How Common was Hatred Between Union and Confederate Soldiers? (poll)

How Common was Hatred Between Union and Confederate Soldiers?

  • Uncommon

    Votes: 19 28.8%
  • Common

    Votes: 22 33.3%
  • Very Common

    Votes: 6 9.1%
  • Can't Determine / Don't Know

    Votes: 19 28.8%

  • Total voters
    66
Most former Missouri guerrillas WERE former confederates I assumed you knew that, or perhaps you need to actually read about the subject, I wasn't referring to non Missouri ones like Knight who weren't recognized by either side. You'll notice ones who are refered to by ranks such as Col. Capt, Lt is because they are actually in service of regular army, even if detached in a irregular role

And would have assumed you were aware former Missouri regular confederates were mistreated and disenfranchised by the Drake constitution also, once again something most books on James/Youngers recognize contributing to their popularity...….
I have read quite a bit about the COIN war in Mo.Guerrillas are not soldiers . They violated the Leiber Code by not fighting in uniform. The State of Mo did not grant former guerrillas pensions. I never said Knight was enlisted in the Union Army. I did argue that he should of still received a pension for his good works.
Leftyhunter
 
I have read quite a bit about the COIN war in Mo.Guerrillas are not soldiers . They violated the Leiber Code by not fighting in uniform. The State of Mo did not grant former guerrillas pensions. I never said Knight was enlisted in the Union Army. I did argue that he should of still received a pension for his good works.
Leftyhunter
Obviously you haven't "read quite a bit" if cant even get their status right, the United States even recognizes their status and service as such as confederate soldiers , why several have US veteran supplied headstones....The confederacy recognized them in service, the US recognizes them having been in service, your burying your head in the sand doesn't make them not in service, just makes you look not as read as you claim to be...…. As both sides of the CW did recognize them as Confederate soldiers....not sure where your confusion arises as they fought side by side with regular confederate army many times and took orders from regular army

Also Tutt was a former regular CSA soldier, shot so Hickok could steal a gold watch in broad daylight that he had ineptly lost fairly in a card game.

Leiber code has nothing to do with if one is a soldier. Andrew's raiders were shot for being out of uniform, that they violated the rules of war doesn't mean they weren't union soldiers who had volunteered for the duty. Notice Andrews didn't get the MOH as he was a civilian, but the soldier volunteers did....even though they violated the precious Lieber code...…

also pointed out in another post most guerrillas didn't meet the union definition of insurgent, so not sure why you use COIN or counter insurgency, when the Union didn't consider them such, Your referencing other wars/tactics/terms to a war where they didn't apply or exist, which several others here have also noted
 
Last edited:
@John S. Carter post was referring to Confederate soldiers not former guerrillas so your making an Apple's vs Oranges argument.
Even in Missouri the majority of pro Confederate young men fought as uniformed conventional Confederate soldiers not guerrillas.than with feelings about the man across the field.it is the results of a war as to the political policies that result in the emotions of a defeted party
 
Obviously you haven't "read quite a bit" if cant even get their status right, the United States even recognizes their status and service as such as confederate soldiers , why several have US veteran supplied headstones....The confederacy recognized them in service, the US recognizes them having been in service, your burying your head in the sand doesn't make them not in service, just makes you look not as read as you claim to be...…. As both sides of the CW did recognize them as Confederate soldiers....not sure where your confusion arises as they fought side by side with regular confederate army many times and took orders from regular army

Also Tutt was a former regular CSA soldier, shot so Hickok could steal a gold watch in broad daylight that he had ineptly lost fairly in a card game.

Leiber code has nothing to do with if one is a soldier. Andrew's raiders were shot for being out of uniform, that they violated the rules of war doesn't mean they weren't union soldiers who had volunteered for the duty. Notice Andrews didn't get the MOH as he was a civilian, but the soldier volunteers did....even though they violated the precious Lieber code...…

also pointed out in another post most guerrillas didn't meet the union definition of insurgent, so not sure why you use COIN or counter insurgency, when the Union didn't consider them such, Your referencing other wars/tactics/terms to a war where they didn't apply or exist, which several others here have also noted
Confederate soldiers received headstones decades after the ACW. Most were long since dead anyway. Leiber Code has everything thing to do with why Confederate guerrillas were not soldiers and any prosecution of them after the ACW has nothing to do with if ex Confederate soldiers were persecuted or not.
The Drake Constitution only lasted until 1871. Southern restrictions on black voting lasted until 1865.
Leftyhunter
 
[QUOTthE="John S. Carter, post: 1938047, member: 19936"][/QUOTE] thank you for the response to the quote.as in all wars the solider is more concern with self survival than with the one across the battle field.it is only the political settlements after the war which will effect the people on either side.hostility on the defeated if they fill ill treated and a revenge on the victor for other bringing on the war or sense
Actually at the end, General Lee was given lenient conditions for the surrender of his men, and General Grant gave strict orders to the Federal troops that they were not to molest any of the surrendered men, as they made their way home. It was against General Lee's principles to continue the warfare by retreating to the mountains of North Carolina and reduce it to more savage butchery. Lincoln's Assassination within the week sparked outrage and hatred, but the yanks by then were packing up, or already marching home. The main hostility existed in southern individuals set on vengeance, while the north was mollified by the victory. Also, the formation of troops to carry the war westward against the Indians took place, and that hostility was bitterly shown, and splitting off into the outlawry during and afterwards. The Buffalo Troops is a good reference for use of northern soldiery, and even the white troops were often handled improperly by their own captains. It was a time that was forced by a command, "...or else worse things will happen." Most just tried to find the means to survive.
Ahoy, Lubliner.
from the view of the victor ,the wrongs done were on the vanquished part.
 
Confederate soldiers received headstones decades after the ACW. Most were long since dead anyway. Leiber Code has everything thing to do with why Confederate guerrillas were not soldiers and any prosecution of them after the ACW has nothing to do with if ex Confederate soldiers were persecuted or not.
The Drake Constitution only lasted until 1871. Southern restrictions on black voting lasted until 1865.
Leftyhunter
Another ramble without addressing anything........

So you recognize United States recognized them as soldiers....as did the CSA....that in fact makes them soldiers, despite whatever bias you have.

Leiber code defined nothing, it wasn't even ever US law (military or civil) why Union itself frequently disregarded it as with Andrews raiders, it certainly didn't apply to anyone else as it was just unilateral instructions, not international. You'll note actual military law from Articles of War to uniform code of Military Justice came from congress. as Article 1 section 8 clauses 10-16 clearly demonstrates rests with Congress and not Halleck or Lieber.

In fact if one was comparing it to more modern COIN Leiber would be illegal as key parts were rejected by 3rd and 4th Geneva Convention which actually did represent international law. And also somewhat telling it never refers to insurgents/counter insurgency

Yes Drake lasted to 1871 which represents half of reconstruction.....which is the period of "mistreatment" you refered to. It was certainly meant to disenfranchise and mistreat, that it was struck down indeed shows it was civil rights violations.
 
Last edited:
Another ramble without addressing anything........

So you recognize United States recognized them as soldiers....as did the CSA....that in fact makes them soldiers, despite whatever bias you have.

Leiber code defined nothing, it wasn't even ever US law (military or civil) why Union itself frequently disregarded it as with Andrews raiders, it certainly didn't apply to anyone else as it was just unilateral instructions, not international. You'll note actual military law from Articles of War to uniform code of Military Justice came from congress. In fact if one was comparing it to more modern COIN it would be illegal as key parts were rejected by 3rd and 4th Geneva Convention which actually did represent international law. And also somewhat telling it never refers to insurgents/counter insurgency

Yes Drake lasted to 1871 which represents half of reconstruction.....which is the period of "mistreatment" you refered to. It was certainly meant to disenfranchise and mistreat, that it was struck down indeed shows it was civil rights violations.
Well after the war was over and most if not all of the Confederate vets were dead where they recognized as US soldiers. That was only due to Southern politicians who used their political leverage for votes.
Geneva Conventions only apply between nations not internal insurgencies.
The Leiber Code had full force of law during the ACW.
Leiber Code is going to punish American troops fighting out of uniform . It only applies to hostile forces.
Leftyhunter
 
Leiber code was never law, military law authority rests with Congress. Once again article 1 section 8 clauses 10-16.…………... Not Halleck or any of his cronies, but US Congress.

And no, the code refers to recommended conduct of US troops, no one else. It doesn't apply to just hostile forces at all. If your claiming it doesn't apply to US troops, it certainly isn't any law.

