What do you think?
Rate this book
A Higher Duty: Desertion among Georgia Troops during the Civil War
This book addresses the most important issues associated with Confederate desertion. How many soldiers actually deserted, when did they desert, and why? What does Confederate desertion say about Confederate nationalism and the war effort? Mark A. Weitz has taken his argument beyond the obvious reasons for desertion–that war is a horrific and cruel experience—and examined the emotional and psychological reasons that might induce a soldier to desert. Just as loyalty to his fellow soldiers might influence a man to charge into a hail of lead, loyalty to his wife and family could also lead him to risk a firing squad in order to return home.
230 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2000
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 21, 2012
Some very interesting data about class divisions and inequality of sacrifice among white southerners.
A brief synopsis:
In the Confederacy 90% of its citizens did not own slaves. Of the remaining 10% only 1% owned more than 20 slaves. This was pretty typical of Georgia too.
Despite the traditions of Southern honor among the plantation class, it turns out that those owning 20 or more slaves were exempt from the draft. Those who were exempt did have to serve in the militia, and were allowed to serve locally, ostensibly to prevent slave rebellions, and provide crops that were no longer available from the North, and which were needed to supply the army. There were of course many of that class who chose to serve in the army and take an active part. Whether they did or not, due to slave ownership, they could be assured their wives and family would have the farm labor to take care of their needs.
Upcountry, in North Georgia, the yeoman farmers, were subject the draft, for they lacked special protections available to the slaveocrats of the Plantation Belt. Lacking slaves, since all the able bodied men were subject, their wives and families were deprived of sufficient farm labor and were often left destitute. As a result, within that group, their loyalty was divided because of the very real threat to their families.
Like their men, for the women of upcountry Georgia there was a concept of honor that placed family first. Unlike the plantation women, who took pride in the honor of their men fighting until the last, their wives did not have that luxury. As a result, once the cause looked lost or the family was facing the immediate threat of annihilation, their wives began to beg their husbands to return.
As a result many deserted, or surrendered to Union troops, with the heaviest numbers concentrated in the north.
A brief synopsis:
In the Confederacy 90% of its citizens did not own slaves. Of the remaining 10% only 1% owned more than 20 slaves. This was pretty typical of Georgia too.
Despite the traditions of Southern honor among the plantation class, it turns out that those owning 20 or more slaves were exempt from the draft. Those who were exempt did have to serve in the militia, and were allowed to serve locally, ostensibly to prevent slave rebellions, and provide crops that were no longer available from the North, and which were needed to supply the army. There were of course many of that class who chose to serve in the army and take an active part. Whether they did or not, due to slave ownership, they could be assured their wives and family would have the farm labor to take care of their needs.
Upcountry, in North Georgia, the yeoman farmers, were subject the draft, for they lacked special protections available to the slaveocrats of the Plantation Belt. Lacking slaves, since all the able bodied men were subject, their wives and families were deprived of sufficient farm labor and were often left destitute. As a result, within that group, their loyalty was divided because of the very real threat to their families.
Like their men, for the women of upcountry Georgia there was a concept of honor that placed family first. Unlike the plantation women, who took pride in the honor of their men fighting until the last, their wives did not have that luxury. As a result, once the cause looked lost or the family was facing the immediate threat of annihilation, their wives began to beg their husbands to return.
As a result many deserted, or surrendered to Union troops, with the heaviest numbers concentrated in the north.
December 11, 2013
A Higher Duty is a detailed look at desertion among Georgia troops during the Civil War. Mark Weitz examines the numbers, times of desertion, home counties of deserters, units in which the deserters served, and the effect of the home front on deserting soldiers. The result is an insightful and original look at the subject, and challenges some of the assumptions that have been held by historians about Confederate desertion.
Weitz uses a wide variety of sources, including letters, newspaper articles, and government documents to craft his arguments and narrative. The main pillar of the research bind this book is the US register of Confederate deserters that took the oath of loyalty to the Union. The register lists soldiers by name, home, age, date captured, and date they swore the oath of loyalty. The author uses the register to find the pattern of desertion for Georgian troops, both when and where they deserted, but also where those men were from in Georgia.
