Proud To Be A Rebel. A Fair Answer

for one thing, there were not that many plantations that had twenty slaves or more.
It was stipulated that any person drafted might provide a
substitute to serve in his stead, or that by the payment of a flat sum
not to exceed $300 he would be exempt from the operation of that
draft. The necessity for more than one draft was not foreseen by
Congress, and the interpretation of this clause caused considerable
bitterness resulting in its repeal in 1864. These two provisions fur
nished an argument hard to answer for those who charged that the
conscription law was designed to exempt the well to do and shift
the burden of service on those classes of the population who could
neither afford to hire a substitute nor pay the commutation fee.


Very soon after actual drafting began it became apparent that a class of
professional substitutes was springing up whose chief aim was to collect the
substitute fee,and who had no intention of actually serving in the Army.

In a report to the Secretary of War, Colonel Fry
disclosed that in those districts
for which statistics were available, 30 percent of the
men examined were excused for physical disability;
another 30 percent were exempted for
other reasons; and 40 percent were held to service.
Of these, about one-half paid the
$300 commutation fee; and only 20 percent
of all those examined either hired
a substitute or served in person.

Despite the fact that Congress repealed the obnoxious commutation clause in 1864 and the law was so interpreted as to permit a man threatened with being drafted to hire a substitute before he was drafted,the operation of the law contributed a relatively small number of men to the armed forces. Beginning with the call of 17 October 1863, which embraced the draft commenced on 1 July, 1,173,522 men were called into service before the end of the war. Of this number, 170,039 were furnished by the draft.
Insofar as the drafted men almost without exception were sent to the old regiments as replacements, the operation of the conscription law was beneficial and agreed with the purpose for which it was enacted. But it did not go far enough—it did not provide manpower in anything like the numbers necessary to maintain the field organizations at effective strength. It was the Volunteer system which furnished the bulk of the replacements during the final 2 years of the war.

https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-9/CMH_Pub_104-9.pdf
 
***Posted as Moderator***
Again, this thread is intended to discuss pride in our rebel ancestors.
Please stay on topic and respect the views of others.
 
By 1864, virtually all abled body white males were in service either in front-line units or in the reserves.
this was probably due to the fact that most other white males were , dead, pow/mia, freed from guarding slaves in occupied areas, or disabled, or recruiting pressure from the home guard.
 
Cash, I've seen you make a similar declaration about Missouri. I'm not necessarily butting heads with you, but I'm curious: Where do you get the basis for these kinds of declarations?

I ask because when I saw your declaration about Missouri (which I know was of very mixed cultural heritage during the CW) I googled searched it and found a census map. It clearly shows Missouri as a midwestern state. We also know that Missouri did not secede.

I don't know about Maryland or Delaware. I do know that much of Maryland was very southern in culture during the CW. But it never seceded. Nor did Missouri. And I don't know about Delaware.

So what is the basis of your pronouncement?

Asked in good faith.

Patrick, you are right that Maryland was a slave state. Its composition is a little bit complicated in that the western part of the state is mountainous and was settled by German immigrants who were opposed to slavery. Southern Maryland, on the other hand, was tobacco country and very much part of, "the South."

It's important to remember that under Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Maryland legislators were rounded up, arrested and thrown in jail, preventing them from agitating or voting in favor of secession. Edwin Stanton, General George McLellan and others orchestrated this in a careful way that distanced their boss (Lincoln) from what they did.

A glance at a map will inform a thinking person as to why these measure were taken in Maryland and not Missouri. The former enveloped Washington, DC and its railroads were critically important to the Union war effort.
 
in the "fair answer" the son readily admits that washington was a rebel. that is also how the british saw him. what would have become of the rebel leaders if the USA/colonies had lost ? quite a few more executions than the civil war . so the only remedy for the confederacy was to win and they knew that they would be viewed as traitors and rebels if they lost. this is the whole idea of the lost cause, to counter this notion of traitors and re-define "rebel". the new definition promotes pride with a false equivalency to "patriot".
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
It was stipulated that any person drafted might provide a
substitute to serve in his stead, or that by the payment of a flat sum
not to exceed $300 he would be exempt from the operation of that
draft. The necessity for more than one draft was not foreseen by
Congress, and the interpretation of this clause caused considerable
bitterness resulting in its repeal in 1864. These two provisions fur
nished an argument hard to answer for those who charged that the
conscription law was designed to exempt the well to do and shift
the burden of service on those classes of the population who could
neither afford to hire a substitute nor pay the commutation fee.


