|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Copperheads and the Draft - then and Now!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Copperheads and the Draft - then and Now!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| GeoDaddy |
Perhaps the most controversial issue that resonates in comparison between the Civil War to the War against Islamists in Iraq is the American debate over military service and, specifically the "draft!"
Who should serve and for how long and under what banner has ALWAYS been a matter of debate in the modern world's first democracy. Since the Revolution, the issue of who should serve and under what institution was hotly debated (or simply ignored to the point where Washington could well have been defeated....)
Washington (and, later, the Federalist as described by Alexander Hamilton) maintained that the nation NEEDED an army empowered to by and paid by the Federal Government. But the revolution was fought by a rat tag Continental army, bolstered by larger state militias. The arrangement proved disastrous on many an occasion where the state militias simply would flee before the British - since they were only volunteers who had little to no military training - and - those that would stand and fight - would rarely do so on anything other than their colonial land. All the Brits had to do was cross the colonial/state line... and the militia would end any pursuit, leaving it to the next state to muster forces and take up the fight.
This arrangement was a constant threat to ending the bid for independence and - really - the defeat of the American Revolution came down to simply tracking down the Continental Army and killing it. Had that been done (as Historians later realized that the British had wasted the first years of the war by simply capturing Boston, New York and Philadelphia for NO strategic purpose) the end of the Continental Army would have been the END of the American Revolution.
Now, one might think that - after - the war (strategically won by the fact that the British could never capture and destroy the Continental army and ended up spending "billions" of 18th Century "dollars" for no clear victory... only to be bottled up at Yorktown by the French in a final conventional defeat...) that the United Colonial States might look back and learn from their near disastrous policy of using state militias instead of a national army.
Nope.
The concept of a national army bit the dust along with Hamilton and the demise of the Federalists in favor of the Jeffersonian Republicans and their toughen farmers who could be called upon to defend their country like the minute men of the revolution (who truly failed to do anything but start the revolution.)
The renewal of hostilities in the war of 1812 brought similar disastrous results as no state militia could be mustered fats enough or was well enough trained to stand a fight the British army as it ran through the Potomac at will and burned the nation's capital. The ONLY victory to be had was General Andrew Jackson's ALL VOLUTEER army in New Orleans, mustered from the Western Frontier states, consisting of seasoned Indian fighters and rallied to the flag by the charisma of General Jackson just as the charisma of General George Washington was about the ONLY thing that held the Continental Army together.
Again - near disaster, but, luckily, the logistics of conquering the fledgling, loosely flung nation were far beyond the considerations of the British Empire by that time - and, more to the point, we were a MORE valuable trading partner that we were a subjugated colony. Let's always remember the business of the British Empire was "business" and the United States (especially the New England states) were proving invaluable to trade with British merchants and a direct counter balance to Napoleon's attempts to create an anti-capitalist European economy out of the French Revolution.
So that left the Mexican-American War as the only major conflict before the Civil War and that was basically a cake-walk pitting colorfully costumed, European trained, Mexican soldiers against the wild and wooly American frontier's men who were in constant battle against Indians, Mexicans and amongst themselves... led by some brilliant generals who would become the legendary names of the Civil War (mostly Southern, by the way and chief amongst them, General Robert E. Lee)
There was a "national" army (if one could call it that, in that it wasn't really fighting to the "United States" but Westerners fighting to carve out a piece of Western lands that Mexico could no longer defend...) so I guess one might make a claim that it was the FIRST representation of today's all volunteer army that held together for more than one battle (unlike General Jackson's men who signed up for one bug fight against the Brits but there after, win or lose, would have been back hunted beaver and elk in Kentucky and Tennessee.)
Which brings us to the Civil War.
At the outset, the entire armies of the Union and Confederacy were "state" militias, mustered under the general purpose order of the union and confederations of the states.
There was no "national" army - as even the Army of the Potomac was really made up of state volunteers who marched under their state's flag and fought as a unit under their state's officers. The concept of fighting for the Union or the Confederacy was as LOOSELY DEFINED AS MEMBER NATIONS FIGTHING UNDER THE ALLIANCE OF NATO!
There was a concept of shared ideas and values binding the armies together... but those ideas and values did NOT mean that one state could be expected to come to the aid of another... and, more importantly, once engaged in battle, it was up to the whim of a general of his state as to whether he would deploy his troops to fight for a given objective in that battle... or not. Frequently, generals from a given state would REFUSE to follow an order from a "Federal" commander (Union or Confederate) because they felt an overreaching loyalty to their state rather than the alliance under which they fought.
And remember, some states were fractured, like Maryland, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee - border states - which could swing in sentiments to the Union cause just as capriciously as they could support the Confederacy.
Clearly, getting the states to fight for and/or against the cause of Union, let alone slavery - especially as the war got more real and bloody - was as difficult as trying to put a collation together to counter Islamists today, either to complete the transition of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship to a fledgling democracy... or stop Iran from attaining nuclear weaponry by which it could threaten control of that entire region and project their Islamist Jihad far beyond their borders.
The perceived threat - in both cases - has the nations today bickering amongst themselves as bitterly as the state did during the Civil War with a very weak national government to focus their respective resources on the war effort...
In fact, many Historians have suggested that the ONLY reason that the North won and the South lost was because Abraham Lincoln was better able to assert NATIONAL control of the war effort than Jefferson Davis was able to get Southerners to agree that they were fighting for the shared interests of a Confederacy (as slave owning one at that...)
Which brings up to the Militia Act of 1862.
Well short of a "draft" - it, nevertheless, did effect one radical change that we remain in the throes of to this day... namely the power and authority of the Federal Government.
Up until that July of 1862, the concept of a "Federal Government" in these United States was pretty much limited to the Postal System. That is where the Average American Joe could actually see that there was a "Federal" government in addition to his state government, county or city government and local community associations. The Flag, the Stamps, some form of "green back" (Federal) currency, along with the many state, county and municipal currencies (along with a good deal of simply bartering) was just about all the Americans knew of their Federal Government somewhere in the mythical city of Washington DC (where people they elected would go and they would rarely hear from or about them until next election time... much like today!)
BUT
The Militia Act CHANGED EVERYTHING!
While not a "draft" by any stretch of the imagination... it did impose a mandatory nine month commitment of service - on the President's order - not the State's Governor’s whim...
Naturally, for such a draconian law to be put into effect - the Federal (not State) Government had to enforce this law, superseding state's rights, creating an enforcement institution of Provost Federal Marshals allowed under Federal Laws to deputize local law enforcement officers to check out and make sure that state militia commitments (not voluntary) were being maintained... and arrest those who might intend to subvert that process.
This was - after the constitutionality of state's rights to secede from the Union and the freeing of slave/property - the most galvanizing issue that Copperheads could use to counter Abraham Lincoln and the war effort. Quite simply, the war - up until then - had really only effect theoretical politicians and those who had sons who had volunteered to fight the war...
Because state militias were required under most state laws to "draft" young men of the community to fill their quotas (if not enuff young men would volunteer) this - in effect - "draft" could no randomly take your son out of the house, put him in a uniform and send him to war... and you as a mother or father or that son had NO recourse but to obey Federal Law by way of state law...
NEVER HAD THAT HAPPENED IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR!
Essentially this understated "draft" that forced youngsters in the North to go to war undermined the whole moral basis of the war, as William Platt of Newton Connecticut pointed out...
"The War is, essentially, a trial between two systems... on one side freedom, on the other side slavery... the involuntary drafting of our young men into Abraham Lincoln's abolitionist war is a violation of the whole spirit of our institutions and repulsive in the highest degree..."
NOTE: Much like the Democrats of today the Copperhead propaganda was that it was no longer the war to keep the nation together or for the abolition of slavery (which they had about as much a problem with as democrats had with the thirty year genocidal regime of Saddam) but it was "Lincoln's War" as the war to set up a decent democracy in Iraqi is not a vital interest for our nation... but, as it proves in modern eyes as much a failure as the Civil War (after a fraction of loss of life) it is now "President Bush's War" - the same blame one's political enemy rather than the nation's enemy for the war gone below expectations.
"Peace Democrats" like those of today, held anti-war rallies, read from Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights and the writings of Thomas Jefferson (the author of the all volunteer army of state militia that ran away from battles in the Revolution and became his chief advocacy as president... down to paying bribes to the Barbary Pirates rather than going to war with those Muslim Terrorists... ironically, huh?
The called Lincoln, for the first time, publicly, a "tyrant" who had subverted the constitution and taken on powers that were not granted him by the constitution...
Could have been front page New York Times material today (as it was back then!)
But, if the Militia Act of 1862 didn't piss off enuff Northerners, the Enrollment Act of 1963 instituted a flow blown draft as we know it today...
