"Conscription in the ACW" Topic

Hello everyone,
As for the Yankees, it seems that the unpopularity of the enlistment bill was such that ninety-eight federal recruiting agents were killed in four months!

It seems that it was better accepted by the rebels, were they more motivated?

It was not better accepted. It was unenforceable any many governments (state and county) enacted legislation that exempted many from it.

I would agree with Rakkasan. It was a serious problem in the South. It helped create gangs of men hiding out in mountains, swamps and other regions in the South along with deserters. The CSA had to, at times, send units from the army to hunt them down. Certain state governors would organize larger state militias that men could join to avoid the draft.

Agreed. Conscription is usually a way of making someone else go to war, and the Confederacy didn't have the strong central authority--and national police--to make it work well in thinly populated areas which didn't think much of "guvmint" anyway. In the North, it was often a way to get Germans and Irish to go to war--or pay whopping big sums for substitutes. There were a lot of complaints about the lotteries being rigged.

Mind you, I don't think either opposition or the cost of substitutes reached the levels of 1814 France in Confederacy or Union.

I don't know about the other confederate states, but our beloved governor in North Carolina fought conscription tooth and nail.

@Rakkasan
It was no better accepted than in the Union, I wouldn't have believed it.

@Grattan54
It's incredible I would have thought that the rebels were more patriotic than the Yankees.

@robert piepenbrink
Money is the motivation, conscripts cost less than volunteers.

"I would have thought that the rebels were more patriotic than the Yankees."

May I ask why? And many of the southerners who resisted Confederate conscription were highly patriotic--loyal to the nation, flag and constitution under which they were raised, not to a rebel government in Richmond. The ACW is a study in conflicting loyalties.

As for conscripts costing less than volunteers--after the first year or so of a war--this is not news, and very much not the point.

Please note that "Yankee" as a generic for northerners is very much a Confederate thing--and meant as an insult. Neither my father's people--Indiana Volunteers--or my mother's in Pennsylvania would have considered themselves such. Yankees live in New England.

Men who elect to go to war are patriotic regardless of which side they serve.

The Confederacy instituted conscription before the Union did. It exempted slave labor overseers and skilled workers. The legislature passed three conscription acts. Each one expanded the age limit and the hiring of substitutes was abolished in April 1862.

It wasn't popular. Several states passed legislation against it; in addition to simply hiding, draftees violently resisted conscription officers of the Confederate government, mirroring similar disputes in the North. By 1864, the Southern draft had become virtually unenforceable.

Many saw it as a patriotic duty to oppose the draft. They saw it as the antithesis of what the Confederacy stood for. They saw it as yet another central government trouncing the rights of states and individuals.

"If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory." – Jeff Davis

I disagree with that but there is a kernel of truth there.

@robert piepenbrink
If you prefer let's say motivated rather than patriotic.

I always thought that the rebels were more cheerful and more motivated than the Yankees to wage war at least at the beginning.

Yes you are right originally and even now Yankees should only concern those living in New England.

But now Yankee is a generic term that allows us to know very well who and what era we are talking about.

Now nowadays it still seems to be sometimes used by those who would hate the federals, see the Americans, which is not my case.

For conscription, it seems that in the 19th century it was not yet in the customs of the Anglo-Saxons.

@TimePortal
Yes

@Old Contemptible
Volunteering is freedom and as I wrote above
"For conscription, it seems that in the 19th century it was not yet part of the customs of the Anglo-Saxons".

Now without conscription the armies would have had another appearance and the operations would have taken another turn.

I wouldn't say the South was more motivated. The North saw the war as a war to save the Union. It was tied heavily into patriotism, near worship of Founding Father's, belief that God had ordained the US and the South was trying to destroy that.

In doing my research for my game in deciding how to handle these various "political actions" by both sides I was surprised by what I found.
Depending on who you believe the amount of men that fought for both sides that were drafted only represented 10%-15% of the total force and apparently those numbers remained fairly constant throughout the war.
As others have suggested the drafts were not very popular or successful on either side. I think perhaps the perception of it being more unpopular in the north may be because of all the violence and burning that took place in New York City that by perception paints a more dramatic picture?????

