Missing vs. taken prisoner vs. deserted

Yes, makes sense. Good to know. I am using the Iowa adjutant generals' roster published in 1908.

New York compiled their rosters around the turn of the century, taking several years to complete them. I bet a number of states did the same thing around the same time.

Ryan
 
There were also 'descriptive lists of deserters' published at the end of the war (I'm thinking particularly of Pennsylvania), which I figure was an effort to exact retribution on these guys. Interestingly enough, a fair number of entries are basically useless (as they don't describe anything).
 
Desertion was certainly common in both armies. I gave two threads in that subject " How common was desertion in the Union Army" and " how serious was desertion in the Confederate Army".
Defection was more common in the Confederate Army.
Was the ACW a popular conflict? Yes and no lots of variables.
Leftyhunter

IIRC Union desertion was rampant in the Burnside period - post Chancellosville and the Mud March. Hooker did a good job in stemming that tide - lienant terms if the deserter returned by a certain date, furlows were given frequently, improved food, etc. I dont think it was an acute problem for the Union after that perriod. The Confederates, as I recall, started losing large numbers of men in the winter of 1865. Food was in short supply and the writing was on the wall in terms of a Union victory
 
This is sort of what happened to one of my ancestor's brothers. They (in the 2nd NC Mounted Infantry) were ordered to participate in an action by an officer in another regiment (3rd NC Mounted Infantry) and they were then listed as AWOL by their own officers.

I read something that indicated there were some jealousies/officer rivalries that may have contributed to their being declared deserters as an act of retaliation. In any event, it literally took a post-war act of Congress for the deserter designation to be removed.

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/loc...s.northcarolina.counties.madison/2120/mb.ashx

Edited to add: If I recall correctly, @Coonewah Creek has some pretty good insight based on his research about deserter labels being unfairly slapped on due to confusion.
@Zella If it's the discussion I recall, in the case of the 2nd Mississippi at any rate, and I would imagine any area of the Confederacy that had recruited regiments early in the war but found themselves for much of the war in Federal-controlled or contested territory, many times the men who went home on wounded furlough were captured by Federal forces in the area. Since the 2nd Mississippi officers had no way of knowing what happened to the men, they were carried as AWOL for some period of time, but after a length of time Colonel Stone would have no choice but to declare them deserters. Not that there weren't real deserters in the 2nd Mississippi...there were, but one has to be careful in assigning that label to a man just because you find him labeled as such in his company records of his CMSR. A further examination would often find another document that reports his capture and being held prisoner.
 
@Zella If it's the discussion I recall, in the case of the 2nd Mississippi at any rate, and I would imagine any area of the Confederacy that had recruited regiments early in the war but found themselves for much of the war in Federal-controlled or contested territory, many times the men who went home on wounded furlough were captured by Federal forces in the area. Since the 2nd Mississippi officers had no way of knowing what happened to the men, they were carried as AWOL for some period of time, but after a length of time Colonel Stone would have no choice but to declare them deserters. Not that there weren't real deserters in the 2nd Mississippi...there were, but one has to be careful in assigning that label to a man just because you find him labeled as such in his company records of his CMSR. A further examination would often find another document that reports his capture and being held prisoner.
Yep, that's the one! It helped me quite a bit with sorting through which of my CW relatives legitimately did desert and which ones were the victim of a paperwork nightmare.
 
IIRC Union desertion was rampant in the Burnside period - post Chancellosville and the Mud March. Hooker did a good job in stemming that tide - lienant terms if the deserter returned by a certain date, furlows were given frequently, improved food, etc. I dont think it was an acute problem for the Union after that perriod. The Confederates, as I recall, started losing large numbers of men in the winter of 1865. Food was in short supply and the writing was on the wall in terms of a Union victory
Agree and there were family issues too.
 
Can you put your finger on certain Regiments with that observation?

I'm just looking at the roster from Companies A-C, 14th Iowa. In these three companies (in a quick look--there may be more), I see 3 brothers who deserted the same day while they were still in Iowa, 2 more apparent brothers who deserted the same day a few months later, and four men who deserted Feb. 10 during the Meridian Expedition. Of these four, two were local men who had just been mustered in at Fort Halleck before the regiment was sent to Vicksburg for the expedition and the other two were from Iowa. What made me ask my question was the fact that the same day a fifth man was taken prisoner and ended up at Andersonville. I wondered how the officers were sure the other four weren't taken prisoner as well.