"Every man who is able-bodied, between twenty and forty-five, and a citizen or an immigrant who had applied for citizenship is subject to the draft. Each congressional (no longer "state") district in the country would have to send a proportionate number of men into the army, either through voluntary service, or conscription"
If there were people who were wishy-washy in their commitment to the war before the Enrollment Act, slightly bothered about constitutional questions of moral questions of slavery... this was their awakening that they were Copperheads, opposed to the war and embraced any and every speech and movement that would get them out of the war (cut&run) regardless the consequences...
Such was the distrust of Federal Government and Abraham Lincoln's use of power that Delaware senator James A Bayard protested that the act undermined the state militia system... leaving the state vulnerable and unable to counter ANY AGGRESSION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Here the nation has been splintered in two, with the West threatening to secede, effectively ending the "united" States, and Copperhead Democratic Senator Bayard is MORE concerned that the state militia of Delaware would be needed to defend Delaware from the Army of the Potomac without the slightest cause or reason as to why Delaware should need to defend itself from the forces that were trying to hold the nation together!
And witness the rhetoric with which he couched the terms of this paranoia...
"In my judgment, the Life of a Free people consists in the preservation of their liberties - NOT in the extent of their dominion."
For the Copperheads, the armies of the Union weren't trying to keep the nation together - but were "conquering" foreign and sovereign lands... as foreign and sovereign as, say, Iraq is today. This when conquest was never a stated goal... or even suggested when the far simpler alternative was to end their "insurgency" (a term used by frequently by Copperheads to legitimize Confederacy claims of sovereignty and dismiss the moral issue of slavery) and rejoin the Union... or democratically elected government of Iraq.
Now, for those who have been following along...
The irony is that 1860 Peace Democrats (like 1960 Peace Democrats) decried the draft as the ultimate proof of tyrannical government, the Federal Authority, superseding state's rights, to go into people's homes, snatch their young men from the bosom of their families to go and fight in "foreign" "sovereign" lands... and die. The Draft was the focus of the anti-war movement because it "proved" that the leaders who were prosecuting the war were WORSE than the war itself... superseding any of the reasons for which the war was being fought...
And, yet, today's Peace-at-any-price Democrats were FOR THE DRAFT!
Charlie Rangel, the anti-war and racist congressman from New York ("racist" because he had always claimed that Vietnam was a war fought primarily by "colored" people... even when shown military statistics that documented that blacks were drafted and served in Vietnam in numbers only slightly higher than their national 15% of the population) was the first congressman to put forth a bill, several times, to re-instate the draft.
Why do anti-war democrats of today "support" a draft instead of an all volunteer army?
Simple.
First, unlike the Democrats of the 1860s they are socialists and they believe - not in the individual's right to choose - but the 20th Century concept that the masses are more important that the individual... that an individual is only a cog in the more important larger machine... and that all cogs are "equal" and should be treated by government as such... namely, in times of national commitment, every individual - regardless of their ability (and now "sex") SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE i.e. only when a nation is willing to send ANY of its citizens, under a socialist point of view, will the morality of that war be tested because the leaders will not send its citizens into a war unless it is of EXTREME national security... in effect, only when Russia was invaded, was it willing to go to war with Nazi Germany...
And the Peace Democrats want that same rational to become our foreign policy here i.e. unless we are invade by Canada or Mexico, the use of American military should be for "humanitarian" purposes only... and the key way to effect that non-use of military power beyond the borders is - now - to make sure that every American will suffer the decision to go to war in equal measure.
How ironic that the Peace Democrats of 1860 actually galvanized their largest opposition to the war under the complete opposite rationale - namely the nation was falling apart and rather than rally to the cause that a shared pain would unite the nation toward the very purpose of keeping it together... the "draft" of a citizen army struck them as the last straw pulled out of which they felt the nation was no longer WORTH keeping together...
Which, of course, begs the question that - IF - the draft of everyman was not sufficient reason to save the nation from complete disintegration... if people were so consumed with self interest that they weren't willing to fight for the nation itself...
Under a "draft" what army can you reasonable expect under ANY threat to national security???
Turns out that the Enrollment Act didn't fair that well in delivering more soldiers to the. battlefield
The first problem (like the draft imposed during the World Wars and left intact during Korea and Vietnam) the "out" for the sons of "rich" men (which was $300 or finding a substitute for near that price in the Civil War and College enrollment during the 60s) was that - aside from the class resentment issues - the less educated, unmotivated, "substitute" (poorer) conscripts did NOT make for very good soldiers.
First, very few even bothered to show up (in an age where finding someone who skipped town was far more difficult than today.) Of the 76,829 men conscripted, only 46,347 (60%) actually served! By the last draft in 1964, one out of five notified, even bothered to show up to the draft board and little to no attempt was made to figure out why.
Clearly the 1800s beau racy of 75,000 (pre-computer days) was inadequate to effect the draft - there simply weren't enough men to chase down every man that failed to make report to the draft board. When you look at the numbers, it suggests that - for every man drafted - they needed one man to hunt him down, sign him up and send him off to the war.
The Chicago Times suggested an easier solution - simply send the 75,000 who acted as Provost Marshals and Draft Board Officials - to the war. "Let them apply their vigorous adherence to the law.. in a uniform with a rifle before the enemy. Then the Lincoln Administration could leave the rest of us alone" You will note - aside from the snarky suggestion that it was "Lincoln's War" and not America's - that most of the men who made up the draft board were far too old to fight and this was just a cheap shot at the necessities of government to enforce its own laws.
In the field, those conscripts who did make it all the way to the several fronts were the poorest of soldiers. The veterans of the campaign routinely groused that the "conscripts" (who never lost that moniker, unless they proved themselves in battle) were the first to run away from the fight, the first to shirk on their work or guard duties, ate the most, slept the latest and complained the loudest. They would have been the first to surrender, but for the fact that, at that late stage of the war, the Union soldiers knew that capture meant a far more likely death from starvation or disease in a Confederate prison camp... the Confederacy finding it difficult to feed their own fighting men.
So, like the deteriorating situation in the last drafted war, in Vietnam, it was the unwilling conscript that was setting the trend for defeatism within the military ranks. Clearly, the idea that you can put a gun in any man's hand and think that he will be willing and able to go out and fight was as flawed then as it is now (not to mention that ANY draft would have to include women) and ends up being a larger burden on the government than the additional man (girl) power they could deliver.
And it must be noted that - as with any "governmental" initiative - once they money issue was ferreted out by crooks, a healthy black market trade evolved where "poor" conscripts agreed to take the $300 dollars from a father eager to keep his son out of the war... then skip town and go on to the next town to perpetrate the same scam again and again. Soon, the Pinker tons were more involved in tracking down dodgy draft conscripts than the Federal government had the ability to get either the original draftee or substitute to fill the draft slot.
But, of course, the real poison of the draft was that it gave Lincoln's anti-war Copperheads to perfectly point out the moral hypocrisy that the Union was fighting a war for "freedom" and using "conscripted soldiers - forcing them to fight that war for Him!
It’s a condemnation of Lincoln that would make today's publishers of the New York Times, and broadcasters of CNN... proud!
g |
|
|
| Halcyon |
 |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Okay,
Here's the Reader's Digest version...
The Civil War was the first war that caused the country to consider a full time army - populated by the draft rather than volunteer service. It was a national necessity... else there would no longer BE a "nation" (had the Union lost - and it was quite possible up until the final months of the war - we simply would not be the "United States" but some balkanized collections of sovereign states, banded together, and bickering over land, customs, trade and eager to make outside alliances to gain advantage over other states)
The draft - which HAS NO BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION - survived in several implicit forms are readily available to the CENTRAL GOVT until after the Vietnam War.
It was the post Vietnam War Democrats that dismantled the draft in an effort to make the massing of men mobilization of an army - impossible - in all but the most extreme of circumstances (i.e. and invasion from Canada or Mexico.. I guess???)
That is when we REVERTED BACK to the ALL VOLUNTEER army envisioned by Hamilton and Washington. This was, in turn, complimented by a "reserve" which operated along the lines of the Jeffersonina Ideal of a "state militia" called up in a moments notice to defend the nation from foreign invasion... and little else.
That's the army as was intended by the Forefathers in the constitution. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
One - big - problem.
The Consitution assumed only for the defense of a collection of "states" along the Eastern Coast of the Americas against the far larger and more powerful Imperialistic forces of England, France and Spain.
It never envisioned a time when the United States of America would - quite literally - dwarf the nation states of England, France, Spain and pretty much the rest of the world.
SO
We are stuck with a world wide commitment of forces to back our national interests... mainly our hegenomy of trade, currency and open markets for our goods and the goods of those alligned with our interests...
But we are left with a significant percentage of our population (dare I say the "majority") that think we can abandon this w/o consequence... that the US of A is a little place where we can smoke pot and drive our SUVs and play our Rock & Roll and that the world should just "luv" US because we are not an "empire"
Ahem, like it or not - WE ARE!
Pax Americana
And - even if we think we are not an "empire" the world.. .does.
So we better populate our military forces comensurate with our commitments...
And the best way to do that... |
|
|
|
|
|