Very soon after actual drafting began it became apparent that a class of
professional substitutes was springing up whose chief aim was to collect the
substitute fee,and who had no intention of actually serving in the Army.

In a report to the Secretary of War, Colonel Fry
disclosed that in those districts
for which statistics were available, 30 percent of the
men examined were excused for physical disability;
another 30 percent were exempted for
other reasons; and 40 percent were held to service.
Of these, about one-half paid the
$300 commutation fee; and only 20 percent
of all those examined either hired
a substitute or served in person.

Despite the fact that Congress repealed the obnoxious commutation clause in 1864 and the law was so interpreted as to permit a man threatened with being drafted to hire a substitute before he was drafted,the operation of the law contributed a relatively small number of men to the armed forces. Beginning with the call of 17 October 1863, which embraced the draft commenced on 1 July, 1,173,522 men were called into service before the end of the war. Of this number, 170,039 were furnished by the draft.
Insofar as the drafted men almost without exception were sent to the old regiments as replacements, the operation of the conscription law was beneficial and agreed with the purpose for which it was enacted. But it did not go far enough—it did not provide manpower in anything like the numbers necessary to maintain the field organizations at effective strength. It was the Volunteer system which furnished the bulk of the replacements during the final 2 years of the war.

https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-9/CMH_Pub_104-9.pdf

Thank for posting this. Let's be clear, the numbers and source provided apply to the Union Army.

I'd hate for anyone to think it applies to Confederates.
 
Patrick, you are right that Maryland was a slave state. Its composition is a little bit complicated in that the western part of the state is mountainous and was settled by German immigrants who were opposed to slavery. Southern Maryland, on the other hand, was tobacco country and very much part of, "the South."

It's important to remember that under Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Maryland legislators were rounded up, arrested and thrown in jail, preventing them from agitating or voting in favor of secession. Edwin Stanton, General George McLellan and others orchestrated this in a careful way that distanced their boss (Lincoln) from what they did.

A glance at a map will inform a thinking person as to why these measure were taken in Maryland and not Missouri. The former enveloped Washington, DC and its railroads were critically important to the Union war effort.
Thanks for these insights about Maryland. There's no doubt that Missouri was very divided in sentiment, too, and I live in a county that continues to be divided in its heritage. A huge difference is that Missouri is nowhere near D.C. On the other hand, it borders Kansas and we all know about those problems.

Southern culture was deep in the rural areas of the state--most particularly along the big river corridors, which is where my paternal family settled. There were many young men in each generation. It just seems logical to me that at least a few of my
forebears were in Confederate or State Guard service. I'd honor them if I knew about them.

The only veteran among my forebears who I know about served in the US Cavalry.
 
Thank for posting this. Let's be clear, the numbers and source provided apply to the Union Army.

I'd hate for anyone to think it applies to Confederates.

the point, drew, is that in comparison to your [edit: CSAtoday's supposition, sorry] supposition that that 20 slave law did not have much impact so too the substitution and commutation clauses in the union conscription act had little impact. the main difference is that I provided stats and sources and you [he] did not. Edited.
 
the point, drew, is that in comparison to your [edit: CSAtoday's supposition, sorry] supposition that that 20 slave law did not have much impact so too the substitution and commutation clauses in the union conscription act had little impact. the main difference is that i provided stats and sources and you [he] did not. Edited.

This is quite a mouthful. Edited.

