Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[leftyhunter]

And they gained roughly the same number from Union states, so defection were rather a push. As was desertions roughly along same rates. 200k union deserters to 100k Confederate from a union army roughly 2x the Confederate.

No because border states are not included in Lincolns Loyalists just Southern men from the eleven Confederate States. Border states are a separate category. The Confederacy had a smaller demographic base so they couldn't afford any defection or defection which is one of the main reasons they lost

Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

No because border states are not included in Lincolns Loyalists just Southern men from the eleven Confederate States. Border states are a separate category. The Confederacy had a smaller demographic base so they couldn't afford any defection or defection which is one of the main reasons they lost

Leftyhunter

Border states is actually same category if looking at union states bordering the Confederacy, and Confederate states bordering the union.......as the similar numbers rather demonstrate.

Your point the Union Army was two times larger is noted......however 100k from each side going to other or each side suffering around 10% desertation doesn't materially changed the Union Army was two times larger. It would remain the Union Army was two times larger was likely why they lost......not that they had similar crossover or desertion.

 

[RedRover]

Jeff Davis famously gave a speech in Macon Georgia in Sept. 1864 in which he claimed that 2/3rds of all CSA soldiers were absent, and most of that number were deserters. https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/speech-macon-georgia From looking at the war records, this implies that over 300,000 men were AWOL in late 1864. And of course we know this number substantially grew over the winter of 1864-65.

I've seen the 105,000 number of deserters before, but I thought it was well understood that this number is dramatically off and reflects poor CSA record keeping more than anything else.

Correct. The 104k deserter number is based on the "fragmentary" and "defective" Confederate records secured after the war in the hands of the War Department/National Archives...

There were no Confederate "muster out" rolls, so it is impossible to know the total number of casualties in any given unit. It seems to have been understood that AWOL's were so common, that the officers were frequently loath to report men as deserters unless pressed to do so.

In response to an inquiry in August, 1869, late-Confederate Adjutant General Samuel Cooper stated the monthly returns for the Army, per his recollection, in the last two years of the war, informed him the CS Army never hand on hand more than just over half of the men on the rolls at any one time...

Col. Robert G.H. Kean, Chief of the Bureau of War in Richmond, complained by mid-1863 that Cooper's office had failed to compel any of the forces to produce these returns with accuracy and completeness...

"....one would suppose that the office highest in rank, the official keeper of the rolls whose specific duty it to know the state of the army and compel proper returns, would in two and a half years have got some complete returns. Yet it is notorious that the returns are not complete even from the nearest and most stationary army, while of the Trans-Mississippi forces, they have almost no account whatever. There has never been a time when the A.I. General could give even a tolerably close guess of the whole force on the rolls of the army, still less of the effective force."

Cooper, for example, admitted in an 1864 notice, that he had no means of compiling data on the recruits and conscripts, etc. Total Confederate casualties of all kinds, including wartime desertion, are consequently unknown. And according to Dr. Jones of the CS Medical Department, unknowable, with no way to determine the total had even the Confederacy succeeded...

 

[limestone1863]

Got weary reading all the responses! All got truths in them. The responses are like a chunk of impure gold. If all were melted down & impurities taken out, you would a pure chunk GOLD.

 

[archieclement]

Got weary reading all the responses! All got truths in them. The responses are like a chunk of impure gold. If all were melted down & impurities taken out, you would a pure chunk GOLD.

Indeed, but i would caution putting much stock in exasperated comments which often were exaggerated. Why see actual numbers that can be substantiated most often used.

Certainly in my research here, one can frequently see exasperated union authorities seeing everyone in population as disloyal and KGC everywhere........however we know in reality Missourians served over 3-1 for Union, and substantiated KGC rather rare.....such statements simply reflect exasperation in dealing with what limited numbers there were.

 

[JerryD]

Correct. The 104k deserter number is based on the "fragmentary" and "defective" Confederate records secured after the war in the hands of the War Department/National Archives...

View attachment 575473

There were no Confederate "muster out" rolls, so it is impossible to know the total number of casualties in any given unit. It seems to have been understood that AWOL's were so common, that the officers were frequently loath to report men as deserters unless pressed to do so.

In response to an inquiry in August, 1869, late-Confederate Adjutant General Samuel Cooper stated the monthly returns for the Army, per his recollection, in the last two years of the war, informed him the CS Army never hand on hand more than just over half of the men on the rolls at any one time...

View attachment 575476

Col. Robert G.H. Kean, Chief of the Bureau of War in Richmond, complained by mid-1863 that Cooper's office had failed to compel any of the forces to produce these returns with accuracy and completeness...

"....one would suppose that the office highest in rank, the official keeper of the rolls whose specific duty it to know the state of the army and compel proper returns, would in two and a half years have got some complete returns. Yet it is notorious that the returns are not complete even from the nearest and most stationary army, while of the Trans-Mississippi forces, they have almost no account whatever. There has never been a time when the A.I. General could give even a tolerably close guess of the whole force on the rolls of the army, still less of the effective force."

Cooper, for example, admitted in an 1864 notice, that he had no means of compiling data on the recruits and conscripts, etc. Total Confederate casualties of all kinds, including wartime desertion, are consequently unknown. And according to Dr. Jones of the CS Medical Department, unknowable, with no way to determine the total had even the Confederacy succeeded...

View attachment 575475

Yeah, if these reports are only for an average of about two years, and we can assume that was the first two years when deserters were not as prevalent, you can only imagine how many deserters there eventually were. These records most likely avoided the period when desertions were at their peak. I think the 300,000 number I have heard is probably in the right ballpark, but even that was based on Sept, 1864. Given we know desertions accelerated during the winter of 64-65, it seems reasonable to think the total CSA desertions was probably closer to 350,000.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Domestic conflicts at home are scary as heck because events happen so fast and who can you trust. These people as in 1776 went from a predictable stable society into a chaotic situation.

Sooooo, "a predictable stable society" that is also somehow under constant threat of slave revolt?

 

[archieclement]

Yeah, if these reports are only for an average of about two years, and we can assume that was the first two years when deserters were not as prevalent, you can only imagine how many deserters there eventually were. These records most likely avoided the period when desertions were at their peak. I think the 300,000 number I have heard is probably in the right ballpark, but even that was based on Sept, 1864. Given we know desertions accelerated during the winter of 64-65, it seems reasonable to think the total CSA desertions was probably closer to 350,000.

Yet most sources will actually use lower numbers rather then highly speculative ones. Rather then you or anyone else "only imagining".......

I've certainly seen 100-110k used far more over the years then any imagined 350k. But one could imagine any figure they wish.

 

[JerryD]

Yet most sources will actually use lower numbers rather then highly speculative ones. Rather then you or anyone else "only imagining".......

I've certainly seen 100-110k used far more over the years then any imagined 350k. But one could imagine any figure they wish.

Yes, but we know the source for that 105,000 number and we know (or at least those who are knowledgeable about the ORs know) how incomplete the ORs are. I think a lot of historians just want a reference to quote, so they see that number and use it without giving it any thought. If the ORs say that 105,000 number only accounts for returns for most units and only for about two years on average per unit, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that number is wildly off. So to continue to use it without acknowledging that is just dishonest. I think Davis was probably much more knowledgeable and was probably spot on when he said 2/3rds of all soldiers were missing, and most of them were deserters. Its hard to turn that into an exact number, granted, but I think that is generally true for all ACW troop numbers. Record keeping was woefully inaccurate on both sides, but especially the CSA side. All we can get to is a ballpark number. Maybe 250,000 deserters is more accurate than 350,000. But its pretty clear we are talking about something in that range and not 105,000. If you read his speech, Davis clearly thought the rate of desertion was pretty shameful.

Which is not surprising. The CSA did lose, after all, and we have tons of accounts of CSA soldiers realizing the war was lost and just giving up. I've often seen it said that the CSA was not so much conquered as it just gave up. I'm reading a book on Great Britain and the Civil War and up till the end they thought that if the South was serious, it would be impossible to put the Union back together. They were shocked at how quickly everything just collapsed and how quickly they just surrendered after Lee surrendered. The people were exhausted from 4 years of war and they just did not have the sense of nationalism to make them carry on in the face of so much adversity. Its really kind of the mirror image of this thread topic. Southern CSA nationalism was actually pretty weak, especially as the war wore on and defeats piled up. People came to see the war was a bad idea and they were destined to lose, so they just gave up. And that is reflected in the high desertion rates that Davis mentioned in Sept 1864.