The vast majority of Georgian troops that deserted to the Union did so between Fall 1863 and Fall 1864. Tradition views of Confederate desertion tie it to military defeat, but Weitz argues that at least for Georgian troops the causes were deeper. While the turning tide of military fortune doubtlessly played a part, proximity to home, proximity of Union authority, evaporation of Confederate control of their homes, and hardship suffered on the home front seem to have played a larger part.
According to the author's research, the majority of Georgian deserters came from counties in the Northern Georgia Upcountry and Upper Piedmont. These men were also mostly privates from regiments serving in the Army of Tennessee, which retreated into North Georgia after it's defeat at Missionary Ridge in November 1863. Since there were few slaves in the Upcountry and Upper Piedmont, and most people were subsistence farmers, the burdens of the war fell harder on families there. When the men who provided for those families went to war, there weren't slaves to fall back on to plant and reap crops or perform other labor to sustain them. In addition to this, the Georgian government failed to step in to relief the hardships of these families, despite it's promises to the contrary.
Weitz contrasts desertion numbers, as well as demographics and economics, of different regions of Georgia to help show class differences between these regions. These differences help to further explain who deserted, when and why, and also why there was not more desertion in other parts of the state.
The author clearly did his research well, and he draws clear and original conclusions from them. The narrative reads easily, and maps and charts help to illustrate and explain the data from which the author crafts his arguments. The author also studiously avoids the pitfalls of making sweeping statements and generalizations from his research. While he argues that Georgian desertion is an illustration of the failure of Confederate nationalism, and also challenges long-held beliefs about Confederate desertion, he also confines his arguments to the Georgians whom he studied. All of this adds up to an original, thought-provoking study, which should be informative for anyone interested in the social history of the Civil War.
Weitz uses a wide variety of sources, including letters, newspaper articles, and government documents to craft his arguments and narrative. The main pillar of the research bind this book is the US register of Confederate deserters that took the oath of loyalty to the Union. The register lists soldiers by name, home, age, date captured, and date they swore the oath of loyalty. The author uses the register to find the pattern of desertion for Georgian troops, both when and where they deserted, but also where those men were from in Georgia.
The vast majority of Georgian troops that deserted to the Union did so between Fall 1863 and Fall 1864. Tradition views of Confederate desertion tie it to military defeat, but Weitz argues that at least for Georgian troops the causes were deeper. While the turning tide of military fortune doubtlessly played a part, proximity to home, proximity of Union authority, evaporation of Confederate control of their homes, and hardship suffered on the home front seem to have played a larger part.
According to the author's research, the majority of Georgian deserters came from counties in the Northern Georgia Upcountry and Upper Piedmont. These men were also mostly privates from regiments serving in the Army of Tennessee, which retreated into North Georgia after it's defeat at Missionary Ridge in November 1863. Since there were few slaves in the Upcountry and Upper Piedmont, and most people were subsistence farmers, the burdens of the war fell harder on families there. When the men who provided for those families went to war, there weren't slaves to fall back on to plant and reap crops or perform other labor to sustain them. In addition to this, the Georgian government failed to step in to relief the hardships of these families, despite it's promises to the contrary.
Weitz contrasts desertion numbers, as well as demographics and economics, of different regions of Georgia to help show class differences between these regions. These differences help to further explain who deserted, when and why, and also why there was not more desertion in other parts of the state.
The author clearly did his research well, and he draws clear and original conclusions from them. The narrative reads easily, and maps and charts help to illustrate and explain the data from which the author crafts his arguments. The author also studiously avoids the pitfalls of making sweeping statements and generalizations from his research. While he argues that Georgian desertion is an illustration of the failure of Confederate nationalism, and also challenges long-held beliefs about Confederate desertion, he also confines his arguments to the Georgians whom he studied. All of this adds up to an original, thought-provoking study, which should be informative for anyone interested in the social history of the Civil War.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews