Hunted down after Gettysburg

[edfranksphd]

If you want to go the moral route, that's fine, but this isn't WWII where you're fighting to blunt the imperial conquest of evil, despotic regimes. Instead, you could say that a lot of Confederate soldiers (beginning after Gettysburg and lasting until the end of the war) saw the futility of the struggle and began to realize that they had been manipulated into fighting a war to keep slaveowners and the southern upper class in power. "You should fight the North because 'reasons!'" This (combined with BridgetRhoads excellent post above) trumped any type of manufactured camaraderie they may have been indoctrinated with early on and more and more began deserting as the war entered its fourth and final year. Also remember that a lot of these men were drafted and put into a war against their will. I don't have studies in front of me, but I don't think it would be far from the truth to say that post-Gettysburg, a lot of their comrades probably took a nonchalant attitude towards desertion and in some cases encouraged it.

Many of the rebs fought to the end. Is that b/c they were immoral? There musta been at least 350,000 rebs PFD all over the South, including the Trans; I doubt that the Yanks were moral and the Rebs immoral, and that that's the story in a nutshell. And, btw, most of the so-called "upper-class" men of fighting age served and died, b/c they had they most to lose I suppose. There is no evidence that it was a rich man's war in the South. There IS plenty of evidence that that was the case in the North, w/a brisk market for substitutes, w/cost equal to a year's wages for an unskilled laborer, and the option of buying your way out with $300, equal to about $90,000 in today's dollars, adjusted on a per capita GDP basis (see MeasuringWorth.com -- see "relative income"). So, to suggest that desertion in Summer of 63 was an act of moral courage is a card-carrying first-class example of anachronism, a fairly common historiography fallacy, IMESHO.

 

[AA484]

Many of the rebs fought to the end. Is that b/c they were immoral? There musta been at least 350,000 rebs PFD all over the South, including the Trans; I doubt that the Yanks were moral and the Rebs immoral, and that that's the story in a nutshell. And, btw, most of the so-called "upper-class" men of fighting age served and died, b/c they had they most to lose I suppose. There is no evidence that it was a rich man's war in the South. There IS plenty of evidence that that was the case in the North, w/a brisk market for substitutes, w/cost equal to a year's wages for an unskilled laborer, and the option of buying your way out with $300, equal to about $90,000 in today's dollars, adjusted on a per capita GDP basis (see MeasuringWorth.com -- see "relative income"). So, to suggest that desertion in Summer of 63 was an act of moral courage is a card-carrying first-class example of anachronism, a fairly common historiography fallacy, IMESHO.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that only the rich fought, merely that the middle and lower classes who did most of the actual fighting were duped via "states rights" into fighting their own countrymen to preserve the status of the upper class (via slavery).

 

[edfranksphd]

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that only the rich fought, merely that the middle and lower classes who did most of the actual fighting were duped via "states rights" into fighting their own countrymen to preserve the status of the upper class (via slavery).

I doubt many of the South who fought were fooled into fighting simply b/c they embraced the abstract states' rights theory. They were fighting mostly b/c the Yanks were invading, period. And everyone knew states' rights was an issue simply b/c it was the only way that the South could ensure the continuation of the institution of slavery! Nobody thought States' Rights was different from preserving slavery. Most of South were not slave owners anyway, but they still fought to preserve the system b/c their entire economic system and the South's wealth was predicated on slavery. Nobody was moral then compared to today's standards - the South was more tolerant of Blacks than the North. In the old NW they tried to ban ALL Blacks from those states, even in mid 19th century, even free Blacks, simply b/c they didn't want Blacks of any kind in their states. The South obviously didn't have this problem with the presence of Blacks, free or slave. VA has about 200,000 free blacks, I think. So who was more moral? I dunno, but neither were moral according to today's standards. Heck, Lincoln wanted to ship them all to West Africa, which he said to Frederick Douglas's face in July of 1862, much to the dismay of Douglas. Finally, the middle and lower classes did most of the fighting not b/c they were duped but b/c there are always a lot more middle and lower class people in the first place to do the fighting. But still, if we focus on N vs S rich people, the percent of rich people in the S who fought was almost certainly much higher than in the N, b/c, as I've already said, the S had much more to lose, financially, and the N could easily afford to buy there way out of the draft.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I doubt many of the South who fought were fooled into fighting simply b/c they embraced the abstract states' rights theory. They were fighting mostly b/c the Yanks were invading, period. And everyone knew states' rights was an issue simply b/c it was the only way that the South could ensure the continuation of the institution of slavery! Nobody thought States' Rights was different from preserving slavery. Most of South were not slave owners anyway, but they still fought to preserve the system b/c their entire economic system and the South's wealth was predicated on slavery. Nobody was moral then compared to today's standards - the South was more tolerant of Blacks than the North. In the old NW they tried to ban ALL Blacks from those states, even in mid 19th century, even free Blacks, simply b/c they didn't want Blacks of any kind in their states. The South obviously didn't have this problem with the presence of Blacks, free or slave. VA has about 200,000 free blacks, I think. So who was more moral? I dunno, but neither were moral according to today's standards. Heck, Lincoln wanted to ship them all to West Africa, which he said to Frederick Douglas's face in July of 1862, much to the dismay of Douglas. Finally, the middle and lower classes did most of the fighting not b/c they were duped but b/c there are always a lot more middle and lower class people in the first place to do the fighting. But still, if we focus on N vs S rich people, the percent of rich people in the S who fought was almost certainly much higher than in the N, b/c, as I've already said, the S had much more to lose, financially, and the N could easily afford to buy there way out of the draft.

It's my pet theory that much of the discussion about what motivated southern men to fight ignores the critical role of government coercion. It is well known that the Confederate Congress passed its first conscription law less than a year after the war had begun, and then passed subsequent legislation that made Confederate conscription law downright draconian. Penalties for draft evasion or desertion became more severe as the war went on, so there was a credible government threat against the life of any non-exempt man who refused to fight.

Relatedly, I did not mean to suggest in any of my earlier posts that desertion from the Confederate military was largely (or even partially) motivated by moral considerations. Quite the contrary, I am certain that most desertions were motivated by very immediate practical concerns. Like so much in life, it is only after the fact that we argue about the moral meaning of it all.

 

[AA484]

I doubt many of the South who fought were fooled into fighting simply b/c they embraced the abstract states' rights theory. They were fighting mostly b/c the Yanks were invading, period. And everyone knew states' rights was an issue simply b/c it was the only way that the South could ensure the continuation of the institution of slavery! Nobody thought States' Rights was different from preserving slavery. Most of South were not slave owners anyway, but they still fought to preserve the system b/c their entire economic system and the South's wealth was predicated on slavery. Nobody was moral then compared to today's standards - the South was more tolerant of Blacks than the North. In the old NW they tried to ban ALL Blacks from those states, even in mid 19th century, even free Blacks, simply b/c they didn't want Blacks of any kind in their states. The South obviously didn't have this problem with the presence of Blacks, free or slave. VA has about 200,000 free blacks, I think. So who was more moral? I dunno, but neither were moral according to today's standards. Heck, Lincoln wanted to ship them all to West Africa, which he said to Frederick Douglas's face in July of 1862, much to the dismay of Douglas. Finally, the middle and lower classes did most of the fighting not b/c they were duped but b/c there are always a lot more middle and lower class people in the first place to do the fighting. But still, if we focus on N vs S rich people, the percent of rich people in the S who fought was almost certainly much higher than in the N, b/c, as I've already said, the S had much more to lose, financially, and the N could easily afford to buy there way out of the draft.

While I respect the debate and realize that free Blacks still faced discrimination and hardship in the North, the idea that the South was overall more tolerant of Blacks is laughable.

You're also still trying to twist this into a moral debate when I never tried to.

 

[AA484]

It's my pet theory that much of the discussion about what motivated southern men to fight ignores the critical role of government coercion. It is well known that the Confederate Congress passed its first conscription law less than a year after the war had begun, and then passed subsequent legislation that made Confederate conscription law downright draconian. Penalties for draft evasion or desertion became more severe as the war went on, so there was a credible government threat against the life of any non-exempt man who refused to fight.

Relatedly, I did not mean to suggest in any of my earlier posts that desertion from the Confederate military was largely (or even partially) motivated by moral considerations. Quite the contrary, I am certain that most desertions were motivated by very immediate practical concerns. Like so much in life, it is only after the fact that we argue about the moral meaning of it all.