 

[19thGeorgia]

There were no 350,000 deserters.

Confederate Army
December 31, 1864

Aggregate Present and Absent: 400,787
Aggregate Present: 196,016
POWs: 63,003
Total: 259,019 (add to this number absentees who were sick or wounded in hospitals, those absent on wounded furlough, etc, etc)


OR, Series 4, Volume 3, p.989

Prisoners of War "on hand Dec. 31, 1864" (OR Series 2, Volume 8, p.1012):

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

No. Some southern residents, especially in areas such as eastern Tennessee, were simply always going to be loyal to the Union.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No. Some southern residents, especially in areas such as eastern Tennessee, were simply always going to be loyal to the Union.

I agree. Those southern unionists were strong in their convictions, and were persecuted for it. I think the ones who changed their loyalty - either from confederate to unionist or visa versa - were probably not that committed to their original loyalty to begin with.

The "conditional unionists" obviously didn't have strong loyalties to the US if they could be swayed easily. Lincoln referred to them as "latent traitors."

 

[Rhea Cole]

I believe there is a misconception about the nature of the mountain folk & their attachment to the Union.

East Tennessee polled 81% AGAINST SECESSION.

The mountain folk from West Virginia to Huntsville, Alabama took up arms immediately to resist the forces of disunion. Secession violated long held core beliefs of the independent minded mountain folk.

On the east side of the watershed, mountain folk had their needs subordinated to the self appointed elite slaveholders' desires. A sneering disrespect sums up the slave masters attitude toward the mountain folk.

What motivation was there for mountain folk to miss the opportunity to shoot some tidewater nobility & instead join the very people who despised them?

Link:

https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3314&context=etd

 

[archieclement]

Yes, but we know the source for that 105,000 number and we know (or at least those who are knowledgeable about the ORs know) how incomplete the ORs are. I think a lot of historians just want a reference to quote, so they see that number and use it without giving it any thought. If the ORs say that 105,000 number only accounts for returns for most units and only for about two years on average per unit, it doesn't take much imagination to realize that number is wildly off. So to continue to use it without acknowledging that is just dishonest. I think Davis was probably much more knowledgeable and was probably spot on when he said 2/3rds of all soldiers were missing, and most of them were deserters. Its hard to turn that into an exact number, granted, but I think that is generally true for all ACW troop numbers. Record keeping was woefully inaccurate on both sides, but especially the CSA side. All we can get to is a ballpark number. Maybe 250,000 deserters is more accurate than 350,000. But its pretty clear we are talking about something in that range and not 105,000. If you read his speech, Davis clearly thought the rate of desertion was pretty shameful.

Which is not surprising. The CSA did lose, after all, and we have tons of accounts of CSA soldiers realizing the war was lost and just giving up. I've often seen it said that the CSA was not so much conquered as it just gave up. I'm reading a book on Great Britain and the Civil War and up till the end they thought that if the South was serious, it would be impossible to put the Union back together. They were shocked at how quickly everything just collapsed and how quickly they just surrendered after Lee surrendered. The people were exhausted from 4 years of war and they just did not have the sense of nationalism to make them carry on in the face of so much adversity. Its really kind of the mirror image of this thread topic. Southern CSA nationalism was actually pretty weak, especially as the war wore on and defeats piled up. People came to see the war was a bad idea and they were destined to lose, so they just gave up. And that is reflected in the high desertion rates that Davis mentioned in Sept 1864.

Indeed in example I gave union officials were certainly exasperated over guerrilla support, as i imagine military figures were over desertions. However exasperated exaggerations aren't necessarily reality, or even close to it.......

 

[limestone1863]

No. Some southern residents, especially in areas such as eastern Tennessee, were simply always going to be loyal to the Union.

Absolutely Very knowledgeable on your part.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Absolutely Very knowledgeable on your part.

Tennessee enlisted more white residents in the union
army than any other Confederate state. Some of the East Tennessee cavalry took out their displeasure on both perceived privileged slaveholders & black folks.

Near Murfreesboro TN, an East Tennessee cavalry regiment terrorized white & black residents with equal ferocity. They burned a Freedman's school & church. John Spence, diarist & chronicle curmudgeon uncharacteristically allowed as how both White & black residents were greatly relieved when the East Tennessee cavalry was ordered elsewhere.

The point here being that loyalty to the Union & any sympathy for the enslaved or respect for slaveholders were very different things.

 

[rvbgrif]

The mountain folk from West Virginia to Huntsville, Alabama took up arms immediately to resist the forces of disunion. Secession violated long held core beliefs of the independent minded mountain folk.

Like much of the South it was complicated. Stonewall Jackson was from the mountains of West Virginia. And Jefferson Davis was from Kentucky.

The mountains, like the rest of the South was divided.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Like much of the South it was complicated. Stonewall Jackson was from the mountains of West Virginia. And Jefferson Davis was from Kentucky.

The mountains, like the rest of the South was divided.

rvbgrif is oh so correct… complicated is too simple a word… When Tennessee seceded the men from Cross Plaines gathered to solve a question of honor. Everyone wanted to show their courage by enlisting, but the vexed question that haunted the entire Confederate war effort raised its ugly head. Who would be there to keep the slaves under control if every male of military age enlisted?

There was a fiction glorifying the loyal slave that would be taking up arms to protect his master's property & the purity of his women folk. Essays glorifying the loyalty of the slaves & how every soldier could pick up his musket to march off secure in the knowledge that their "people" would shoot any Yankee that tried to free them. That was hogwash, of course, & everyone from Jefferson Davis on down knew it.

Not only that, but who was going to bring in the crop if all the able bodied men in the county were off taking orders from Mars Robert? Like the bone deep Americans that they were, a vote was taken.

Straws of broom sedge were gathered. A certain number were cut to length long, others short. A man of unimpeachable integrity, the preacher I would assume, held the straws as the men drew their lot.

My ancient relative drew a short straw & stayed home. He named his son after one or both of the Generals Johnston. On his farm north of Nashville, his family was soon behind Union lines. One thing the Union army needed was mules. I don't know about his skill as a mule breeder, but his skill at breeding greyhounds is unquestionable.

The State of Tennessee had a door tax, & a ***** ( Proper term for a breeding dog that probably triggers CWT's censorship program. ) tax. William Alexander paid both. His mules passed muster with the Department of the Cumberland quartermasters. I have no way of knowing what exactly his position was on secession.

He had inherited 1/3rd of 14 slaves that had to be sold to fulfill the intent of the will. Neither he nor any of those that followed ever personally owned a human being. In any case, picking the short straw meant that I am here at my desk pecking at a keyboard in 2026. His more fortunate neighbors, as it was depicted at the time, were sacrificed to the banzai tactics of Braxton Bragg & Robert E. Lee. Few if any of them returned home.

So, some of you all who have been puzzled by the tone of my posts over the years… well… I have skin in the game. As the Spanish say, ¡ Asi Es La Vida !

 

[rvbgrif]

I don't know about his skill as a mule breeder

I am sure you already know this but you can't breed mules

Spoiler: how to breed mules

Mules are a hybrid between two different species, a male donkey and a female horse. Since horses have 64 chromosomes while donkeys have 62, this makes a mule's chromosome count 63, rendering them infertile. They have been prized since classical times for their ability as work animals, combining the hardiness and longevity of donkeys with the intelligence and obedience of horses.

 

[16thVA]

There is an abiding misconception about West Virginia that historians countinue to spread. The creation of the state was not a yeoman uprising, it was a political/military fabrication. As Charles Ambler stated in 1939- "There was no denying the fact that West Virginia was largely a creation of the Northern Panhandle and the counties along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad...", about a baker's dozen counties. Even the publisher of the Wellsburg Herald in the Northern Panhandle stated after the war-

"It cannot be said that so far as the Panhandle is concerned, (except possibly some peculiar influences operating at Wheeling) there was any great pressure for a division of the State. Certain men of prominence, with ambitions for the U. S. Senatorships and offices to be created, of course thought a new State would be a good thing; and the local interests of Wheeling as the prospective capital, excuseably inclined that way, but the judgment of a very large disinterested minority, was to preserve the integrity of the State and abide the issue of the war."

The most mountainous counties of the new state sided with Richmond and not Wheeling. If the Confederacy had trouble gaining recruits Wheeling had just as much trouble, if not more, because they were subject to Federal quotas which they could not meet and for which they were granted exemptions in 63 and 64. Wheeling and the Union did not control the new state and could not function as a state government in most of its territory.

Wheeling Daily Intelligencer June 16, 1863