-
We Have an American Pope!
February 28, 2013 | 15 comments
-
The Medal of Honor for Father Kapaun
February 25, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Man Who Abjured His Native Victuals
August 20, 2012 | 9 comments
-
It’s a Jungle Out There
June 14, 2011 | 127 comments
-
An American Saint-Maker
May 24, 2011 | 54 comments
Feature
Remembering Ireland and Fighting for the Union
The Irish Brigade during the Civil War.
(Page 2 of 2)
“Blaze Away and Stand It, Boys!”
WHEN SPEAKING of the Irish Brigade two battles always come up—Fredericksburg and Gettysburg—although for different reasons. In December 1862, Fredericksburg, Virginia, was an attractive town of wood-frame and red-brick houses built on a gentle incline that sloped down to the Rappahannock River. During the last weeks of November and the first weeks of December General Robert E. Lee, with 75,000 men, had occupied the high ground, carefully putting his men and his artillery into place. The Army of the Potomac, 120,000 men strong, led by General Ambrose Burnside, was massed on the other side of the Rappahannock. A rumor went around the camp of the Irish Brigade that Burnside planned to have them assault the ridges above Fredericksburg. One anxious Irish private sought out Father Corby. “Father,” the young man said, “they are going to lead us in front of those guns which we have seen them placing, unhindered, for the past three weeks.” “Do not trouble yourself,” the priest replied, “your generals know better than that.”
Father Corby overestimated the generals. On December 13, 1862, Burnside put into effect a plan as simple as it was suicidal: he would send his divisions charging up the hills, charging into point-blank cannon and musket fire. One of the hills Burnside wanted captured was Marye’s Heights, named for the Marye family, whose handsome plantation house stood at the summit. General James Longstreet was in command of the Heights; in addition to artillery batteries at the top, he had sent regiments of Georgia and South Carolina infantry to defend the stone wall that ran along the base of the hill. To assault Marye’s Heights, the Union troops would have to fight their way over the stone wall first.
Within two or three hours on the afternoon of December 13, Longstreet’s men had driven back and nearly destroyed two Union brigades (of about 1,500 men each) and two Union divisions (of about 12,000 men each); then the Irish Brigade were ordered into the fight. The nearly all-Irish 24th Georgia Infantry was defending the stone wall. “What a pity!” one of the Georgian Irish cried. “Here comes Meagher’s fellows.” As the Union Irish Brigade advanced, a roar of Irish Confederate musket fire tore through their ranks. Major James Cavanaugh rallied the Irish, “Blaze away and stand it, boys!” he cried. Cavanaugh got within 50 yards of the stone wall before he went down with a bullet through his thigh. An exploding shell crippled Color Sergeant William H. Tyrrell. No longer able to stand, he went down on his one good knee, gripping the regimental colors until five musket balls struck him and he toppled over, dead.
The Irish made assault after assault into the withering fire. After the battle, Confederate general George Pickett wrote to his fiancée, “Your soldier’s heart almost stood still as he watched those sons of Erin fearlessly rush to their deaths. The brilliant assault on Marye’s Heights of their Irish Brigade was beyond description. We forgot they were fighting us and cheer after cheer at their fearlessness went up all along our lines.”
In five hours the Union lost 7,000 men at Marye’s Heights; Longstreet lost 1,700 defending it. Of the 1,200 men of the Irish Brigade who assaulted Marye’s Heights, 545 were killed, wounded, or missing—in other words, the Irish lost almost 50 percent of their strength. Years later, Father Corby was still bitter about the waste of life at Marye’s Heights: “[T]he place into which Meagher’s brigade was sent was simply a slaughter pen with absolutely no protection for our ranks.… Needless to say, our brigade was cut to pieces.”
Absolution Under Fire
AT GETTYSBURG, the Irish Brigade was down to approximately 530 men. At noon on July 2, 1863, the order came to prepare for battle. As the men looked to their gear, Father William Corby climbed on top of a rock and called for the men’s attention. They were about to go into battle, there was no time for him to hear the confession of every man of the brigade individually, he explained, but in such an emergency the Catholic Church permitted a priest to grant general absolution. He instructed them to recall their sins, beg God’s pardon, and recite silently the Act of Contrition, just as they would if they were in a confessional. Then Father Corby drew from a pocket of his black frock coat a violet stole. As he draped it around his neck, the men of the Irish Brigade—Catholics and non-Catholics alike—removed their caps and knelt on the grass. Raising his right hand he made the sign of the cross over the brigade as he recited the words of absolution: “May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication and interdict, insofar as it lies within my power and you require; therefore, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
A member of the Irish Brigade, Colonel St. Clair Mulholland of the 116th Pennsylvania, would write later that while granting general absolution to soldiers who were about to go into battle was common in the Catholic countries of Europe, this was the first time it had ever occurred in the United States. Among the kneeling men, Mulholland recalled, “there was a profound silence…yet over to the left, out by the Peach Orchard and Little Round Top…the roar of battle rose and swelled and re-echoed through the woods.”
This act of Father Corby became one of the most memorable moments of the war for the men of the Irish Brigade, and for their comrades who witnessed it—among them General George Meade. It has become an iconic moment, immortalized by Paul Wood’s painting Absolution Under Fire, part of the art collection of the University of Notre Dame; featured in the 1993 film Gettysburg; and commemorated in the life-size bronze sculpture of Father Corby that stands on the exact spot where he granted the Irish Brigade general absolution.
Why They Fought
THE IRISH BRIGADE did not survive the war. On July 4, 1865, the brigade marched through Manhattan in a tumultuous, triumphal parade where cheering crowds lined the streets. The next day, the Irish Brigade was dissolved.
It lived on to an extent in the 69th New York Regiment, the all-Irish regiment that had been the core of the brigade. In 1917, as the United States prepared to enter World War I, the 69th called for volunteers: according to the regiment’s Catholic chaplain, Father Francis Duffy, of the 2,002 men who enlisted in the 69th, 95 percent were Irish Catholics. Among the new recruits was the poet Joyce Kilmer. In 1941, when the 69th prepared to enter World War II, Irish Catholics still comprised 70 percent of the regiment—and among them was Christopher Kilmer, the poet’s son.
In 1861 the Irish knew that most of their Yankee neighbors despised them. So why did they fight? They fought because they recognized that there were opportunities in the United States that did not exist in Ireland. They could send their children to public or parochial schools. They could practice their Catholic faith freely. Once they became citizens they could vote. Families able to set aside a little money could send their sons to a Catholic college such as Georgetown outside Washington, D.C., or Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. That the son of a tenant farmer could acquire a college education and enter one of the professions such as medicine or the law had been inconceivable in the Old Country. In spite of the bigotry and violence of the Nativists, the Irish recognized that America promised freedom unknown in Europe and opportunities unimaginable in Ireland—and the men of the Irish Brigade were willing to fight to defend those opportunities and preserve that freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (95) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas J. Craughwell
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/29/remembering-ireland-and-fighti
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 8.20.11 @ 4:18PM
I beg to difer: the best brigade in the Army of the Potomac was the 1st Brigade of the 1st Division of the 1st Corps, better known as "The Iron Brigade". The only brigade comprised entirely of "Western" regiments in the Army of the Potomac, the brigade was trained to a peak of efficiency by COL (later MGEN) John Gibbon, who outfitted them in the uniform of the regular Army infantry--including the famous black "Hardee hat" in place of the kepi.
They received their baptism of fire at Brawner's Farm during the Second Manassas campaign, duking it out for several hours with no fewer than two divisions of Jackson's Corps, and losing a quarter of its strength in the process. It was then that they began to garner the attention of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, who dubbed them "The Iron Brigade"--or, more prosaically, "Those black-hat boys".
Their greatest day was 1 July 1863, the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, when, entering battle directly off their line of march, they engaged Archer's Brigade of Heth's Division at Willoughby Run, then turned and beat back Davis' brigade as it attempted to flank the Union position through an incomplete railway cut. The brigade then conducted a fighting retreat back to seminary ridge, and when driven from the ridge by overwhelming numbers, retired in good order to Cemetery Hill. Despite losing two thirds of its strength in the first day's battle, it was in the thick of the fighting on Cemetery Hill on the second and third days of the battle. Though reduced to a shadow of its former self, the Iron Brigade continued to be the finest brigade in the Army of the Potomac until it was consumed in the holocaust of Grant's overland campaign.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.11 @ 1:03AM
And, as a Minnesotan, Stuart, I beg to differ with you. The finest regiment of all, although it did not have the repuatation of the other two, was the First Minnesota, which was told by Hancock to attack a far superior force to buy him time to set up his defenses. This they did---and suffered the highest casualties of any such unit in the Union ranks of the Civil War. Or, as the Wiki puts it (accurately):
"The men of the 1st Minnesota are most remembered for their actions on July 2, 1863, during the second day's fighting at Gettysburg, where the regiment prevented the Confederates from pushing the Federals off of Cemetery Ridge, a position that was to be crucial in the battle.
Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock, commander of the II Corps, ordered the regiment to assault a much larger enemy force (a brigade commanded by Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox) telling Col. William Colvill to take the enemy's colors. The fateful charge bought the time needed while other forces were brought up. During the charge, 215 members of the 262 men who were present at the time became casualties, including the regimental commander, Col. William Colvill, and all but three of his regimental Captains."
None retreated.
massmile | 8.21.11 @ 6:34AM
American history has really been a cesspool of shit, eh? No wonder you don't think we're an exceptional country. Bloody idiot.I am a 26 years old nurse, young and beautiful. Now I am seeking an older gentle man who can give me real love , so i got a username Annababe2011 on---a'ge'l'es's'da'te. C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.
prudence| 8.29.11 @ 2:29PM
Remove the first m from your name
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 7:09AM
No one doubts the gallantry of the 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg. They were called to hold the line against overwhelming odds, and did so. But the 1st Minnesota was a single regiment, and the article spoke of brigades. Moreover, Gettysburg was the one high point in the regiment's service; prior to the battle, while serving bravely, it had no opportunity to distinguish itself. After Gettysburg, it saw no further serious combat, and was mustered out in April 1864--before the start of the Overland Campaign.
My candidate for single best regiment in the Union Army would be the 6th Wisconsin of the Iron Brigade, but in the Civil War, it's really the brigade that served as the fundamental tactical unit, so its logical to assess brigades.
If I had to pick a brigade in Western armies of the North, I think it would be John T. Wilder's Lightning Brigade. Formed in 1863, Wilder mounted his men on mules for mobility, and armed them with seven-shot Spencer rifles, turning them into the first mounted infantry unit capable of out-shooting its straight-leg opponents.
Among its early accomplishments was a ride deep into Confederate territory to seize and hold Hoover Gap until the rest of the army arrived.
In the Chickamaugua campaign, their firepower enabled them to hold Alexanders Bridge on 18 September, preventing the Confederates from flanking the Union army position. On 20 September, the Lightening Brigade counterattacked the victorious Confederates, until ordered to withdraw, covering the retreat of the army to Chattanooga.
Serving in the Atlanta campaign, the March to the Sea, and the final March through the Carolinas, the Lightning Brigade was the outstanding brigade of the Western armies, a unit that pioneered tactics that would shape warfare in the 20th century, whose accomplishments are overshadowed by more famous units in the Army of the Potomac.
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:05PM
Ok Stuart, I give. But I did OK for an MD, eh? Any books on the Lightning Brigade?
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:02AM
Out of print, but still good: "Wilder's Lightning Brigade and its Spencer Repeaters".
http://www.amazon.com/Wilders-.....9996886417
Cosmo| 8.30.11 @ 3:11AM
There were wars of national unification in Europe at the same time....in Italy and Germany the industrial north invaded and defeated the agrarian south. This indicates that our Civil War was not about slavery. War is mass murder and nobody should be celebrating this...especially Christians.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:05AM
No, we were already unified. It was about slavery. It was about other things as well, but without slavery there would have been no irreconcilable issue to divide the states. And, while war is horrible and sinful, courage never is, and ought to be celebrated wherever it is found.
PaleRider1861| 8.30.11 @ 9:55AM
And I particularly like this last line of the above article:
"...and the men of the Irish Brigade were willing to fight to defend those opportunities and preserve that freedom."
Funny thing is, they were willing to preserve their freedom by depriving the Southerners of theirs.
Just love that Yankee spirit!
W| 8.30.11 @ 10:40AM
The South could have easily avoided the war by freeing the slaves. Then the slaves would have had freedom along withe the rest of the southerners.
The South kept insisting from 1789 to 1861 that slavery was necessary and tried to impose it on the new states.
The bottom line is the South wanted to maintain slavery, and that caused the war.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 2:52PM
But the South could not just have "freed the slaves" for the simple reason the "South" did not own the slaves. The slaves were property of Southern plantation owners, whose plantations were mortgaged to the hilt to Northern bankers, and the slaves formed part of the "collateral". So, in order to "free the slaves", someone would have had to compensate the Northern banks for their financial loss, or the plantation owners so that they could pay off their mortgages.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. Ever.
W| 8.30.11 @ 3:51PM
Stuart, I disagree.
I was using the South as a shorthand expression.
Each state government could have passed a law abolishing slavery, as was done in many of the northern states. They could have done it gradually, or at once, but they could have done it. This would have eliminated the divisions and "compromises" such as the Comromise of 1820 and the Kansas Nebraska Act. The southern senators and congressman were always trying to extend slavery to the new states to maintain the balance of power.
Remember the Nortwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in certain areas, even though this was rendered worthless by the Dred Scott decision.
As for the banks, they made loans based on humans as collateral. The borrowers had the responsibility to pay the loans even if the "collateral" was no longer there. Why should the rest have paid the plantation owners, they made loans pledging humans as collateral. Screw them. And if the banks could not collect, screw them. Better that banks and borrowers went bankrupt than 600,000 men die.
Of course, this is all academic, but interesting. We know what happened.
Stuart Koehl| 8.31.11 @ 7:38AM
As I said, nothing is as simple as it seems.
J.C.Eaton| 8.29.11 @ 9:50AM
What a terrific topic and it is equally terrific to see so much interest. As a Badger I must agree with Stuart that for sheer tenacity, courage, aand legend, The Iron Brigade wins first honors. Ist Brigade, 1st Division, 1st Union Corps.The Irish were no less brave but no one gave more than the only all-western Brigade in the Army of the Potomac. For two minor masterpieces on this unit, one written from an academic's perspective and one written from the bullet-riddled [although, miraculouly, he was never hit]perspective of a heroic line officer, "The Iron Brigade," by Alan Nolan and "Service With the Sixth Wisconsin Infantry" are to great places to start. All these guys were amazing...they simply wouldn't quit.
W| 8.20.11 @ 6:45PM
Stuart,
What book(s) do you recommend for Civil War military and political history?
Stuart Koehl| 8.20.11 @ 10:17PM
Gosh, big topic. How do you want to approach it? For the general reader, the finest literary work on the Civil War is still Shelby Foote's 3-Volume history, which as justly been called "an American Iliad". I would definitely begin there.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.11 @ 12:56AM
Yup. Shelby is the way to go. For 1 volume, "The Battle Cry of Freedom," right, Stuart?
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 6:42AM
McPherson's book is very good indeed, for a on-volume history.
W| 8.21.11 @ 10:42AM
Stuart,
Thank you.
I should have been more specific. I know there are thousands of books on the war. I received Foote's books as a Christmas present,but have not read them, I will now read it.
I am interested in books on a balanced view of Lincoln. The books range from Lincoln the Tyrant to Lincoln the Saint. I just read "Dred Scott's Revenge" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. He does criticize Linoln, and the government in general, for not attempting negotiations to end slavery without a war, such as occurred in Brazil. I know it is a contentious issue.
W| 8.21.11 @ 10:43AM
We are going to Gettysburg to tour the battle sites.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 7:24AM
Wonderful. The battlefield has been extensively restored, and now looks much more like it did on the afternoon of 3 July 1863 than it did even a decade ago. Check out the new visitor's center, and be sure to pick up "The Complete Gettysburg Guide" by J. David Petruzzi and Stephen Stanley. It has a range of driving and walking tours, incredible maps, excellent explanatory narrative and includes off the beaten trail sights such as the East and South Cavalry Fields, field hospitals, cemeteries and the town itself. I recommend you show up on a weekday, and plan to put in at least two days, to do justice to the battlefield.
W| 8.29.11 @ 3:24PM
Stuart, thanks.
You are our history maven.
What is your opinion of Lincoln, not as a commander, but as a political leader, and whether the war could have been avoided
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 4:56PM
I don't think the war could have been avoided, because the South had come to that point of short-term optimism and long-term pessimism that usually makes war unavoidable. That is, the Southern elites really did believe one Southerner was worth a dozen Yankees in battle, and that the martial tradition of the South would crush the shopkeepers and wage slaves of the North; but in the long term they saw themselves receding into economic obscurity that would, eventually, make them unable to resist either emancipation or industrialization. So, war now, with the good possibility of winning, or wait until defeat became a fait accompli. The Japanese talked themselves into the same place in 1941.
Quartermaster| 8.29.11 @ 6:00PM
It could have been avoided. Lincoln is the one that did not allow it to be avoided. The south was within her rights to secede. Most of the north was glad to see her go. Lincoln provided the agitprop with Sumter, by promising not to supply it and withdraw, and sending provision anyway.
In short, Lincoln lied.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:07AM
Secession would have meant control of the Mississippi River would have been in the hands of a foreign country, cutting off the Midwest from its principal supply line to the outside world, and the far west from the rest of the Union. I seriously doubt that, under such circumstances, war between the North and the South could have been avoided for long, even if secession had been accepted peacefully.
PaleRider1861| 8.30.11 @ 10:13AM
Mr Koehl, secession meant the entire Confederacy was now a foreign country. To suggest that the South would have prevented trade (and subsequent income) by closing this vital route after the War for Southern Independence came to a successful conclusion, is simply ludicrous, sir.
Just as revisionist historians of our day look back and wrongly assign the primary cause of this war to that of slavery, as if they need this noble cause to justify the outright slaughter of Southern men, women and children as occurred.
More to the point, why was Lincoln so eager to invade the South, and, by his success in battle, forcibly enslave the Southern people?
I believe John Wilkes Boothe answered this question for us all.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 2:55PM
"To suggest that the South would have prevented trade (and subsequent income) by closing this vital route after the War for Southern Independence came to a successful conclusion, is simply ludicrous, sir."
A fundamental rule of strategy is to plan on the basis of capabilities, not intentions. The South could have closed the Mississippi to Northern trade, and therefore the North would have to consider that a credible threat. At the very least, the South could have imposed heavy duties upon Northern cargos moving down the river to New Orleans.
PaleRider1861| 8.30.11 @ 4:14PM
And that would have been sweet justice, Mr. Koehl, because that is exactly what the North was doing with their increasingly high tariffs on southern tobacco and cotton...taxing the hell out of southern goods, then keeping the vast majority of the proceeds up North, depriving the South of the money.
These issues are very similar to the reason why the colonists bolted from England.
My other point you seemed to have overlooked: had the South either won the War, or seceded without provocation, they would have had no reason to block the port from anyone.
My sincere apology to the Booth family for misspelling JW's name in my prior post.
PCC| 8.29.11 @ 8:11AM
Perhaps the best one-volume biography of Lincoln, and almost certainly the most readable, is Stephen Oates' 400 pager, "With Malice Toward None".
PCC| 8.29.11 @ 8:03AM
I'm reading McPherson now for the first time. I'm only up to the late 1850s. So far I'd say his treatment is comprehensive to the point of being a little dense, but it's reasonably well written and worth the effort.
