. Counterinsurgency and guerrilla warfare are a brutal buisness .
 
I would go with it depended how Uncle Elmer felt that day. If Elmer knew that if he offed a deserter and his kinfolk might off him then that might be a factor for clemency.
Leftyhunter
You know just because a man deserted his unit doen't mean he quit fighting. I think of the Confederate guerrilla John P. Gatewood. Regular units still used his skills because they knew he was wrecking havoc on people behind the lines. He was finally broken up by, I think, the 5th and 7th Mounted Infantry USA.
 
You know just because a man deserted his unit doen't mean he quit fighting. I think of the Confederate guerrilla John P. Gatewood. Regular units still used his skills because they knew he was wrecking havoc on people behind the lines. He was finally broken up by, I think, the 5th and 7th Mounted Infantry USA.
True some Confederate deserter's became Confederate guerrillas but many Confederate deserter's also became Unionist guerrillas or enlisted in the Union Army. Some just became freelance bandits.
Union deserters sometimes became freelance bandits or just faded into the Civilian population.
Leftyhunter
 
You know just because a man deserted his unit doen't mean he quit fighting.

TnFed, you are absolutely correct. Some may have felt the need to get back home quickly to address an urgent need regarding members of their families and then once home they would return to the front and deal with what ever discipline that would be necessary to address their being AWOL for a certain period of time. One of the major reasons for which Sherman implemented his "scorched earth" policy and "hard war" strategy on civilians and population centers was to press those families to write their husbands, fathers and brothers who were fighting at the front, letting them know that they had lost everything, knowing that it would lay heavily on those men, giving incentive to leave the front and go home to meet the needs of their families, who were in desperate want and need of the most basic necessities to sustain themselves. This is evidenced by so many Confederates deserting and going AWOL the last 18 months of the war, who simply felt that even though they had a duty to their country they had a more immediate duty to their family. They felt that they were needed back at home more than they were needed at the front fighting the war. Since they could not bear to read the sorrowful letters written from their families in dire need and want they made the decision to go home. I am sure that many sought out furloughs, and if they were not granted then the men would have certainly felt that they had no choice but to either desert or go AWOL to address the urgent needs of their families. Some stayed home and were reported as deserters but many returned and were just charged with a lesser infraction of being AWOL, and given a far less severe punishment for that action. Others deserted because they simply grew weary of the war and no longer supported the cause, never intending to return to the front, a select few of those may have turned to robbing and pillaging or hiding out some where until the close of the war. Regardless of the reasoning, the duty of the Home Guard would be to locate those who had deserted or were AWOL and return them to the front from their local communities so that they could continue to fight for the cause.
 
Last edited:
One very unique militia was a Union militia in Missouri called the " Paw Paw Militia". The PawPaw's were former pro Confederate men who joined the Missouri State Guard and in return for not having Union troops in their neighborhoods supposedly would keep the peace and keep out Confederate guerrillas.
In actuality they would oppress local Unionists who complained to no avail to the Union Army.
When the Confederate Army under Major General Price invaded Missouri in September 1864 the Paw Paw Militia fought alongside the Confederate Army. Those Paw Paw that were captured had their careers in the Paw Paw Militia terminated with extreme prejudice.
Leftyhunter

The EMM had nothing to do with Missouri State Guard, They would have been affiliated with the MSM as they were both were enrolled in the service of the pro-union Missouri Government. I would think "In actuality they would oppress local Unionists who complained to no avail to the Union Army." is a gross mischaracterization, as the EMM was statewide with every county having organizations and have never heard it represented the majority of the EMM statewide was a problem at all.

I know from reading the case of General Odon Guitar, who seems to have been a loyal Union man and guerrilla fighter, simply enforcing the law fairly would lead radicals to complain, as they thought they should somehow be free to persecute their neighbors illegally. While in St Joseph he had some criminals arrested for illegally robbing and burning houses, by all accounts they were guilty and convicted, but the pro union residents complained and had him replaced for simply enforcing the law against radical leaning criminals.

And not all EMM were ever dismissed, but numbers of them then went into PEMM and MSM as well.

The Paw Paws as you seem to be using it, was one unit out of 85 regt, 16 battalions, and 33 independent companies of the EMM.......so hardly would reflect on the EMM as a whole, or as I said earlier statewide. Also curious which units you are referring to that fought alongside Price........the one unit that did flip, Coon Thornton's did so before Prices invasion, never fought along side Price as all as he was put down before the invasion ever occured.

Not sure if your aware of the value of their service as garrison troops, the EMM constituted a force of over 52,000 men, in comparison the MSM was 13,000. They garrisoned towns and blockhouses protecting RR bridges statewide.
 