Laurel
 
I'm just looking at the roster from Companies A-C, 14th Iowa. In these three companies (in a quick look--there may be more), I see 3 brothers who deserted the same day while they were still in Iowa, 2 more apparent brothers who deserted the same day a few months later, and four men who deserted Feb. 10 during the Meridian Expedition. Of these four, two were local men who had just been mustered in at Fort Halleck before the regiment was sent to Vicksburg for the expedition and the other two were from Iowa. What made me ask my question was the fact that the same day a fifth man was taken prisoner and ended up at Andersonville. I wondered how the officers were sure the other four weren't taken prisoner as well.

Laurel

If you're working with the early 20th century roster, the Andersonville note is almost certainly a post-war edit based on new information. I'm betting the contemporary records likely had him as missing or perhaps even deserting.

Ryan
 
IIRC Union desertion was rampant in the Burnside period - post Chancellosville and the Mud March. Hooker did a good job in stemming that tide - lienant terms if the deserter returned by a certain date, furlows were given frequently, improved food, etc. I dont think it was an acute problem for the Union after that perriod. The Confederates, as I recall, started losing large numbers of men in the winter of 1865. Food was in short supply and the writing was on the wall in terms of a Union victory
In the book " Bitterly Divided the South's inner Civil War" David Williams Da Capo Press
Williams makes a very strong sourced case that Confederate desertion was a serious problem as early as at least late 1862.
Leftyhunter
 
I've wondered if missing meant no recognizable body. I would like to think they just went home. Wonder how many ended up like this soldier?

From: Carroll County Historical Quarterly
published by the Carroll County Historical Society (Carroll Co., Arkansas)
(posted with permission)
Vol. 1, No. 2 Jan. 1956

p. 11 Early Berryville Residents faced tragic experiences during Civil War
by Mrs. Grace Molloy

My great grandfather, Jacob Meek, was a pioneer resident of Berryville. The records show that in 1848 he was given a Certificate of Purchase from the Choctaw grant for a tract of land on the west side of town. This included the land where the Presbyterian Church now stands. He and his wife were later buried in the cemetery behind the church.

During the Civil War, my grandmother, Matilda Meek, later Mrs. S. L. Fanning, and her sister, Louisa, later Mrs. J. W. Freeman, had an experience they never forgot. Berryville, like many of the communities bordering the Mason-Dixon Line, was divided in its allegiance. Some of the families were definitely pro-Southern, while others were ardent supporters of the North. At one time there was a sharp skirmish between Confederate and Federal troops and several men were killed. After the fight my grandmother, who was eleven years old, and her sister went to a barn on their father’s place and found a badly wounded soldier. He asked them not to reveal his hiding place saying that he would be killed if it were known that he was there. They kept the secret and even managed to take food and water to him. The next day they found him dead.

This was a problem. Most of the able-bodied men were away at war. This left every task up to the women and children. Also they were afraid if it became known that the soldier had been in their barn, their family would be suspected of giving comfort to the enemy. They finally decided to make a confidant of a neighbor boy, Allen Hailey, who was an older brother of J.D. Hailey. He readily agreed to help and the three children went to a place where they felt they would not be observed and dug a grave. When night came Allen Hailey, driving a small pony hitched to a sled, met the girls at the barn. They put the dead soldier on the sled and started for the grave. It was very hard for them. The sled was small and in spite of their frantic efforts to prevent it, the man fell off many times and had to be laborously gotten on again before they reached the grave and buried him. I am not sure but I think my grandmother told me this happened in the winter which made it harder for the children.

This story concerns an era in Berryville the average citizen seldom thinks about and is typical of a time that was probably the most critical in the history of the town.
 
This is the first question I've posted; apologies if it's in the wrong place.

My question came up while going through the rosters of Companies A-C, 14th Iowa Infantry. While they were on the Meridian Expedition in early 1864, four men were listed as "taken prisoner" and a fifth was listed as "missing and taken prisoner." Nine others, local men who had enlisted at Fort Halleck, Kentucky, just before the regiment was moved to Vicksburg and sent on the expedition, were listed as deserters during that time. My question is, how did the officers decide which of the missing men had deserted and which had been taken prisoner, especially when several of them disappeared the same day? For example, the roster lists four men as deserting and one taken prisoner on Feb. 10, 1864.

Laurel

Often men would be listed as "Missing," or "Deserted" and then their status was changed if and when notice was received of their capture. Typically, if a soldier was absent after a battle they were assumed missing until further confirmation. If they went absent from camp or on the march they were more typically assumed to have deserted.
 
Back
Top