@Grattan54
And how did the South see this as a war of independence?

@gamer1
I rather believe that in the 19th century, conscription was not in the genes of the Anglo-Saxons as it was in continental Europe.

Yes, I also have seen many comments about it being a war of independence. Mostly rhetoric for boasting opinion for status arguments such as in the separation debate and recruiting. We call it propaganda today. Secession was Not a foregone collusion in several States. Split Virginia and other States had strong pockets of pro-Union sentiment throughout the war.

The state of Tennessee had conscription in early '62, before the Confederacy as a whole.

Once the Confederacy adopted it, every man not exempted who could be reached was conscripted. In the North they were only registered, and then a lottery (draft) chose however many were needed out of those.

Hi EEE,

The South viewed it thru the lenses of the American Revolution. They felt it was a new war of independence.
They believed they were more inline with the Founding Fathers view of America.

@TimePortal
Yes, I've read that often, but since they wanted to separate from the Union, it was indeed a war of independence. On the other hand, calling the war of independence a "Revolution", I don't agree, it is also a war of independence.

A revolution is what happened several times in France.

@donlowry
The state of Tennessee implemented conscription because it was cheaper than volunteering?

@Grattan54
They thought it was a new war of independence?

They thought they were more in line with the founding fathers' vision of America?

TMP link

Yes, Southerner politicians and editors, when secession and then the war started, often spoke of a new revolution. A new war of Independence from the North. Often framed within the need to protect slavery and the Southern way of life. Also, that the South was reflecting the views of the Founding Fathers. Now, the North also believe they were defending the Father Father's view of the US.

The state of Tennessee implemented conscription because it was cheaper than volunteering?

Because the Confederate army in Tennessee needed more troops than volunteered.

@Grattan54
Yes, I see it that way too, a new war of independence this time against the North due to their need to protect their way of life.

@donlowry
The Confederate army in Tennessee needed more troops and couldn't find enough volunteers? Weird.

Which Confederate states participated the least "proportionally"?

Yes. It also a different way of seeing the US. The North was moving forward. Urbanization, Industry, blended economy, rise of industrial capitalism. Their views on society, economy, government were changing. They looked to the future.

The South looked to the past. There had been some changes in the south but it was still heavily traditional agriculture, wealth based on land and slaves. Their views, they felt, were thus more inline with those of the Founding Father's.

" @donlowry
The Confederate army in Tennessee needed more troops and couldn't find enough volunteers? Weird."

Why is it "weird"? Why should a Tennessee lad want to volunteer to fight for the "rich plantation owners"?
Why should he volunteer to fight for something he doesn't care about?
Why did men of my generation have to be drafted to fight in Vietnam? I can't recall a single reason to justify the war.

There was actually a very strong pro-Union sentiment in eastern Tennessee. Tennessee's nickname is the Volunteer State. And that was for both sides.

@Grattan54
Yes. That's what I wrote elsewhere:
Slavery is not the only cause.

There were so many differences between the South and the North that even without slavery, war could have finally broken out later?

No, the war was over slavery. Every major event from 1848 to 1861 dealt in some way with slavery. Massive amounts of editorials, speeches and sermons from southern leaders dealt with the need to protect slavery and have it expand. Political parties formed over the issue of slavery. The secession ordinances list the reasons why the various slaves states left the union. Virtually everyone dealt with slavery. The VP of the Confederacy said the slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. That was the issue that brought the war. Without slavery there would never have been a civil war.

@Grattan54
Without slavery, there would never have been a civil war?

Because without slavery,the South would have been industrialized like the North?

There would not have been the development of commercial agriculture. Thus, yes, the South would have looked more like the north economically. There likely still would have been some differences but nothing that would have brought a war.

@Grattan54
But it's not just the economy, there are also "cultural" reasons, that is to say the way of life,that kind of thing,et cætera…

Yes, but the cultural views were shaped by having slavery which impacted the south economically, socially and culturally. Remove slavery and these cultural attitudes change.

@Grattan54
Exactly, the cultural views were shaped by having slavery which impacted the south economically, socially and culturally.

We don't get out…