Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Wordwind Civil War Substitute Pay - 02/27/03 04:22 PM
A large number of its original members re-enlisted as veteran volunteers. The large number marked as deserters may be accounted for by the fact that late in 1864, and early in 1865, about one hundred ''substitutes" were assigned to the regiment, who deserted as soon as they received their substitute pay.

I read this morning that Emily Dickinson's brother had paid $500 for 'substitute pay' during the Civil War. Well, I'd never heard the term applied to war, so I tried to learn more about substitute pay through Google. I didn't find much--only what I pasted above was of any interest to me.

When was this practice of paying for a substitute in service stopped?

Posted By: Faldage Re: Civil War Substitute Pay - 02/27/03 05:11 PM
When was this practice … stopped?

It wasn't. It was just redirected.

Posted By: of troy more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 01:08 PM
many of the substitutes were immigrant irish, who where offered a "job' that paid $500--they didn't realize the job was to get put on the front line of a battlefield.

the substitute issue was also part of the reason for the "draft riots" in NY (and other cities too) since new immigrants were sometimes 'drafted' to serve right on the dock as they got off the boat, but middle class and others could by there way out, with $500.

in the civil war, the north had the advantage-- New Orleans used to be the second largest port in the US, very close to NY in shipping.(and a major place for immigration)

the blockcade of the port was successful, and the south was unable to block NY or other Northern ports. so the North continued trade with europe. the south was unable to sell its cotton, and use the money to by guns, gunpowder and salt, and they also lost out on having boatload of immigrants to draft! For most of the war, the south tried to get France as an ally, since the french were eager to have US cotton for their mills.

After the war, Railroads, (and RR bridges over the Mississippi,) further reduced trade, so by the 1870's, New Orleans was not even one of the top 10 ports of in US.

the Mississippi is the worlds third largest river. It, and its tributaries, drain almost 50% of US, and yet its main port is not one of the top ten in US!

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 02:59 PM
the substitute issue was also part of the reason for the "draft riots" in NY (and other cities too) since new immigrants were sometimes 'drafted' to serve right on the dock as they got off the boat, but middle class and others could by there way out, with $500.

Yep, right off the boat...they had the recruitment stand right there at the ramp. "Lookin' for work, mate? $300 a month and a fresh uniform, you can't find better work than that. Just sign right here." Little did they know their "position" was cannon fodder. BTW, a scene in Gangs of New York illustrates this recuiting "maneuver."

And the substitute fee was $300 dollars at the beginning of the war. Think they raised it as manpower became more crucial because of losses and desertion.


Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 03:04 PM
Based on what I've read from historian Shelby Foote, the South never engaged in this practice. I'm sure Juan will correct me if I'm wrong, or elaborate if I'm correct.

Posted By: WhitmanO'Neill Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 04:01 PM
Why Miss ScarletASp, shorely a lovely belle hailin' from the great city of Atlanta (hush your mouth about Sherman, now!) would know about the Southren draft in the waa-wuh?

Confederate Draft

The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first place.

Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.

Many Southerners, including the governors of Georgia and North Carolina, were vehemently opposed to the draft and worked to thwart its effect in their states. Thousands of men were exempted by the sham addition of their names to the civil servant rolls or by their enlistment in the state militias. Ninety-two percent of all exemptions for state service came from Georgia and North Carolina.

http://members.tripod.com/beag27/condraft.html<


But aristocrats were more prone to enlist for service in the South because it was considerd their noble duty to fight for the Cause and defend against the Invasion. And an aristocrat was usually guaranteed an officer's commission, even without any military background. On-the-job training, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, this was one reason so many men were slaughtered in battle, both North and South -- incompetent political officers who had no military experience, especially in the mid-ranks (but the mid-range officers who were bumblers usually got killed along with their men).







Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 04:18 PM
Why, Juan, honey, I've lived elsewheres for most of my life. Just about 12 years in Hotlanta, in three stints. So I thank y'all for sharing y'all's knowledge. Mine's way too spread out to be of any use to almost anyone.

Posted By: Wordwind Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 02/28/03 04:29 PM
So, back to my original question: When did this practice of paying for a substitute end? Did it end with the Civil War?

In Emily's biography, Sewell observes that she never commented on her brother's paying for a substitute in the Civil War in any of her letters.

Posted By: TEd Remington Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 03/03/03 12:26 AM
The draft ended at the end f the late unpleasantness and was not reinstituted until the Great War, and only then was used only sporadically, if I remember what I learned in college correctly.

The next draft was enacted just prior to the US's entry into WW II and did not include a deferement by finding a substitute. I'm pretty certain there wasn't anything similar during WW I.

Parenthetically, my father claimed that he was among the ten oldest men drafted during WW II. He was called to service March 24 or 25, 1942, just three or four days before his fortieth birthday.

Posted By: of troy Re: more on the (US) Civil War - 03/04/03 01:24 AM
TEd, like my now deseased father in law, he must have had special skills. Frank, was about to drafted, (when he was a month short of 40), and desided to enlist, so as to have some control.

he was an engineer, and joined the coast guard, was stationed in NY, but spent most of the war in the north atlantic, since the coast guard provided support to shipping convoys. but when he was in port, he was on governers island, in NY harbor. (he died just a year or so ago, aged 97)

© Wordsmith.org