A Question about Confederate soldiers

[shanniereb]

I have been researching the war for years. Many years ago (probably actually just a short time ago, but with my memory being the way it has been lately) I read a quote about some Confederate soldiers were upset because they did not like fighting for the plantation owners to be able to keep their slaves. I can not remember where I saw this information or anything, just remember reading it. Would anyone who has any idea please help guide me in the right direction? Thanks, from your confused comrade in study, Shanniereb

 

[AndyHall]

Sam Watkins mentions the phrase, "rich man's war, poor man's fight" in the beginning of Chapter III of Company Aytch. It was specifically in response to the act of Confederate Congress of October 1862 known as the Twenty Negro Law, that allowed slaveholders with 20 or more bondsmen to leave the army, or avoid conscription.

 

[DanF]

"bitterly divided" by David Williams is an excellent source for the info you seek.

 

[Old_Glory]

This book mentions it on page 25

Here

It is mentioned here as well on page 103

Here

I would type it out, but I'm too lazy right now. If I was being shot at defending my state from invasion while some rich Democrat plantation owner was sleeping in his bed on his plantation simply cheering me on, I'd be fiery mad as well.

 

[M.Warren]

How the slaves saw the war; Reccolections of the war through the WPA slave narratives by Hebert C Covey. and Dwight Eisnach has multiple accounts of people who said exactly that in the words of surviving ex-slaves also. It definitely wasn't a secret. Great read also.

"De poor white folks what lived up in de hilly country, too poor to own slaves, while de war was going on, had to come down out of de hilly country. Dey lived on government land and dey had to have food for dem and der children. Der men folks was taken away from dem to war. Dey was called counterscript soldiers, and if dey refused to go to war dey got shot down like a dog. So de most of 'em rather go on and take chances of de war missing 'em dan get shot widout a doubt. Dey use to say dey had to go and fight a rich man's war but dey couldn't help demselves no better'n us slaves could."
Alice Sewell.

 

[leftyhunter]

I have been researching the war for years. Many years ago (probably actually just a short time ago, but with my memory being the way it has been lately) I read a quote about some Confederate soldiers were upset because they did not like fighting for the plantation owners to be able to keep their slaves. I can not remember where I saw this information or anything, just remember reading it. Would anyone who has any idea please help guide me in the right direction? Thanks, from your confused comrade in study, Shanniereb

" A Savage Conflict" by Professor Daniel Sutherland has some info. I have a thread "how serious was desertion in the Confederate Army" and Differences in effectiveness between Unionist and Confedrate guerrillas as some details on this as well. To be fair and balanced the Union Army had a lot of problems with desertion as well. We also have a thread on the 2nd Fl Us which was composed of CSA deserters their was also the 2nd and 3rd Nc Mounted rifles US . Richard Currents'Lincolns Loyalists Union Soldiers from the Confederacy" now only 1 cent plus shipping at Amazon has a lot of info on this as well.
Leftyhunter

 

[brass napoleon]

Sam Watkins mentions the phrase, "rich man's war, poor man's fight" in the beginning of Chapter III of Company Aytch. It was specifically in response to the act of Confederate Congress of October 1862 known as the Twenty Negro Law, that allowed slaveholders with 20 or more bondsmen to leave the army, or avoid conscription.

Here's what Watkins had to say about that in detail:

Soldiers had enlisted for
twelve months only, and had faithfully complied with their volunteer
obligations; the terms for which they had enlisted had expired, and they
naturally looked upon it that they had a right to go home. They had
done their duty faithfully and well. They wanted to see their families;
in fact, wanted to go home anyhow. War had become a reality; they were
tired of it. A law had been passed by the Confederate States Congress
called the conscript act. A soldier had no right to volunteer and to
choose the branch of service he preferred. He was conscripted.

From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a machine,
a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war, we
cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and
valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy.

A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time
allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us
the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very
valuable, and there was raised the howl of "rich man's war, poor man's
fight." The glory of the war, the glory of the South, the glory and the
pride of our volunteers had no charms for the conscript.

- Sam Watkins, Company Aytch

Source: https://archive.org/stream/quotcoaytchquot13202gut/13202.txt
​

The irony of that, however, is that Sam was the son of a slaveholder who owned more than 20 slaves.

 

[kepi]

The irony of that, however, is that Sam was the son of a slaveholder who owned more than 20 slaves.

I did not know that.

 

[brass napoleon]

I did not know that.

Patrick Lewis, a ranger at the Chattanooga and Chickamauga NMP, and a professional historian, reported on that in his research. Here's an abstract of his paper:

https://aha.confex.com/aha/2013/webprogram/Paper11459.html

and a blog post that he published about the Maury Grays:

http://bullyforbragg.blogspot.com/2008/03/co-aytch-confederate-everymen.html

 

[Drew]

The irony of that, however, is that Sam was the son of a slaveholder who owned more than 20 slaves.

I didn't know this about Watkins, either. The irony, though, is that we've got competing ideas (and competing threads) on this issue. We seem to be implying here that the sons of slave owners were running home and away from the war. Yet, competing thought (and again, competing threads at CWT) continually try to demonstrate that the sons of slave owners are over-represented on a per capita basis in the Confederate Army. I wish you guys would make up your minds about this.

 

[brass napoleon]

I didn't know this about Watkins, either. The irony, though, is that we've got competing ideas (and competing threads) on this issue. We seem to be implying here that the sons of slave owners were running home and away from the war. Yet, competing thought (and again, competing threads at CWT) continually try to demonstrate that the sons of slave owners are over-represented on a per capita basis in the Confederate Army. I wish you guys would make up your minds about this.

Well, personally, I'm not implying anything, just reporting what I've heard. The truth is that war is a very complicated thing and doesn't reduce to simple soundbites.

 

[Drew]

Well, personally, I'm not implying anything, just reporting what I've heard. The truth is that war is a very complicated thing and doesn't reduce to simple soundbites.

Brass, that is fair. It was a mess if nothing else.

 

[16thVA]

Every war since the dawn of time has been a rich man's war and poor man's fight.

"Hey, guys, our bud Billy 2 of Normandy has been cheated out of being King of England. Why don't we abandon our farms and families and sail across that channel and give Harry a can of whoop-donkey. England for the French!"

 

[R. Alex Raines]

I didn't know this about Watkins, either. The irony, though, is that we've got competing ideas (and competing threads) on this issue. We seem to be implying here that the sons of slave owners were running home and away from the war. Yet, competing thought (and again, competing threads at CWT) continually try to demonstrate that the sons of slave owners are over-represented on a per capita basis in the Confederate Army. I wish you guys would make up your minds about this.

Why does it have to be binary? It seems to me that both could be true. Some number of slave owners and sons of slave owners clearly took advantage of the Twenty Slave Law and this would have generated outrage and contempt among the balance of the soldiers, regardless of how many stayed in arms.

 

[shanniereb]

Yelp, always been a rich man's war, poor man's fight. Granted that there was slaveholders and sons of slaveholders in the ranks. Has anyone ever notice that most of them were officers?

 

[BillO]

Yelp, always been a rich man's war, poor man's fight. Granted that there was slaveholders and sons of slaveholders in the ranks. Has anyone ever notice that most of them were officers?

Actually probably not. I don't believe most slave owners in the ANV started off as officers. A majority of officers were slave owners but a majority of slave owners were not officers.
Btw both sides had a lot of rank and file who felt that the war was for the rich. There was a lot of resentment in the Federal army over the $300 dollar get out of the war fee during conscription.

 

[John Hartwell]

A

A book about Confederaye deserters only a penny on Amazon? Must be a great book!

Actually, it is a very good book. It's an account of white southerners who fought for the Union, in units from their home states.
The reason it's so cheap on Amazon is that it's 23 years old, and has never been out of print. So, there are lots of used copies around.

 

[leftyhunter]

A book about Confederaye deserters only a penny on Amazon? Must be a great book!

Dilorenzo has books on Amazon for only 73 cents.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Actually probably not. I don't believe most slave owners in the ANV started off as officers. A majority of officers were slave owners but a majority of slave owners were not officers.
Btw both sides had a lot of rank and file who felt that the war was for the rich. There was a lot of resentment in the Federal army over the $300 dollar get out of the war fee during conscription.

That's an interesting question. Where their any studies on that?
Leftyhunter

 

[Drew]

That's an interesting question. Where their any studies on that?
Leftyhunter

Lefty, there are two points here. The first is intuitive. Officers in any army represent a very small minority - they're vastly outnumbered by the rank and file.

Second, a moment with a search engine can help you find "a study" on disaffection and resentment at the Union's "get out of the war fee" during conscription. The University of Chicago has published one, right here. I'm sure there's a lot more out there.