The Social Order and Violent Disorder: An Analysis of North Carolina in the Revolution and the Civil War

Escott, Paul D.; Crow, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.2307/2209568

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Escott and Crow (1986) point out, even during the war southerners recognized the bitter irony of an army made up overwhelmingly of poor farmers fighting and dying to maintain the privileges of the elite. As Escott and Crow (1986) point out, even during the war southerners recognized the bitter irony of an army made up overwhelmingly of poor farmers fighting and dying to maintain the privileges of the elite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

Giuffre¹

1997

Social Science History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

Giuffre¹

1997

Social Science History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Arguments that disloyalty was based on economic antagonisms apply not only to those within the gross geographic division of the state but also encompass social divisions beyond state boundaries. As Escott and Crow (1986) point out, even during the war southerners recognized the bitter irony of an army made up overwhelmingly of poor farmers fighting and dying to maintain the privileges of the elite. Contemporary critics assailed the "rich man's war, poor man's fight" (Wallenstein 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

Giuffre¹

1997

Social Science History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In place of open mutiny, [powerless groups] prefer desertion. . . . They make use of implicit understandings and informal networks. . . . When such stratagems are abandoned in favor of more quixotic action, it is usually a sign of great desperation.Scott (1985: xvi)At the beginning of the Civil War, few suspected how brutal and bloody the conflict would prove to be. During the first months of the war, thousands of men and boys from North Carolina rushed to enlist. As deaths from disease and battle mounted dramatically, soldiers who had agreed to serve for one, two, or three years found themselves legally compelled to stay even after their enlistment was up, and those who had stayed home enlisted reluctantly under the threat of the draft (Wright 1978). Detained in the Confederate army often by threat of imprisonment or even death (ibid.), obliged to fight for a cause that appeared increasingly to be contrary to their own interests (Bardolph 1964), watching as the wealthy plantation owners resigned their commissions and bowed out (Tatum 1934), thousands of soldiers took up one strategy of resistance to the war: desertion. Of the 120,000 North Carolinians who enlisted to fight in the Confederate army, an estimated 12,000 deserted before the war was over. This study will test the hypothesis that desertion was a form of resistance to the war by a relatively powerless group, the small farmers. The central focus of this article will be the predictors of desertion. Of the estimated 10% of the Confederate soldiers from North Carolina who deserted from the army, the majority were small-scale farmers who had long opposed the wealthy elites on a variety of issues.

show abstract

“…Contemporaries did not fail to notice the irony of a state rights movement led by a central authority more powerful than the Union from which the Southern states had seceded. These arguments have cumulated in a new historical vision of the Civil War that suggests that structural and ideological cleavages undermined Confederate unity (Escott & Crow 1986). In the context of a weak and poorly articulated national identity, these nascent cleavages undermined the bases for collective action and lead inexorably to Northern victory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Desertion As Localism: Army Unit Solidarity and Group Norms in the U.S. Civil War

Bearman¹

1991

Social Forces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing from the experiences of 3,126 enlisted men from North Carolina who fought for the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, this article focuses on the determinants of desertion. I argue that men deserted because their identity as Southerners was eroded by an emergent localism, sustained and organized within the Confederate army.Desertion rates were highest in companies that evidenced a high degree of local homogeneity -company solidarity thus bred rather than reduced desertion rates. There is no supportfor any of the historical models of desertion that search for individual-level determinants, such as social class, occupation, status, family structure, age, or time of enlistment. Finally, contextual variables seem to be weak proxiesfor the central variable accounting for desertion -the emergence of a localist identity.Mother there is soldiers deserting every day & I hope that they will continue to desert until this war is ended.

show abstract

The Social Order and Violent Disorder: An Analysis of North Carolina in the Revolution and the Civil War

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

First in Flight: Desertion as Politics in the North Carolina Confederate Army

Desertion As Localism: Army Unit Solidarity and Group Norms in the U.S. Civil War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About