Last edited:
What category would State Troops fall under?Would that be Militia or Home Guard? My great great great grandfather was in the Texas State Troops and he was already 45+ at the time. 5th Texas State Troops.
 
Last edited:
What category would State Troops fall under? My great great great grandfather was a member and he was already 45+ at the time. 5th Texas State Troops.

State troops were State Militia, the home guard were also authorized by the State. At the beginning of the War every State in the Confederacy organized State Troops which were soon ordered by the Governor of each State to be pressed into Confederate service. Albeit that not all State Militia was pressed into Confederate service. In those cases they would be required to coordinate with Confederate government forces (C.S. Army / Marines / Navy) in the States which they were authorized when needed, that is if they were permitted to do so.
 
The EMM had nothing to do with Missouri State Guard, They would have been affiliated with the MSM as they were both were enrolled in the service of the pro-union Missouri Government. I would think "In actuality they would oppress local Unionists who complained to no avail to the Union Army." is a gross mischaracterization, as the EMM was statewide with every county having organizations and have never heard it represented the majority of the EMM statewide was a problem at all.

I know from reading the case of Odon Guitar, who seems to have been a Loyal Union man and guerrilla fighter, simply enforcing the law fairly would lead radicals to complain, as they thought they should somehow be free to persecute their neighbors illegally. While in St Joseph he had some criminals arrested for illegally robbing and burning houses, by all accounts they were guilty and convicted, but the pro union residents complained and had him replaced for simply enforcing the law against radical leaning criminals.

And not all EMM were ever dismissed, but numbers of them then went into PEMM and MSM as well.

The Paw Paws as you seem to be using it, was one unit out of 85 regt, 16 battalions, and 33 independent companies of the EMM.......so hardly would reflect on the EMM as a whole, or as I said earlier statewide. Also curious which units you are referring to that fought alongside Price........the one unit that did flip, Coon Thornton's did so before Prices invasion, never fought along side Price as all as he was put down before the invasion ever occured.
If folks are interested I can and I have on other threads quoted from T.J.Stiles "Jesse James last Rebel of the Civil War" about the Paw Paw Militia. One doesn't have to physically be by Price's side to fight on behalf of Price's invasion.
I never stated how many were in the Paw Paw Militia but they were ex Confederate Missouri State Guard.
Leftyhunter
 
If folks are interested I can and I have on other threads quoted from T.J.Stiles "Jesse James last Rebel of the Civil War" about the Paw Paw Militia. One doesn't have to physically be by Price's side to fight on behalf of Price's invasion.
I never stated how many were in the Paw Paw Militia but they were ex Confederate Missouri State Guard.
Leftyhunter
Then you are incorrect there as well.....the EMM constituted all able bodied men then not in service, the majority of the EMM wasnt ex-confederate at all, but simply those who hadn't ever enlisted in either side. The EMM would in effect reflect its community, as most of the state was pro-union, most of the EMM was pro-union as well. If a particular community was heavily pro southern, its EMM would reflect that as well, but to characterize the EMM as a whole as pro south or ex-confederate, as you did earlier would be false.

Not aware that Stiles has ever written extensively on the EMM statewide or as a whole......instead the only time I'm aware he talked about them its in 2-3 western counties that had been subject to jayhawker raids and so were indeed prosouthern, in a book about Jesse James, not the EMM.......however those 2-3 counties dont reflect the 115 counties that made up the EMM............
 
Last edited:
State troops were State Militia, the home guard were also authorized by the State. At the beginning of the War every State in the Confederacy organized State Troops which were soon ordered by the Governor of each State to be pressed into Confederate service. Albeit that not all State Militia was pressed into Confederate service. In those cases they would be required to coordinate with Confederate government forces (C.S. Army / Marines / Navy) in the States which they were authorized when needed, that is if they were permitted to do so.
From what I understand very little "Confederate" service was actually done but the CS did eventually take over responsibility and pay of the State Troops (in Texas anyway). This made State Troops officially Confederate soldiers, which in turn made them eligible for a pension.
 
From what I understand very little "Confederate" service was actually done but the CS did eventually take over responsibility and pay of the State Troops (in Texas anyway). This made State Troops officially Confederate soldiers, which in turn made them eligible for a pension.
Although not directly related to the subject of State Troops, Militia, etc. this book I reviewed last week describes many of the same conditions as those existing in Missouri and elsewhere within the Confederacy: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/br...xas-by-david-pickering-and-judy-falls.160889/

