US Conscription debate

[leftyhunter]

I never said that Confederate deserters to a unionist unit were suddenly American again though given their desire to avoid combat I may have been tempted to say such.

Which isn't true we have a whole thread that debunks that falsehood " how effective wete Unionist regiments".
Leftyhunter

 

[Bee]

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. .

Oh, gawd: not that old canard, again. If this statement had an ounce of fact, than Jubal Early & Mildred Lewis Rutherford obviously did not get the memo.

 

[damYankee]

You may be confused by a post from another poster implying that the men were contented Home Guardsmen until transferred to regular army units. Home Guardsmen were older men assigned to their own counties.The deserters hanged by Pickett were younger military aged men formerly of the in state reserve 8th Battalion Partisan Rangers, also known as Lt. Col. John H. Nethercutt's battalion. They deserted to the enemy when transferred to the regular army 66th NC Infantry or to the 10th NC artillery.

I still doubt they were very content when they went a swinging

 

[thomas aagaard]

And both the US an CS gov't knew of the Danish system and similar systems and yet they established systems that favored the wealthy and those with political connections.

Actually the danish system allowed you to pay another man for showing up. (the prussian system didnt)
And since anyone up to age 35 was called up in 1864, that left only men aged 35-40 to be "stillingsmænd" (paid substitutes).. not something that did any good to the fighting ability of the army...


The difference to the US is that the danish system had existed since the late 16th century and then developed over time.
Until 1848 it was only the men living outside the cities who had to serve.
(and in limited numbers and it was the local "big man" who was responsible for the selection of conscripts. something that gave the rich landowners a lot of power... for much of the 18th century)

Then with the Constitution in 1849 is was expanded to everyone. During the 3 year war.
This was one of the reasons why the original Constitution gave a rather large group of men the vote. When you wanted the poor workers and farmers to fight for the country and new Constitutional monarchy, then you sort of had to give him the vote.

In the US there was this idea about the armed militia man and that the tiny US army could defend the country. And if a new war would start, any enemy could be dealt with by combining the regular army and a volunteer force. (and that worked against Mexico)

Implementing a system for universal white male conscription, from scratch, during war is a lot harder... especially when there is no real tradition for it. outside the militiasystem...
But it is the tradition of the militia system in both US and colonial times that makes a Draft legal in the US.

 

[Borderruffian]

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. US conscription is proof there was no real support in the north for ending slavery . US conscription is proof that Lincoln was nothing more than a political prostitute willing to send thousands of conscripts to their deaths for the benefit of northern economic elites.
US conscription was also a handy tool to corral votes to help Lincoln steal the 64 election. What soldier when given the hint by his superior to vote Lincoln would dare do otherwise.

You do realize that the CSA began conscripting in April 62? That the conscription act also extended the enlistments of volunteers? That they they were steadily amended to lower the age of conscrpit's and also raise the age of conscripts until the "Cradle to Grave" act of 64? I'm sure you are aware also of the "20 Negro Rule"..right? That the South also had a substitute system were rich men could in effect buy their way out of Military Service until it was abolished in Dec 63?

Fact is the CS did it first, including sending Conscription officers and detachments into psuedo seceeded border States, such as Kentucky and Missouri.Fact is the substitution laws benefited men with money on both sides of the Mason - Dixon, as did the20 Negro Law in the south, Rich fellas tend to get a mite skittish at the thought of humpin ruck and totin rifles were they get shoot at, so do those without money..only those who ain't got money have fewer options.

Rich mans war and poor mans fight did start with Ol' Abe it started in Richmond. You dont have to like Abe, heck I don't like him.But this isn't one of them. You could have said something about pressing newly arrived immigrants at the wharf into military service, or Habius Corpus being suspended or other things and I might have given it some creedence, but you didn't.

As far as his winning the 64 election because Yankee Bill was ordered to vote for him, thats just conjecture.

 

[MattL]

The north had like 4times as many people as the south, if there was such great support for not letting the seceding states go there would have been no need for conscription.

I know I'm going to regret responding, but...

You don't answer the point that the Confederates did what you criticize in the North. Apparently the fact that the Confederates started conscripting first proves they didn't have support of their people either, they were no more than a "political prostitute" for slave interests, etc... etc...

Conversely it often takes far more forces to effectively attack vs defend.

 

[CSA Today]

Funny, I thought you were talking about CS deserters not being American. I already know you barely consider US soldiers American. I was quite startled to see you refer to CS soldiers who deserted in such a way.

Oh well; we will have to agree to disagree because I like to think of CS soldiers as Americans deserving of some respect.

Before your thoughts lead you further into confusion let me state as succinctly as possible that I've always considered the US soldiers to be the Americans and the CS soldiers the Confederates at war with the Americans.

 

[CSA Today]

If they were content they wouldn't of joined the Union Army.
Leftyhunter

Then again that was one way to avoid combat.

 

[CSA Today]

And torture women who didnt reveal where their menfolk were hiding which I have auoted many times. Not to mention stealing and raping which has been discussed on previous threads on the Home Guard.
Leftyhunter

Is this from some recent Hollywood flick, a TV drama or more of David Williams' sensation for sale rubbish?

 

[leftyhunter]

Then again that was one way to avoid combat.

Again not true per the ORs.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Is this from some recent Hollywood flick, a TV drama or more of David Williams' sensation for sale rubbish?

Per David Williams who is well sourced. If you have a problem with his book tjen devote a thread to show why he is wring. If not then it's your opinion.
Leftyhunter

 

[CSA Today]

You do realize that the CSA began conscripting in April 62? That the conscription act also extended the enlistments of volunteers? That they they were steadily amended to lower the age of conscrpit's and also raise the age of conscripts until the "Cradle to Grave" act of 64? I'm sure you are aware also of the "20 Negro Rule"..right? That the South also had a substitute system were rich men could in effect buy their way out of Military Service until it was abolished in Dec 63?

Fact is the CS did it first, including sending Conscription officers and detachments into psuedo seceeded border States, such as Kentucky and Missouri.Fact is the substitution laws benefited men with money on both sides of the Mason - Dixon, as did the20 Negro Law in the south, Rich fellas tend to get a mite skittish at the thought of humpin ruck and totin rifles were they get shoot at, so do those without money..only those who ain't got money have fewer options.

Rich mans war and poor mans fight did start with Ol' Abe it started in Richmond. You dont have to like Abe, heck I don't like him.But this isn't one of them. You could have said something about pressing newly arrived immigrants at the wharf into military service, or Habius Corpus being suspended or other things and I might have given it some creedence, but you didn't.

As far as his winning the 64 election because Yankee Bill was ordered to vote for him, thats just conjecture.

What I find extraordinary, is the North, despite its much larger man- power pool, had to resort to conscription/ draft less than a year later.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-civil-war-conscription-act

 

[CSA Today]

Per David Williams who is well sourced. If you have a problem with his book tjen devote a thread to show why he is wring. If not then it's your opinion.
Leftyhunter

There are Lumbee Indians laughing here after being told of ancestors wartime exploits far from the confines of the Big Raft Swamp.

 

[CSA Today]

Again not true per the ORs.
Leftyhunter

Did your source mention that the two eastern NC union regiments had to combine late in the war due to desertions?

 

[Bee]

What I find extraordinary, is the North, despite its much larger man- power pool, had to resort to conscription/ draft less than a year later.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-civil-war-conscription-act

I might have agreed with this statement, until I started reading the staggering numbers of men who began mustering out of AoP in very large masses, due to short term enlistments. I cannot say with certainty that this was the impetus for the draft, but it is obvious from my readings that there was grave concern over the fact that by the end of May 63, as many as 1,000 men a day were leaving the army.

Unless it was reinforced, the Army of the Potomac on July 1, would have nearly 48,000 fewer men than it had had on May 1. Sears, Gettysburg, page 29.​

 

[leftyhunter]

Did your source mention that the two eastern NC union regiments had to combine late in the war due to desertions?

Current does mention that due to Pickets murder of captured Union POWs. Your Lumbee friends might want to read non pro Confederate history.
Leftyhunter

 

[johan_steele]

The US never had to resort to mandatory for the duration enlistments. That was the prevue of the ever popular CS.

 

[leftyhunter]

What I find extraordinary, is the North, despite its much larger man- power pool, had to resort to conscription/ draft less than a year later.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-civil-war-conscription-act

Yet only 5% of the Union Army was composed of draftees. Did the Union hunt men doen with dogs to force them into the army?
Leftyhunter

 

[johan_steele]

Before your thoughts lead you further into confusion let me state as succinctly as possible that I've always considered the US soldiers to be the Americans and the CS soldiers the Confederates at war with the Americans.

I wish that I believed you. Your contempt & hatred of the US soldier is evident in your posts. It also seems to me you hold CS soldiers who deserted in equal contempt.

The CS soldier fought well and hard for men who held them in contempt. Their bravery & fortitude is notable. Those who would continue to use them for their own ends... Not so much.

 

[CSA Today]

I might have agreed with this statement, until I started reading the staggering numbers of men who began mustering out of AoP in very large masses, due to short term enlistments. I cannot say with certainty that this was the impetus for the draft, but it is obvious from my readings that there was grave concern over the fact that by the end of May 63, as many as 1,000 men a day were leaving the army.

Unless it was reinforced, the Army of the Potomac on July 1, would have nearly 48,000 fewer men than it had had on May 1. Sears, Gettysburg, page 29.​

That number would not have included the Federal 1863 monthly desertion rate of 4,647-- it rose to an average of 7333 in 1864.

J.G. Randal and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p.330 footnote.