The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum

Re: History as testimony
In Response To: Re: History as testimony ()

David -

Your summary paragraph is right on target. The perception existed in the North that Confederates were arming slaves and free men of color to fight for them. This perception was used to overcome resistance to arming of black men in the North. Of course there would have been an adverse reaction in the Confederacy and may explain the otherwise difficult to understand action of the Louisiana State legislature to limit militia service to free white men.

The one point at which we still differ concerns calling militia into service. Militia organizations, both regular and volunteer, existed in most states. If a man was eligible for militia service, the law required that he appear at regularly scheduled assemblies, drills and parades, or pay a fine. The law held volunteer organizations such as the LNG to higher standards. Assemblies for drill and parade might be scheduled weekly rather than monthly or quarterly, and members were expected to provide their own uniforms. Also, the state might issue arms, ammunition and accouterments to volunteers. In contrast, the regular militia didn't receive anything from the state, and were expected to bring their own arms (if any) to drill.

All of this was required of militia, regular and volunteer, without being in actual service of the state. As you can see from the full text of the law of Jan 23, 1862, the governor had the authority to call any militia organization into service for a period no greater than ninety days. At this point a militia organization received orders to report at a point designated by the governor or a senior militia commander. Upon arrival they should expect to receive camp equipment, transporation expenses being paid by the state.

For example, in Alabama Governor A B Moore called volunteer militia companies into service to seize the arsenal at Mount Vernon and the bay forts. He also called several companies into service to assist Florida state militia at Pensacola. ADAH has the Alabama railroad invoice for transportation to the Florida state line. Evidently the State of Florida paid expenses for Alabama militia service over the state line. As shown on the invoice, each of these companies went home well before ninety days expired.

When the Alabama state convention convened in early January of 1861, members of the state legislature called upon Governor Moore to issue a statement concerning his use of volunteer militia and the expenses involved. At the time nearly 200 volunteer companies existed under the law of February 1860. The governor had issued arms to 185 (if I recall), and provided a statement concerning specific arms purchases for these companies. Of these two hundred companies, less than one in ten had actually been called into service at Mobile and Pensacola.

All the other companies were organized and available for a call from Governor Moore. The same would have true of the LNG. Members appeared at drill and parade, just as the LNG did. They were frequently seen and news articles written about them, the same as the LNG. Also, just as in Louisiana, a later state legislature voided their charter and AVC companies which had not been handed over to the Confederate government went out of existence, just as the LNG did on Feb 15, 1862.

Obviously some if not all of the LNG companies were armed, trained, equipped and ready for service. As General Lewis states, they (members of the LNG) would have fought for us. However, they were never requisitioned - put on order to report for duty.

Hopefully we can agree on this final point regarding the LNG.

Messages In This Thread

History vs testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as first-hand testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: Articles of War -No. 62-
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony