Thread by @irishacw

I'm writing about late American Civil War economic enlistees. Every time I do so I find myself discomforted by how groups such as substitutes still tend to be characterised in much of the literature. Unreliable, untrustworthy and somehow "lesser" than early war volunteers. 1/7

Aside from the problems that privileging early war volunteers as somehow being "better men" creates, the reality is that the majority of eligible white men in the U.S. chose not to serve during the Civil War. These late war recruits were willing to do what most were not. 2/7

They are woefully understudied, but immigrants (and Irish Americans) appear disproportionately represented among their number. Somehow, this is often cast as a negative, as if it provides evidence of a lesser commitment to Union. But again, most men chose not to serve at all. 3/7

For the working class poor, the amount of money on offer was potentially life changing for them and their families, which is why most did it. And by 1863, anyone who entered the army did so in the full knowledge of the potentially horrific cost of service. No small thing. 4/7

I have read far, far too many dependent pension files of late war recruits who lost their lives not to highly regard the contribution they made to Union victory. Added to that, their letters show that many of their motivations were remarkably similar to the men of 1861/62. 5/7

For example, I would challenge anyone not to come to the conclusion that the motivations behind James Ryan's decision to become a substitute were just as laudable as any of those who rushed to the Colors in the summer of 1861: irishamericancivilwar.com/2020/02/18/in-… 6/7

In anycase, this is an area I hope we see a lot more detailed, considered work on in the coming years. In my view, these men are as interesting (and as deserving) of analysis as the early war volunteers. They are certainly far more than a bunch of bounty-jumping mercenaries. 7/7