For some reason, I’m getting an error message when trying to reply to a comment made on the post at Inconvenient South which I referred to a short time back… the one about Southerners and the First World War. So, I’m carrying it over here to address the comment made by Dick Stanley. Since he has landed in my blog recently with a couple of comments, I figure this post might facilitate further discussion that seemingly cannot be had (because of technical difficulties, I’m guessing) at Inconvenient South.
So, my question is in reference to his remark…
“I can see why some Southern men would not be in a hurry to rush off to France to fight for a government that had helped keep their part of the country down for so long.”
I have to ask… Is this simply the way you see things now, or is a statement made by you based on what you have seen said by many, some, or a few of them back then? I ask because there is nothing in the clip from the article that David cited that states that “they” were of the opinion that they would not “fight for a government that had helped keep their part of the country down for so long.” Please provide specific examples, and show that it was representative of some segment of the Southern population.
david s
August 9, 2010
Hi Robert,
Sorry about the error, I had no idea blogger was giving anyone problems. I always welcome your comments, Robert. Southerners and the First World War wasn’t posted with any polemic intent, I simply found it to be an interesting bit of Southern history. I regret not being more involved in the discussions- I’m preparing for some adjunct work this fall. Between that and my regular job, I’ve not been on the web much. Thanks for the link. No wonder my blog hits spiked! I hope you are doing well. I will look into the commenting issue and see if I can fix it.
Robert Moore
August 10, 2010
Hi David,
Not a problem… just another reason for me to gripe about Blogger as a blogging tool
.
I didn’t take your posting as anything but a reflection of interest in something that you came across. I enjoyed reading it, and found it timely considering my work recently in developing a book about Southerners from my home county who were active participants in the First World War (as well as in the Mexican Border Crisis that preceded it). I too found the article interesting and, the first opportunity I get, I’m going to secure a copy of the complete piece. Hope you are doing well also. Enjoy your time as an adjunct. I’m jealous… missing classroom discussions immensely!
John Miller
August 9, 2010
Interesting point Robert. I like where you are heading here on your blog lately. Keep up the great work.
Robert Moore
August 10, 2010
Thanks, John… This has me looking back in some WWI era pieces that I have where Confederate veterans actually had things to say about the war.
Craig Swain
August 9, 2010
Generally speaking, major anti-war movements are rarely attached to abstract ideas. More often there is a specific concrete issue which serves as the burr under the saddle (if I can mix metaphors there). In the case of the Vietnam War, the movement was directly tied to the draft. Once the draft was dropped, or at least made more equitable with the lottery system, the anti-war movement fell apart. It is very important to separate the anti-war component from the anti-draft component. The former, based on participant recollections, was indeed laced with some radical thought. The later, again from recollections of participants, was motivated by self-preservation and a desire for fair handling of the process.
When looking at World War I with regard to anti-war and/or anti-draft movements, the question should be what was the burr and what was the focus. Was this the “rich-man’s war, poor-man’s fight” attitude so common in American (and other Democratic) societies?
Or was it dissatisfaction with the Wilsonian Democratic party? (Who Glen Beck would have us believe was practically a Joe Stalin-style communist.) Or did another factor come into play?
Just hard to believe that the burr in this case was simply lingering resentment of Reconstruction (which had ended before many of those of draft age were born).
Robert Moore
August 10, 2010
Craig, You know… this is one of those areas where I haven’t sunk my teeth in so deeply as I have with the CW era, but I think it is critical (in the realm of CW Memory) to understand where Southern sentiment actually was at that time. I’m suspecting that anti-US (the old “Yankees”) sentiment in the South wasn’t nearly as great across the region, but believe there may have been pockets of negative sentiment. I’m going to need to crack into some WWI era works that I have to see if I can get a better feel for the “pulse” at the time.
Dick Stanley
August 10, 2010
Sorry, I didn’t realize I needed proof to leave a comment. I’ll be more careful next time. As for this time, I my citation would be anecdotal. Family stuff. Mississippi, in particular. Also Texas. A feeling of being done in by the government, particularly during Reconstruction, persisted well into the 20th century. I had MS relatives who joined to fight WW1 but those who refused for the previously-mentioned reason. By WW2, the feeling had changed and the joining, after Pearl Harbor, was pretty universal’ And, indeed, several made the post-war military a career.
Robert Moore
August 10, 2010
Not really, it’s just that I’ve never actually seen any Southerners (at the time of the First World War) stand on an anti-war sentiment based upon lingering feelings of the Civil War. Likewise, I didn’t see that the article that David cited (at least the portion he used) inferred anything along the lines of what you suggested. This may be one of those things that reflects the feelings of some in localities who had a harder experience in reconstruction than others. In the Shenandoah Valley, any animosity developed because of reconstruction was pretty short-lived. The expansion of the railroad in the Valley actually made the area realize a boom in economy and industry in the 1880s… and some of those who made the RR possible were northerners… some who decided to remain after bringing in the RR.
Robert Moore
August 10, 2010
Mr. Stanley,
I think I need to clarify something else. The skepticism directed at your comment is generated by the amount of speculation these days that some have as to the thoughts of Southerners in the post-war South. I too often see perceptions blanketed across the South as a whole, the most extreme being… “if they were Southern, then they supported the Confederacy”… which is of course, and as I think I have seen in some of your other comments, an absurd notion (I believe you agree considering your remark about division in sentiment in E. Tennessee). While I didn’t mean to sound harsh in my reply, it is likely that it came across that way. I’m just a huge advocate of supporting contemporary “thoughts of the past” with solid evidence that people then (whether that be in the WWI era or the CW era) actually felt that way… and to what degree. Thanks for your comments.
Dick Stanley
August 10, 2010
You bet. Mississippi was/is a far cry from the Shenandoah. Reconstruction was especially hard because the black/white split was almost 50-50. It’s less today, so many blacks having left in the 50s for points north, mainly Chicago. Many now are coming back and retiring in MS, interestingly. Texas, where I have lived the longest, was pretty chauvinistic right up until the 70s. But my anecdotes could be a minority attitude. Scots-Irish, as so many whites in the South were, were “born to fight,” as Sen. Webb’s book said, and might have had trouble resisting a good war, whatever their fathers and grandfathers might have thought of the feds.
Richard Williams
August 12, 2010
Somewhat related . . . “New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of Southern military tradition.”
See commentary here: http://www.blackmilitaryworld.com/blackmilitaryworldtest/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=229:the-joomla-community&catid=38:platforms
Robert Moore
August 12, 2010
I’ve heard that as well, but haven’t seen anything (yet) that proves how many actually came to the call from the South in comparison with those from the North.
Richard Williams
August 12, 2010
BTW, my grandfather, whose grandfather was wounded twice while fighting for the Confederacy (and served time at Point Lookout), volunteered during WWI and received a letter of commendation from President Wilson. Unfortunately, that letter has been lost.
Richard Williams
August 12, 2010
I don’t know about WWI, but there’s all kinds of demographic statistics on current recruitment numbers.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Looks like I can enlighten sometime next week in another blog post… just found the actual state by state listing for total numbers of soldiers. Number 1 on the list is NY. I think the Southern states begin appearing somewhere around #13 or so.
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Per capita?
I’m getting conflicting information in my searches. I would have to assume the military has the “official” numbers by state, per capita?
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Here’s one source that shows the South well represented in the top 10. New York shows up at #43, based on number of recruits, ages 18-24 (per 1000). Virginia comes in at a very respectable #6.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/State+Military+Recruitment+Rates
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Thanks, Richard, but I’m just focusing on WW1 right now. Virginia contributed over 70,000 for that one.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Sorry. Texas ranks 1st among Southern state contributions of men, 5th overall, at over 151,000. Next highest is GA… ranking overall at 15th
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Robert – ok, but is that per capita or just total number?
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
That’s just the raw numbers right now, and the reason why I need to crunch numbers for another post next week. That said, Craig makes an excellent point about how those numbers came to be.
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Craig is also getting away from the WWI specifics, but refers to some of the same sources I’ve come across. The WWI issue notwithstanding, all the statistics and studies seem to, generally, confirm the same thing: military recruiting is most “fruitful” in Southern and Midwestern/Western regions of the country. One may draw his own conclusions as to all the why’s this is true, but comes as no shock to me. Another factor to consider is the number of military schools in the United States and their locations. My guess is that they are more predominant in Southern states, even with many closing since the 1970′s. Any stats on this number?
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
I’m not going to venture speculation on that. Again, let’s keep the focus on WW1 and connections to the CW within the framework of how this discussion started.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Craig threw in some contemporary stuff in relation to what was going on in WW1, but, overall, did offer a number of factors for consideration in relation to numbers from states in that war.
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Here’s another anecdotal statistic to ponder: 503 men from the University of Virginia died fighting for the Confederacy. By comparison, the much larger student body of Harvard would sacrifice 117 for the Union. Not drawing any conclusions, it could mean the Harvard boys were simply better shots ;o) – I don’t know, but something I stumbled across a while back.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Keep it related to WW1, please.
Craig Swain
August 13, 2010
I do apologize for bringing up data from other time periods into my response. My intent was not to spark discussion in that direction, but rather address an assumption made in the original premise – that the South is more inclined than other regions of the Country to provide military servicemen, and that any resistance to service in WWI was thereby some notable aberration.
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
I believe my comments were related and within the framework Robert. I’m not quite sure why you singled out my comments as straying from the topic when both you and Craig discuss other conflicts and statistics not directly related to WWI.
I’ll refrain from commenting further.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
Richard, Your comments are welcome, but I’m just trying to maintain focus on WW1. I’m not sure how you related the UVa-Harvard comment to the topic… the CW definately, but not WW1
Richard Williams
August 13, 2010
Ok Robert, thanks for clarifying. The UVA comment just came to mind due to the subject matter: numbers, regions, etc. As I noted, anecdotal, but I thought worth pondering. Thanks again. I’ll be interested in seeing what your additional research uncovers. It is certainly an interesting subject.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
The thing that triggered this path of discussion was the thought that there may have been Southerners who refused to fight for a government under which they had “suffered” since 1865. I don’t put a great deal of faith behind that idea. Maybe there were a few, but I’ve yet to see evidence.
This then took an additional direction that discussed the number of Southerners who served. I still think that’s interesting considering just that, but it gets complicated when trying to figure out numbers of volunteers against draftees and if there really was a high degree of support for the war… or if we can clearly tell why some… maybe more than some… Southerners did not support. As Craig suggests, I also believe dissent came from reasons other than stemming from postwar Civil War animosity against a “Yankee government” of oppression.
Now my exposure to this sort of history is limited to geography as my concentration has been limited to studies of Page County’s men in WW1… many of whom were sons or grandsons of Confederate soldiers… and some of these WW1 soldiers were volunteers, while more, I believe, were soldiers only due to the draft.
Overall, this is an exercise in learning more… at least from my end.
Craig Swain
August 13, 2010
It is also important to remember the “process” in place during WWI to man the military, as it differed significantly (which is an understatement) from that used in the Civil War and today (from which some of the stats are presented in the conversation links).
The military certainly accepted volunteers. But most of the process centered on the draft boards. In some cases, men would volunteer directly to the draft board. In others, men were selected by the draft board from the pool (and of course allowed to make a case for exemption). And of course you’d have all the local politics and preferences in play.
So how can you determine if resistance to the draft was indeed resistance to the war effort, or just a group of men angry at old Judge so-and-so who they felt was being oppressive?
