The Vietnam War - 2017

#61
]
The only things you can learn from history are to try and understand WHY people did the things that way.

Evasion of military service is probably the norm. During the Napoleonic wars we were pressing/enslaving sailors, and paying someone to serve was quite common in earlier times.

My main concern over Trump's educational deferments is that he still writes and thinks like an 8 year old.
Clearly it didn't stick.
Of course. Learn from our mistakes. Also by the things we did well too.

The Napolionic enlistment of criminals was not such a bad idea for a wartime army. Prison or service. It gave the men another chance, their freedom and Wellington a larger standing army. Wouldn't work for a peacetime Army of course. Who wants a thief in their midsts?

I think judging his handwriting is a little hit and miss though..... My handwriting is abysmal, although, I don't claim to be educated!
 
#62
Each State was given a quota of men to produce and as of 1863 they made up the shortfall by conscription. Most districts used a ballot by drawing names from a drum. Such was the paranoia that there have been accounts of blind men being used to draw the lots, who were still blindfolded despite their disability.

The Union side made extensive use of substitutes ($150 per man) and commutations ($300), which led to the fairly accurate charge that the draft was more effective at raising funds for the Army than actual soldiers. There was widespread resentment at what was decried as a 'rich man's war, but a poor man's fight'. Recent Irish immigrants were most noticeably enraged by this as the 'Copperhead Riots' showed. There were a couple of reasons for this. The Irish, speaking English, were easily enrolled as citizens by the Tammany Hall political machine in New York to get them voting. This however obliged them to register for the draft, unlike blacks who weren't viewed as citizens in many districts. And unlike rich whites, they weren't able to buy their way out.

The Confederacy, whilst also employing substitutes also had a who class of exemptions especially for those working on plantations. There was an exemption for overseers, nicknamed the "twenty-n***er law" that allowed a plantation owner to retain one white overseer for every twenty slaves.
That is very interesting, using a blind man. I do not think I have ever heard that one before. It does make perfect sense though, how could he be accused of fixing things?

Tammany Hall are well known for their corruption and it does not surprise me one bit that the immigrants (mainly the Irish, for the points you mention) got the pooey end of the stick, and I imagine the registration of the immigrants and the joining up documents pretty much constituted one signature on one piece of paper, knowing that the families would be at the mercy of Tammany Hall too. I was not aware, but am not suprised that the Blacks were not even given citizen status. That is, quite frankly, gay. I can't even imagine how that could happen. Easy for a boy from a farm to say I know, I did not see my first not white face until I was 12, but, Jaaaaaayzus, were all humans aren't we?

I wonder what america would be like today if the South had won?
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#63
I was not aware, but am not suprised that the Blacks were not even given citizen status.
In the Dred Scott case of 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not, and could never be, citizens. Scott, a slave who had lived for a long time in a non-slavery State and whose old master had died, was suing in court for his freedom. The Court said that he was not a citizen so could not sue in court.

This was reversed after the Civil War with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then the 14th Amendment a couple of years later

I wonder what america would be like today if the South had won?
Divided into at least two different nations, I suppose.
 
#64
In the Dred Scott case of 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not, and could never be, citizens. Scott, a slave who had lived for a long time in a non-slavery State and whose old master had died, was suing in court for his freedom. The Court said that he was not a citizen so could not sue in court.

This was reversed after the Civil War with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then the 14th Amendment a couple of years later
It is mad that people had to live like that. However. As I always say, I should not appologise for what my Grandad did to your Grandad.....
 
#65
That is very interesting, using a blind man. I do not think I have ever heard that one before. It does make perfect sense though, how could he be accused of fixing things?

Tammany Hall are well known for their corruption and it does not surprise me one bit that the immigrants (mainly the Irish, for the points you mention) got the pooey end of the stick, and I imagine the registration of the immigrants and the joining up documents pretty much constituted one signature on one piece of paper, knowing that the families would be at the mercy of Tammany Hall too. I was not aware, but am not suprised that the Blacks were not even given citizen status. That is, quite frankly, gay. I can't even imagine how that could happen. Easy for a boy from a farm to say I know, I did not see my first not white face until I was 12, but, Jaaaaaayzus, were all humans aren't we?

I wonder what america would be like today if the South had won?
In England, the Irish were treated almost as badly as the blacks were.
The native Irish were exploited by absentee landlords, their language was banned and they were denied the vote if Catholic.

In America, they were treated as some sort of sub caste between the establishment and the slaves. The slums quickly filled up with them.

The early Irish settlers were also prone to trying to start revolts back in Ireland, and invading Canada...

Had the South won, I suspect that slavery would still have had a limited lifespan. Slavery is only a form of capitalism, with forced labour taking the role of machines. The South's economy was very agricultural, and their industry was primitive. There weren't that many big plantations, but a lot of small holders with only a few slaves.

The draw of the North would have meant that their slaves would have been constantly deserting. The small farming sector would have collapsed without labour. The South would have had a very long border to defend, and a weakened economy to pay for it. It could not maintain a large standing army. I suspect slavery would have quickly been abolished after the war, and been replaced with a sort of apartheid system, similar to what was in place up until the Civil Rights movement.

In some ways, it is similar to the Spartan situation, where they had a slave population to control, and when they broke free, Sparta stopped being a superpower, and became a tourist trap.

Slavery tends to disappear when mechanisation starts to appear. It is simply not cost effective.
 
#66
And sending them off to fight for a political system that made them segregated was a bit of a joke wasn't it? Heres a rifle, go kill some communists with your white contemporaries, but your wife had best not try and use our laundrettes? Go america.
And that was the 60's what was the excuse for Richard Stokes in the 1980's?
 
#67
Wouldn't work for a peacetime Army of course. Who wants a thief in their midsts?
Magistrates were doing it in the 1950s. In my troop in basic training there were two who had been given the option. One turned out to be an excellent soldier, the other was awaiting Court Martial for thieving when we passed out.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#68
Slavery tends to disappear when mechanisation starts to appear. It is simply not cost effective.
I know we're going way off-thread here, but ... I'd actually argue that slavery loses any economic advantage even without mechanisation, especially when there is a surplus of labour. I'd point to our own experience with serfdom as an example, which became obsolete by the 16th Century. It was simply cheaper to periodically hire workers when required than give them tenancy or maintain them indefinitely, especially when that land could be used more economically for grazing sheep.

In fact, indirectly, mechanisation gave a boost to slavery in America, as the industrialised mills of Europe demanded greater quantities of raw materials from the New World.
 
#70
Magistrates were doing it in the 1950s. In my troop in basic training there were two who had been given the option. One turned out to be an excellent soldier, the other was awaiting Court Martial for thieving when we passed out.
Wasn't that tied into the National Service scheme at the time?
 
#71
On the rare occasions that I meet a New England Democrat, I take a childish pleasure from reminding them that it was a Democrat who took the US into Vietnam and a Republican who took them out.
 
#72
Believe a uni photo of Clinton was shown while the programme discussed students avoiding the draft. One of Bush Jr in his Air Force National Guard uniform while talking about national guard units not being deployed to Vietnam so seen as a safe option. While Trump, after representing his school in two sports teams, got himself a medical deferment followed by academic ones I believe.
To be fair don’t see it as playing to the crowd to highlight how those who have sent young men into harms way as Presidents did their very best to avoid going to Vietnam.
28K Air and National Guardsmen served in RVN, 13K of them as ground forces. As individual augmentees and units Like Delta co 151st INF (LRRP) of the Indiana ARNG & 29th Inf Bde.

Westmoreland had requested the Guard but LBJ denied it and increased the draft instead.
Certain NG units were SRF(Selected Reserve Force) basically units had higher priority for equipment and extra training weeks above the normal for ARNG units. these units were still under consideration for deployment to RVN, ROK or FRG.

FDR himself got a nice slacker gig in WW1 while his cousins all fought (Ted jr wounded and gassed, Archie crippled, and Kermit served with the British Army, and Quentin was shot down while in the 95th Aero Sqn

Meanwhile

Fightin Joe Biden got 5 deferments, then claimed Asthma that never stopped him being a lifeguard and college baseball player (and no friends or family ever remember him suffering an asthma attack)

Dick Cheney got 5 deferments, several for student and also for being a father

Both had they just initially served their 2 years would have been discharged in 1964-65 and ineligible for Vietnam service as shorttimers

Bill Clinton took a USNR officer slot when his student deferment ran out, then ran to the UK

Al Gore Volunteered for Vietnam to help his fathers senatorial re election. Served 5 months of a 12 month tour till he asked to be sent home and the Army obliged (Dad Al sr lost the election)

Donald Trump as you know had heel spurs and pussed out

GWB volunteered for the ANG spent about 2.5 years active duty to become and officer and pilot and was released early during a Vietnam RIF to make way for Combat pilots to get slots in the ANG
 
#73
Wasn't that tied into the National Service scheme at the time?
I can name 2 Medal of Honor Awardees given the option

SGT Charles E. "Commando" Kelly of the 36th texas Divisions 143rd Inf at Salerno

SGT (Then PFC) Alejandro Renteria y Ruiz of the 27th Divisions 165th inf on Okinawa

Both were in legal trouble and given the option of jail or the Army

Ruiz spent 20 years in the army (including fighting again in Korea) and retired a Master Sergeant in 1964
 
#74
I can name 2 Medal of Honor Awardees given the option

SGT Charles E. "Commando" Kelly of the 36th texas Divisions 143rd Inf at Salerno

SGT (Then PFC) Alejandro Renteria y Ruiz of the 27th Divisions 165th inf on Okinawa

Both were in legal trouble and given the option of jail or the Army

Ruiz spent 20 years in the army (including fighting again in Korea) and retired a Master Sergeant in 1964
Im guessing that they are american. I was talking about British National Service
 
#75
I know we're going way off-thread here, but ... I'd actually argue that slavery loses any economic advantage even without mechanisation, especially when there is a surplus of labour. I'd point to our own experience with serfdom as an example, which became obsolete by the 16th Century. It was simply cheaper to periodically hire workers when required than give them tenancy or maintain them indefinitely, especially when that land could be used more economically for grazing sheep.

In fact, indirectly, mechanisation gave a boost to slavery in America, as the industrialised mills of Europe demanded greater quantities of raw materials from the New World.
Serfdom started dying in Europe after the Black Death in the 14th century.
Chronic labour shortages meant that the peasant could find work anywhere.
Once broken, it was impossible to put it back in place.

It lingered in uncivilised backwaters (Russia) until the 1860's....

America was rather odd in that it linked slavery to skin colour.
Early settlements in America and the West Indies used a lot of convict, indenture or slave labour, who were often Scottish or Irish.
Other nations had used religion as a pretext for slavery.
America had a problem in that the Christian religion is fairly clear that all followers are equal, so some fairly peculiar theology had to be used to justify dehumanising the Christian black population.
Radicals like John Brown wouldn't have any of that.
 
#76
Other nations had used religion as a pretext for slavery.
America had a problem in that the Christian religion is fairly clear that all followers are equal, so some fairly peculiar theology had to be used to justify dehumanising the Christian black population.
Radicals like John Brown wouldn't have any of that.
The Romans, the Mesopotamians and the Norsemen all took Christian slaves. The americans didnt invent slavery, they only took it into modern(ish) history. I suppose you could say that the Moors also played with slavery around the Mediterranean a bit too. Their trips into Spain and Sicilly would have been mainly Catholics....
 
#77
Serfdom started dying in Europe after the Black Death in the 14th century.
Chronic labour shortages meant that the peasant could find work anywhere.
Once broken, it was impossible to put it back in place.

It lingered in uncivilised backwaters (Russia) until the 1860's....

America was rather odd in that it linked slavery to skin colour.
Early settlements in America and the West Indies used a lot of convict, indenture or slave labour, who were often Scottish or Irish.
Other nations had used religion as a pretext for slavery.
America had a problem in that the Christian religion is fairly clear that all followers are equal, so some fairly peculiar theology had to be used to justify dehumanising the Christian black population.
Radicals like John Brown wouldn't have any of that.
Oddly the first legal slave in the Americas was a Black man, John Casor who was owned by another Black man, Anthony Johnson in 1655

Court Ruling on Anthony Johnson and His Servant (1655)

The Horrible Fate of John Casor, The First Black Man to be Declared Slave for Life in America | Smart News | Smithsonian

EDIT John Browns first victim during his harpers ferry raid was a free Black man, Heyward Shepard a railroad porter who was murdered because he refused to stop when he tried to warn the town of the impending raid
 
#78
The Romans, the Mesopotamians and the Norsemen all took Christian slaves. The americans didnt invent slavery, they only took it into modern(ish) history. I suppose you could say that the Moors also played with slavery around the Mediterranean a bit too. Their trips into Spain and Sicilly would have been mainly Catholics....
I think you have missed my point.
Most historical slave owning cultures did not really care about colour or religion.
A slave was a slave.

The American version specifically classed blacks as sub human to justify their slavery.

I think that the British underestimate the influence of the Puritan Christian mindset in American history.
The blacks were considered to be under the Old Testament Biblical "Curse of Ham" and condemned to serve.
Other New Testament Puritans thought this was rubbish.
There is the conflict.
 
#79
I think you have missed my point.
Most historical slave owning cultures did not really care about colour or religion.
A slave was a slave.

The American version specifically classed blacks as sub human to justify their slavery.

I think that the British underestimate the influence of the Puritan Christian mindset in American history.
The blacks were considered to be under the Old Testament Biblical "Curse of Ham" and condemned to serve.
Other New Testament Puritans thought this was rubbish.
There is the conflict.
I think I did. Sorry about that.

The feeling I got from watching Roots (I know, I know) was that the white plantation owner would see the slaves that he 'owned' (and lets not get sidetracked with the philosophical implications of that statement) as a capital outlay rather than a curse, a possession - such as Chicken George and what he became 'worth' after the cockfights etc, would it not be fair to say that the puritans lived mainly in the North of america? The South were devout yes, but puritanical? No way - Look at all the illegal stills and the gambling!
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#80
The Romans, the Mesopotamians and the Norsemen all took Christian slaves. The americans didnt invent slavery, they only took it into modern(ish) history. I suppose you could say that the Moors also played with slavery around the Mediterranean a bit too. Their trips into Spain and Sicilly would have been mainly Catholics....
The Septics also put a whole new meaning to the word "slave". There weren't that many Africans actually that went to the US, in contrast to the hundreds of thousands who went to South America, the West Indies, etc, because the Septics established their own domestic slave industry at a comparatively early stage that was centred in Virginia. They had proper "slave farms" where they'd raise slaves and sell them, like cattle. Slaves were the main form of "currency" in the southern states, which is why they were so dead set against abolition.

MsG
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top