1566058189548.png
 
Polloco, in Mississippi there was a mutiny of sorts regarding some State Troops and Conventional Confederate Forces. Generals N. B. Forrest, S. W. Ferguson and S. D. Lee, among others, were all complaining about it. Basically Confederate forces would be told that Brig. General Gholson and the Mississippi State Troops would coordinate with them and could be relied upon when needed. In theory this was correct, but in practice it could not be further from the truth. Some would but many would not. Brig. General Samuel Wragg Ferguson, under whom the 2nd Regiment Alabama Cavalry, the 56th Alabama Partisan Rangers, the 12th Regiment Mississippi Cavalry and the 2nd Regiment Tennessee Cavalry operated, had several altercations with Brig. General Gholson, who was in charge of the Mississippi State Troops, stating that his troops could never be found and that when they could be found they could not be depended upon. So Brig. General Samuel Wragg Ferguson actually had Brig. General Gholson and some of the officers of the Mississippi State Troops placed under arrest for interfering with his ability to fight. There were several letters written regarding this matter to president Jeff Davis, as well as to his adjutant and Secretary of War. Basically Gholson was told to either provide State Troops when they were requested or stay out of the fighting altogether.

This all stemmed from an incident in October 1863 when Ferguson ordered one of his regiments to seize and confiscate several wagons of corn which belonged to Gholson`s State Troops which sent him to Ferguson`s Headquarters to complain and Ferguson had him placed in arrest for a couple of days after Gholson was using profanity and threatening Ferguson (insubordination). Things just escalated from there which became entangled with many other issues..

Below I post the transcript of one of the letters:


"HEADQUARTERS CAVALRY BRIGADE, Verona, Miss., December 18, 1863.

Maj. Gen. S. D. LEE, Commanding Cavalry in Mississippi:

GENERAL : I have the honor herewith to inclose a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Lowry, of the State troops, to which I invite your attention and action. In explanation I beg leave to state that after my arrival, at this point I was informed by Captain Wallis, of my command (whose company Colonel Lowry claims as deserters), that the officer of his company sent with orders from you to Colonel Lowry for the delivery of the man he had arrested on our return from Alabama had never got back from that trip, and that it was reported to him that this officer, as well as several privates of his company, had been arrested and held by Colonel Lowry, and that one of the men so arrested had escaped and brought off his horse, but that Colonel Lowry retained the saddle. I at once wrote to the commanding officer of the State troops stating what had been re ported, and requiring the release of said officer and men should the report prove true. I also instructed my aide-de-camp, who carried the letter, to demand said saddle of Colonel Lowry. He returned with a reply from General Gholson that the men referred to were not at that time with the State troops, and a letter from Major Marshall, of Colonel Lowry's regiment, in reply to letter sent to him in relation to the arrest of deserters from the infantry serving with his command, and proffering aid, &c., declining such proffers, curtly refusing to be mixed up with Colonel Lowry's difficulty by delivery of the saddle required. My aide-de-camp stated that General Gholson was present when the demand was made and gave no order for the release of the saddle. I at once gave orders to my pickets to arrest the first man of Colonel Lowry's regiment who came to their posts, and bring me his horse and saddle, which I intended to keep until the property of my men is returned. I had previously given orders that none of the State troops were to be allowed to enter my camp, except on official business, as I do not choose to have my camp a resort for idlers and stragglers. Since writing to commanding officer of State troops I have been informed that the officer and privates about whom I made inquiry had been arrested by Lieutenant-Colonel Lowry and held until they consented to join his command, and that they are now serving with a portion of his command near Blackland. I can hardly believe that this is true, but the men are missing, and I have sent a squadron to Blackland to look for them, with orders to bring them and any officer in command of them to me. This squadron has not yet returned. I regret much that these difficulties should occur. It is impossible for me to allow my men to be arrested by Lieutenant-Colonel Lowry while on duty, and he says in his letter that he desires a contest with the Confederate authorities, which makes me apprehend a disturbance.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. W. FERGUSON,
Brigadier- General."


Here is another written from Lt. Col. W. L. Lowry`s with whom Ferguson was having problems in the above matter:

HDQRS. SECOND REGT. MISSISSIPPI STATE CAVALRY, City Point, Ms., December 16, 1863:

Brigadier-General FERGUSON :

"DEAR SIR : Sergeant Nixon and 8 of my men were stopped by your pickets yesterday (15th). Your lieutenant commanding pickets said that his orders are to stop Lowry's men, dismount them, and send the men to your headquarters. The order I regard as illegal, and sounds more like a threat from a scolding wife or an old maid, but as I know that it comes from one of the other sex, I will have to submit it to Governor Clark and Joseph E. Johnston. If the order was intended to retaliate for my arrest of the man Anderson, I wish to know it, for the reason that Anderson is a deserter from my regiment, and belongs to a company in the regiment raised by myself. and by authority from the Secretary of War, who were regularly mustered into this regiment and have never been transferred or discharged from the same; but the officers, Wallis and Page, on leaving the command, mutinied, deserted, and resisted the order of the commanding officer, for which charges have been preferred against them, and by your order they are subsisted and protected. These facts, together with the President's order, I intend to submit to General Johnston and Governor Clark. By the President of the Confederate States we are recognized and respected as officers and soldiers, and with you only have I had any trouble whatever. I made a demand on Colonel Richardson for some men of Company A. of my command, who were mustered into Confederate service by Captain Stride, and Colonel Richardson very promptly returned the men. General Lee, in his note to me in relation to Anderson, says that the course I pursued with Anderson will result in a dispute or contest between the Confederate and State authorities, which is earnestly desired by me, as a positive understanding between these authorities is absolutely necessary to the protection of my regiment against orders so illegal and unofficer like as your orders against my command of yesterday, and until this understanding between these authorities is had, I shall certainly take such steps as are necessary to the defense of my command, and will endeavor to make such defense sufficiently manly to insure the respect of both friend and foe.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. L. LOWRY,
Lieutenant- Colonel, Commanding."


Here is the response from Major General Stephen D. Lee to Brig. General Gholson regarding the matter:

HEADQUARTERS CAVALRY IN MISSISSIPPI, Brandon, Ms. December 24, 1863:

"Respectfully forwarded with the earnest request that some definite understanding be had with the State authorities relative to the State troops. They should either be transferred to the Confederate States service or be entirely separate as a State organization under State officers, with a distinct understanding who is to command them. These troops (State) have been inefficient from the want of proper understanding between the Confederate States and State authorities, and from no fault of the men. I do not know their status now, nor do I believe the State officers know. In the matter referred to, I express the opinion that Colonel Lowry is wrong, as the disposition he shows is not prompted with the good of our cause at heart, as no good can result from a collision.

S. D. LEE,
Major- General."
 
Last edited:
As a general rule Militia or Home Guards didn't do well vs conventional troops.
The Third North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union definitely had it in for Confederate Home Guards. See my thread on George Kirk about the raid on Camp Vance.
I don't have all the details but the Georgia State Militia had a run in with the 20th Indiana Infantry armed with Spencer Rifles during the March through Georgia. Not a good day for the GSM.
Leftyhunter

The Home Guard definitely had it in for the Spenser armed the 3rd Mounted Infantry and sent them skedaddling
back to east Tennessee after an attack on a Junior Reserve training camp near Morganton, NC.
 
Then you are incorrect there as well.....the EMM constituted all able bodied men then not in service, the majority of the EMM wasnt ex-confederate at all, but simply those who hadn't ever enlisted in either side. The EMM would in effect reflect its community, as most of the state was pro-union, most of the EMM was pro-union as well. If a particular community was heavily pro southern, its EMM would reflect that as well, but to characterize the EMM as a whole as pro south or ex-confederate, as you did earlier would be false.

Not aware that Stiles has ever written extensively on the EMM statewide or as a whole......instead the only time I'm aware he talked about them its in 2-3 western counties that had been subject to jayhawker raids and so were indeed prosouthern, in a book about Jesse James, not the EMM.......however those 2-3 counties dont reflect the 115 counties that made up the EMM............
My post about the Paw Paw was soley about the Paw Paw. I never mentioned what percentage of the EMM was Paw Paw vs loyalist to the Union. I merely mentioned the uniqueness of the Paw Paw.
Leftyhunter
 
The Home Guard definitely had it in for the Spenser armed the 3rd Mounted Infantry and sent them skedaddling
back to east Tennessee after an attack on a Junior Reserve training camp near Morganton, NC.
Not quite true. The 3rd NCMI returned with prisoners and captured Confederate supplies so not exactly a resounding Confederate victory. If a military force is outnumbered then it's job isn't to fight to the last man but retreat and inflict as many losses as possible on the enemy. Kirk's Raider's did just that.
Leftyhunter
 
My post about the Paw Paw was soley about the Paw Paw. I never mentioned what percentage of the EMM was Paw Paw vs loyalist to the Union. I merely mentioned the uniqueness of the Paw Paw.
Leftyhunter

If your saying if wish to comment intelligently on the EMM, its role, organization, size, loyalities and its service to Missouri, that you need read more then a book on Jesse James, I would concur. Because your earlier post 19 was simply nonsense....

There was no militia raised as Paw Paw Militia.....there was no militia raised solely of ex confederates....they never fought alongside Price....paw paw is an unofficial term referring coon Thornton's unit. Which was EMM, so if your going to talk about the EMM probally should note the majority of its service, rather then the exception

If your curious to the actual federal militias here.
home guard 61
6 month militia 61
MSM 61-65
EMM 62-65
PEMM 63-65
PEMM 64-65 G.O 107
Missouri militia 65 G.O.3
 
Last edited:
Back
Top