They Thought About It

[matthew mckeon]

I just got back from Lowell, Mass., where I heard a lecture by Michael Pierson about the origin of the Civil War.

Actually the talk was about why the North decided to coerce the South into staying in the Union. He made these points:

Peer pressure didn't make men join the army.

They weren't looking for adventure.

They weren't looking for a job.

Slavery wasn't on their radar as a cause. Yet.

They thought about it. That is, they debated and argued and considered whether they should make a bloody effort to preserve the Union. At least some people understood it would take a sustained and costly effort to prevent secession, putting it in the scope of years and hundreds of thousands of lives. And this debate in the papers continued after the firing on Fort Sumter.

Some men decided not to join up. The ones that did, Pierson argues, knew what they were doing. They reupped to finish the job, and reelected the President after four years of war and a half a million deaths.

They thought about it.

 

[unionblue]

matthew,

How did Pierson reconcile the perception that most of us have held, to include the majority of historians we have read (I.E. Bruce Canton, etc.), that some joined for adventure or to get off the farm or to seek 'glory?'

I had not considered the months of debate and discussion that took place after SC's secession and before the firing on Ft. Sumter, but it is obvious to me now that it had to take place, as the issue held center stage during all that time.

If you could go into any more detail about Pierson's talk, I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[matthew mckeon]

Pierson's says that first of all, not everybody went into the war. Lots of men stayed out for the first year, to join later or be drafted. So the idea of "rage militaire" or peer pressure is overstated. There is no evidence that the men who joined were any worse off than the ones who didn't, that is, more "longing to escape" rural stagnation and see the world. Next, a lot of guys had several opportunities to leave the army or extend their stay, and tens of thousands extended, long after any glamor of military life had faded away. Next, they reelected a war president Lincoln.

Finally, the debate over the use of force continued, at least among the Democrats, for weeks after Sumter. And these arguments outlined pretty accurately the duration and cost in blood and treasure, of the Civil War. The men knew it would be bad, and signed up anyway. When it was demostrated how bad, and how long it would be, they re-enlisted. Pierson says, in his study of a Vermont regiment, largely of prewar Democrats, they were there to save the Union.

 

[brass napoleon]

Pierson's says that first of all, not everybody went into the war. Lots of men stayed out for the first year, to join later or be drafted. So the idea of "rage militaire" or peer pressure is overstated. There is no evidence that the men who joined were any worse off than the ones who didn't, that is, more "longing to escape" rural stagnation and see the world. Next, a lot of guys had several opportunities to leave the army or extend their stay, and tens of thousands extended, long after any glamor of military life had faded away. Next, they reelected a war president Lincoln.

Finally, the debate over the use of force continued, at least among the Democrats, for weeks after Sumter. And these arguments outlined pretty accurately the duration and cost in blood and treasure, of the Civil War. The men knew it would be bad, and signed up anyway. When it was demostrated how bad, and how long it would be, they re-enlisted. Pierson says, in his study of a Vermont regiment, largely of prewar Democrats, they were there to save the Union.

I agree, that was the core. The same sentiment is expressed in Elisha Hunt Rhodes' diary, All for the Union. But as his diary makes clear, that didn't account for everybody...

 

[Elennsar]

One thing that interests me - sort of related and sort of not.

Rufus Dawes, on the reenlistment of the 6th Wisconsin's veterans:

"Our detached men who have been cooks for officers, hostlers, clerks and teamsters, of whom there are sixty-eight, nearly all decline to re-enlist, but the men who have stood by the old flag through fair and foul weather, and through many bloody battles, almost to a man, dedicate their lives and services anew to their country."

Sadly, I can't determine if this was something they determined after three years or not. Source is Alan Nolan's book on their brigade.

But it does seem very likely that the men who joined regiments that were three years from the beginning weren't thinking about it in terms of "It'll be over before the harvest."

 

[ole]

No. If I may sound eerily similar to a Texan, when they were in it, they will not step out until it is done. And we might say the same for the boys from every state; Quit just wasn't in their vocabulary.

So I'll not make that claim for Wisconsin's only. Every state, north and south, had people like that. Kinda American?

 

[Elennsar]

That does raise the question why quite a few were willing to quit: 23% of the 6th Wisconsin, for instance. And the 1st Minnesota - the guys who gave the better part of the regiment to buy five minutes for Hancock on July 2 - was one of several units which couldn't muster up the enthusiasm. Partially due to its commander being a pain in the behind, but if that's enough of an issue to matter, we're not looking at automaton like determination.

"To the Sixth, the agreement was first formally presented on December 20th. Eighty men enrolled at once. Within two moer days a total of 148 had signed their names, a number which had increased to 195 by the end of the month. BY January 2nd the quota of 217 had been reached and...even then the re-enlistment continued, finally totaling 227 men." Out of 290.

So sixty-three men, nearly all "detached men" but not only detached men, decided they had put in enough. 38 of the 249 in the Seventh Wisconsin had also had enough. The 2nd Wisconsin and 19th Indiana are not given total strengths, just that seventy eight for the old 2nd and 213 for the 19th fell "just short" (possibly due to confusion in the process and the number by which the "three fourths" had to reenlist for the regiment to be counted as veteranized, according to Nolan).

Not a sign of quitters, but if the 6th is typical of the successes, that leaves a substantial number who have second thoughts, though some of them would reenlist in other units later.

I'm unfortunately not familiar with any other units besides those in the Iron Brigade and the 1st Minnesota in enough detail to comment on them either in reenlisting or initial enlistments beyond the general statement on three years regiments (and of course the men who joined the new Regular Army units, which were initially five years if memory serves).

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

The numbers of men who enlisted in Veterans units or enlisted in new regiments after being mustered out is an area I believe to be overlooked in the" many reasons to fight" threads. Diaries Iv'e read leans me to belief in unfinished business, to a myraid of socialogical convictions.

 

[brass napoleon]

The numbers of men who enlisted in Veterans units or enlisted in new regiments after being mustered out is an area I believe to be overlooked in the" many reasons to fight" threads. Diaries Iv'e read leans me to belief in unfinished business, to a myraid of socialogical convictions.

In All for the Union (pages 129-130) Elisha Hunt Rhodes says that only about 100 men from the 2nd Rhode Island reenlisted. He doesn't say how many chose not to reenlist. Of the 14 officers he lists, only 6 reenlisted. Rhodes was one of the officers who reenlisted, saying "I shall stay however and see the end of the war if God spares my life."

When you consider the tough conditions in camp and the poor leadership that many of these soldiers endured, it's not surprising at all that many didn't reenlist. For most soldiers what keeps them going is fighting for their brothers in arms, but by this stage of the game many of their original comrades were dead or disabled. Many of those who were left felt that the new recruits coming in were from the "bottom of the barrel", (e.g. criminals and bounty jumpers) and that it just wasn't the same anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who stuck it out this long was a hero. Those who reenlisted were superheros.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Am I correct that Mr. Peirson is a northern gentlemen or apparently more familiar with Rhode Island than with Indiana or Illinois or certainly Tennessee? While I find no particular fault with his observations and conclusions to a point, he seems to be looking with a focused eye rather than wide angle glasses. He made no mention of the southern home guard, a vicious little 'organization' that inspired many southern boys to jine up with the US Army. Trying to leave what turned out to be a much more brutal than expected little exercise against some ill equipped and mostly untrained southern boys would not have been unexpected if they got into battle. I didn't notice much if any mention of slavery in this brief discourse. Curious fact. Could they have been fighting on principle for other reasons. Good old patriotism comes to mind which seems to fit the save the Union concept. That might have 'got me going' if I was bored and figured there was much change of an invasion from the south. Just my thoughts early this moring. Below 40 degrees here in Nashville on October 4, after a week of 90 degree heat. Get out the pumpkins, time for pie.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Larry,
Yesterday and today were our first really "fall" days, after an extended summer.

In his talk, he was very much focused on a few units in Vermont, that he is studying in depth. To the degree their experience can extend to other Union regiments, or as ole said, to Americans as a whole, he didn't make those claims.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I seem to remember the standard for effectiveness, of a combat soldier, starts to diminish around two years. One of the reasons the last drafts were for that length of service. Many of these men probably knew they were past that point.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Larry,
Yesterday and today were our first really "fall" days, after an extended summer.

In his talk, he was very much focused on a few units in Vermont, that he is studying in depth. To the degree their experience can extend to other Union regiments, or as ole said, to Americans as a whole, he didn't make those claims.

That's the gist of what I was guessing. His wording was not nearly so biased with respect to other interests as many of these guys present. Maybe he's one of those rare individuals who are actually teaching history. Godspeed to him.

 

[wilber6150]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I seem to remember the standard for effectiveness, of a combat soldier, starts to diminish around two years. One of the reasons the last drafts were for that length of service. Many of these men probably knew they were past that point.

I haven't heard of that, I would think that by two years surviving vets would be hardy enough and at their physical peak to survive anything else thrown at them...The Union men, such as the VI Corps who marched almost 29 miles then got ready to enter the battle were men of such caliber, newer green troops wouldn't have been able to match that.. Also, their combat experience would also be nearing their peak at this point..Just my opinion, if you have any studies on this it would be very interesting reading..

 

[matthew mckeon]

I imagine it all depends on what they did during those two years, and how many casualities they took. The idea of a unit being "effective" for x number of days I associate with the Second World War.

 

[Nathanb1]

Probably also has a lot to do with diet....all that green corn surely took a toll on those Southern boys.

 

[brass napoleon]

I imagine it all depends on what they did during those two years, and how many casualities they took. The idea of a unit being "effective" for x number of days I associate with the Second World War.

I think that's probably correct, although I'd extend it past the Second World War too. A lot of it depends on what percentage of the time you're under enemy fire. In the first 3 years of the ACW that was actually a pretty low percentage for most units, which I think is a large part of why the troops of both sides were able to last as long as they did. But that all changed in the last year. It seems doubtful to me that even the hardiest soldiers could put in 3 years at that pace.

 

[ole]

You don't get meat and potatoes every day, there's no telling what your guts are going to do with what you do get to eat. But eating something is imperative. And, for a lot of these guys, "something" could be almost anything.

I'm fortunate in that I can eat anything or nothing. Others do not have that facility. One of the major killers was the runs and subsequent dehydration. Once dehydration sets in, just water isn't going to fix it. And medicine, at the time, didn't know how to fix it either, so they died.

 

[ole]

It seems doubtful to me that even the hardiest soldiers could put in 3 years at that pace.

But they did, BN. Almost Darwinian. Those guys who were still standing in the ranks after 3 or 4 years of hard fighting at the end. And they are worthy of notice.

 

[brass napoleon]

But they did, BN. Almost Darwinian. Those guys who were still standing in the ranks after 3 or 4 years of hard fighting at the end. And they are worthy of notice.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, but what I was saying is that the pace of fighting picked up so much in the final year that they would probably not be able to continue at that pace for 3 years as an effective fighting force. In the first 3 years of the war the fighting was sporadic, and most regiments only spent a few days out of the year under the threat of enemy fire. Granted, those few days were unimaginably brutal, but most of the year was spent battling boredom and the discomforts of camp life. Taking E. H. Rhodes' diary as an example, the first 3 years of the war take up 125 pages. The last year takes up 95 pages.

I've never been in combat myself so I can't speak from personal experience, but from the combat vets I've known, and everything I've seen and read, it's the exposure to enemy fire (and by that I include such things as the risk of being blown up by an IED) that really takes the toll. I could be wrong though, and if any combat vet here wants to correct me on that I will respectfully defer to them.