Data is a better resource than emotion. It would be useful to see actual numbers with respect to those who took advantage of the '20 slave' law. Outrage as to its existence is valid, but let's see its actual impact.
 
but let's see its actual impact.
my point. the claim is that it did not. this was in response to a claim that the commutation fee or buying a substitute ( which got lumped together) in the north did have a large impact. i provided stats and a source that say they did not. the source claims volunteerism was the mechanism that supplied the union army, not the draft and that the above draft exemptions were small. by contrast no stats or sources were provided to support the claim that the 20 slave law had little impact. beside that the confederate conscription laws allowed for exceptions like conscientious objectors, and a host of others, who could pay a $500 fee to avoid service, and allowed substitutions, just like the north. the main difference was that the north did not have a 20 slave law. i believe the original claim was made to imply southerners were more patriotic to their cause than northerners. there is that pride thing at work again.
 
Can't a person just be proud without owing anyone an explanation? It's kind of no ones buisness how or why you feel proud. You just do !

Since this (and most other message boards) thrive on controversy, it is unlikely that a stand-alone declaration will be accepted without challenge. It is the nature of the beast.
 
Patrick, you are right that Maryland was a slave state. Its composition is a little bit complicated in that the western part of the state is mountainous and was settled by German immigrants who were opposed to slavery. Southern Maryland, on the other hand, was tobacco country and very much part of, "the South."

It's important to remember that under Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Maryland legislators were rounded up, arrested and thrown in jail, preventing them from agitating or voting in favor of secession. Edwin Stanton, General George McLellan and others orchestrated this in a careful way that distanced their boss (Lincoln) from what they did.

A glance at a map will inform a thinking person as to why these measure were taken in Maryland and not Missouri. The former enveloped Washington, DC and its railroads were critically important to the Union war effort.

Well the votes had already happened. Remember Maryland voted unanimously for staying in the US before Ft Sumter, and after held another Vote where Lincoln specifically told his military to steer clear. Every single house of Reps seat for US Congress was up in 1860 and every Democrat was voted out with Unionists winnning all but one spot (won by a radical republican).

So the people voted unionist. Then the delegation voted to stay. Then Lincoln let them vote again and it was 53-13 to stay. Only then did Lincoln arrest legislators trying to force secession in opposition of the vote of the people and the state legislature.
 
So the people voted unionist. Then the delegation voted to stay. Then Lincoln let them vote again and it was 53-13 to stay. Only then did Lincoln arrest legislators trying to force secession in opposition of the vote of the people and the state legislature.

Chances are that Lincoln wasn't aware of the arrests until after the fact. From April 27, 1861 through February 1862 Seward was put in charge by Lincoln of internal security and was in charge of any arrests of disloyal persons. Seward had received information from the editor of the Baltimore Examiner newspaper that the pro-secessionist members of the state legislature were going to meet in secret on September 17th and vote to secede. This was in conjunction with other information that the secession vote was synchronized with an attack by Confederate forces crossing into the state. Generals McClellan and Dix were notified by Seward. McClellan had his superior Secretary of War Simon Cameron, write the order for the legislators arrests. That being said, the end responsibility still fell in the lap of the President.
 
Last edited:
In 1861 the Confederates fought to create a nation.
Thanks for your response.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that certainly is a similarity with the actions of our Founders in 1776.
But while our Founders clearly recognized they were committing criminal acts against the Crown, the rebels of 1860/61 try to ignore their criminal acts. Even today there are those 'logic contortionists' who go to great lengths to deny the obvious.
 
That's the nature of this Forum and any discussion of the Civil War. Much information is shared, much is learned, few opinions are changed. If one seeks only to change opinions, the Civil War is not a good starting point.
I agree, however with each new thread I learn something I did not know before. As long as the discussions do not get personal I enjoy them. Thank you for your post.
 
same here. I had ancestors in the 19th, 24TH and 58th. Still discovering more and not one yank yet, but I am still looking.
I had an Uncle in the 24th VA Cav. He is the brother of my avatar (47th VA Inf).

enhance.jpg


What's crazy to me about my pictured GGG Uncle..... is how much he & my Mother's brother look alike.
 
Back
Top