Did Conscription help or hurt the Confederacy?

atlantis

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
1,289
#41
I would say it hurt as many of the men deserted first chance they got. What did the army need, it needed men present and fit for duty not guys looking to make a run for it. Conscription also undermined public support for the CSA and it took men away from work that was useful to the confederacy. True the army without conscription would have lost maybe 2/3 of it strength with the discharge of 1 year men but a lot of those guys were deadwood anyway being too old for the hard life of infantry.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
814
#44
Of course, part of what made conscription unpopular was the fact that some men were excluded, which, I must say, would have chapped my hide.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,869
Location
mo
#48
The United States never had conscription it had a draft. In conscription every able bodied male between a certain age must serve. A draft has exceptions I.e. conscientious objectors, and it not ever military age individual is called for service.
Leftyhunter
the draft is conscription..... conscription is the compulsory enlistment of people into national service......whether 1% or 90% is called up its still conscription. And confederacy had exceptions as well to conscription from based on occupation to allowing substitutes

Fortunately we have never been required to call up all of a certain age range......but we do require all of a certain age range to register so its available if it ever is required. That's why they are registered.....

And some of the best militaries in the world are conscripted, I'd say look no further then the Israeli military which requires compulsory service, its showed it can hold its own multiple times. the US drafted 10 million in WW2 out of 49 million registered, I'd say our conscriptees did well too
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,417
Location
Laurinburg NC
#49
The United States never had conscription it had a draft. In conscription every able bodied male between a certain age must serve. A draft has exceptions I.e. conscientious objectors, and it not ever military age individual is called for service.
Leftyhunter
The draft and conscription are one and the same thing. Calling conscription the draft or selective service is a bit like calling a janitor a sanitation engineer.

“The United States first instituted military conscription during the American Civil War. As the war entered its third season, Congress, in need of more manpower for the Union Army, passed the Civil War Military Draft Act of 1863.

The act called for registration of all males between the ages of 20 and 45, yet the obligation fell mostly on the poor. Wealthier men could afford to hire a substitute to take their place in the draft or pay $300 for a draft exemption—an enormous sum of money at the time. This controversial provision sparked civil unrest and draft riots.”

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/conscription
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,579
Location
los angeles ca
#50
@archieclement and @CSA Today
Free dictionary.com defines the difference as " conscription is the compulsory induction of individuals into the armed services , whereas the draft is the procedure by which individuals are chosen for possible conscription.
I know in the past when I argued the draft and conscription was the same @johan_steele and @cash if memory serves argued differently.
So they might add to the discussion.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,869
Location
mo
#51
@archieclement and @CSA Today
Free dictionary.com defines the difference as " conscription is the compulsory induction of individuals into the armed services , whereas the draft is the procedure by which individuals are chosen for possible conscription.
I know in the past when I argued the draft and conscription was the same @johan_steele and @cash if memory serves argued differently.
So they might add to the discussion.
Leftyhunter
You can argue its "how the conscripts are chosen" if you wish, however they remain conscripts and it is conscription...…..

And to the main question, I don't see the war lasting as long as it did without CS conscription, so it provided a gain to the effort not a loss. Its failures are more noticeable then its successes. For example I study mainly the west, Some TN units largely raised of conscripts performed poorly costing some battles, that's very noticeable.....What isn't as noticeable is the largely volunteer units having losses replaced with conscript's who gained experience and a sense of elan from the veterans and so performed very well in many cases, Also conscripts for both the union and CS could be used as garrisons freeing up the more reliable troops for front line, same as the compulsory MO militia did here, allowing the volunteers to go elsewhere

While some largely conscripted units did have a very poor showing, I'd be carefull to not paint all conscripts with that brush, north or south, or through other US wars
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,579
Location
los angeles ca
#52
You can argue its "how the conscripts are chosen" if you wish, however they remain conscripts and it is conscription...…..

And to the main question, I don't see the war lasting as long as it did without CS conscription, so it provided a gain to the effort not a loss. Its failures are more noticeable then its successes. For example I study mainly the west, Some TN units largely raised of conscripts performed poorly costing some battles, that's very noticeable.....What isn't as noticeable is the largely volunteer units having losses replaced with conscript's who gained experience and a sense of elan from the veterans and so performed very well in many cases, Also conscripts for both the union and CS could be used as garrisons freeing up the more reliable troops for front line, same as the compulsory MO militia did here, allowing the volunteers to go elsewhere

While some largely conscripted units did have a very poor showing, I'd be carefull to not paint all conscripts with that brush, north or south, or through other US wars
On the other hand conscription can be a two edged sword. Conscript's if not properly motivated can desert, defect to the other side or become anti government guerrillas or simply free lance bandits.
Both the Union and Confederate Army certainly had major issues with desertion and some soldiers becoming free lance bandits. It was not unknown for Union and Confederate deserter's to join the same bandit gang.
The Confederate Army had a much greater problem with defecting to the enemy or deserter's joining guerrillas.
Other militaries had similar problems with conscription.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,579
Location
los angeles ca
#54
To give you some idea in a more modern context so that you can makeup your own mind, when the USMC started accepting draftees into their ranks during Viet Nam; they (the draftees) had a hard time being accepted by the other Marines that had all volunteered.
That was the least of the Marines problems. Not sure the Mods want discussion of modern or semi modern politics.Anyone can PM me for a BBC documentary that deals with the above issues.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,417
Location
Laurinburg NC
#55
@archieclement and @CSA Today
Free dictionary.com defines the difference as " conscription is the compulsory induction of individuals into the armed services , whereas the draft is the procedure by which individuals are chosen for possible conscription.
I know in the past when I argued the draft and conscription was the same @johan_steele and @cash if memory serves argued differently.
So they might add to the discussion.
Leftyhunter
Quite frankly, I don't see how that is a difference from being drafted, if chosen they don't have a choice.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,913
Location
Denver, CO
#58
Confederate conscription convinced most Kentuckians to remain neutral. It also was ineffective in Missouri and most of Arkansas by the fall of 1863. It is not possible to know how many men and young families fled Tennessee when United States forces entered the state in February 1862.
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?#
See page xvii.
By September 1863, approximately 620,000 military age men that lived in states that allowed coerced labor were beyond the reach of Confederate conscription agents. That overstates the case in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas, but does not consider that it was nearly impossible for the Confederacy to gather reinforcements from Texas and Louisiana by that time.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,579
Location
los angeles ca
#59
He knows the difference full well but wishes to ignore it. It's been explained to him many times. Nothing Cash or I can say will be acceptable to him or his cronies.
In my friend @CSA Today defense I did go over various online dictionary definition's and the difference between the word draft and conscription is rather slight. Has @archieclement pointed out the Confederacy had an exemption for slave owners who had twenty plus slaves plus the Historian David Williams " Bitterly divided the South's inner Civil War" pointed out that the Confederacy had an exemption for school teachers and amazingly enough has the war progressed there was an abundance of male Southern school teacher's. Also Governor Joe Brown granted an exemption for men to avoid Confederate Army service if they joined the Georgia State Militia which many young men did.
So any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,820
Location
South of the North 40
#60
In my friend @CSA Today defense I did go over various online dictionary definition's and the difference between the word draft and conscription is rather slight. Has @archieclement pointed out the Confederacy had an exemption for slave owners who had twenty plus slaves plus the Historian David Williams " Bitterly divided the South's inner Civil War" pointed out that the Confederacy had an exemption for school teachers and amazingly enough has the war progressed there was an abundance of male Southern school teacher's. Also Governor Joe Brown granted an exemption for men to avoid Confederate Army service if they joined the Georgia State Militia which many young men did.
So any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
Simply put CS conscription officers could grab anyone they wished... Except slaveowners, politicians and school teachers.

The US had a lot more restrictions since they weren't using conscription but a draft. That took a good bit of the corruption out of the process. It wasn't willy Nilly up to a conscription officers but in the hands of elected or officials appointed by elected officials.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top