"Volunteer and Militia differences" Topic

Hello everyone,
As you know better than me, during the ACW, there were for the infantry, the cavalry, the artillery and the engineers, regular , volunteer and Militia regiments.

But what is the difference between the Volunteer regiments and the Militia regiments?

Regulars, volunteers, militia, there was not a fourth class of troops?

For example foreign volunteer corps or something else?

For example, what were the Native Americans classified as?

At the start of the ACW there were only a few thousand (about 16K) "regular" infantry units. These were "standing army" units. They were federal troops. And they had catchy names like 1st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry regiment, and so forth. Note the total lack of a state identity.

They had a federal uniform code of dress, and were supplied by the federal government

At the same time, each state had some troops for local reasons. These were known as state militia. They were outfitted by their state, and thus had a wide range of uniform styles and colors. Some of these units were expert at the standing regulations for drills, and had capable leaders. Others were more weekend warriors, not quite so dedicated to the spit and polish military life.

When the war started, volunteers were called for. These were raised by the individual states, and thus bear the state identification. So 1st Ohio Volunteers versus 1st Infantry (regular federal troops).

Regular army were full-time soldiers. Militia were part time, that got together on a regular basis to drill and practice. And volunteers were fresh troops, many with no prior military exposure at all.

I am not ware of any foreign regiments. Sure, there was an Irish Brigade (for example), and regiments that focused on Germans (another example). But those troops were simply raised in regions of the country where that heritage was the norm. These were not regiments raised in Ireland or Germany, that were brought over to fight.

None of these three types (regulars, volunteers and militia) were any better or any worse than other types of units, just because of their origins. And once the war started, they were formed up into brigades and divisions, assigned higher leadership, and off to war they went.

Not all state troops were volunteers. Many were drafted. While many state regiments referred to themselves as "Volunteers" after the draft was instituted that label made very little sense. I categorize Union Army regiments thus:

Regulars: Troops raised by the Federal Government.

State Regiments: Raised by the states but supplied mostly by the Federal Government.

Militia: Emergency troops raised by a community for defense. For example, the militia was called out in Pennsylvania during the Gettysburg campaign. They wore civilian clothes and sometimes carried their own weapons.

By 1865 there was very little difference between state and regular troops. Although the state troops did not consider themselves regular soldiers. After the war, some state troops were not released from duty until several years after the end of the war.

They were on occupation duty in the South and they argued that they were not regulars and should be released from service. I call them Citizen Soldiers, the war is over time to go home.

No foreign units were used by either side. Although there were individuals from other nations who fought on both sides.

I suggest you read Bruce Catton's "Army of the Potomac
Trilogy."

link

Native Americans in the ACW is a rabbit hole of a topic. Mostly tribes in the west, from Oklahoma (Indian Territory) and fought for the Confederacy. At the same time, both the Confederacy and the Union had their wars against Native American tribes. Mostly in Colorado, Texas, and Minnesota. It's complicated.

Native Americans in the American Civil War:

link

The big difference is that volunteers were raised by the states, but they were then sworn in to federal service and thereafter (mostly) supplied by the federal government.
State raises them, swears them into federal service, hands them over.
Militia were raised by the states, BUT kept in state service and still in control by the state. Their ultimate commander was still the governor of the state. And they were supplied by the state. Most militia stuck to garrison duty and didn't see a lot of action. But some did. For instance, many of the Missouri state militia units at Westport in Missouri/Kansas had been fighting Confederate guerillas for years. They were by no means green/untested.

The information above covers things quite well. One thing should be noted, however, at the start of the war a number of state militia regiments (the better organized ones) were sworn into federal service just like the volunteer regiments (indeed they were considered state volunteers). The US Army learned its lesson about trying to mix militia with regulars during the War of 1812 where some militia refused to fight outside their own states and generally not take orders from regular officers, so during the Civil War all militia that wanted to fight were sworn into federal service and had to obey orders just like the regulars. As a result you will find some units which had two different designations, their old militia designation, and their new state volunteer designation.

Good point. Like the 14th Brooklyn/84th New York. The key, as you said, is that they were sworn into federal service just like volunteers.

I believe the native American units were within the Volunteer system.

The only similarity I see between the U.S. Volunteers and the militia was that both were raised by the states. Militia were state troops that might be called into service with the national government temporarily, but with the understanding they would be returned to the states once the emergency past. Volunteers once raised were, with a few exceptions, transferred to national service with no understanding they would be returned to the states as units. The Provisional Army of the Confederate States was a somewhat similar system in the C.S.A.

Made my comments under the wrong title, Regular CSA .
There is a difference between militia, volunteer, temporary companies and independent companies.
Militia were limited to deployment with the State and not allowed to leave. I recorded over 170 independent companies in Alabama. This did not count camp guard companies which were temporary. Men waiting to be mustered and sent to combat companies would join the cadre to form a camp guard reaction force. Yes some were classified as invalids.

Regardless of where raised or called, how well they performed was purely the combination of three things:

1. The knowledge, training and experience of the men.
2. The knowledge, training and experience of their leaders.
3. MOST importantly, how long have these men served under these leaders.

As an example, a "militia" unit probably drilled together under their officers where the men knew how good (or bad) their leaders were and the leaders knew who they could depend upon and those they would need additional "attention". That comes with time- it's not just a matter of throwing together a bunch of people to make up the numbers!

This concept can be applied to ANY period of war because while weapons systems/technology may be different, the above appies to the trigger puller and the leader's ability to keep the men operating as a whole. MAN is the common thread in all warfare and if one ignores that fact then how can you call a game "historical"? The value sets of "Green, Veteran, elite, etc. has always been a gamey thing and at best, values assigned based upon perceived performance- never really addressing the "Why were thay such rated?" question.

Just throwing that out because in some cases, some good militia units gets downgraded because they were "militia" in their name.

"…in some cases, some good militia units gets downgraded because they were "militia" in their name."

No doubt. Certainly a lot of units are overrated because someone put "Guard" in the name. But you can't individually research and rate each of hundreds or thousands of regiments--whose capabilities would change over time anyway.

I think it's an acceptable shorthand that three year volunteers are functionally regulars, and that not much should be expected of "90 day men" called up in response to some Confederate incursion. Yes, some are better than others, but that's why we play with dice.

Same thing with sharpshooters. Many companies both North and South put the word sharpshooters in their name, as well as bushwalkers, avengers, and Guards. This was done early in the war as it helped recruitment and morale. At the regimental level, only the U.S. Sharpshooters can legitimately be called sharpshooters.

OC is correct. Company nicknames did not reflect a unit or any special training.
In Alabama since that is the State I researched and wrote an article about, the name Sharpshooter was used 15 times, foresters, mountaineers and avengers, revenges were used as well. Blues 24, Grays 29, volunteers 22, Rangers 37, rifles 71, and the most used nickname was Guards with 156. Often a designator was attached like Montgomery's Foreign Guard or the Alabama Irish Guard which were independent companies.
Many mounted companies used Dragoons though one used Huzzars.

A book by Fred L Ray (not me): Shňck Troops of
The Confederacy: The Sharpshooter Battalions of The Army of Northern Virginia.

Dyer's Compendium of the Civil War lists all UNION regiments including the 90 day enlistments, where they fought, who they were attached to and regimental losses and indexed by state, date and muster in and out dates.

That and "Fox's Regimental Losses" 50 fightingest regiments is an interesting book as well. He categorizes by losses as being the 'fightingest". While used as an indicator it is flawed because losses can be spread over 4 years and dozens of actions. Yet, it is an authoritative read and reference.

OSPREY (WARRIOR 60), Sharpshooters of The American Civil War, 1861-1865 by Philip Katcher

@SeattleGamer
It's only the total absence of state identity that makes the difference.

Yes, with the volunteers, there was no uniform code, if possible, it was necessary to distinguish oneself.

Yes, the militiamen were rather peacetime weekend warriors, while the volunteers appear in wartime.

The militia does not necessarily bear the name of the state, but at least they were trained unlike the volunteers, many of whom had no prior military experience.

Yes, there was an Irish brigade and ethnic regiments that focused on the Germans, for example.

But these guys did not have American citizenship, so why were they raised?

@Old Contemptible
Yes, many, many state regiments were no longer volunteers but conscripts.

They were mostly volunteers at the beginning of the war, although many state regiments called themselves "volunteers" well after conscription was introduced, the label didn't make much sense.

But at first the federal government troops were professional soldiers (who were also volunteers since they are not conscripts…) and then they were conscripts?

And what about pay?

@Cleburne1863
They then took an oath to federal service which makes sense in a federation, but in a confederacy it's weird.

The militias don't take part in the big pitched battles?

But wouldn't they be some kind of german troops in germany made up of over-aged elements?

@ScottWashburn
Yes of course, the oath to federal service was to prevent certain militias from refusing to fight outside their own states and obey orders like the regulars and volunteers.

@donlowry
Me too.

@Bill N
They would be sent back to the states once the emergency was over?
It seems that was not the case!

@TimePortal
So the militia was limited to deployment in their state and was not allowed to leave it?

For me the name Sharpshooter should have been used by those using Sharps weapons.LOL.

TMP link

@Dye4minis
As I wrote above, the militia at least was normally drilled unlike the volunteers.

Even back then the word "militia" had a bad consonance as in the WWII?

@robert piepenbrink
Three-year volunteers are functionally regulars, if the contracts of US and CSA professional soldiers were also three years minimum.

@Old Contemptible
Yes in this kind of situation titles help with recruitment and morale.

At the military level, for me in the ACW, the tireurs d'élite (snipers) are rather those who used the first types of rifles with scopes (appeared during the Crimean War) but strangely this type of weapon was not generalized in these regiments.

In fact, they are rather elite skirmishers rather than snipers, which does not prevent them from stretching very well…

TMP link

@mahdi1ray
Thanks for the link.LOL.

@Dye4minis
Thanks for the link.LOL.

Militia in Alabama were limited to home state. Got complicated for widows and veterans seeking pensions. However that is another story. Lol. The Fort Williams, a town not fort, Cavalry company were activated a number of times in 1864-5. They were often responded to Union raids on the muster and supply camps in Talladega. At the end of the day, they would go home. One of their other duties was to patrol a specific stretch of the Coosa River. Several redoubts dotted the river to watch for Union river craft. These were manned by militia artillery crews.

The 1st and 2nd US Sharpshooters were unique (I think?) in that they were not state volunteers, they were "United States Volunteers" because their individual companies were recruited from a number of different states, unlike the usual state volunteers who were all from the same state.

"We Need Men:The Union Draft in the Civil War(University of North Carolina Studies)" by James Geary

My understanding is that only about 50,000 were actually drafted. States were given quotas and if enough volunteers were raised no need for conscription.

My great great grand father. Pinckney Robertson, was a replacement hired to replace a rich man's son. He got 400 acres to replace him. A dollar an acre or less back then. In the war he was captured and sent to the Illinois POW camp. After a few months, he was offered the chance to serve in the Union army or stay in prison. He chose to join and was assigned to a garrison around the Great Lakes. Having ex-POWs to serve a replace able bodied men for service at the front. It made pension claims confusing. His wife collected from the Federal and Alabama.

mahdi1ray: The effectiveness of the draft isn't limited to the number of men drafted. The existence of the draft provided an inducement for men to volunteer. A volunteer could collect bounties where a draftee could not.

Another point is that with black units being raised in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation the U.S. did not need to raise as many men from the white population. As with the Galvanized Yankees that TimePortal mentions it wasn't just the number of black units that saw combat that mattered. Black units could also take over garrison duty freeing up white units for combat.

"But these guys did not have American citizenship, so why were they raised?"

A misunderstanding on your part. They were raised because governments needed men to fight wars. No units were raised overseas. It was simply convenient for persons of common ethnic heritage to enlist in the same regiments--the more so when a language barrier was involved.

The US had very little by way of immigration law in 1860. The Irish and German regiments consisted of legal US residents capable of voting in US Elections, though Great-Grandfather Ernest (71st Indiana Volunteers) for instance, was born in Alsace and could not have run for President.

@Bill N: I was aware of all that before I made my post. I wanted to keep it brief.

@TimePortal
That's how I understand things, in my opinion the Fort Williams Cavalry Company was a "militia" unit, not "volunteers".

Compared to your great great grandfather, the Confederates who served the Yankees after being captured had a special name, Ah yes it's the Galvanized Yankees as BillN wrote!

Yes but the Galvanized Yankees did not go into combat except maybe against the Indians like in some westerns.

@ScottWashburn
Ah yes that's true we always have the impression that the he 1st and 2nd US Sharpshooters were units of the U.S. Army which was not the case…

@mahdi1ray
Conscription should have only concerned those who had American nationality if this concept existed at the time.

@Bill N
This is not the subject but in my opinion the effectiveness of conscription is limited only to the motivation of the men enlisted.

@robert piepenbrink
So if I understand Great-Grandfather Ernest of the 71st Indiana Volunteers being born in Alsace was a second-class citizen, because if he could be cut in two by a cannonball, he could not try to become president of the U.S.A.

I agree Fort Williams Cavalry would have been militia.
Considering his land is one benefit but having served in the Union army explains how he was able to keep the land after the Union and pro Union Reconstruction governments came around wanting back taxes paid.

Galvanized is ok with me. I am here after all. Getting a real history lesson my 90 year old mother sitting near me.
I did have a great uncle who left Alabama in 1860 and returned in 1866. He went to Arkansas and Oklahoma. Came back with a Quapaw or Muskogee wife depending on which family history that you are reading.
It is better than of of my friends great grandfather died after being captured in 1864.

@TimePortal
Yes it's better.

hi EEE ya, if not being eligible for the Presidency makes one a second class citizen, the country was and has always been full of them.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, Unchanged since the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Those not willing to live here on those terms are not obliged to come. Well, not since we gave up kidnapping people in 1808, anyway.

Amplifying. Notice that even the foreign-born were eligible if they were already here and state citizens. But "natural born citizen" clause made it impossible for a monarchist faction to make a scion of European royalty a US President as a starting point--there was talk of Prince Henry of Prussia--just as the "fourteen Years a Resident" meant no one could slip in a person born here but raised overseas and a foreigner in terms of national loyalty, and familiarity with our ways and customs.
The day any immigrant enters the country he is permitted life, liberty and property as thoroughly as though his ancestors came on the Mayflower. He can speak and write without restriction, form contracts and buy land. The day he is awarded citizenship he can vote, be on a jury, enlist in the Army or run for any number of local offices. I have yet to hear a new American of any description feel that he was a "second class citizen" because he had to be a citizen seven years to be a US Representative, nine to be a Senator and leave Presidential ambitions to his children.

Or are the majority of soldiers "second class citizens" because while they can be killed in action, few of them are old enough to run for President?

@robert piepenbrink
But I bet there are countries where it would be an automatic explosion if such a law existed.

We would call it segregation, that's all…

But I don't mind and this is not the original subject of this topic….

OH, nonsense hi EEE ya. You were the one who brought it up. Look up "segregation" some time, and find out what it really is. Then when you're done, try to find an Alsatian King, Emperor, President or Prime Minister of France.

@Robert Piepenbrink
Oh, whatever Robert,the U.S.A. has always been a republic and a democracy, so it is indeed a "segregation".

The two situations are not comparable try to find an Alsatian in one of the royal dynasties of France, if a noble family from Alsace had been able to impose itself in the Middle Ages, we could have had Alsatian kings in France…

President or Prime Minister of France?

Where did you see that an Alsatian could not become President or Prime Minister of the French Republic?

If Monsieur Robert Piepenbrink became a French citizen he could try right away to become President of this Republic without problems or hope to be appointed right away(Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected) Prime Minister but not me in your country if I got American citizenship.

What are you trying to do? Get his attention when he decided not to respond to you?

Thank you Cleburne. And this is me not responding, because

Militia were limited to deployment with the State and not allowed to leave.

Maybe in some states, but certainly not in all. The first Northern troops to reach Washington after Lincoln's call were militia regiments, such as the 6th Mass. and the 7th N.Y.

@@donlowry
At least the militia was normally well trained before the start of hostilities.

You know, hi EEE ya, I'm still waiting for that list of Alsatians who actually attained your highest political offices. Our rules permit people 5' 2" to play professional basketball, but sensible ones find another occupation.

And actually look up segregation some time.

If no Alsatians have reached the highest political positions in France (actually I don't know since I don't care) it is certainly not because they were Alsatians.

I didn't mean segregation, but rather discrimination and you understood me very well.

Now if a Piepenbrink became a French citizen he could try right away to become President of the French Republic without problems or hope to be appointed right away (Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected) Prime Minister but not an Alsatian in your country if he obtained American nationality.

hi EEE ya, the only place Alsatians are welcome to hold in France is individual plots in military cemeteries. Vicious cultural prejudice trumps a purely legal equality of opportunity. I don't think it works out any better for Basques or Corsicans. Neither Great-great Grandfather nor any of his descendants ever expressed any surprise or regret that the family would have to wait until the next generation to be eligible for the highest political office in their new homeland. We aren't politically ambitious, and anyway in France we'd still be waiting.

Of course the US keeps actually admitting foreigners. At peak cycle ten percent or more of the US population is foreign-born or their children. Any idea what the equivalent number would be over French history?