SUVCW-L Archives

Archiver > SUVCW > 2007-12 > 1198257195


From: "gdy2shosflthybst" <>
Subject: Re: [SUVCW] Southern Unionists in NC
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:13:15 -0500
References: <20071220.085144.4092.0.trightmy@juno.com><8CA113F278760E9-91C-5707@webmail-da08.sysops.aol.com>


Brother Moore,

I think that we should judge this by a preponderance of the evidence. You
are correct that being in a voluteer regiment could have been the result of
coersion on some level. So we do need to look at other things such as
service records and pension records and quite possible the service record
before making a determination about whether someone "voluntarily" bore arms
against the US.

Eric Peterson
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 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

This thread: