SUVCW-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] SUVCW Digest, Vol 1, Issue 145
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:32:16 -0500
References: <mailman.38838.1198188133.4585.suvcw@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.38838.1198188133.4585.suvcw@rootsweb.com>

Dear Brothers - I can suggest that the same kind of restriction exists for the Sons of the American Revolution.? We do have members in SAR?whose ancestors were initially members of the British Forces in America, were captured and then served with the Patriot Forces and Continental Army.?Many of these were Hessians.?The key to supporting the American cause in the American Revolution is where they ended up, not where they started.? I would think that the same kind of logic might be used in judging SUVCW membership.?

Hank McCarl
Camp 104
SUVCW Dept of Massachusetts

President General (2004-2005)
National Society of the Sons of the American?Revolution
?







-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 4:02 pm
Subject: SUVCW Digest, Vol 1, Issue 145





Today's Topics:

1. Re: Southern Unionists in NC (Thomas Rightmyer)
2. Re: Southern Unionists in NC ()
3. Re: Southern Unionists in NC ()
4. Re: Southern Unionists in NC (Thomas Rightmyer)
5. Re: Southern Unionists in NC ()


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:51:44 -0500
From: Thomas Rightmyer <>
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
To:
Cc:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

One question that occurs to me is how the SUVCW now interprets
"never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States
of America."

There are a number of people in Western NC whose ancestors served
in the Union Army after having previously served in the Confederate Army.
I think that the history of the area included a lot of legal and social
coercion as well as a lot of resistance to secession and the secession
governments.

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:47:34 -0500
From:
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
To:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


I agree. There are several situations where I have seen former Confederates don
blue uniforms. What makes the "Never voluntarily borne arms" thing so tricky is
that Confederate military records are incredibly incomplete and unclear. We
cannot, today, in every situation, look at a Confederate veteran and truly tell
if he was a true volunteer or was coerced in some way. Likewise, it should be
taken into consideration that coercion can be defined from many different angles
- subtle, blatant, real or implied. What might a man expect for his family and
the way they were treated if he did not go willingly - then, after he had gone
off to war, how in the world would that man feel comfortable about his family if
he was taken from his home by conscript hunters? Would he not worry a great deal
about how they were treated by the more hardcore Confederates? Therefore, even
though one may have been at odds with the idea of a Southern Confederacy,
certainly, coming from close-knit commun!
ities, it may have been more sensible to "volunteer."? It's just incredible to
try and figure out all of the trials that these people went through and I think
that needs to be given consideration when looking at potential members.

For example, the Page County men who served in the 2nd Co. M, 62nd Va. Mtd.
Infantry are shown as having "enlisted," therefore making it sound like it was
of their own free will. However, if one looks deep enough,? they would find it
not at all the case. Most of that company is shown as having enlisted around May
4, 1864 - what is really unusual about it is that the town in which they
enlisted was not even in Page County, but in Upperville, Va. On top of that,
from March - April 1864, reports had made their way to Union officers that there
was a heavy concentration of conscripts in the Luray jail. It all makes sense,
considering the CSA had just passed the third conscription act, expanding
eligibility to encompass all males age 17-50. Looking in the Southern Loyalist
Claims records, I found that several men were doing all they could to hide from
the conscript officers at this time. Additionally, I found two 17 year old boys
who fled the county, evading conscript hunters and !
ended up enlisting in the 11th Pa. Cav. So, in essence, though records show
that these men (and boys) "enlisted," they were anything but "volunteering" to
bear arms against the US.

Take that back to 1861 when dealing with the militia, there is an entirely
different ball of wax to deal with. Like I said in one of my posts, Virginia,
essentially, made its first conscription in April 1861, well before any
conscription acts were passed by the CSA. Men were in the ranks of the militia -
and many were not there of their own free will.? I have seen men do everything
they could to stay out of military service - where jobs were plentiful before
the war in the iron ore industry, for example, by the spring of 1862, they were
hard to come by because it gave men an out - an exemption - from serving in the
military. Many men were doing everything they could to find exemptions in the
South - as is evident in the way that the conscription department was called, by
some, "the exemptions department." Therefore, where in the world was this
unified spirit, in the South, back then that so many make claim to today. It is
yet another form of mythology in itself. It has becom!
e ok to hate any idea of affiliation with Yankees - even though (though they
may not realize it) ones ancestor may have been a Unionist or a Union soldier!

We have one member in our camp whose ancestor fell into the "former Confederate
ancestor" category. He was in the 97th Va. Militia in 1861, but? ended up in the
143rd Pa. Infantry (after having fled Va. and? settling in Pa as a war refugee,
he was actually conscripted by the US!). Anyway, he served faithfully in the
143rd and was wounded near North Anna in May 1864. In years after the war, his
pension application was denied, though he said very clearly that he had not
borne arms voluntarily - eventually, the pension was allowed.

So, this rule about "never voluntarily having borne arms against the US" is a
difficult one with which to deal in regard to SUVCW membership. While it is
rather a hard and firm rule, loyalties from the war were not as hard and firm,
but were very fluid and, in many cases, hard to accurately assess, especially
now, over 145 years after the war. The best thing I can think of is that, at
least for now,? the pensions should help guide the final decision on membership
in the SUVCW. If the pension was allowed, then it was an endorsement in regard
to what the veteran was saying - that he never bore arms against the US.

Yet another difficult one to assess would be the service of those who
"galvanized" in order to get out of POW camps. A lot of these men served
faithfully on the frontier - I think a close look should be made in regard to
pension applications submitted from these men to see how they were considered by
the US government.

Robert Moore
Cdr., Camp #1881
?



One question that occurs to me is how the SUVCW now interprets
"never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States
of America."

There are a number of people in Western NC whose ancestors served
in the Union Army after having previously served in the Confederate Army.
I think that the history of the area included a lot of legal and social
coercion as well as a lot of resistance to secession and the secession
governments.

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC











-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rightmyer <>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 8:51 am
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC










One question that occurs to me is how the SUVCW now interprets
"never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States
of America."

There are a number of people in Western NC whose ancestors served
in the Union Army after having previously served in the Confederate Army.
I think that the history of the area included a lot of legal and social
coercion as well as a lot of resistance to secession and the secession
governments.

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC



The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW) list received the blessing
of National in July 2007. It was established in January 2007 to assist in
disseminating information and seeking assistance to members, associates, and
potential members who have an interest in the SUVCW, GAR, the people and events
of the period of the War Between the States.

The opinions expressed and information provided in messages are those of
individuals and are not necessarily the official opinions, views or beliefs of
any Camp, Department or National SUVCW.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:00:59 -0500
From:
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
To:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm not sure where the confusion arises over this issue.? The position of the
SUVCW is straight froward.? If anyone in the line of descent or the veteran
voluntary took up arms against the United States government then that ancestor
cannot be used to establish eligibility.? As with any hereditary organization
and we are a hereditary order, the burden of proof is on the applicant.? Since
this requirement for membership is in our Congressional Charter, we must rely on
the Federal Court rulings as to "voluntarily borne arms against the government
of the United States."?

In addition to Federal pensions, membership in the GAR has been accepted as
proof of non-voluntary service in the Confederate army or navy.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC




I agree. There are several situations where I have seen former Confederates don

blue uniforms. What makes the "Never voluntarily borne arms" thing so tricky is
that Confederate military records are incredibly incomplete and unclear. We
cannot, today, in every situation, look at a Confederate veteran and truly tell
if he was a true volunteer or was coerced in some way. Likewise, it should be
taken into consideration that coercion can be defined from many different angles

- subtle, blatant, real or implied. What might a man expect for his family and
the way they were treated if he did not go willingly - then, after he had gone
off to war, how in the world would that man feel comfortable about his family if

he was taken from his home by conscript hunters? Would he not worry a great deal

about how they were treated by the more hardcore Confederates? Therefore, even
though one may have been at odds with the idea of a Southern Confederacy,
certainly, coming from close-knit commun!
ities, it may have been more sensible to "volunteer."? It's just incredible to
try and figure out all of the trials that these people went through and I think
that needs to be given consideration when looking at potential members.

For example, the Page County men who served in the 2nd Co. M, 62nd Va. Mtd.
Infantry are shown as having "enlisted," therefore making it sound like it was
of their own free will. However, if one looks deep enough,? they would find it
not at all the case. Most of that company is shown as having enlisted around May

4, 1864 - what is really unusual about it is that the town in which they
enlisted was not even in Page County, but in Upperville, Va. On top of that,
from March - April 1864, reports had made their way to Union officers that there

was a heavy concentration of conscripts in the Luray jail. It all makes sense,
considering the CSA had just passed the third conscription act, expanding
eligibility to encompass all males age 17-50. Looking in the Southern Loyalist
Claims records, I found that several men were doing all they could to hide from
the conscript officers at this time. Additionally, I found two 17 year old boys
who fled the county, evading conscript hunters and !
ended up enlisting in the 11th Pa. Cav. So, in essence, though records show
that these men (and boys) "enlisted," they were anything but "volunteering" to
bear arms against the US.

Take that back to 1861 when dealing with the militia, there is an entirely
different ball of wax to deal with. Like I said in one of my posts, Virginia,
essentially, made its first conscription in April 1861, well before any
conscription acts were passed by the CSA. Men were in the ranks of the militia -

and many were not there of their own free will.? I have seen men do everything
they could to stay out of military service - where jobs were plentiful before
the war in the iron ore industry, for example, by the spring of 1862, they were
hard to come by because it gave men an out - an exemption - from serving in the
military. Many men were doing everything they could to find exemptions in the
South - as is evident in the way that the conscription department was called, by

some, "the exemptions department." Therefore, where in the world was this
unified spirit, in the South, back then that so many make claim to today. It is
yet another form of mythology in itself. It has becom!
e ok to hate any idea of affiliation with Yankees - even though (though they
may not realize it) ones ancestor may have been a Unionist or a Union soldier!

We have one member in our camp whose ancestor fell into the "former Confederate
ancestor" category. He was in the 97th Va. Militia in 1861, but? ended up in the

143rd Pa. Infantry (after having fled Va. and? settling in Pa as a war refugee,
he was actually conscripted by the US!). Anyway, he served faithfully in the
143rd and was wounded near North Anna in May 1864. In years after the war, his
pension application was denied, though he said very clearly that he had not
borne arms voluntarily - eventually, the pension was allowed.

So, this rule about "never voluntarily having borne arms against the US" is a
difficult one with which to deal in regard to SUVCW membership. While it is
rather a hard and firm rule, loyalties from the war were not as hard and firm,
but were very fluid and, in many cases, hard to accurately assess, especially
now, over 145 years after the war. The best thing I can think of is that, at
least for now,? the pensions should help guide the final decision on membership
in the SUVCW. If the pension was allowed, then it was an endorsement in regard
to what the veteran was saying - that he never bore arms against the US.

Yet another difficult one to assess would be the service of those who
"galvanized" in order to get out of POW camps. A lot of these men served
faithfully on the frontier - I think a close look should be made in regard to
pension applications submitted from these men to see how they were considered by

the US government.

Robert Moore
Cdr., Camp #1881
?



One question that occurs to me is how the SUVCW now interprets
"never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States
of America."

There are a number of people in Western NC whose ancestors served
in the Union Army after having previously served in the Confederate Army.
I think that the history of the area included a lot of legal and social
coercion as well as a lot of resistance to secession and the secession
governments.

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC











-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rightmyer <>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 8:51 am
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC










One question that occurs to me is how the SUVCW now interprets
"never voluntarily borne arms against the Government of the United States
of America."

There are a number of people in Western NC whose ancestors served
in the Union Army after having previously served in the Confederate Army.
I think that the history of the area included a lot of legal and social
coercion as well as a lot of resistance to secession and the secession
governments.

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC



The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW) list received the blessing
of National in July 2007. It was established in January 2007 to assist in
disseminating information and seeking assistance to members, associates, and
potential members who have an interest in the SUVCW, GAR, the people and events
of the period of the War Between the States.

The opinions expressed and information provided in messages are those of
individuals and are not necessarily the official opinions, views or beliefs of
any Camp, Department or National SUVCW.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to


with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW) list received the blessing
of National in July 2007. It was established in January 2007 to assist in
disseminating information and seeking assistance to members, associates, and
potential members who have an interest in the SUVCW, GAR, the people and events
of the period of the War Between the States.

The opinions expressed and information provided in messages are those of
individuals and are not necessarily the official opinions, views or beliefs of
any Camp, Department or National SUVCW.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:39:58 -0500
From: Thomas Rightmyer <>
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
To:
Cc:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Thank you. Bsides federal pension or GAR membership are there
other ways to demonstrate that Confederate service was not vountary?

Merry Christmas! Tom Rightmyer Asheville,
NC


On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:00:59 -0500 writes:
> I'm not sure where the confusion arises over this issue.? The
> position of the SUVCW is straight froward.? If anyone in the line of
> descent or the veteran voluntary took up arms against the United
> States government then that ancestor cannot be used to establish
> eligibility.? As with any hereditary organization and we are a
> hereditary order, the burden of proof is on the applicant.? Since
> this requirement for membership is in our Congressional Charter, we
> must rely on the Federal Court rulings as to "voluntarily borne arms
> against the government of the United States."?
>
> In addition to Federal pensions, membership in the GAR has been
> accepted as proof of non-voluntary service in the Confederate army
> or navy.
>
> Rich Orr
>


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:01:16 EST
From:
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
To:
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"


I can appreciate the manner in which this rule was made - originally -
however, recent historical works are proving things to the contrary and opening
up
possibilities that would allow for an expanded range of members. Ultimately,
if the enthusiasm is in an applicant to join and participate, and his
ancestor is one of those who would come int question, then greater
consideration
should be considered given other evidence that gives enough evidence that would

allow that person to join as a regular member. This should not in any way
infringe on details of the Congressional charter. Yes, the position of the
SUVCW is straightforward, but it can also be misconstrued by those who might be

led to think they cannot join simply because of the ancestor formerly being a
Confederate soldier. Yes, the burden of proof is on an applicant, but reading
this the way it is right now, there is no indication that there are any
"but, in these cases, the exception applies," rules.

In this rule, I also sense a postwar frustration in this rule that is a
spin-off of immediate postwar animosity.

Robert Moore
Cdr., Camp #1881



In a message dated 12/20/2007 2:03:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

I'm not sure where the confusion arises over this issue.? The position of
the SUVCW is straight froward.? If anyone in the line of descent or the veteran

voluntary took up arms against the United States government then that
ancestor cannot be used to establish eligibility.? As with any hereditary
organization and we are a hereditary order, the burden of proof is on the
applicant.?
Since this requirement for membership is in our Congressional Charter, we
must rely on the Federal Court rulings as to "voluntarily borne arms against
the
government of the United States."?

In addition to Federal pensions, membership in the GAR has been accepted as
proof of non-voluntary service in the Confederate army or navy.

Rich Orr







**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


------------------------------



End of SUVCW Digest, Vol 1, Issue 145
*************************************


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

This thread:

• Re: [SUVCW] SUVCW Digest, Vol 1, Issue 145 by