Off The Boat & Into The Union Army?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I've heard that at some point during the war the Union army was very actively recruiting immigrants, to the point that some recruiters were going after people literally as they came off the boat in New York City. Irish especially. How accurate is that claim?

 

[Pat Young]

I've heard that at some point during the war the Union army was very actively recruiting immigrants, to the point that some recruiters were going after people literally as they came off the boat in New York City. Irish especially. How accurate is that claim?

There are two claims there: 1. that the army was actively recruiting immigrants; 2. That they recruited at the docks.

 

[Pat Young]

Here is one German immigrant's experience in the first year of the war. German immigrant William Albrecht arrived in the US soon after the war began. "We landed in Castle Garden, a reception center for immigrants," he wrote to family in Germany of his arrival at The Battery in Manhattan.

"As soon as you set foot in the country the recruiters came at you from all sides," Albrecht wrote. "Since I didn't know anything about American recruiting tricks, I did the same thing as others…I signed up."
Albrecht soon regretted his hasty "mistake" of enlisting in an "American" unit, deserted, and joined a German-speaking artillery battery instead.

http://www.longislandwins.com/news/detail/why_the_germans_fought_for_the_union

 

[Pat Young]

Here is a drawing showing Castle Garden, the NY State immigrant reception area with recruiters right outside the walls:

 

[Pat Young]

One-in-four Union soldiers was an immigrant. The largest group were Germans, the second largest (140,000) were Irish.

 

[Pat Young]

The inaccuracy in the OP is that the recruiters were specially focused on Irish immigrants. Immigrants generally were actively recruited. The vast majority of immigrant soldiers were not "off the boat." Most were in the U.S. for at least a few years before the war broke out. Immigrant neighborhoods were more productive recruiting grounds than the docks.

 

[Suzanne A]

Here in New York City among genealogists it's an accepted fact that there were recruiters at Castle Garden and that they were very successful. I don't know that they swept many new immigrants off their feet and into the Army right there. But undoubtedly their most likely prospects were single men needing work. The Army offered a signing bounty, food, clothing, pay and shelter (sort of).

I just saw a contract on fold3 for a substitute, an Irish immigrant who had very recently arrived named James Joseph Ryan. Would he have been paid more than the normal bonus because he was a substitute, I'm unclear how that worked for the replacement soldier? Maybe men wanting to be replaced by a substitute also hunted on the docks.

The other young immigrant I saw signing up was German. His brother has left him in Europe to care for the brother's wife and children and to chaperone their voyage to the US while the brother found a place to live and got settled in New York. The single brother enlisted not at the docks but as soon as the family was settled, probably as a means to financial independence.

I'm sure the presence of the recruiters at the docks planted the seed for many immigrants that this was something they could resort to, sooner or later, and many found that they needed it.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Thanks. I knew there was a large immigrant population in the army. Irish Brigade is pretty famous and I know the Union cause was popular among the "48er" Germans.

Was there any particular reason for the large amount of Irish? We're they just the largest immigrant community in the NE at the time (potato famine, etc) or did they see the CSA as similar to their mistreatment by the British? Or were they poorer on average thus the government paycheck had extra appeal?

While I don't have a dog in the fight I think others who bring up this topic usually do. Some folks feel the Union exploitedimmigrants; they didn't know what they were in for moreso than English-speaking Northerners. Alternatively, the use of immigrants, particularly brand new immigrants, is seen as a form of mercenary service. These carry some modern day political baggage and were perhapsperceived very differently 150 years ago than today. Just trying to educate myself for when I encounter this sort of thing.

 

[Pat Young]

Thanks. I knew there was a large immigrant population in the army. Irish Brigade is pretty famous and I know the Union cause was popular among the "48er" Germans.

Was there any particular reason for the large amount of Irish? We're they just the largest immigrant community in the NE at the time (potato famine, etc) or did they see the CSA as similar to their mistreatment by the British? Or were they poorer on average thus the government paycheck had extra appeal?

While I don't have a dog in the fight I think others who bring up this topic usually do. Some folks feel the Union exploitedimmigrants; they didn't know what they were in for moreso than English-speaking Northerners. Alternatively, the use of immigrants, particularly brand new immigrants, is seen as a form of mercenary service. These carry some modern day political baggage and were perhapsperceived very differently 150 years ago than today. Just trying to educate myself for when I encounter this sort of thing.

I am at a speaking engagement at a local college now on immigration but I will try to respond tonight. I have a good audience so I don't want to be writing too long.

 

[thomas aagaard]

In the 1860ties there was nothing abnormal in soldiers and officers getting permission to join the army or navy of another state to get combat experience...

Moltke (the elder) was originally a danish officer, but joined the Prussians since there where better changes of getting promoted. He also served in the ottoman empire for some years.
In 1849 the Commander-in-Chief of the Austrian Navy was the Dane Hans von Dahlerup.
A large number of Swedish officers joined the danish army both in 1848-50 and in 1864
A danish officer called Dinesen (father of Karen Blixen) joined the french in 1870.
(his son thomas joined the canadians during WWI and won the victoria cross...)

The US had a negative view on this because of the Hessians during the Revolution.
(one of them Johann Ewald became a danish general after the war)

 

[major bill]

Did the Irish in America serve in in the army in significant higher percentage that other Americas , or about at the same percent? I believe I have read somewhere that the Irish serving in higher numbers was a myth.

 

[Pat Young]

Did the Irish in America serve in in the army in significant higher percentage that other Americas , or about at the same percent? I believe I have read somewhere that the Irish serving in higher numbers was a myth.

They did not serve in higher numbers in the army. They did serve in disproportionately high numbers in the navy however.

 

[Dutch Mudsill]

Pat Young, I believe you had a census of 1860 table with foreign born persons broken down by state on your blog a while back. As I recall the proportions ran around 15-20% for most northern states. Based upon that, wouldn't it be fair to say that the proportion of foreign born in the Union Army was generally reflective of northern society as a whole?

 

[Pat Young]

Pat Young, I believe you had a census of 1860 table with foreign born persons broken down by state on your blog a while back. As I recall the proportions ran around 15-20% for most northern states. Based upon that, wouldn't it be fair to say that the proportion of foreign born in the Union Army was generally reflective of northern society as a whole?

Yes and no. Immigrants enlisted in the army in numbers greater than their proportion to the total Northern population. However, because immigrants skew towards working age people, the foreign-born proportion of the military age male population was between 25% and 27%.

I think that there are several factors that are not typically considered in this analysis. Some men counted as foreign-born in the census were not immigrants. They were what we would now call non-immigrants, ie men who were in the US but who did not intend to remain here. These men were neither citizens nor intending citizens, but the stats treat them as though all foreign born were the same. In immigration studies we call people like this sojourners.

 

[Pat Young]

Also, we tend to ignore the fact that immigrants made up 4 out of 10 men in the navy. In looking at immigrant proportions of the fighting forces of the Union, it is silly to simply act like these men did not exist. If naval personnel and army personnel are added together, immigrants served pretty much at the same rate as natives.

 

[Pat Young]

Finally, immigrant service in the navy was not evenly distributed among ethnic groups. If Germans were overrepresented in the army and Irish underrepresented, the opposite was true in the navy.

 

[Pat Young]

Among immigrants, the Irish were the most disproportionately attracted to the navy. Irish made up 7% of soldiers, but they were 20% of naval enlistments. Irish from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were crucial to manning the fleet.


Expired Image Removed


White native-born men formed a minority of naval personnel during the Civil War. Ships carried Irish, German, English, and Canadian immigrants, as well as blacks recruited in Northern cities and off of coastal plantations in the South. [Chart by Pat Young]


England was the second most common place of birth for immigrant navy men, making up 10% of enlistees. English immigrants had traditionally played an important role in American merchant shipping. Canadians were third, making up 5% of recruits. The one immigrant group that appeared to distain naval service was the Germans. Although they made up 9% of the army, they were only 4% of the navy.

 

[Pat Young]

You can read more about immigrants in the navy here:

http://www.longislandwins.com/columns/detail/the_immigrant_in_the_union_navy

White native born men were in the minority in the navy.

 

[thomas aagaard]

"Germany" had no real navy until after 1870... Denmark successfully blockaded Prussia in 1864...
They did natually have some merchant ships but still only a few compared to the other European great powers..
So not really a surprise that the "germans" made up a smaller part of the navy recruits

 

[Suzanne A]

Hi again. I'm speaking only from the perspective of New York City here, that's all I know about.

NYC was a major port of entry for the United States in the 19th Century. You can read the history of immigration to this country in the birthplaces of the domestic servants in City households in the state and federal censuses. First they're Black, then German, then Irish, then Italian.

The Europeans came to the United States to escape oppression, religious fiscrimination, forced conscription in their dukes' wars and because they were starving. The Irish potato famine was a very real event beginning in the 1840's. There is a lovely memorial in the City down by the World Trade Center called the Irish Hunger Memorial. The numbers who died of starvation, neglect and disease in Ireland are staggering.

Irish immigration, for economic reasons, continued on into the 20th Century. It was a matter of necessity. Because it was easier for women to get employment as domestics than for men to find work as laborers, young women often came first and since they lived in, they sent a great deal of their money home until their husband or betrothed could come to the US. They all came with nothing and so had to find work. Because there always seemed to be wars in Europe (and rebellion in Ireland) and because there was forced conscription for the Germans at least, I don't think any immigrant was surprised at the nature of War over here.
Despite the hardship experienced by Union footsoldiers, no one made them go, they chose it and I think often with pride.

As I mentioned before, during the Civil War, surely a big part of the appeal to young single men arriving with but a dollar or so in hand was the bounty, the pay and the food and lodging. While outside of the city, men who knew each other served together because regiments were raised from neighboring counties, in the cities of Boston, New York and Philadelphia, men of the same ethnicity joined and served together, providing a group with similar backgrounds to share the experience as comrades.

As referenced by others, the Army grouped Irish regiments from NYC, Boston and Philadelphia together, into the Irish Brigade, in part because the Irish were often disdained as a group and non-Irish units didn't want to fight with them. To me, this doesn't add up to exploitation. As these young men were volunteering, young men who had been here longer were also volunteering in droves.

An interesting but difficult exercise would be to take the soldiers of the Irish Brigade and run the names through the ship's passenger lists arriving in NYC, Boston and Philadelphia, and see if it could be established in many cases how recently the soldiers had arrived in the US. What with many common names (e.g.James Ryan etc.), the fact that men didn't always enlist under their real names and the many missing or abbreviated passenger lists, the exercise could not be 100% successful. But maybe trying a sample would be worthwhile.