Quartermaster| 8.29.11 @ 5:56PM
If you wish to understand the political aspect of the War of Northern Aggression (a much more accurate name for the war) stay away from McPherson, Davis, and Nevins. It wasn't about slavery, in spite of the deep south ordinances of secession. Those three just grind the easy axes and don't really plumb the depths of the conflict.
wukong| 8.29.11 @ 7:39PM
The reason the South lost the War of Northern Aggression is that we ran out of Irish first.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:08AM
So, I guess the blockade did its job, after all.
W| 8.29.11 @ 10:25PM
Quartermaster, what books do you recommend?
Derek Leaberry| 8.29.11 @ 10:00AM
Joseph Glatthaar's "General Lee's Army" is an outstanding addition to the literature.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 4:58PM
The demographic analysis of the volunteers of 1861 is eye opening. It puts paid to the notion that the average Southern soldier had no stake in the slave system. In truth, he may not have owned slaves, but he was usually related to someone who did, or was otherwise dependent on the slave system for his livelihood. Other factors may have contributed to the outbreak of war, but without slavery, I'm pretty sure some peaceful resolution could have been found.
Quartermaster| 8.29.11 @ 6:02PM
And, who did this analysis? Every such "analysis" I've seen in the past hasn't stood scrutiny.
PCC| 8.29.11 @ 8:01PM
QM,
I find it difficult to believe that slavery was not the principle cause of the conflict.
Any chance you could give a summary of the alternative view?
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:27PM
Well, Shelby Foote, for one.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:14AM
Glathaar did the research himself, using induction records, tax and probate records and census data. Now, by 1863, after the initial enthusiasm had worn off and the South was getting its manpower through conscription, the proportion of non-slaveholders in the ranks rose to a majority. And that, of course, was one reason for the rise in draft dodging and desertion, particularly among men from areas with significant unionist sentiment, including the Virginia piedmont, parts of Tennessee, the Carolina back country, and northern Texas.
Richard Dowling| 8.20.11 @ 8:53PM
Mr. Craughwell, like most northern historians, immortalizes the Yankee Irish, but barely mentions the Conferedrate Irish (except for the 34th Georgia Infantry) who fought for the Confederacy. The occupied Irish of Great Britain would have better spent studying the insurgency strategy of the South, rather than the overpowering brute strength of the Union Forces. One of the most lopsided victories of the Confederacy occurred during the Battle of Sabine Pass when the 50 members of the Texas Irish of Richard Dowling held off over 5000 Union soldiers and sailors, sinking two gunboats and capturing 200 Union sailors and soldiers.
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 7:30AM
Let us not fail to mention Patrick Cleburne, the "Stonewall of the West", possibly the best Confederate divisional commander in any army, and thus possibly the best divisional commander of the war, North or South. Having served in the British army, Cleburne emigrated to the South before the Civil War, volunteered as an enlisted man after Fort Sumter, and rose steadily through the ranks to Major General. He was killed in John Bell Hood's ill-considered frontal assault on Franklin, TN, at the head of his division.
Beyond being a brilliant soldier and tactician, Cleburne was also a long-sighted strategist, who proposed that the South free its slaves in return for military service; his memorandum was so volatile, it was suppressed by Jefferson Davis. Nonetheless, in the waning days of the Confederacy, Davis revived Cleburne's proposal. By then it was too late--the slaves knew they were going to be freed by Union victory. Who knows what would have happened, had Cleburne's proposal been accepted in a timely manner?
Louis Jenkins| 8.21.11 @ 12:48PM
I would have to second Mr. Koehl's motion. Cleburne stands out among them many Irish who fought on either side. What was it he said on his last battle at Franklin? "Let us die like men." The writers say that Cleburne was the Stonewall of the West.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.29.11 @ 8:46AM
Irish commands that fought for independence and a country where they were fully accepted and appreciated -- the Confederate States of America.
•10th Tennessee Infantry Regiment (Sons of Erin)
•1st Irish Battalion
•Company E, 33rd Virginia Infantry Regiment, Stonewall Brigade (Emerald Guards)
•Louisiana Tigers
•McMillan Guards, Company K, 24th Georgia Infantry Regiment
•Jeff Davis Guard, Company F, First Texas Heavy Artillery
•Company I, 8th Alabama Infantry Regiment, Wilcox's Brigade (Emerald Guards)
RCV| 8.29.11 @ 11:32AM
Ironic that, having been slaves to the British, some of my ancestors chose to preserve slavery on others. Tis a shame, indeed.
Le Cracquere| 8.29.11 @ 4:40PM
Funny ... I was going to remark on the irony that escapees from arrogant, exploitative British occupiers should enlist to help impose such an occupation on others.
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:16PM
An interesting point about slavery---when Alabama seceded from the Union, Winston County Alabama seceded from Alabama because they didn't own any slaves. As a matter of fact, my in-law's family story is that my wife's great great etc grandmother, who was the widow of a Union soldier, had one of her horses taken from her by Sherman's Army. She went to see the Commanding General (I don't think Sherman, but who knows), showed him her notification of his death and her pension papers from the Union Army, cussed him out a bit, and got the horse back with the General's compliments.
There were dead from my wife's family on both sides at Franklin, which is an interesting battlefield, about 2 hours North from where I used to live (South of Nashville)---Cullman, AL.
Rob| 8.20.11 @ 9:13PM
What a great article. Thank you; I enjoyed reading it. The support of abolitionists for the Irish cause may also have been a contributing factor in the support of Irish immigrants for the Union war effort. As an example, cf. Frederick Douglass' trip to Ireland in 1845, including his meeting with Irish leader Daniel O'Connell. http://douglassoconnellmemorial.org/
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 7:34AM
Actually, throughout the period of the Civil War, and for a long time afterwards, Irish immigrants to the United States were anti-Abolition, and, frankly, blatantly racist (see my comments on the Draft Riots). Blacks and Irish were at the bottom of the heap, and fighting for the same crumbs of bread. Seeing blacks as competitors, Irish immigrants had no love for them, nor for a war that promised both to better the lot of blacks, and spill the blood of a lot of Irishmen.
As I said, most of the Irish who fought for the Union did so because they could not escape conscription. The Irish Brigade, formed early in the War, were all volunteers, and thus represented the minority of Irishmen who supported the war--which, when they signed on, was not a war to free the slaves, but to save the Union. The shift in war aims following Antietam, which also corresponded with the passage of the draft laws, decisively changed Irish immigrant opinion against the war.
Jack in Wi.| 8.20.11 @ 11:19PM
You seem to have forgotten the Draft riots of 1863 in New York. The Irish were digusted with being drafted and the rich men could buy his way out with 300 dollars. Poor Catholics were used as cannon fodder by the rich. They also were disgusted with Lincoln's freeing of the slaves which they figured would be in direct competition for jobs.
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 6:51AM
In the North, the Irish fought because that's what the Irish, historically, did. The military might be considered the worst available profession for a respectable white man, but it was just about the best one available to a black man--or an Irishman, both of whom were fighting for the lower rung of the social ladder in the U.S.
In Queen Victoria's army, the Irish accounted for a third of all the troops, far beyond the number in "Irish" regiments; they also accounted for a quarter of the sailors in the Royal Navy. Ireland was a poor and desolate place, and for those who stayed, military service offered food, clothing, a warm bed and a few shillings to send home; in return, Queen Victoria only asked that they travel to the ends of the earth and fight ferocious Africans, Asians and Indians--a good deal.
In the Civil War, of the 2.2. million men who served in the Union army, about 24% were German; 9.5% were black; and 9.1% were Irish. After the enthusiasm of 1861-62 wore off, conscription was the only way the Union could fill the ranks, and the Irish simply lacked the resources to evade its clutches (buying a substitute cost $300). Union agents were sent to Ireland to encourage young men to emigrate; many were enlisted under false pretenses, either in Ireland or on the ship to America, and found themselves in uniform as soon as they stepped off the boat.
On the Confederate side, cut off by the blockade, there was no stream of immigrants on which to draw. But the Irish, Germans and Jews of the South fought with distinction in proportion to their numbers. One group frequently overlooked were the Indians, some 28,000 of whom fought for the South and were highly regarded by their white compatriots. The Cherokee chief Stand Watie, made a Brigadier General in the CSA, commanded both white and Indian troops in the Trans-Mississippi theater and proved a consistent thorn in the side of Union commanders; he was the last Confederate general to surrender in 1865.
RCV| 8.29.11 @ 11:35AM
Stuart - Thanks as always for the fascinating history tidbits. And, while we're on the subject of Gettysburg, we musn't neglect Michael Shaara's brilliant novel -- really a detailed history of the four days of the battle -- "The Killer Angels". Brilliant.
W| 8.29.11 @ 12:01PM
Read Shara's book, very good.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 2:17PM
And, contrary to popular opinion, I find the movie to be a faithful and compelling adaptation of the book.
Occam's Tool| 8.21.11 @ 1:41AM
Boy, Jack, American history has really been a cesspool of shit, eh? No wonder you don't think we're an exceptional country. Bloody idiot.
Stuart Koehl| 8.21.11 @ 7:22AM
Jack's pretty much right on about the Draft Riots, though. The Irish and the blacks were at the bottom rungs of American society, considered inferior to "real" Americans. The Irish in particular were despised for their Roman Catholicism, and signs saying "No N--gers or Irish Need Apply" were common in New York and other cities. Living in the notoriously squalid Five Points slums, the Irish were resentful of the (admittedly unfair) way in which the draft was being administered (aside from the purchase of substitutes, a lot of magistrates saw the draft as a good way to empty the slums of troublemakers), and seeing the war as a struggle to free blacks (their main economic competitors), the Irish in New York (and several other cities) went on a rampage, and specifically targeting black businesses and neighborhoods.
Order was not restored until troops from the Army of the Potomac, fresh from their victory at Gettysburg, were sent to New York to impose martial law. In no mood to coddle draft dodgers, the troops dispersed the mobs with volleys and bayonets, after which a sullen New York City grudgingly complied with the Draft Laws.
More than a few books have been written about the Five Points and the Draft Riots, but only a couple on the integration of the Irish into American society. One of my favorites is called, provocatively, "How the Irish Became White", by Noel Ignatiev (http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0415918251.
Pecos Pete| 8.21.11 @ 9:06AM
Without fail, history repeats.
Excellent article and comments.
Clint Brooks| 8.29.11 @ 6:38AM
Whatever outfit obama's relatives were in was the best outfit.
Clint| 8.29.11 @ 7:58PM
You're An Asshat, Bob Grant.
Sean| 8.29.11 @ 7:20AM
In the 1850's the Irish were doing quite well in California politics.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 9:50AM
California during the Gold Rush was open territory--there was no real class or social structure in place, the old Mexican and American settlers having been swamped by the flood of Forty-Niners. In the vacuum the Irish were able to compete on a level playing field, and of course, did well.
PCC| 8.29.11 @ 8:17AM
How do you fellows manage to make online comments on August 20 & 21 when the article doesn't appear on the AmSpec site until August 29?
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 9:51AM
It was published prematurely on the 20th (a Saturday), then pulled and republished today. At least, that's the cover story we're using to keep you from finding out about our ability to move through space and time.
PCC| 8.29.11 @ 2:11PM
Ah, so thst's it. Thanks for the explanation.
I thought perhaps you were all members of the Trilateral Commission.
W| 8.29.11 @ 4:05PM
He believed you, Stuart.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 4:59PM
Our secret is safe--for now!
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:19PM
Indeed, Stuart---I do a lot of time travelling when I'm not in my Cave in Barbados taking my turn foiling Ron Paul's efforts to wrest control of the World's Money Supply from my fellow Jews. :)
Louis Jenkins| 8.29.11 @ 8:28AM
It's a snafu on the editor's part. This article has previously appeared on AS.
hardcard| 8.29.11 @ 9:15AM
UP MAYO !!!!!!!!!!!!
JimH| 8.29.11 @ 9:23AM
I wonder if Britain’s support of the South had much influence on the Irish in the north.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 9:53AM
None whatsoever. British support for the South was never unconditional, and never very strong. But for the Irish in the North, it was mainly about the struggle being "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight".
Quartermaster| 8.29.11 @ 6:09PM
That same line was used by my Confederate ancestors. The war was actually caused by money interests in the north running up against free traders in the south. Lincoln was the man of the Northern moneyed interests that could not tolerate a free trading south.
Only Republican at Woodstock| 8.30.11 @ 1:35AM
Why does this make the contribution of the Irish Brigades any less? It was not just the Irish who ended up in the war via conscription. It was just more common for non-Irish to have the money to buy their way out of the draft (which was perfectly legal at the time). Two of my great grandfathers fought in the Irish Brigade, and one spent two years in the Confederate's hellish Libby Prison. Both of them, one officer and one enlisted, joined because they saw slavery as an anathema (and an institution with roots in British colonialism in North America) and saw support of the Union as a critical step to acceptance of the Irish in America. They were far from the only ones with this viewpoint, and the Irish who looked down on Blacks were far from the only whites to do so. Even Lincoln's initial plan was to "repatriate" freed slaves to Africa. Also remember, while it is rarely mentioned, there were Irish police who died protecting Blacks in the New York draft riots.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:20AM
The Irish Brigade was pretty much unique among the Irish units of the Union Army, because it was raised from a combination of pre-war militia and early war volunteers.
Now, for reasons having to do with political patronage (an important man could always be bribed with a colonelcy), the Union preferred to raise new volunteer regiments, rather than send replacements to flesh out veteran ones. So, every regiment in the Irish Brigade started out with roughtly 1000 men, but as they did not get any replacements for them, these regiments gradually withered and died.
Their place was taken by regiments filled out with conscripts and substitutes, whose esprit de corps left a bit to be desired (things got a lot worse in 1864-65); the majority of Irish who served did not serve in elite Irish regiments, but in ordinary Union line regiments, and not as enthusiastic volunteers, but as unwilling conscripts; indeed, a large number of them had no idea they had enlisted in the army until they got off the boat from Ireland and were sent to a recruiting depot.
Petronius| 8.29.11 @ 10:38AM
Britain's stake in the War of Northern Invasion revolved around it's cotton trade with southern planters. Follow the $$$. In the 1830's they started shipping raw cotton to Lancashire mills in British bottoms, thus cutting out all the ship owners from Baltimore to Boston. Add to it the fact that there were more millionaires in Mississippi than Manhattan and bingo; slavery became unacceptable because the Yankees weren't getting their cut. Tempers flared in Congress. Southern Senators would not vote for any Navy appropriations for ships with shallow draft for coastal patrols as their ports only levied 10% tariff on landed goods where it was more than twice that in the northeast. The Yankees didn't get their hooks on the wealth of the South, but their anaconda policy and tactics destroyed it.
Stuart Koehl| 8.29.11 @ 2:25PM
However, New York and Boston bankers held the mortgages on many Southern plantations, with slaves being part of the collateral. The North could not have imposed emancipation on the South without bringing about its own financial ruin. The war, however, resulted in such an expansion of the Northern economy that the banks were able to offset their losses by transferring their holdings to government bonds. Of course, after the war, they were able to buy up a lot of Southern property for pennies on the dollar, making the transaction a profitable one, after all.
As for the South, its principal failure was holding onto its cotton at the start of the war, in the hope of bringing Britain in on its side. The Confederate government, however, overlooked that England was in the midst of a recession, which lowered demand for cotton; and had already begun opening an alternative source of supply in Indian cotton. The South should have exported as much cotton as it could before the Union blockade became effective, warehousing it in Europe until the prices rose, and, converting the sales into hard currency, used that both to buy arms and equipment, and to float Confederate government bonds.
In short, by its economic policies, the Confederacy lost the war before the first battle was fought.
Quartermaster| 8.29.11 @ 6:13PM
You speak truth there. I think the South would still have lost the war as it simply was not industrialized. Had the north left the Confederacy alone, the south would most likely have been back, and without the horrific losses sustained by both sides.
Charles| 8.29.11 @ 5:04PM
U know great article, but where is the article for the 250K German Americans who served in the Civil War for the North. Who created the Republican Party and the abolitionist movement? We probably have a great history in this country than any other ethnic group yet we are forgotten. Why is that?
RCV| 8.29.11 @ 5:41PM
Why not write it? That's how articles get published. No one has ever accused us Irish of not being storytellers.
W| 8.29.11 @ 7:32PM
I visited an ancient "Carnegie Library" that has a Civil War room with books, by state, listing the names of all the soldiers who fought. One old courthouse has the names of all the soldiers from the county that died in the war.
It is differen treading the names, ages, and the bits of bio.
W| 8.29.11 @ 8:57PM
"different reading"
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:25PM
W---you should go to Vicksburg and visit The Monument to the Illinois Dead, which is a Pantheon type structure. Stride the tiles and hear the echoes. You will get chills.
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:21PM
Don't know. But I resent those Germans, in a way---they were VERY, VERY good guys, and their descendants might have prevented WWII by injecting common sense into the German electorate.
Stuart Koehl| 8.30.11 @ 7:24AM
I think I mentioned above that Germans comprised the single largest ethnic group in the Union Army (even larger than indicated, if the majority of "Dutch" on the roles were actually Germans). One of my ancestors fought with the 45th New York, under Franz Sigel in the Shennandoah, then later with Howard's 11th Corps at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. Apparently he did quite a lot of running--which hides an interesting fact: until the 1870s, the martial reputation of Germans was very low, and the bulk of German immigrants came from very peaceable parts of Germany--like the Rhineland or Bavaria.
One of the more damaging aspects of German unionism was Lincoln's need to appoint important German political figures like Sigel and Steinwehr as major generals, where they almost uniformly proved to be disasters.
Charles| 8.29.11 @ 8:31PM
My comment was more directed to the historical community and the bias against German Americans and their role in the formation of this nation. It is just seems concerted to not tell our story.
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:22PM
Charles, you're right. Geman Americans, especially those good guys in the North in the 1860s, deserve mention.
Dan Mathewson| 8.29.11 @ 8:43PM
Good article. This is probably the first time that I've read all the comments and not one was filled the the sophmoric name calling that fills other AmSpec. article comments. It made for pleasant reading.
Occam's Tool| 8.29.11 @ 9:24PM
Dan---I'm sorry. But Jack and Clint only posted once and I wanted to talk to Stuart instead.
This thread featured Conservatives and not Libertarians. But I'm sorry for the name calling on the other threads.
Charles| 8.29.11 @ 9:36PM
not just hen, but from the formation of the republican party in the midwest. It was German immigrants who helped form the party.
heredress | 8.29.11 @ 11:32PM
This is a turbulent world. War, political, blood full of everywhere. What we can do is just take it easy!
POST American| 8.30.11 @ 12:10AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
EVEN Louis IV claimed the Irish made the
finest, most reliable, mercenaries.
AS we witness O'Reilly BALK and FOLD over
such gargantuan and pressing issues as--RED China
TREASON ----the ILLEGAL, usury-crazed,
foreign owned, private 'FED' ----the collapse
of borders, cultures, economy and soveregnty
----to such trifling events as the greatest world nuclear
disaster of ALL time --Fukishima
---ALLL while obediently hyping Bloomberg's
'Irene' fiasco as though it was a tsunami
-----we'd have to add --'BOTH for BETTER and WORSE'.
Hat| 8.30.11 @ 3:48AM
C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
new| 8.30.11 @ 4:05AM
Stride the tiles and hear the echoes. You will get chills.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.wholesaleshatsshop.com