US Conscription debate

[atlantis]

When did mythology replace historical fact?
A small but very vocal segment of the nation (USA=both North and South) opposed the war for various reasons, that does not mean the war had no support in the North or that the Union resorted to the draft because it could not fulfill its enlistment quotas.
A few points,
Enlistments overwhelmed the ability of the system to provide for incoming soldiers in the first year of the war, in fact many regiments that served in the Western theater were not fully outfitted and equipped until 1863.
Both armies expanded at an incredible pace in the first 20 months. Equipment, uniforms, weapons, horses, facilities and command personnel were not in place to handle the demands. The draft was a way to schedule inductions.

Why would you not be able to schedule induction minus a draft. Was there support for the war both north/south the first year-yes but after that there was a decline so much so that democrats counted on it to carry them to victory in the 64 election.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Well might the original poster, turn eyes from southern duplicity and deceit in its handling of conscription.

I see now that the poster, is trying to prove the Union was invading the south, by ascribing northern conscription as proof.

 

[atlantis]

Well might the original poster, turn eyes from southern duplicity and deceit in its handling of conscription.

I see now that the poster, is trying to prove the Union was invading the south, by ascribing northern conscription as proof.

What was Sherman doing in Georgia?

 

[OpnCoronet]

What was Sherman doing in Georgia?

What was Lee doing in Pennsylvania(or Maryland, for that matter) ?

 

[Pavel]

What was Lee doing in Pennsylvania(or Maryland, for that matter) ?

Both generals are simply using the tactics and wearing down the enemy encirclement, both economic and human reserves.

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

What was Sherman doing in Georgia?

Showing the Confederate population what the war was really like, and disproving Confederate government propaganda that they have been handed. It accomplished its goal, as with every case of total war, to disable the enemy's ability to function properly in the country itself. There have been cases of Union soldiers getting out of hand, but Sherman didn't have control over that. He specifically targeted anything of military value, such as cotton bales, factories, railroads, etc. Areas that had high Union sentiments, such as parts of NC, he ordered to not be plundered.

Honestly, I believe Sherman saved lives, as the war might've lasted longer, costing more lives if he hadn't crippled the CSA's ability to sustain its economic/logistical efficiency, and at the same time crippling the population's morale.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Both generals are simply using the tactics and wearing down the enemy encirclement, both economic and human reserves.

hmmmmmm....a tactical maneuver to achieve a strategic goal and not really an invasion at all, I like it.

 

[unionblue]

I am not a fan of how conscription was executed in either CS or US. Since the thread is about US conscription I will focus on the US. 5% of US soldiers were conscript yet that burden did not fall fairly on the population for the substitute provision allowed those with the means to avoid service. Victors write the history books and so Lincoln and congress get a pass for enacting a conscript law that made a mockery out of the emancipation proclamation. Free the southern slaves but conscript poor northern whites, if preserving the union was so important should not the sons of wealth do their share to preserve it. If the crisis was as grave as US leaders claimed then universal service should have been instituted, that it was not is proof that the people were deceived.
Those who argue that the war was about 1 saving the union 2 ending slavery should face the truth that was US conscription, that the war was a war of conquest for the benefit of wealthy northerners.

atlantis,

You are asking us here to endorse your opinion, not the truth.

As for your "Victors write the history books" quote, I can respond with "And the losers write the myths." But what does that prove?

Instead, why not read The Union War, by Gary W. Gallagher, For Cause & Comrades, by James McPherson, or The Union Soldier in Battle, by Earl J Hess.

Data, not opinion, has far more sway.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Pavel]

hmmmmmm....a tactical maneuver to achieve a strategic goal and not really an invasion at all, I like it.

So many do.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The fact the US was forced to resort to conscription proves this. That the war was a war of conquest and deeply unpopular. The substitute provision makes clear it was a rich mans war and a poor mans fight.

But does historical facts confirm your conclusion? It is well you choose to ignore southern treachery and aggression.

Union conscription occurred only after the confederacy deliberately and with much forethought attacked the United States. In fact, it only occurred a year after the confederacy had instituted it's own.

In addition to instituting conscription before the Union and did not the confederacy invade Union territory first. If so, by your standards, set up in your post, were the confederate states waging a war of conquest, themselves.....First?

 

[damYankee]

Why would you not be able to schedule induction minus a draft. Was there support for the war both north/south the first year-yes but after that there was a decline so much so that democrats counted on it to carry them to victory in the 64 election.

Because the states were trying to meet quotas established by the administration and the war department through the establishment of state militias, standardization of training, uniforms, arms, and military theory was impossible under those conditions.

 

[damYankee]

And just as the CS had to resort to conscription because of lack of public support so did the US. The decline in people willing to volunteer in the US and the political leadership determination to compel them to serve in order to conquer the CS reveals the US as not having the moral high ground in the conflict. At least the CS could say it was defending off an invader.

So the US was invading itself? Please explain your rationale. The USA was one country, there was a rebellion, the federal government suppressed that rebellion, just as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
Just so you don't dig your self in to deep on this side rail, the leaders of the rebellion also sent forces into areas it claimed as its territory to suppress citizens who resisted the rebellion.
The CSA was never recognized as a nation by the federal government, or any foreign government, so if it wasn't a legitimate nation, but rather a well organized rebellion, how can you claim the Union invaded it?

 

[damYankee]

This is the best non biased source of data on the statistics of the ACW, the first chapter covers each call to service,

https://archive.org/stream/statisticalrecor01inphis#page/9/mode/1up

 

[Pavel]

This is the best non biased source of data on the statistics of the ACW, the first chapter covers each call to service,

https://archive.org/stream/statisticalrecor01inphis#page/9/mode/1up

Thank you for the book.

 

[unionblue]

This is the best non biased source of data on the statistics of the ACW, the first chapter covers each call to service,

https://archive.org/stream/statisticalrecor01inphis#page/9/mode/1up

damYankee,

Excellent source.

Thank you for providing it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[major bill]

If the OP is true then the U S war with the highest percentage of draftees much be the war that was the most about conquest. That leaves us with World War Two being almost completely about conquest. Because this war had 5he hight leave of draftees. So please show me all the noted historians that are saying that US involvement in WWII was the result of the US wanting to conquer vast reasons of the qorld.

 

[Burning Billy]

What was Sherman doing in Georgia?

His duty as an officer in the United States Army.

If Georgia didn't want to be invaded, it shouldn't have waged an unlawful rebellion against the United States.

 

[unionblue]

His duty as an officer in the United States Army.

If Georgia didn't want to be invaded, it shouldn't have waged an unlawful rebellion against the United States.

And this fact, this awful truth, always seems to be forgotten by those who are outraged at Sherman's march to the sea.

 

[Schwallanscher]

In the 2 world wars we had nations formally declare a state of war against the US. Prior to US entry into ww1 you had the Zimmerman[Germany] note offering Mexico US territory if it went to war with US.

late to the party, but ...

the guys name is zimmermann, he's german -> two Ns
who exactly declared war against the us in ww I?

also that telegram contained orders to be carried out AFTER the us had declared war against germany

 

[Schwallanscher]

Probably pretty unpopular if you were a draftee in an infantry unit. Was it a war of conquest, it was if you were a German or Japanese in 1945.

funny - if you take on everybody else you better win. if you don't there'll be surprise guests for dinner