Now I suppose your saying the US Constitution doesn't apply if you don't like what it says either, just as both US and CS recognition of soldiers don't...…

And yet again, perhaps you should actually read on the subject in the CW, as the Union defined Insurgents, and the majority of CS guerrillas in Missouri wouldn't met the definition of insurgent at the time. I really don't know anymore, if your not as read as you claim to be and don't know better, or just purposely make misleading statements trying to deceive people, but you certainly aren't the same page as most authors on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Well I have given 5 hours for this burning hot thread to cool down some. Where were we? Oh yeah, how common was hatred. Interestingly today on my own, I opened OR to Series 1 Volume 11 Part 3--Correspondence. This covers March through November (?) of 1862. Just reading for pleasure, from the beginning, and it concerns McClellan in the beginnings of his movement to the Peninsula.
I got to page 37, and read F. J. Porter's report from the field at Southwest Branch of the Back River. Yanks were sneaking in to Big Bethel area, (remember June 16, 1861) again. So Porter says (March 25, 1862) to Heintzelman, that a report came in that drummer-boys of the Thirty-eighth New York went out on a pillaging expedition on the opposite bank, and were captured by the rebels. Porter also says much straggling has occurred as the troops moved into this Poquoson area near Hampton, and arriving late behind the stragglers, he had no time to stop a company of them from ransacking the houses on the opposite shore. Then he states, "I have directed that if any one refuses to return on attempting to cross the sentinel shall shoot."
Causes of hatred? Good old country boys out just having some fun! Right, and Porter by the end of this Campaign, merging into the 2nd Bull Run, got in really bad, bad trouble.
Hey, you all have some fun!
Lubliner.
Edit: changed 'it' to 'in' last line.
Edit: Battle of Big Bethel, June 16, x'd out Oct. (Balls' Bluff?)
 
Last edited:
It depends on when and where in the war. At the beginning I would say there was quite a bit of animosity. As the war endured and soldiers grew tired of the killing and they saw the humanity in the other side. While forbidden, pickets did talk. It may have initially been insults but as time passed, there were friendly discussions and trading (coffee for tobacco, newspapers, what-not). Look at the end of ceasefires where one side would warn the other to seek their holes.

Men who haven't seen the elephant are more likely to have and show animosity.

The absolute worse was in the border states like Kansas, Missouri and even the non border state Arkansas. It was very much like the Carolinas in the Revolution where the war was also an excuse to plunder and settle scores over perceived slights. Arkansas is mentioned because once the Confederates were defeated at Prairie Grove, the Confederates left and with no Confederate army to fight, so did the Union Army. The vacancy was filled by brigandry who claimed allegiance to one side or another.
 
Frustrations of control in the field, such as General Buell on his advance to Chattanooga in the summer of 1862. Supply line destruction on raids, rebuilding the line, vague War Policy from Washington, infighting among the Generals, questions of morale among the men. All these factors were contributing to the growth of hatred toward an enemy.
Thanks, Lubliner.
 
I can't claim to have read every diary but the diaries of those Union troops assigned to counterinsurgency were definitely bitter. Conventional troops not so much. One Confederate soldiers from Ohio was not a happy camper at a Pow Camp.
Leftyhunter
Nor were Southern Unionist traitors, they were lucky to make it to a POW camp.
 
Hmm, I would say more if I had an idea who exactly in 19th century America you do admire.
Unionists in general especially got to give some love to Newt Knight and of course George Kirk. Maybe not so much to the " Terrible 13" the 13th Tennessee Cavalry Union. They appear to have hated both Confederate and USCT soldiers. Some mean old boys.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Unionists in general especially got to give some live to Newt Knight and of course George Kirk. Maybe not so much to the " Terrible 13" the 13th Tennessee Cavalry Union. They appear to have hated both Confederate and USCT soldiers. Some mean old boys.
Leftyhunter

Yeah, like using young boys as human shields against the Home Guard, George sounds like somebody any Yankee could admire.
 
Yeah, like using young boys as human shields against the Home Guard, George sounds like somebody any Yankee could admire.
If your son was involved in a military operation and it took the use of young captives to shield him from death would you still object to the use of human shields?
Lee also used Union POWs as shields so what's the problem?
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top