Government and cultural coercion definitely need to be considered as major factors in why Southern soldiers fought. I don't think that the average Southerner had any particular aversion to the average Northerner. The average Northerner fought to preserve the Union. The Union had been split because the Southern upper class and slave owners felt threatened that slavery was restricted and their wealth, status, and power would be affected. This was (and still is) twisted into the North wanting to destroy the "Southern way of life." The wealthy convinced the lower and middle classes of this, motivating many to fight to "defend their homes," homes which would never have been "threatened" in the first place had the Southern elite not felt that expansion of slavery was being blunted or that it may soon be eradicated. As the end of the war approached, many Southerners (whose homes were as much threatened by their own countrymen as they were by Northerners) left to return home.

 

[edfranksphd]

While I respect the debate and realize that free Blacks still faced discrimination and hardship in the North, the idea that the South was overall more tolerant of Blacks is laughable.

You're also still trying to twist this into a moral debate when I never tried to.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm just stating what is not disputed elsewhere, that in the old NW, at least, the Dem policy was to exclude slavery not primarily for moral reasons but b/c the didn't want Blacks living in those states, whether slave or free. NONE. It's not my fault they felt that way? I'm not conjuring up some crackpot claim about bigotry in the US during the war. If u dont like it, I understand. I don't like it either.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I'm not twisting anything. I'm just stating what is not disputed elsewhere, that in the old NW, at least, the Dem policy was to exclude slavery not primarily for moral reasons but b/c the didn't want Blacks living in those states, whether slave or free. NONE. It's not my fault they felt that way? I'm not conjuring up some crackpot claim about bigotry in the US during the war. If u dont like it, I understand. I don't like it either.

oops....

 

[joshualm82]

Does anyone have any information on the arrest of this group, specifically the arrest.

My great great grandpa's brother was tangled up with this group, and was executed for desertion - He wasn't in the NC regiment, I'm guessing just took up with a group deserting as well.

Thanks

 

[lupaglupa]

@joshualm82 this is an old thread and likely won't get a lot of attention from the original participants. You might want to start a new thread on this topic.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Does anyone have any information on the arrest of this group, specifically the arrest.

My great great grandpa's brother was tangled up with this group, and was executed for desertion - He wasn't in the NC regiment, I'm guessing just took up with a group deserting as well.

Thanks

I've seen very little published about the arrest itself. It apparently took place on the morning of Aug. 25, 1863 near a spot known as Bowlings Landing, just upstream from the the town of Scottsville, Va. By all accounts there was a brisk firefight in which three or more men were killed (no reports of woundings). The captured men were then transported to Castle Thunder in Richmond.

CORRECTION: Several reports named Hanson M. Futch as wounded in the firefight. H.M. Futch was also said to have been convicted of desertion and sentenced to death, but no execution was ever carried out. He was further reported to have died from smallpox while incarcerated at Castle Thunder.

 

[Gary Morgan]

Too bad for them they didn't find US troops instead

Quite a few US troops were "found" by the Confederates both before and after Gettysburg. It was the first major battle after the cessation of prisoner exchanges, and so the Union troops captured at Gettysburg were some of the first long-term prisoners not to be exchanged. They mostly ended up at Belle Isle in Richmond, and then were moved to Andersonville when it opened.

I'm still trying to work out who the longest held prisoner at Andersonville was. Newell Burch of the 156th NY is often cited as having been the longest held prisoner, but there are at least a half dozen guys who were also captured the same day who were exchanged two weeks after Burch. For some reason, the Gettysburg men, among the first captured to end up at Andersonville, were among the last to leave it.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I've seen very little published about the arrest itself. It apparently took place on the morning of Aug. 25, 1863 near a spot known as Bowlings Landing, just upstream from the the town of Scottsville, Va. By all account there was a brisk firefight in which three or more men were killed (no reports of woundings). The captured men were then transported to Castle Thunder in Richmond.

What was your relative's name? Was it Harrell?

 

[joshualm82]

What was your relative's name? Was it Harrell?

John B Martin - He was executed in December

 

[ErnieMac]

Article from the 12 January 1864 edition of the Richmond (VA) Dispatch:

 

[randy596]

Here is a link to a really good essay about Desertion during the Civil War : https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/desertion,-cowardice-and-punishment.html

Thanks, good article.