In regard to the tendency for Southerners to volunteer, those statistics are not as easy to come by as it would seem. Recent information regarding recruits during the GWOT indicates the more important demographic metric is not regional, but population concentration. Long way of saying that proportionally speaking, more recruits come from rural areas. Now we might argue that the South tends to be more rural (and turn a blind eye to Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas…..). Or we might also consider that in 2003 the states providing the most volunteers in proportion to population were – Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, and Maine.
Also in WWI, and more so now, physical fitness and other factors play into the volunteer numbers. I don’t know how many were rejected in WWI. Certainly in WWII, the number of 4Fs were higher among the poorer economic brackets (poor nutrition, poor health). And today the Military has rather high bars for volunteers (heck, the Army just recently waived the “no tattoo” requirement!). So those factors should be considered when assessing “volunteerism” and anti-war sentiment.
In short, I’d say we can only stomp around about numbers if we are talking the numbers. What I’d rather see are some first hand explanations indicating the motivation for resisting the draft.
(With regard to recent volunteer service, I’ve used these sources for reference:
“Planning For Diversity”, RAND Study presented to the Military – http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA489548&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
“Who Bears the Burden: Demographic Characteristics of US Military Recruits Before and After 9/11.” from the Heritage Foundation – http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/11/Who-Bears-the-Burden-Demographic-Characteristics-of-US-Military-Recruits-Before-and-After-9-11
That last article is based upon several DoD reports which I have seen, but cannot source directly on the internet.)
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
I think you make an excellent point, Craig. The effort to say that one geographical area had more men in the ranks than another is a useless exercise. However, I would be more interested in the numbers of volunteers laid against the numbers that were made possible only through the draft. Of course, we also have to keep in my specific draft quotas based on certain factors. It becomes difficult to wrap this in a neat package without doing a good bit of legwork beforehand.
Craig Swain
August 13, 2010
Perhaps the point I am leading myself to conclude is that the numbers are completely meaningless. Why?
Say a draft board had a quota of 100 men. On the first day 105 men show up to volunteer. The board sends 100 men to the induction center and proceeds to dismiss the rest. Are the first 100 men volunteers or draftees? So are those extra five men volunteers also?
Because of such as use-case, and other points made here, I think the focus should be on first hand accounts of men who opposed service, and not get fixated on the raw numbers.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
I’ve the good fortune of having seen detailed info UN relation to the draft on a local level… and when called in for the draft, no matter what, all went through the medical stuff. Decisions as to whether they stayed or went came later
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
That should read “in” relation
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
By the way, I’m in Kansas City now, and was at the National WW1 Museum yesterday where I discovered in one display, the raw stats. I then realized how some could get overly proud about their state’s contributions of men. That can’t be done taking numbers at face value. New York contributed over 300,000 men, but by no means does it mean volunteers alone.
Robert Moore
August 13, 2010
NY contributed 367,864… to be exact
Marilyn Marme
August 14, 2010
Robert, as you know, my ggg grandfather was a Southern Unionist Virginian, who was jailed and died in Castle Thunder for disloyalty to the Confederacy, wrote a letter to Lincoln in support of the Union and abolition. He also contended that Southern Unionist and/or “leave alone” sentiment was much stronger than portrayed. It was interesting for me to discover that his great grandsons (my grandfather and great uncle) were very reluctant WWI draftees in Oklahoma. According to my dad, his uncle deserted twice from the front lines and was in jail about to be courtmartialed when the war ended. Ironically enough, he was buried in a national military cemetery in CA. Their father (my g grandfather) was religous, antimilitary and pacificistic. Refused to own a gun, hunted squirrels by wringing their necks instead of shooting in rural Oklahoma. Indeed my father, though conservative politically, has also always been reluctant to support military action. He did volunteer in WWII but was 4F repeatedly because of a medical condition.