I found an adequate number of primary and secondary resources in print and on line that explore the history of conscription in the Civil War. James Geary’s We Need Men and Eugene Murdock’s One Million Men The Civil War Draft in the North were the most thorough works on the Civil War draft in the North. Geary’s work contains comparison of the terms of conscription for the North and South. An article by John Sacher, “A very disagreeable business”: Confederate Conscription in Louisiana (Civil War History 6/1/2007) deals explicitly with how people from Louisiana dealt with the Confederacy’s Conscription Act of 1862. For information about drafts in subsequent conflicts in United States history, I found that many of the on line encyclopedias gave adequate overviews of the draft. I will use this information in orienting students for their group research projects following my unit activities regarding the Civil War. For the debate on whether conscription or national service would best serve the United States today, I have read William Galston’s argument for conscription and Robert Fullwinder’s essay against conscription from the Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly of the University of Maryland (Summer 2003). These articles make excellent reading material for teachers and higher level readers.
Geary and Murdock organize the material in their books into subject specific chapters that are more than less chronologically ordered according to developments regarding the war and fielding armies to fight the war. I see this as helpful in assigning readings for class work and homework. Despite exploring the same issues, each work is unique. Geary’s more concise chapters give him the edge for allocating class reading assignments. However, Murdock goes into more detail on the corruption of the bounty system, particularly as the price of bounties escalated in the last two years of the war. Overall, both works are informative and critical reviews of the draft. Each work traces the historical development of the draft in the Civil War and offers in-depth analysis of characteristics of the affects of the draft. Each work differentiates national conscription in the Civil War from the volunteer system that preceded it. Both authors also explain the shortcoming of the bounty system which was put in place to attract volunteers throughout the war and the ineffectiveness of 1862 Militia Act. They also explain how quotas were issued for given communities through enrollment boards led by provost marshals, how substitution worked at times and places in the war, and how the $ 300 commutation was established and later removed in order to attract more men. Both also describe, with displeasure, the negative affects of having ‘jumpers’ sign up for service in order to collect a bounty only to jump to another recruiter in order to seek a second bounty. Both attribute this practice to the rapidly inflating bounties put in place by the federal government in the last two years of the war.
While Geary’s work and Murdock’s work reveal the shortcomings of the first national draft, they also establish an historical context by which the first national draft is implemented. The national draft in their view is an imperfect attempt at improving the inadequate system of volunteerism that precedes it. The war was dragging on, volunteer enlistments were ending, military victories were far from apparent, and quotas for new enlistments and re-enlistments dropped as enthusiasm for the fight slowed. This is a primary difference from other resources I found, where critique of the draft is rooted in arguments that the draft discriminated on the basis of economic ability to pay the commutation fee of $ 300. To many modern day critics of the draft, the commutation fee was seen as a buy out option that only the rich could afford. Indeed, $ 300 was three fourths of a year’s salary for many workers in 1863. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the argument that conscription in principal may still be fundamentally wrong, the historical evidence presented by Murdock, Sacher, and Geary suggest that the commutation fee with a substitution policy was more humane than not having a commutation fee. Murdock cites the debates in Congress which shape the Enrollment Act to argue that commutation was added for two primary reasons: to stem runaway inflation of black market substitution fees and to give freedom-loving people or unwilling draftees a way out.
16
Sacher cites examples of financial deals in the Confederacy where substitutes were able to negotiate payments of $ 2500 or more to take the place of those drafted.
17
Geary argues that the commutation fee “was less a cause than a catalyst” in areas that were the most resistant to the draft. These were Democratic areas among the foreign-born and working classes. He states that the “basis for their objections emanated from racial animosity, general dissatisfaction with the Lincoln administration, and discontent with employers who sought to employ federal authority against their interests.
18
He challenges the notion that the commutation fee priced the poor and working class out of the commutation alternative to fighting. He cites a host of community and family initiatives designed to raise money to pay each other’s fee should a family or society member be drafted.
19
Resources in Print
Anbinder, Tyler. “Which Poor Man’s Fight? Immigrants and the Federal Conscription of 1863”. Civil War History. Ohio: Kent University Press, 2006
The author concludes that native born laborers, especially those from rural areas, not immigrants as often presumed, were the most disproportionately drafted men in the Civil War. The essay lists data of men drafted in various northern cities.
Bernstein, Iver. The New York City Draft Riots Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Cruz, Barbara and Patterson, Jennifer Marques. “In the Midst of Strange and Terrible Times: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863.” Social Education. 1/1/2005
This is an historical essay about the New York City Draft Riots.
Danzer, Gerald A., Klo de Alva, J. Jorgee, Krieger, Larry S., Wilson, Louis E., Woloch, Nancy. The Americans Unit Three Recruiting Poster p.48 In-Depth Resources. Evanston, Illinois: McDougal Littell, 1998.
This primary source copy of a Union recruiting poster from the Granger Collection in New York can be used as visual aid. The poster appears to offer multiple incentives to African Americans freed by the Emancipation Proclamation to join the Union army.
Fish, Russell. “Conscription in the Civil War.” The American Historical Review, Vol.21, No. 1 (Oct., 1915), pp. 100-103
Fullinwinder, Robert. “Conscription-No”
Philosphy &Public Policy Quarterly
The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. School of Public Affairs University of Maryland Volume 23 Number 3 (Summer 2003)
This essay highlights some of the arguments against conscription/national service.
Galston, William. “A Sketch of Some Arguments for Conscription”
Philosphy &Public Policy Quarterly
The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. School of Public Affairs University of Maryland Volume 23 Number 3 (Summer 2003)
This essay highlights some of the arguments for conscription/national service.
Geary, James. We Need Men. The Union Draft in the Civil War. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1991
Harris, Leslie M. “The New York City Draft Riots of 1863” An excerpt from In the Shadow of Slavery. African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863. New York
Hauptman, Laurence. “John E. Wool and the New York City Draft Riots of 1863: A Reassessment” Civil War History, Vol. 49, 2003.
Murdock, Eugene. One Million Men The Civil War Draft in the North: Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1971
Murdock’s first chapter, The System (p.3-25) gives a concise history of the draft in the Civil War. Topics of his analysis include volunteerism, bounties, The Militia Act of 1862, and the Enrollment Act of 1863. A brief comparison to the Confederate Conscription Act is provided. This would make good content specific reading for the unit.
Sacher, John. “A Very Disagreeable Business: Confederate Conscription in Louisiana.” Civil War History June 1, 2007
This essay examines conscription in the Confederacy, particularly in Louisiana.
Stone, Geoffrey. Perilous Times. Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism: New York. W.W. Norton and Company, 2004.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977
Web-based Resources
Abraham Lincoln Papers Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
The collection hosts a number of letters to and from Lincoln regarding the Conscription Act of 1863.
Bandow, Doug. “Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Personal Choice”
Cato Policy Report, March/April 1999 Vol.21, No. 2
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/draft.html
This is a concise rebuttal of arguments for contemporary conscription. Written before 9/11, it might best be used to see if its arguments hold weight in the post 9/11-post Iraq/Afghanistan invasion world.
“Chronology of Conscription in the U.S. Colonial Era to 1999” from the American History Teacher’s Book of Lists. Listed on TeacherVision
http://www.teachervision.fen.com/us-history/resource/5669.html
Devon, W.A. “When this Cruel Draft is Over” War Lyrics p. 26 1864
http://books.google.com/books?id=G4TFQIuHgs4C&dq=inpublisher:%22Sinclair+Tousey%22
Ellison, David. “The Civil War Draft at Plover and Stevens Point. A Study in Efforts, Attitudes, Frustrations and Results.” Portage County Historical Society of Wisconsin
http://www.pchswi.org/archives/misc/cwdraft.html
“The Good War and Those that Refused to Fight It”. PBS http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/story.html
The PBS site explores the example of the 40,000 men and women who did not answer the call to fight in World War II.
Gill, Kathy. “Military Conscription, Recruiting and the Draft.” About.com March 31 2007
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/draft_4.htm?p=1
This is a concise overview of conscription in U.S. history. It includes basic arguments for and against having a modern draft.
Harper, Douglas. “Conscription” 2002
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm
This essay discusses the reactions of confederate and union soldiers to conscription. It postulates that the South would have been better off if it had employed conscription from the onset of the fighting.
Huntington, Gary. Vietnam War Statistics
http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm#Statistics%20and%20Myths
This portion of a site hosted by the 15
th
Field Artillery Regiment offers statistical data in the format of debunking popular myths about the Vietnam War. The site reports 86% of casualties were Caucasian and that 25% of the fighting force was drafted as opposed to 66% in WWII. It does not offer any compelling evidence that the majority of draftees were not low to middle class Americans.
Meier, Michael T. “Civil War Draft Records and Exemptions” National Archives
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1994/winter/civil-war-draft-records.html
“New York Draft Riots”
http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm
This encyclopedia-like entry is part of an extensive Civil War database that may be hosted by LSU.
“Northern Racism and the New York Draft Riots of 1863” UMBC Center for History Education Teaching American History Lesson Plan
http://asp1.umbc.edu/newmedia/sites/chetah/lessondisplay.cfm?lesson=37&heading=3
“Provost Marshall General-The Conscription Act” New York Times, March 20, 1863.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9902E7DD143CE63ABC4851DFB5668388679FDE
NY Times Article dated March 20, 1863 that describes the probable terms of the Conscription Act signed by Lincoln on March 3, 1863. The article names Buell as the Provost Marshall General and calls the inclusion of substitution and the $ 300 commutation options humane. The story ends with the line “There is little doubt of the success of the plan”
Selective Service website of the United States government.http://www.sss.gov/
One can register for the selective service from this website hosted by the United States government. The site contains faq’s regarding registration and the rules of a draft.
Smoler, Frederic. “On Conscription” American Heritage Blog. September 17, 2006
http://www.americanheritage.com/blog/20069_17_447.shtml
This posting appears to be in response to a New York Times Editorial that was previously published. It discusses conscription historically and disagrees with the prevailing notion that conscript armies would make war less likely today.
Steam, Tom. “The Case for Conscription” History Today. April 2008 Volume: 58 Issue: 4 Page 12-22
http://www.historytoday.com/PrintableVersion.aspx?m=32604
The article examines the case for conscription in Edwardian Britain in the face of German militarism.
VFW Magazine and the Public Information Office,
HQ CP Forward Observer -1st Recon
April 12, 1997.
http://www.rolling-thunder-nh1.org/VIETNAM%20WAR%20STATISTICS.htm
This site contains statistical data regarding the following:
Total number of service personnel during the Vietnam Era, casualties, draftees versus volunteers, race and ethnic background, socio-economic status, and the percent of honorable versus dishonorable discharges. The surprising statistic is that 76% of those drafted were from middle to lower class socio-economic status. Some data is compared to draft data from other wars. For instance, draftees comprised 25% of the service personnel in Vietnam War while they reached 66% of the service personnel in WWII. This data may have come from a larger source of data or vice versa. The site is http://vietnamresearch.com/history/stats.html