Want this question answered?
Hiring a substitute
hiring a substitude
He could get up $300, a substantial sum at the time ( my guess this was donated to the Department of the Army) or (Buy) a qualified substitute. It is not known what the service obligation of the substitute was- it could be say, 24 months, or possibly for the duration of the war.
was a kind of draft that the wealthy could buy their way out of and was strongly opposed in the north
Yes, especially in the North where the Irish and other poor immigrants fought because of the Draft that was instituted in the North. Immigrants really fought on every side, but mostly in the North because the North had a draft.
Hiring a substitute
hiring a substitude
hiring a substitude
He could get up $300, a substantial sum at the time ( my guess this was donated to the Department of the Army) or (Buy) a qualified substitute. It is not known what the service obligation of the substitute was- it could be say, 24 months, or possibly for the duration of the war.
Soldiers were obtained in the Civil War by volunteering and later the draft. In the South, any able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 50 could be drafted. In the North, between ages 17 and 25. A Southerner could avoid the draft by owning at least twenty slaves. A Northerner could avoid the draft by paying the government $300. For this reason, the Civil War became known as "The rich man's war, poor man's fight".
was a kind of draft that the wealthy could buy their way out of and was strongly opposed in the north
Badly organised. A draftee could pay a substitute to do his service for him, if he could afford to. This was obviously a bad provision. Who were these substitutes? Obviously draft-dodgers, who would immediately desert and find someone else to pay them for the same thing.
the draft
Yes, on both sides. The average Confederate was poor white trash fighting for rich slave-owners. In the North, a rich man's son could avoid the draft by paying a substitute - a system that was very bad for morale, and no good for the army anyway. Who were these substitutes? Obviously draft-dodgers waiting to be bribed into service.
Yes, especially in the North where the Irish and other poor immigrants fought because of the Draft that was instituted in the North. Immigrants really fought on every side, but mostly in the North because the North had a draft.
By paying a substitute - a bad system, partly because the rank-&-file resented rich young men who could slide out of their duty, and also because these substitutes could only be deserters, draft-dodgers or over-age men, otherwise they would already be in uniform.
The draft laws passed by first the Confederacy in 1862 and later in 1863 by the Union were not popular laws. The main groups it affected and thus were opposed to draft laws on both sides were poorer citizens. The laws in each place (North & South) were poorly drafted and in the case of New York City, caused the largest public insurrection in US history. President Lincoln had to send 20,000 troops fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg along with artillery (howitzers) to New York to quell a two riot. The draft law in the North allowed a citizen to pay the Federal Government $300 in order to avoid serving. Poor citizens could not afford this amount. Also, if a draftee could find a person to take his place, he was exempt from the draft. The draft law in the South was also unpopular, however, there were no public displays of protest. Citizens in the South had to serve with a very important exception. If they owned 20 or more slaves, they were exempt from the draft. Most soldiers in the South did not qualify for this exception as few owned that 20 slave minimum.