Comments on: Comparing say… a grouping of counties from Alabama with the Shenandoah Valley http://cenantua.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/comparing-say-a-grouping-of-counties-from-alabama-with-the-shenandoah-valley/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:06:22 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: cenantua http://cenantua.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/comparing-say-a-grouping-of-counties-from-alabama-with-the-shenandoah-valley/#comment-65 cenantua Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:17:42 +0000 http://cenantua.wordpress.com/?p=100#comment-65 Even so, the Southern Loyalists Claims were not until well after the war, showing the fact that, despite life after Lincoln's call for troops, Unionism was still very real in the South (although a few claimants were filing claims just to get money and weren't Unionists at all. In my experience in closely examining one county, I ran into one example of this). I'm well aware of the impact that Lincoln's call for troops had in Virginia. Staunton, Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley, had a large number of Unionists who even condemned S.C. for seceding. Opinions swayed after the call, but not all. Also, citing the number of regiments raised for the Confederacy or not raised in support of the Union doesn't support your position on this matter, nor is it proof of absolute loyalties. As in the case of evaluating counties and the vote within the respective counties on a one-by-one basis, so too do people need to look hard at the enlistments of soldiers. So what if 150 men enlisted in a company in 1861 - it doesn't prove that those who enlisted were loyal... or even wanted to enlist. Various factors played-into the reasons for enlistment. What's more interesting, however, is when figuring out what brought men into the ranks after 1861. Why, for example, did men wait until the spring of 1862, late 1863 and the spring of 1864? It was no coincidence that many enlisted (and were conscripted, though records aren't always clear on the matter) only because of the passage of the Confederate conscript acts, not to mention that enlistments on paper were not always enlistments. Conscription was well-masked in the enlistment records. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times it is not. Also, I've already mentioned it before, but the first real conscription act, before those of 62, 63 and 64, was made in Virginia in the summer of 1861 when the militia was called into service. I've found many men who, after the militia disbanded, did not join regular field units, but instead, went home. You keep raising these points and you attempt to counter what I post, yet you hardly present evidence in support of your argument. Furthermore, as in the case of saying things like "75-1," it is clear that you continue to look at raw numbers and take them at face value. There are deeper issues and you are not addressing them, or simply, because you can't come to grips with facts that hard evidence brings to light, you don't want to accept them as possibilities. This is the very reason why I continue to address Civil War memory. Even so, the Southern Loyalists Claims were not until well after the war, showing the fact that, despite life after Lincoln’s call for troops, Unionism was still very real in the South (although a few claimants were filing claims just to get money and weren’t Unionists at all. In my experience in closely examining one county, I ran into one example of this).

I’m well aware of the impact that Lincoln’s call for troops had in Virginia. Staunton, Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley, had a large number of Unionists who even condemned S.C. for seceding. Opinions swayed after the call, but not all.

Also, citing the number of regiments raised for the Confederacy or not raised in support of the Union doesn’t support your position on this matter, nor is it proof of absolute loyalties. As in the case of evaluating counties and the vote within the respective counties on a one-by-one basis, so too do people need to look hard at the enlistments of soldiers. So what if 150 men enlisted in a company in 1861 – it doesn’t prove that those who enlisted were loyal… or even wanted to enlist. Various factors played-into the reasons for enlistment. What’s more interesting, however, is when figuring out what brought men into the ranks after 1861. Why, for example, did men wait until the spring of 1862, late 1863 and the spring of 1864? It was no coincidence that many enlisted (and were conscripted, though records aren’t always clear on the matter) only because of the passage of the Confederate conscript acts, not to mention that enlistments on paper were not always enlistments. Conscription was well-masked in the enlistment records. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times it is not. Also, I’ve already mentioned it before, but the first real conscription act, before those of 62, 63 and 64, was made in Virginia in the summer of 1861 when the militia was called into service. I’ve found many men who, after the militia disbanded, did not join regular field units, but instead, went home.

You keep raising these points and you attempt to counter what I post, yet you hardly present evidence in support of your argument. Furthermore, as in the case of saying things like “75-1,” it is clear that you continue to look at raw numbers and take them at face value. There are deeper issues and you are not addressing them, or simply, because you can’t come to grips with facts that hard evidence brings to light, you don’t want to accept them as possibilities. This is the very reason why I continue to address Civil War memory.

]]> By: borderuffian http://cenantua.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/comparing-say-a-grouping-of-counties-from-alabama-with-the-shenandoah-valley/#comment-64 borderuffian Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:51:28 +0000 http://cenantua.wordpress.com/?p=100#comment-64 Yes, the vote in Alabama was close and did not always follow the assumed pattern of slaveowner-for-secession/non-slaveowner-for-union. There were 54 pro-secession and 46 pro-union delegates elected for the convention. The final vote was 61-39 in favor of secession. It should be noted that this was before Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to invade the South. If that issue had been in the mix the vote would have been far greater in favor of secession. The Feds controlled North Alabama from 1862 to the end of the war but were only able to raise one regiment of cavalry. The Confederates raised at least 75 regiments of infantry and cavalry in Alabama. 75 to 1. Georgia was also close. The popular vote separated by only a few thousand votes. The initial test vote in the secession convention was 166-130 in favor of secession. The final vote 208-89. The Confederates raised over 80 regiments in Georgia. The Federals one small battalion (about 200 men). Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops transformed a lot of 'Union men' into 'Rebels.' Yes, the vote in Alabama was close and did not always follow the assumed pattern of slaveowner-for-secession/non-slaveowner-for-union. There were 54 pro-secession and 46 pro-union delegates elected for the convention. The final vote was 61-39 in favor of secession. It should be noted that this was before Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the South. If that issue had been in the mix the vote would have been far greater in favor of secession.

The Feds controlled North Alabama from 1862 to the end of the war but were only able to raise one regiment of cavalry. The Confederates raised at least 75 regiments of infantry and cavalry in Alabama.

75 to 1.

Georgia was also close. The popular vote separated by only a few thousand votes.

The initial test vote in the secession convention was 166-130 in favor of secession. The final vote 208-89.

The Confederates raised over 80 regiments in Georgia. The Federals one small battalion (about 200 men).

Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops transformed a lot of ‘Union men’ into ‘Rebels.’

]]>