What was the purpose of having Southern civilians sign an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. Government?

Kyle Kalasnik

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Location
Potter County, PA
Lupaglupa was kind of enough to hook me up with an Oath of Allegiance that one of my 3rd Great Grandfathers took in 1864. He was a civilian and did not serve.

What exactly is this, he lived in a very divided and contested area,

Was this to ensure that the civilian population who lived in these areas and maybe “on the fence” would not assist the CSA?

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Kyle Kalasnik
0D7E4650-3298-456A-ACBF-5FE5464D3576.png
 
Why many considered it a personal insult, or worse a trick to imply you had been disloyal, when you in fact hadn't....also remember honor was a very real concept then, men were willing to die over insults. The code duello was still practiced.

Exactly, hence the reason I asked what I did in post #11. Or is lying an exemption in the Southern honor code?
 
Was Missouri in rebellion? Most historians refute the secession vote taken by State legislators at Neosho after the State Capitol at Jefferson City had been overrun and occupied by the Union. They claim it wasn't official, therefore Missouri was never in rebellion.

I could have sworn that Missouri was under Martial Law during the Civil War. Somebody in the Federal government or the Federal military must have thought that a rebellion was taking place in at least parts of the state.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
I could have sworn that Missouri was under Martial Law during the Civil War. Somebody in the Federal government or the Federal military must have thought that a rebellion was taking place in at least parts of the state.
Is it your contention that Missouri was a southern State in rebellion, had seceded from the Union and was a member of the Confederacy?
 
Is it your contention that Missouri was a southern State in rebellion, had seceded from the Union and was a member of the Confederacy?
The Confederate government sure thought that Missouri was a member of the Confederacy. The Confederate government added a star to their flags, Missouri issued their own state currency featuring President Jefferson Davis and the state was part of the Confederacy's Trans-Mississippi Department where General Hindman CSA, had ordered anyone jailed who refused to use Confederate currency within that department.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I could have sworn that Missouri was under Martial Law during the Civil War. Somebody in the Federal government or the Federal military must have thought that a rebellion was taking place in at least parts of the state.
However it was not mandatory for everyone to take an oath. So it remains a political witch hunt, not one of our nation's proudest hours.

And no idea who you are referring to as "lying", without knowing who or the circumstances it's rather impossible to say.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
The Confederate government sure thought that Missouri was a member of the Confederacy. The Confederate government added a star to their flags, Missouri issued their own state currency featuring President Jefferson Davis and the state was part of the Confederacy's Trans-Mississippi Department where General Hindman CSA, had ordered anyone jailed who refused to use Confederate currency within that department.
Yes, yes, but that's not what I asked you. What do you think?
 
However it was not mandatory for everyone to take an oath. So it remains a political witch hunt, not one of our nation's proudest hours.
Actually I agree with you and so does the United States Supreme Court.
In 1867, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled that oaths were unconstitutional when used to prevent a person from engaging in their occupation because they were in effect a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law by imposing a punishment on a person without the benefit of judicial review or when "they impose additional punishment to that prescribed when the act was committed."
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867); Ex parte Garland
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually I agree with you and so does the United States Supreme Court.
In 1867, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled that oaths were unconstitutional when used to prevent a person from engaging in their occupation because they were in effect a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law by imposing a punishment on a person without the benefit of judicial review or when "they impose additional punishment to that prescribed when the act was committed."
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867); Ex parte Garland
Yes because postwar the Republicans in the state knew they had alienated most the people.....so tryed to continue the practice postwar with an ironclad oath and the Drake Constitution.

Though as with reconstruction it's rather hard to continuely argue for martial law to basically just impose one parties will, when civil government exists in a democratic republic.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It would have been awkward to live back then if one held many American ideals and principles dear.....as the Union was violating and not enforcing them.....much less that if you were a democrat or slaveholder, you were often unfairly targeted regardless of your loyalty and actions.
 
Top