The Life of Paddy Yank: the Common Irish-American Soldier in the Union Army

Home , Billy Yank, Complexion, Donnelly (surname), Gaelic warfare, Grady McWhiney, Irish Brigade (France)

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

The Life of Paddy Yank: The Common Irish-American Soldier in the Union Army

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of History

School of Arts and Sciences

Of The Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

By James Zibro

Washington, D.C.

2016

The Life of Paddy Yank: The Common Irish-American Soldier in the Union Army

James Zibro, Ph.D.

Director: Timothy J. Meagher, Ph.D.

Nearly 150,000 Irish-born men served as soldiers in the Union army during the American

Civil War and since the nineteenth-century, Irish soldiers have been a popular topic of scholarly study. Yet despite the abundance of publications on Irish service, the Civil War, and on Irish

America, we know little, if anything about the common Irish-born Union soldier. Indeed, most publications provide little sophisticated analysis and nearly all recycle nineteenth-century stereotypes of Irish immigrants. This study attempts to fill the void in the literature, contributing to the understanding of common Civil War soldiers as well as the history of the Irish in America.

Using regimental descriptive books – a source long-ignored by many scholars studying

Irish Civil War service – as well as pension and census records, the author constructed a longitudinal social-mobility study of Irish-born soldiers in ethnic Union regiments. In doing so, the study ascertains the typical profile of the Irish immigrant soldier in the sample, the characteristics of his soldiering, and his postwar experience. The data suggests that the typical

Irish-born volunteer does not fit the description laid out by previous scholars. Most Irish soldiers were not young, unskilled laborers who had only recently arrived in America. Compared to most other Irish immigrants, they were economically successful. Most were old, older than the typical

Union soldier, and had resided in the United States long before hostilities broke out between the

North and South. This information also offers insight to Irish American identity and Irish motivation for enlisting, which was likely not for financial reasons as scholars have claimed.

Yet diversity existed as well. The soldiers’ county of birth illuminates cultural differences that existed within Ireland and also shows the presence of immigrant networks and

migration chains that connected regions in Ireland with specific places in America. As soldiers, the Irish-born paradoxically deserted and fought and died in large numbers, which calls into question not only how they had previously been characterized, but the validity of using those categories as accurate measures of soldier commitment to the Union. Lastly, in the postwar years, Irish veterans enjoyed both economic success and failure.

This dissertation by James Zibro fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in American History approved by Timothy J. Meagher, Ph.D., as Director, and by Stephen A. West, Ph.D., and Tyler Anbinder, Ph.D., as Readers.

______Timothy J. Meagher, Ph.D., Director

______Stephen A. West, Ph.D., Reader

______Tyler Anbinder, Ph.D., Reader

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Paddy Yank’s Predicament ...... 1

1. “I Hardly Knew Ye”: The Irish-American Soldier ...... 23

2. “I have enlisted in a Glorious Cause”: Motivation for Volunteering ...... 77

3. “For I’m sure I’ve had enough of your hard fightin’”: Deserting the Army ...... 134

4. “Mowed down like grass”: Fighting and Dying for the Union ...... 185

Afterword & Conclusion: Paddy Yank, Lost and Possibly Found ...... 216

Appendix A: Irish Soldiers Sample ……………………………………………………… ...... 233

Appendix B: Irish Veterans Sample………………………………………...... 243

Bibliography………………………………………...... 245

iii

LIST OF TABLES & MAPS

I-1. Birthplace within regiment………………… ...... 17

1-1. Representativeness of given names among Irish soldiers ...... 26

1-2. Average height in inches among Irish-born soldiers by province ...... 36

1-3. Average age upon enlistment among Irish-born soldiers by regiment ...... 40

1-4. Marital status for Irish-born soldiers based on occupation ...... 44

1-5. Marital status for Irish-born soldiers based on province ...... 44

1-6. Occupational status for Irish-born soldiers ...... 49

1-7. Occupation for Irish-born soldiers by regiment ...... 52

1-8. Occupation for Irish-born soldiers by province ...... 56

1-9. County representation for Irish-born soldiers ...... 61

1-10. Most represented counties among Irish immigrants ...... 62

1-11. Provincial representation for Irish-born soldiers ...... 63

1-12. Top three counties for Munster and Ulster from sample ...... 63

1-13. Settlement region in U.S. by province ...... 70

1-14. Top seven counties for Irish-born New York soldiers ...... 71

1-15. Top eight counties for Illinois soldiers ...... 72

1-16. Top eleven counties for Massachusetts soldiers ...... 73

1-17. Top six counties for Pennsylvania soldiers ...... 74

2-1. Irish occupation by enlistment year ...... 97

2-2. Irish soldiers by enlistment year ...... 99

3-1. Wartime desertion rate...... 141

3-2. Irish deserter age by desertion year ...... 142

3-3. Irish desertion as percentage of desertion sample ...... 145

3-4. Deserter occupation ...... 146

3-5. Deserter occupation by combined desertion year ...... 147

3-6. Desertion probability by province ...... 149

3-7. Irish desertion in 1862 without 90th Illinois ...... 152

3-8. Irish desertion in 1862, without the 90th Illinois, and 1863 ...... 155

3-9. 1863 Irish desertion by month ...... 164

3-10. 1864 Irish desertion by month ...... 167

3-11. Desertion for 90th Illinois by year ...... 171

3-12. Desertion rate for marital status...... 181

3-13. Occupation for married Irish soldiers ...... 181

4-1. Casualty rate for Irish soldiers ...... 191

4-2. Battle-related casualty rate by occupation ...... 194

4-3. Battle-related casualty rate by province ...... 196

4-4. Irish battle-related casualties by Irish-born in regiment ...... 198

AC-1. Postwar Irish soldier geographic mobility ...... 222

AC-2. Postwar occupational mobility for Irish soldiers to 1900 ...... 225

AC-3. Pension applications for Irish soldiers and reason granted by 1900 ...... 227

A-1. Number of Irish-born soldiers in sample by regiment ...... 233

A-2. Regimental descriptive book categories ...... 234

A-3. Missing or unknown information for Irish-born soldiers ...... 235

A-4. Socioeconomic coding of soldier occupations...... 237

A-5. Irish soldier province of origin including Matheson data ...... 239

A-6. Nineteenth-century Ireland, province and county ...... 240

Introduction: Paddy Yank’s Predicament

From 1861 to 1865, nearly 150,000 Irish immigrants, and countless second-generation

Irish Americans, served as soldiers in the Union army. These soldiers at once earned national recognition for their valor and bravery on the battlefield, but also a widespread reputation for desertion, insubordination, disloyalty to the Union cause, and racism toward African Americans.

An abundance of publications exists on Civil War soldiers, the Irish in the Civil War, and on

Irish America, yet there remains much we can learn about the common Irish Union soldier. Rich resources – namely, regimental descriptive books – seemingly “hidden in plain sight” have long been available to permit close study of Irish soldiers. Yet few scholars have used these sources to closely examine the typical Irish Union soldier and instead trade in antiquated stereotypes.1

Through the regimental descriptive books we are able to answer numerous questions about the Union army’s Irishmen, questions that other scholars have failed to ask. Broadly speaking, what was the identity of these soldiers and what was their quality? What did Irish- born soldiers look like; how tall were they; where did they come from in Ireland; where did they reside in America and for how long; what was their occupation; were they married or single; how many and who deserted; how many and who were killed? These questions might seem simple, of little historical interest, or even trivial. However, answering them provides a more accurate picture of the Irish soldier, which offers new insight into critical, larger questions about their

1 Ella Lonn, Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), 578. For scholarly works that make assumptions about Irish-born soldiers using general knowledge or stereotypes, see: Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 647; Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), 309; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 859-862; William L. Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers: The Union’s Ethnic Regiments (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998), 112-116; Paul Jones, The Irish Brigade (Washington-New York: Robert B. Luce, Inc., 1969), 58; Joseph G. Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War: The 69th New York and Other Irish Regiments of the Army of the Potomac (Cambridge: De Capo Press, 1995), ix; Susannah Ural Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle: Irish-American Volunteers and the Union Army, 1861-1865 (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 4-6. 1

2 identity and motivation. Answering these questions also provides better comprehension of the broader mid-nineteenth-century Irish American community and even the United States of the

Civil War era.

In answering these questions, we find the profile of the typical Irish-born Union soldier,

Paddy Yank. He was old, older than most other Union men, likely to be married, and had resided in America long before the outbreak of war between the United States and the

Confederacy. During that time, Paddy Yank had achieved a degree of economic success, unlike the overwhelming majority of his countrymen, and was probably motivated to enlist out of a sense of patriotism, albeit a patriotism unique to this specific group of Irish Americans. When soldiering, he fought gallantly in battle and deserted just as frequently; he was both a model and disreputable soldier. Although a degree of diversity existed among Irish soldiers, Paddy Yank was a very different person than scholars have assumed.

The literature on Irish-born soldiers in sizeable in scope, if limited in insight. Indeed, the recycling of old images of Irish immigrants by scholars presents readers with conflicting information. Many have portrayed Irish-born soldiers as young, unskilled workers who recently arrived from Ireland, enlisted as mercenaries eager for the promise of soldiers’ pay, and proved malcontents in camp and cowards on the battlefield, deserting in high numbers. Others, while subscribing to a similar demographic profile, characterize the Irish as gallant soldiers who throughout the war fought courageously and charged headlong into battle. Serious scholars subscribe to the former, hagiographers to the latter.1

Within Civil War scholarship, the majority of works dealing solely with the Irish are filiopietistic. Paul Jones’s The Irish Brigade and Joseph Bilby’s The Irish Brigade in the Civil

War are two such examples. Both emphasize the “innate” Irish love for fighting, conviviality in

1 Ibid.

3 camp, and unwavering devotion to the Union. Jones posits that “the nearly unanimous ranks of

Irish-Americans rallied to the Union cause,”2 while Bilby states that the Irish Brigade was “the best [unit]…in the Army of the Potomac.”3 Devotion to America notwithstanding, for Jones

Irish immigrants fought to gain military training with which they would return to Ireland to incite a rebellion; for Bilby, they fought to drive a stake into the heart of American nativism. Both also have a particular fascination with Michael Corcoran and Thomas Francis Meagher, two very well-known Irish nationalist figures whose lives provide for colorful reading but do not represent the average Irish soldier serving the Union.4

Multi-ethnic studies, such as William Burton’s Melting Pot Soldiers and Ella Lonn’s

Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy, provide similar explanations for Irish service, but acknowledge less flattering stereotypes of Irish soldiers as well: consumed by whiskey in camp, difficult to control, and likely to desert. Despite such differences, all of these works rely on the letters, diaries, or memoirs of exceptional soldiers, or, more often, outside observers, revealing little basic information about the Irish-born soldiers’ war experience.5

In recent years, there have been several scholarly attempts to correct the deficiency in the literature and document the Irish role in the Civil War, yet a thorough account of the experience still remains. Susannah Ural Bruce’s The Harp and the Eagle, though professional and analytical, suffers from some of the same flaws as earlier histories. Bruce’s account is too

“easterncentric,” with New York’s Irish Brigade figuring prominently throughout, to the neglect of soldiers in other Irish regiments and the western theater; she did not examine soldiers in non-

Irish units; and, most importantly, she relied too heavily on sources used by previous scholars

2 Jones, Irish Brigade, 58. 3 Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, ix. 4 Jones, Irish Brigade, forward; Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, ix-x. 5 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, preface; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 3-14.

4 from which to draw her conclusions. What results is an inaccurate depiction of Irish soldiers.

Bruce infers that the soldiers were recently-arrived immigrants and claims that demographically, the Irish-born soldier cannot be categorized, they were socioeconomically too diverse. She also posits that these soldiers suffered from cognitive dissonance, caught in an ethno-nationalist paradigm of divided loyalties, Irish nationalism pulling them in one direction, American patriotism the other.6

Christian Samito’s, Becoming American Under Fire, however, draws sophisticated conclusions concerning Irish American notions of citizenship and the impact service in the

Union army had on the ambiguity of that notion. Yet Samito says little about them as soldiers and placed too much emphasis on expatriation rights. According to Samito, at the time of the

Civil War the meaning of naturalization remained unsettled. The Constitution contained no information on the definition of American citizenship and if distinctions applied to those citizens who were naturalized. Although most Americans at the time of the Civil War supported expatriation rights, the “doctrine that people held the right to opt out of their birth citizenship, emigrate from their native land, and naturalize where they choose,”7 the United States did not enforce this policy, and many native-born Protestants believed people of foreign-birth and

Catholic faith should be excluded from citizenship. Coupled with this overemphasis, Samito like

Bruce failed to use new sources and accurately discuss Irish soldiering. Together, Bruce and

Samito neither broadened the understanding of the Irish-born soldier in socioeconomic terms, nor evaluated the long-term impact the war had upon them.

6 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 4-6. 7 Christian J. Samito, Becoming American Under Fire: Irish Americans, African Americans, and the Politics of Citizenship during the Civil War Era (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009), introduction, 115; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 4-6.

This neglect is compounded by the absence of the Irish-born in general works on the

Civil War soldiers. Bell Wiley’s mid-twentieth century works The Life of Johnny Reb and The

Life of Billy Yank spearheaded the scholarly study of the soldiers themselves, moving away from grand political and economic narratives, and instead focusing on the “stuff” of soldiering: food, uniforms and weapons, camp life, recreation, and the like. Yet Wiley’s monumental works did not result in a flurry of scholarly activity. The study of common soldiers in the war has only really flourished in the last thirty years, with the publication of a series of works in the late 1980s and early 1990s that reopened the field and picked up where Wiley left off a generation earlier.

They began focusing on what Wiley did not: soldier attitudes toward the war, values, perceptions of the enemy and civilians, and how soldiers operated in the postwar years.8

More recently, Earl Hess’s The Union Soldier in Battle and James McPherson’s For

Cause and Comrades expanded the study of soldiers to include motives for enlisting and fighting, and concepts of comradeship, duty, and honor. For McPherson, these concepts may be measured by examining who fought and died, who had the highest casualty rates. These ideologically motivated soldiers, according to McPherson, performed the majority of the fighting during the war. However, the majority of these studies use sources that produce samples with an overrepresentation of native-born, Protestant, professional, and white-collar soldiers. Focusing solely on these soldiers has yielded distorted conclusions because the wartime experience of many soldiers – illiterate, blue-collar workers, and immigrants, particularly the Irish – are marginalized or ignored altogether. When they are addressed, the Irish are typically categorized

8 Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1943), introduction; Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, preface.

6 as young, occupationally unskilled soldiers who deserted from battle frequently and are thus underserving of their fighting reputation.9

Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn Matthew Kahn have also examined soldier motivation for service. However, unlike McPherson, Costa and Kahn primarily use quantitative, not qualitative analysis, and examine desertion, not fighting. They contest that wounds, casualties, and deaths to a degree are random, and so believe the conscious decision to stay in ranks, to remain or to desert, is a better measure of soldier motivation than fighting. They posit it was not ideology, but strong social networks that caused soldiers to remain with their units and not abandon the warfront. It was those with the weakest networks who deserted, not those with the weakest patriotism. Although Costa and Kahn do address the Irish, it is only to a degree. To be sure, throughout the majority of the study the Irish remain peripheral and like McPherson, they claim the Irish were those most likely to desert.10

The conspicuous absence of Irish-born soldiers in general Civil War scholarship has resulted in only cursory accounts of Irish service by scholars of the Irish in America. The Civil

War radically transformed America, answering the question as to whether or not the republic would endure, driving a stake into the heart of slavery, drastically increasing the power and scope of the federal government, ending the southern domination of politics, and ushering in the era of free-labor capitalism. All of this coincided with a watershed in Irish and Irish American history: the Great Famine, which resulted in the death of over one million of Ireland’s inhabitants and the panicked flight of over two million Irish men, women, and children from the disease- and

9 Reid Mitchell, “’Not the General but the Soldier’ – The Study of Civil War Soldiers,” in Writing the Civil War: The Quest to Understand, eds. James M. McPherson and William J. Cooper, Jr. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 84-91; Earl J. Hess, The Union Soldier in Battle: Enduring the Ordeal of Combat (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1997), ix-xii; James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), preface, 6-9. 10 Dora L. Costa and Matthew E. Kahn, Heroes and Cowards: The Social Face of War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), preface.

7 death-ridden island, three quarters of whom sailed for the United States. This irrevocably changed the character of Irish America, from one in the first two decades of the nineteenth century that was diverse, non-sectarian, and republican, to one defined by allegiance to the

Democratic Party, dedication to physical-force Irish nationalism, and strict adherence to devotional, militant Catholicism.11

Yet, these two historical turning points, a massive shift in the Irish American community and a massive shift in the United States itself, are not adequately addressed in conjunction.

Typically after a lengthy discussion of the Famine migration, scholarly works on the Irish in

America only briefly discuss the Civil War, often merely mentioning the number of Irish immigrants who served, a few famous battles in which New York’s Irish Brigade experienced high casualty rates (Antietam and Fredericksburg), and the infamous New York City Draft Riots.

From there, scholars normally move on to address the state of the Irish-American community in the economically turbulent 1870s. Thus, a void exists not only in Civil War scholarship, but in the study of Irish-American history, a void in an era that undoubtedly had a profound impact on the Irish-American community.12

Both Civil War history and Irish-American history, therefore, would benefit greatly from a study of the common Irish immigrant soldier, specifically one that uses the abundant information present in sources long-ignored by scholars studying the service of Irish immigrants in the Civil War. The most important of these “hidden” sources, available at the National

Archives and Records Administration, are the detailed regimental manuscripts compiled during the war. Among the manuscripts, the descriptive books are the most useful, containing a wide

11 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 859-862; Kerby A. Miller, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 291; Timothy J. Meagher, The Columbia Guide to Irish American History (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 42. 12 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 84-85.

8 array of information about Irish-born soldiers: anthropometric data, such as height, complexion, and eye and hair color; age and place of birth, in many cases including the county of origin in

Ireland; occupation and marital status; when, where, and with whom the soldiers enlisted; and whether or not they were wounded, if they deserted, and when and why they were discharged or mustered out of service.

Although not a “hidden” source, pension records make it possible to trace the soldiers in the post-war years. Created after the war as individual soldiers sought their government rewards for service, the pension records are an even richer source than the regimental manuscripts, as they often contain birth, death, marriage, and baptismal records, surgeon’s certificates and depositions and letters from family, friends, and acquaintances. While other scholars studying

Irish soldiers have used pension records, namely Bruce and Samito, they use them qualitatively, and therefore do not see larger patterns and trends.13

Despite their richness, pension records can be daunting to sift through, and may be supplemented by the 1870, 1880, and 1900 US Censuses. The US Census is not as rich as the pension records, containing only basic demographic information, but allows the tracking of soldiers who did not apply for a government pension after their service. Proper use of these sources provides a window from which we may view Irish-born Civil War soldiers and therefore answer some of the most basic questions about these immigrants.

Utilizing the above-mentioned sources, I constructed a longitudinal, quantitative study of approximately 3,700 Irish-born Union soldiers. Since most studies addressing the Irish in the

13 Though historians chronicling Irish service in the Civil War do not properly use pension records, those providing accounts of other soldiers do. Costa and Kahn made use of them in Heroes and Cowards to trace the post-war geographical mobility of the subjects in their sample, Maris Vinovskis’s essay, “Have Historians Lost the Civil War,” shows the extent to which Union veterans utilized the federal pension system, Amy Holmes in “Such is the Price We Pay,” provides an account of Civil War widows using pension data, and Donald Shaffer used them to study the postwar experience of black Union soldiers in, After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans.

Civil War focus heavily on New York’s Irish Brigade, and specifically the 69th New York

Volunteer Infantry, and because scholars note the range of experiences among Irish Americans depending on which region they reside, I attempted to obtain a representative sample. The Irish, more than any other immigrant group, settled in the urban areas of Northeast and the Upper

Midwest, though particularly New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Therefore, I chose to select the ethnic regiments for my sample from four states: New York, Pennsylvania,

Massachusetts, and Illinois. The former three states represent the “core of the Irish diaspora,”14 the latter, the growing Irish stronghold in the Midwest.15

From the Empire State, I selected the 63rd New York Infantry Regiment. Although part of the Irish Brigade, the 63rd does not hold a prominent place in Civil War or Irish American scholarship. Works addressing the Irish Brigade primarily focus on the 69th New York Infantry

Regiment. Recruited from the 69th New York State Militia that fought at Bull Run, the 69th

Regiment formed the nucleus of the Irish Brigade. It was Meagher’s centerpiece, the regiment he wanted at the front during most engagements with the Confederates. Its battlefield record coupled with the romantic imaged cultivated at the time in the print media and by hagiographers in the postbellum years, resulted in a disproportional focus on the regiment.16

If other regiments in the brigade are discussed, seldom is the 63rd mentioned. Battlefield performance aside, this is largely due to the memoirs published by those who served in other regiments of the brigade, many of which became quite popular, and the dearth of material published for the 63rd. St. Clair Mulholland’s The Story of the 116th Regiment, is probably the

14 Timothy J. Meagher, “The Fireman on the Stairs: Communal Loyalties in the Making of Irish America,” in Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States eds. J. J. Lee and Marion R. Casey (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 616. 15 Joseph P. Ferrie, Yankeys Now: Immigrants in the Antebellum United States, 1840-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), table 4-4. 16 See D. P. Conyngham, The Irish Brigade and Its Campaigns: With Some Account of the Corcoran Legion, and Sketches of the Principal Officers (New York: William McSorley & Co., Publishers, 1867); Frederick Phisterer, New York in the War of Rebellion (Albany: J. B. Lyon Compnay, 1912), 293.

10 best example for it certainly enjoyed the most popularity. However, Fr. William Corby’s

Memoirs of Chaplain Life (which recounts Fr. Corby’s time as chaplain to the 88th New York), and to a lesser extent because it was published fairly recently, Lawrence Frederick Kohl’s Irish

Green and Union Blue, which is a collection of letters from Peter Welsh, a soldier who served in the 28th Massachusetts, drew attention to other regiments in the brigade as well.17

Therefore the 63rd New York, though still part of the Irish Brigade, provides the soldier sample with adequate Irish representation from New York. The unit, formed in November,

1861, was primarily recruited in New York City, with small contingents of companies A and E recruited in Boston and Company K (“Faugh-a-Ballagh”) recruited in Albany. Though the regiment participated in several major battles, the 63rd very often acted as a support regiment for the Irish Brigade, covering flanks or the rear while Meagher sent the other units into battle.18

Despite the need to move away from New York’s Irish Brigade, including a regiment from that state, and specifically New York City, is necessary given its importance to the study of

Irish America. In the two decades after the completion of the Erie Canal, New York had become the Union’s hub of trade and finance, and therefore led the nation in other areas as well. By the

1840s, the city had far surpassed Philadelphia as the preferred immigrant destination and would continue to do so, especially for the Irish. In fact, in the 1850s 74 percent of the emigrants leaving Ireland landed in New York City and within a decade, one of every four New York residents had been born in Ireland. More Irish lived on the island of Manhattan than in Dublin;

17 William Corby, C. S. C. Memoirs of Chaplain Life: Three Years Champlain in the Famous Irish Brigade, “Army of the Potomac.” (Chicago: La Monte, O’Donnell & Co., Printers, 1893); Lawrence Frederick Kohl, ed., Irish Green and Union Blue: The Civil War Letters Peter Welsh, Color Sergeant, 28th Massachusetts (New York: Fordham University Press, 1986). 18 Phisterer, New York in the War of Rebellion, 293.

11 within thirty years of the Civil War, the city’s Irish population would eclipse that of the entire continent of Australia.19

It is hardly surprising, then, that by the Civil War, New York City had come to popularly represent the entire Irish American community; it was the center of Irish American religious, political, and cultural activity. Indeed, separating the Irish American community from the city is nearly impossible. The Irish helped define it, either creating landmarks and institutions or transforming existing ones in their own image. Things that became quintessentially New York –

St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Tammany Hall, and St. Patrick’s Day Parades – were also mainstays of the Irish American community. Therefore, despite the overwhelming bias in the literature, one therefore could not write an account of Irish-born Civil War soldiers without including New

York; New York was, after all, the most “Irish city in the Union.”20

For the Pennsylvania regiment, I selected the 69th Infantry. As with the 63rd New York, the 69th Pennsylvania does not hold a prominent place in scholarly studies of Irish soldiers – instead, most focus on Mulholland’s 116th. Originally the 24th Pennsylvania Militia, the 69th

Regiment mustered into three-months of service for the Union in August 1861. Recruited from

Philadelphia’s Irish community, the regiment reorganized and modeled itself after the 69th New

York, after that regiment’s performance at First Bull Run and the capture of its commander,

Michael Corcoran. Despite their designation as a regiment, the 69th Pennsylvania opted for the moniker, Irish Brigade, maintaining their allegiance to the newly designated Irish Brigade from

New York. Ironically, the Irish-born soldiers in this unit initially served under the command of

19 Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005), 529; Tyler Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants of the Era of Famine and Revolution, 1846-1854,” Working Paper. College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, 3; Timothy J. Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs,”616. 20 Quoted in Hasia Diner, “’Overview: The Most Irish City in the Union:’ The Era of the Great Migration, 1844- 1877,” in The New York Irish, eds. Ronald Bayor and Timothy J. Meagher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 87; Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs,” 616.

12 not an Irishman, but a Welshman, Joshua T. Owen, whom they affectionately called, “Paddy

Owen.” Part of the Second Corps of the Army of the Potomac, the 69th’s Pennsylvania Irish participated in many of the same battles as the 63rd New York – Fair Oaks, Malvern Hill,

Antietam – yet brought a different set of experiences to the battlefield.21

Examining a regiment from Pennsylvania is essential because prior to New York’s meteoric rise in the mid-nineteenth century, Philadelphia was actually the preferred destination of Irish immigrants sailing for America. The city’s strong connections to Ireland date from the colonial period, when William Penn actively recruited Irish Quakers in the seventeenth century.

Irish immigration continued in the eighteenth century, and though it included Quakers and

Catholics, they were overwhelmed by the large-scale departure of Scotch-Irish from the north of

Ireland. The Scotch-Irish influx left its imprint not only on Philadelphia but the surrounding hinterlands and Pennsylvania backcountry.22

This connection with Ireland, strengthened by the flax-linen trade with Ulster ports, continued after the Revolution, as Irish immigrants continued to be drawn to Pennsylvania over other US states. Consequently, prior to the 1840s, Philadelphia had an entrenched, long-standing

Irish Protestant community. It was into this Irish community, one hostile to the new type of Irish immigrant, that famine refugees settled, as Philadelphia continued to receive Irish immigrants, swelling the city’s Irish population to nearly 20 percent by 1850. Here, the predominantly

Catholic famine immigrants recast the Philadelphia Irish community, many becoming radical

21 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 148-149; Don Ernsberger, Paddy Owen’s Regulars: A History of the 69th Pennsylvania “Irish Volunteers,” Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2004), introduction. 22 Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy, 348; Denis Clark, The Philadelphia Irish: Ten Generations of Urban Experience (Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 1973), 8-9, 45, 48, 108; Gallman, Receiving Erin’s Children: Philadelphia, Liverpool, and the Irish Famine Migration, 1845-1855 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 6-7.

Irish nationalists, while participating in the city’s dynamic economy and utilizing its expansive geography.23

The Ninth Massachusetts seemed an appropriate regiment to represent the Bay State’s

Irish-born soldiers in an ethnic regiment. Again, an ethnic unit not part of the Irish Brigade as was the case with the 28th Massachusetts, yet one that served through the course of the entire war, the Ninth Massachusetts provides adequate subjects for the sample. Once the war commenced, Thomas Cass, head of the Irish Columbian Association, which was forced to disband in 1855 due to nativist hysteria, petitioned Governor Andrew to form an Irish regiment to serve the Union. Andrew acquiesced, despite protests from the city’s Brahmins, and designated the unit the Ninth Regiment, or “Irish Ninth.” Recruiting began in April 1861, with the members of the former Columbian Association forming the nucleus of the regiment. The majority of soldiers were recruited primarily in the city of Boston, but the volunteers for several companies were drawn from towns in eastern Massachusetts: Salem, Milford, Marlboro, and

Stoughton. The Ninth adds to the soldier sample a geographical and cultural diversity. Given the political, social, and economic climate of Boston, from where most of the Ninth’s soldiers hailed, one would imagine these volunteers reticent to serve the Union.24

Massachusetts, and specifically Boston, did not hold the same preeminence of New York

City, but was an important region nevertheless. Massachusetts did not have Pennsylvania’s rich tradition of Irish immigration, but Irish arrivals steadily increased in the 1830s, so that by the

1840s and 1850s New England as an Irish destination was second only to the Mid-Atlantic region. Twenty five percent of Irish immigrants sailing for America made this region home, and

23 Dennis Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia: Ten Generations of Urban Experience (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973), 4-7; Gallman, Receiving Erin’s Children, 29-33. 24 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 116-117; Thomas H. O’Connor, Civil War Boston: Home Front and Battlefield (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997), 70-74.

14 the overwhelming majority did so in Massachusetts, a sizeable portion settling in the mill towns in the eastern portion of the state but most remaining in Boston. Indeed, as famine refugees disembarked in Boston harbor, the city’s Irish population climbed to 23 percent, higher than that of Philadelphia.25

Boston, however, with its slower growing economy, geographical limitations, and entrenched anti-Catholic caste, provided little opportunity for Irish immigrants, despite the ever- increasing numbers flooding the city. Yet the Boston Irish became incredibly influential as the city’s population grew and Irish Bostonians made their mark on Irish America. Probably the best example of this is Patrick Donohoe’s Boston Pilot, a diocesan newspaper that not only addressed the wants and needs of Irish Americans nationally, and paved the way for Irish-American journalism, but was a vocal critic of the Lincoln administration during the Civil War.26

Illinois furnished two Irish regiments for the war, the 23rd Infantry, “Mulligan’s Brigade,” and the 90th Infantry, the “Irish Legion.” The 23rd was organized first, in June 1861 by James

Mulligan who promoted the idea of an Irish regiment deliberately in the guise of the 69th New

York. Mulligan’s Brigade, charged with guarding Lexington, Missouri, surrendered the city to

Rebel forces in October 1861. From the time Mulligan’s Brigade was created, several prominent members of Chicago’s Irish community wanted the creation of a second ethnic regiment in which their countrymen could visibly demonstrate their service to the Union. The surrender of

Mulligan’s Brigade and his capture in the fall of 1861 gave the desire for another Irish regiment new urgency. By the summer of 1862, recruiting for the Irish Legion had begun. Companies E,

F, G, and H were recruited in Chicago, while other volunteers enlisted in the city of Rockford

25 Ferrie, Yankeys Now, Table 4-4; Vincent Edward Powers, “Invisible Immigrants: The Pre-Famine Irish Community in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1826 to 1860” (PhD diss., Clark University, 1976); Lonn, Foreigners in Union, 116-117; O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 70-74. 26 Ibid.

15 and Will, Joe Daviess and La Salle Counties. Designated the 90th Illinois, the regiment served through the entire war, mustered out of service in 1865, and provides the sample with a large contingent of Irish-born Illinois residents.27

If most Irish immigrants showed preference for the Northeast, a large number also settled in the upper Midwest, especially Chicago, Illinois and the surrounding areas. Illinois began to see its first trickles of Irish immigration as early as the 1820s. By 1823, Irish miners were extracting lead from the mines in Galena and by 1828, permanent Irish settlements had taken shape and earned nicknames like “Irish Grove” and “Little Dublin.” Smaller groups of Irish immigrants also made their way to northern Illinois to work on the rivers, moving lumber, corn, pork, and coal as the area that would become Chicago gradually developed into the Midwest’s major transshipment center.28

However, the area’s first major wave of Irish settlement occurred with the building of the

Michigan-Illinois Canal in 1836. Irish navvies, many of whom worked on the Erie Canal, traveled to Illinois to provide the labor needed to connect Lake Michigan with the Illinois and

Mississippi Rivers, and this initial wave opened up the floodgates. Just seven years after commencing construction on the canal, the Irish were 10 percent of Chicago’s population, settling on the city’s north side at Kilgubbin, named for a town in Cork. Chicago’s insatiable need for labor in factories, mills, stockyards, and railroads meant the Irish who possessed the means and desire to make the journey would continue to do so. The 1850 Federal Census

27 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 135-137; James B. Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion: The 90th Illinois in the Civil War (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009), 12-14. 28 Dennis Clark, Hibernia America: The Irish and Regional Cultures (Greenwood Press: New York, 1986), 122-123; Lawrence J. McCaffrey, “The Irish-American Dimension,” in The Irish in Chicago, eds. Lawrence J. McCaffrey, Ellen Skerrett, and Michael F. Funchion (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 10.

16 showed the city had approximately 30,000 Irish-born residents, nearly as many as Boston in that year, and this number constituted 20 percent of the Chicago’s inhabitants.29

Despite similar growth and proportion to the rest of their region’s population, the Irish in

Chicago did not face the same challenges as those in eastern cities. Unlike New York,

Philadelphia, or Boston, Chicago (like most places in the Midwest), was socially a relatively open society and its vibrant economy offered more opportunity for immigrants, which allowed the Irish to more easily obtain skilled and lower white collar occupations. To be sure, Chicago contained active and influential nativists, but the lack of an entrenched, white native-born population meant the nativist movement would not possess the same force it did in the east.

Thus, while the Irish experiences between New York, Philadelphia, and eastern Massachusetts vary by degree, that of Illinois and its large Irish population adds even more diversity to the Irish

American community.30

Though this is a study on Irish-born soldiers in ethnic regiments, the majority of Irish- born Americans served in integrated units, not ethnic ones. Therefore, I included a sample of approximately 600 Irish-born soldiers from non-ethnic units to contrast their experience with those who chose to serve primarily with other Irish Americans. To control for varied geographical and wartime experiences, I selected Irish-born soldiers in the 59th New York, and

13th and 39th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiments. The 59th New York was organized between

July and November, 1861, and recruited primarily from New York City, though Company K, the

“Sarsfield Rifles,” was recruited in Herkimer County, Ohio and Company B from Brooklyn.

While the 39th Illinois was recruited primarily in Cook County, the Irish-born soldiers of the 13th

29 Dennis Clark, Hibernia America: The Irish and Regional Cultures (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 118-120; McCaffrey, “The Irish-American Dimension,” 6-7, 9-10; Oscar Handlin, Boston’s Immigrants, 1790-1865 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941), Table VI. 30 Ibid.

17 enlisted in several northern Illinois counties: Cook, Lee, Whiteside, Rock Island, DeKalb, Kane, and DuPage. The 13th and 39th Illinois were mustered into service in June 1861 and October

1861 respectively as part of the Army of Tennessee.31

Utilizing the above-mentioned sources, I entered all of the relevant information into a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.32 Though the regimental descriptive books are incredibly rich, they have limitations and are in many cases incomplete, as regimental adjutants would often enter names into the records with no further information. So though I obtained nearly 8,000 subjects, for only 5,551 subjects could I obtain adequate anthropometric, demographic, and military data from which to run calculations. Of those, not all were Irish-born (Table I-1).

Table I-1 – Birthplace within ethnic regiments (%). 9th MA 63rd NY 69th PA 90th IL Ireland 69.5% 67.5% 49.5% 70.0% USA 24.0 24.0 37.5 17.2 Other 6.5 8.4 12.9 12.8 N 1,440 1,008 1,647 889 Note: “Other” does not include soldiers with unknown country of birth. Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

In fact, each ethnic regiment contained a significant number of non-Irish-born soldiers, a 35 percent average across all four units. At approximately 25 percent of the sample, American-born soldiers were the largest non-Irish-born contingent,33 but soldiers from an array of countries were present as well: France, Wales, Holland, Norway, Hungary, and Mexico to name a few.

However, most non-Irish-born foreigners hailed from England, Germany, Canada, and Scotland in descending order.

Thus, the sample contains approximately 3,700 Irish-born subjects for whom adequate information is available for analysis. This initial sample provides a snapshot of the soldiers at

31 Phisterer, New York in the War of Rebellion, 200-220. 32 For further explanation of methodology, see appendices. 33 The overwhelming majority of the American-born soldiers in the Irish regiments were likely native-born Irish Americans. Although the descriptive books do not contain any information on soldiers’ parental birthplace, approximately 95 percent of American-born soldiers in the sample had Gaelic or Old English Irish surnames.

18 wartime. Names, height, hair and eye color, complexion, country and county of birth, occupation, date and place of enlistment, regiment, company, rank, term of enlistment, if the subject was drafted or accepted a bounty for enlistment, whether the subject was wounded, deserted or died and why, if they were transferred or discharged and why, and when they mustered out were all entered into the database for the initial sample for cross-tabulation. Of each category, the anthropometric measurements and county of origin were the most incomplete.34

To expand the sample of soldiers whose county of origin, and therefore province of origin could be determined, I followed Joseph Ferrie’s use of Robert Matheson’s early twentieth- century work on Irish surnames. Many, if not most, Irish surnames in the nineteenth-century were local, specific to only a few counties or a single province. Matheson, using Ireland’s birth records for 1891, charted the geographic distribution of Irish surnames. Ferrie filled the gaps in his own sources – primarily New York ship manifests – using the surname data in order to trace from what county his Irish subjects hailed. While this may be problematic for the more common

Irish surnames, e.g. O’Neil, Hogan, etc. – for the less common ones it is a relatively reliable way to overcome the limitations of sources like regimental manuscripts. Also, if ascertaining a subject’s county of origin using the Matheson data may be unreliable should several counties be listed, province of origin is generally much more consistent. Therefore, I only used the

Matheson data to infer provincial origin, and did so for over 800 subjects in the sample.35

34 For further description, see appendices. 35 Ferrie, Yankeys Now, 3-5; Robert E. Matheson, Special Report on Surnames in Ireland with Notes as to Numerical Strength, Derivation, Ethnology, and Distribution; Based on Information Extracted from the Indexes of the General Register Office (Dublin: Alex, Thom & Co., 1909) 37-70; Robert E. Matheson, Varieties and Synonymes of Surnames and Christian Names in Ireland for the Guidance of Registration Officers and the Public in Searching the Indexes of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Dublin: Alex, Thom & Co., 1901).

Though the majority focus of this study is on Irish-born soldiers at the start of and during the war, it is useful to track how these soldiers fared in the post-war years. For this, I randomly selected 100 soldiers from the sample and entered the information from their pension records into the database. To further increase the size of the post-war sample, I randomly selected soldiers from the sample and, utilizing Ancestry.com, successfully traced 200 of them through the US Censuses of 1870, 1880, and 1900. This, however, proved problematic, for the common recurrence of Irish given and surnames made it difficult to ascertain if the name in the census was actually the soldier that was being searched. For example, when searching for James

Sullivan of the 63rd New York, who was born in 1833 in Ireland and resided in New York City when he enlisted, nearly 1,500 results return from all three censuses. Therefore, as with the

Matheson data for county information, soldiers with less common names were easier to trace, which is why I capped the census sample at 200 instead of using a larger, and therefore more representative number. Hence, while 300 soldiers from a sample of several thousand is certainly not significant enough to draw sweeping conclusions about soldiers in the postbellum years, it may be suggestive.

To add further validity and texture to the statistical evidence, I included qualitative sources as well. Collections of letters, correspondence, newspaper articles and memoirs give voice to the soldiers and allow more accurate conclusions to be drawn. The letters of Michael H.

Leary, the published correspondence of Patrick R. Guiney and Peter Welsh, and the memoirs of

William McCarter not only contain first-hand information in the day-to-day life of a soldier, but are rich with discussions of patriotism, nativism, social issues, and politics. Ethnic and diocesan newspapers, such as the Boston Pilot and the Irish American, are quite useful as well. Both frequently published letters from soldiers on the front and also continuously commented on the

Lincoln administration, battlefield deaths, and the issue of emancipation, providing the perspective of the Irish-born on the homefront.

Cross-tabulating the data in conjunction with examining the qualitative sources revealed interesting and suggestive trends. Naming patterns existed among the soldiers based on province of origin, illuminating potential cultural and religious differences among the enlistees. The anthropometric data demonstrates that the Irish might have imbibed the popular racial profiling of nineteenth-century America and applied it to themselves, categorizing as darker those immigrants from Ireland’s west coast. Body measurements also show that Irish soldiers, despite exposure to the famine and the grinding poverty into which they were born, were in relatively good health.36

Although scholars of Irish Civil War service, such as Susannah Bruce, claim the socioeconomic status of Irish-born soldiers may not be accurately determined, this study suggests otherwise. According to the sample, the typical Irish-born soldier was not a young, unskilled, recently arrived immigrant with little knowledge of the war or its larger significance.

To the contrary, a majority of the soldiers were significantly older than the typical Irish immigrant and the typical Union volunteer, held skilled or white collar occupations, and had likely resided in America approximately a decade prior to the start of the war. Indeed, they were atypical, especially with regard to their occupation. David Ferrie and Stephen Thernstrom have found that the overwhelming majority of Irish immigrants at mid-century fared poorly in

America’s economy, unable to break into skilled and white-collar occupations. Yet Irish soldiers had done just that. County information shows that while the majority of Irish-born soldiers were

36 L. Perry Curtis, Jr., Apes and Angles: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature (Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1997), 17-19.

Munstermen, variation existed based on where the soldier enlisted, revealing immigrant networks and migration chains connecting specific regions in Ireland to cities in America.

In light of the statistical information on occupation, it is unlikely Irish soldiers were motivated to enlist for financial reasons as McPherson asserts. For many if not most, enlistment meant taking a pay cut. In fact, when coupled with letters from Irish-born soldiers, the occupational data suggests service may have been for many Irish-born soldiers an assertion of a newly constructed Irish-American masculinity, one that valued martial prowess, Irish nationalism, and a patriotic devotion to America’s republican government.

Whatever Irish motivations for enlisting, both scholars and hagiographers are paradoxically correct in characterizing their performance as soldiers. Irish soldiers deserted in high numbers, higher than most other soldiers in the Union army, but did so largely for reasons that were typical of Union men, not specific to Irish Americans. Irish-born soldiers also fought and died at an incredibly high rate. According to Costa and Kahn, their desertion should demonstrate their lack of commitment to the Union, or at least show weak social networks, but according to McPherson, fighting and dying shows devotion to the cause. Thus, studying Irish soldiers might suggest that neither desertion nor dying is a good measure of ideological commitment to the Union or soldier motivation for fighting.

In the postwar years, the experience of the Irish soldier varied. Those who fulfilled their terms of service seemed to enjoy vibrant lives, often maintaining or improving upon their prewar occupation exhibiting a high degree of geographical mobility. However, for those Irish-born wounded or discharged for medical reasons, the post-war years were grim, often filled with physical and mental anguish, as they could no longer hold the jobs they had prior to the war or provide for their families. In many cases, they moved down the economic ladder. By the 1870s

22 and 1880s, many Irishmen who had been at the forefront of the Irish-American community, especially those who applied for pensions postbellum, were being economically eclipsed by their formerly impoverished countrymen.

Irish-born soldiers in ethnic regiments, Paddy Yanks, had a dynamic Civil War experience. Enjoying economic success prior to the outbreak of hostilities between North and

South, Paddy Yank, exceptional among other Irish immigrants, enlisted to assert himself as an upwardly-mobile Irish American man, one who espoused the physical qualities of an Irishman coupled with a deep devotion to the United States and its institutions. During the war, Paddy

Yank was an inconsistent soldier, abandoning his duties on one hand and charging headlong into battle on the other. In the postwar years, having served his country, Paddy Yank either enjoyed the fruits of his service, or wallowed in pain, paying an economic and physical price for his sacrifice.

1 “I Hardly Knew Ye”: The Irish American Soldier

Patrick R. Guiney was born on January 15, 1835, in Parkstown, Tipperary. The third largest county in Munster, Tipperary contained several mountain ranges, but also lay in the southern part of Ireland’s fertile central plain. During Guiney’s childhood, Tipperary was a diverse agricultural region that, like other parts of eastern and southern Munster, had been experiencing a shift in Irish emigration that characterized the pre-Famine era, had been heavily influenced by Daniel O’Connell’s Emancipation Movement, and contained a large, literate and

English-speaking Catholic population.1

In 1842, young Patrick immigrated to North America with his father as a result of troubles with their landlord, a common circumstance in their region, as landlords and strong farmers2 began clearing excessively subdivided tillage land for grazing. Patrick and his father first went to New Brunswick, Canada, and then to Maine, where they were eventually joined by the rest of the family. Patrick began supplementing his family income at an early age, working as a machinist in both Lawrence, Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine. Eventually, he attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, and after graduating in 1854, proceeded to study law in Boston.3

When Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, Guiney had spent nearly two decades in the United States, over twice the time he had lived in Ireland. Upon

1 Christian J. Samito, editor, Commanding Boston’s Irish Ninth: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Patrick R. Guiney, Ninth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, (Fordham University Press, New York, 1998), xiv. 2 Strong farmers constituted 15 percent of Ireland’s farming population prior to the Great Famine. Typically holding over 30 acres, they leased the majority of Irish land, assuming a de facto role as landlords to subletting classes of farmers beneath them: small farmers, joint tenants, cottiers, and landless laborers. See Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 48. 3 Samito, Commanding Boston’s Irish Ninth, xiv; William J. Smyth, “The Province of Munster and the Great Famine,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 359-361. 23

24 hearing the news of Confederate aggression, Guiney’s “loyalty to his adopted state and country welled up,”1 and he enlisted in the Ninth Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry – the

“Irish Ninth.” After having left for the front, in a letter to his wife Guiney explained why he chose to serve, writing highly of the Union and its ideology, stating “the cause is pure.”2

To most scholars, Guiney appears exceptional. His socioeconomic success and stability, age, marital status, and time residing in America do not coincide with most assertions concerning

Irish-born Union soldiers. Most accounts assert that Paddy Yank arrived in America hapless, half-starved, and lacking any marketable skills. If not recruited directly in Ireland by Union representatives, Paddy enlisted soon after arrival, finding the promise of soldiers’ pay and three meals a day “an attractive alternative to sporadic, unsecure manual labor,”3 that was his only other option.4

Yet according to the regimental descriptive books, Guiney was not that exceptional, but resembled many of his Irish-born comrades-in-arms. In fact, the information in the sample shows that most Paddy Yanks fit a similar profile, not the one most scholars have painted.

Paddy Yank was not short, malnourished and sickly from the famine, but tall, robust and healthy.

Neither was he a young, inexperienced, and lowly laborer, but likely to be married, and much older and more likely to have a skilled occupation than native-born soldiers.5 When combined, his age and job status suggest he had resided in America long before the Rebels fired on Fort

1 Samito, Commanding Boston’s Irish Ninth, prologue. 2 Ibid., 47. 3 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 13. 4 See Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, introduction; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, chapter 6; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 606-609; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 335-359; Kenny, The American Irish, 121-125. 5 Both Bell Wiley’s The Life of Billy Yank, chapter 12, and James McPherson’s For Cause and Comrades, preface and table 4, provide information on the demographic profile of Union soldiers. For a more comprehensive account, see Benjamin Gould, Investigations in Military and Anthropological Statistics of America Soldiers (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1869).

Sumter. He was certainly not a greenhorn who knew little of America or the weight of the ideological circumstances surrounding the Civil War.6

Though the sample shows that more accurate generalizations may be made of Irish-born soldiers, it also shows a great deal of regional diversity existed among them. Indeed, Irish soldiers possessed certain characteristics depending on where they immigrated from in Ireland, including naming practices, height, complexion, age, and occupational trends. The sample even illuminates the presence of immigrant networks and chains connecting certain regions in Ireland with specific places in the United States.7

By looking at Paddy Yank we also definitively learn that he differs greatly from the rest of America’s Irish immigrant population. No doubt, the socioeconomic success of Irish-born soldiers separated them, and made them overtly distinct from the majority of their countrymen.

Thus, Paddy Yanks likely constituted a petty-elite within their respective Irish-American communities, and their unique circumstances obviously factored into their decision to serve the

Union. Different from both native-born soldiers and the Irish-American community, the typical

Irish-born soldier is far from whom scholars have assumed.8

Naming

Despite the title of this essay, Paddy Yank was, in fact, not “Paddy” at all. For generations, Americans referred to Irish immigrants as “Paddy,” an Irish nickname for Patrick and a stereotype carried across the Atlantic from England. Because two-thirds of the American population was of British ancestry, maintained economic and cultural ties to the Empire even after the Revolution, and continually dealt with Irish immigration, the stereotype persisted on

6 Irish Soldiers Sample. 7 David N. Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish-America, 1845-1880,” in Making the Irish American: History and the Heritage of the Irish in the United States, eds. J.J. Lee and Marion R. Casey, (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 220; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 314-319. 8 Ibid.

26 stage, in political cartoons, newspapers, or magazines, and in popular discourse, where Irishmen always bore the “generic name of…Paddy.”9 As streams of bewildered and half-starved Irish immigrants poured into America during the Famine years, accompanied by poverty, slovenliness, superstition, and violence, the designation, “Paddy,” resonated as never before. Yet many Irish- born soldiers did not carry the name Patrick.10

Among the most obvious and neglected information in the regimental descriptive books are the soldiers’ names. If any piece of information appears trivial, it is the soldiers’ given names. Nevertheless, when combined with Irish county data, the sample reveals regional naming patterns, and thus cultural differences, in mid-nineteenth-century Ireland. To be sure,

Patrick was a common name among Irish-born soldiers, just not the most common (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. Representativeness of given names among Irish soldiers (%). Name John James Patrick Thomas Michael William As % of 19.6% 11.5% 10.7% 8.0% 7.6% 6.3% Sample N 725 425 397 294 283 235 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample. See appendix for complete list of sources and further information regarding data.

Rather, the most common name was John, followed by James, then, Patrick. In fact, a soldier was nearly two times more likely to have been named John by his parents than Patrick. In addition, Thomas was nearly as common as Patrick, trailed closely by Michael and William.

Therefore, if a general moniker were to be given to the “typical” Irish soldier, in reference to

9 Maurice Bourgeois, John Millington Synge and the Irish Theatre (Constable & Company: London, 1913), 109- 110. 10 Information on Irish stereotyping in political cartoons may be found in Curtis, Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature; and a thorough account of the Irish stereotype in American discourse is provided in Dale T. Knobel’s Paddy and the Republic: Ethnicity and Nationality in Antebellum America (Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut, 1986), 12-28, 25-27, 50-54, 69-72. Peter Quinn, Looking for Jimmy: A Search for Irish America, (Overlook Press: New York City, 2007), 25. Although the label for the typical Irishman did not change, that for the native-born American had undergone such a transformation: Brother Jonathan became Uncle Sam after the War of 1812. See William H.A. Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream: The Image of Ireland and the Irish in American Popular Song Lyrics, 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 64.

Bell Wiley’s monumental, The Life of Billy Yank, it should not be Paddy Yank, but Johnny, or

Jackie Yank.

While John, James, Patrick, Thomas, Michael, and William were the most common names among soldiers from all four provinces, regional variation illuminates cultural differences between soldiers from Connaught, Munster, Leinster, and Ulster. Among soldiers from all four provinces, biblical names abounded, yet parents in each province appeared to have a preference for certain ones. Connaughtmen were more likely to be named Peter, Luke, or Mark than men from other provinces, while the parents of Munstermen seem to have preferred Daniel, Jeremiah, and Cornelius. Even the use of saints’ names reflected regional variation. Soldiers from

Connaught were three times more likely to be named Anthony than their comrades, while volunteers from Munster possessed the names Denis and Timothy, three and two times more than those from other provinces respectively.11

Yet the starkest differences in names are found among soldiers from Leinster and Ulster.

Leinster, a province with a diverse economy, a history of successful English conquests and home of the English Pale, contained numerous Anglophone names: George, Charles, Henry, and

Alexander. George was particularly common, as Leinstermen were three times more likely to carry that name than soldiers from all other provinces. As inconsequential as it may seem, these names likely reflect Leinster’s connection with the metropole and its culture, a connection absent among other provinces, especially Munster and Connaught.12

Many Ulstermen also carried non-Catholic names, but did not gravitate toward royal names to the same extent as the inhabitants of Leinster. While Anglicized, Ulster was not only much more industrialized that the other provinces, but more Presbyterian, a church whose

11 Irish Soldiers Sample. 12 Ibid; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 93.

28 members were friendly to neither Catholics nor Anglicans, and historically hostile to both the native Irish and the English crown. Therefore, many soldiers form Ulster bore typically

Presbyterian names: Forbes, Archibald, Calvin, Isaac, and Morris, to name a few. Many of these names were completely absent among soldiers from other provinces, their presence suggesting that Irish Protestants in America did not completely shirk the idea of enlisting as regulars in Irish regiments.13

Presbyterian names notwithstanding, Ulster also contained nationalist names historically relevant to the province. Hugh, Owen, and Neil were the most conspicuous. Though present among those from Munster and Leinster, Ulster soldiers were five times more likely to carry the name Hugh. In fact, it was the seventh most common name for Ulster volunteers. Owen was also quite common, and occurred in Ulster at a rate two times that of other provinces. Neil, however, was completely unique to the north, not present among any soldiers from other areas of

Ireland.14

All three names might reflect Ulster’s role in Ireland’s nationalist history. The preponderance of the name Hugh could stem from the historical figure, Hugh O’Neill. As Earl of Tyrone, O’Neill led the Irish resistance against the Tudor conquest during the Nine Years

War. Having suffered defeat, he was forced to flee Ireland in an episode that would become known as the Flight of Earls, an incident that, among ardent nationalists, would go on to become one of the most mourned episodes in Irish history, signaling the death-knell of Gaelic Ireland.

The frequency of the name “Owen” might have stemmed from Owen Roe O’Neill. The nephew of the Earl of Tyrone, Owen Roe O’Neill as a young man left Ireland with the Flight of Earls, but returned to participate in the Irish Confederate Wars. “Neil” as a given name might reflect one

13 Irish Soldiers Sample. 14 Ibid.

29 or both of these men as significant figures in Ulster’s history. Regardless, the three given names might demonstrate a historical, regional nationalist consciousness among the Ulster Irish that was absent among their countrymen from other provinces.15

Complexion

While the names listed in the regimental manuscripts provide a window to the cultural diversity in mid-nineteenth-century Ireland, the anthropometric data gives insights to the physical appearance and stature of Irish Americans. When Union volunteers reported for duty, the regimental adjutant not only took down their names, but provided a corporeal description of the soldier, noting complexion, eye and hair color, and height. Much like given names, the physical description of soldiers is actually quite valuable. Indeed, a soldier’s complexion may help discern how native-born soldiers viewed the Irish racially and how the Irish viewed themselves, while height measurements demonstrate the relative health of those Irish who survived the Great Hunger.16

When comparing how native-born and Irish officers viewed Irish soldiers, it is possible that they possessed the mainstream prejudices of the period. Though the antebellum stereotype of the Irish went through several phases,17 by the 1850s Paddy’s character and physique had

15 Irish Soldiers Sample; Ciaran Brady, “The Captains’ Games: Army and Society in Elizabethan Ireland,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 136-140; Jane H. Ohlmeyer, “The Wars of Religion, 1603-1660,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 161-165. 16 Irish Soldiers Sample. 17 The pre-Civil War American stereotype of the Irish progressed through three phases before it became institutionalized, the reasons for Paddy’s depraved condition transitioning from education, then to habits, and lastly to biology. Once blood was merged with nationality in the last phase, the resulting stereotype of the Irish immigrant included a static physical description. In the early nineteenth century, however, Paddy’s stereotype was the result of environment, not genetics. For Americans, whose nation was made, not born, the same applied to people: environment shaped everything. Therefore, Paddy’s socioeconomic shortcomings and his religion, were a result of extrinsic factors, and, thus, could be amended. Then during the second phase, the 1840s, a shift began, Americans no longer believing that a republican environment could cure Irish deficiencies and that there was something innately in the Irish temperament that led to their behavior. That is, Irish character discouraged initiative and was susceptible to dogma and authority, particularly “popish superstition.” By the 1850s, the shift in the Irish stereotype that began in the 1840s had solidified and expanded to include a physical description, for physique and character had become

30 joined, making his social and economic condition genetically predetermined; his socioeconomic state was a result not of circumstances but biology. This was accomplished through the use of physiognomy and phrenology, pseudosciences that attributed mental and emotional states to physical traits. From Cramper’s study on facial angles, which linked skull shape with intelligence, to James Prichard’s classification of European skin, hair, and eye color, with personality type, these pseudosciences gained in popularity among the general public despite the rise of modern science.18

Each of these characteristics was associated with certain personality traits: those with red or sandy hair were excitable and gushing, dark eyes implied sensuality and ardor. A dark or ruddy complexion implied not only animal passions and selfishness, but a racial link with

African Americans. Using this system, the Irish were often described as dark or swarthy. In fact, in 1851 Harper’s Magazine published an article that described Irish physical appearance as

“distinctly marked – the somewhat upturned nose, the black tint of the skin; the eyes looking gray, now black; the freckled cheek, and sandy hair. Beard with whiskers covered half the face, and short, square-shouldered bodies were bent forward with eager impatience.”19

Native-born enrolling officers seem to have subscribed to such concepts, but only to a degree. In the integrated regiments, 35 percent of Irish soldiers were described as “dark” (dark, swarthy, or black). Although it may not seem as if regimental adjutants subscribed

inextricably linked. Dale Knobel, Paddy and the Republic: Ethnicity and Nationality in Antebellum America (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1986), 12, 22, 27-28, 40-47, 167. 18 Knobel, Paddy and the Republic, 123; Alan M. Kraut, “Illness and Medical Care among Irish Immigrants,” in The New York Irish, eds. Ronald H. Bayor and Timothy J. Meagher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), pgs. 162-3; for examples facial angles, see the works Pieter Cramper in Camper’s Facial Angles in The Works of the Late Professor Camper on the Connection between the Science of Anatomy and the Arts of Drawing, Painting, Statuary (London, 1821); his followers on facial angles, such as Jean Gérard Grandville’s, Dessins Originaux; for information of European skin types see, James Cowles Prichard’s Researches into the Physical History of Man, (London, 1813); “A Scene from Irish Life,” Harper’s Monthly, 3 (1851), 833, quoted in Kraut, “Illness and Medical Care,” 153-168. 19 Quoted in Alan M. Kraut, “Illness and Medical Care,” 162; L. Perry Curtis, Jr., Apes and Angels, 5-6.

31 wholeheartedly to physiognomy as it applied to the Irish, they were more likely to see the Irish as having a dark complexion than the Irish themselves. In the ethnic regiments, Irish regimental adjutants only described 30 percent of their comrades as dark, less than 1 percent as medium, while labeling the remaining 70 percent as “light” (sandy, sallow, fresh, florid, or fair). A five percent difference is certainly not monumental, yet might suggest that the native-born adjutants’ view of the Irish physical appearance may have been influenced by popular prejudices.20

However, the racialized climate of the period did not just distinguish between the inhabitants of countries, but among those inhabitants themselves. Along with studies on the facial angles and skin pigments of Europeans, ethnologists conducted “studies” that made distinctions among the people in the British Isles, as well as within Ireland itself. Despite the obvious physical similarities between the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland, Daniel Mackintosh published a list of clear-cut physical differences between Gaels and Anglo-Saxons. Not surprisingly the Irish were described as having simian features. Yet more influential was Dr.

John Biddoe, a Victorian ethnologist and anthropologist who believed that skin tone, hair and eye color, were the keys to the subracial origins of Europeans.21

Much like Camper’s facial angle, Biddoe developed an “Index of Nigrescence,” which supposedly quantified the amount of residual melanin in the skin or corium in the eyes or hair.

Obviously, it was preferable to be at one end of the scale as opposed to the other. After applying this method to the inhabitants of the British Isles in his work, The Races of Britain, A

Contribution to the Anthropology of Western Europe, Biddoe concluded that the Celtic populations of the continent’s fringe, including Ireland, were darker than those from central and eastern regions. This caused him to speculate on the African genesis of the Irish and used the

20 Irish Soldiers Sample. 21 Curtis, Apes and Angels, 18-21.

32 term “Africanoid” to describe them. Further, within Ireland Biddoe saw a pattern – as one moved from east to west, the darkness increasing substantially so that the most “Africanoid”

Irishmen resided in the western reaches of Munster and Connacht, whereas those in eastern

Ulster and Leinster resided lower on the Nigrescence scale, appearing lighter and thus more

Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian in subracial origin.22

More intriguing is that Irish soldiers appear to have subscribed to the racialized climate of the period. From the anthropometric data in the regimental manuscripts, it appears Irish officers in ethnic regiments might have absorbed these ethnographic views and, knowingly or unknowingly, applied Biddoe’s scale to the Irish soldiers under their command. Indeed, they saw physical differences that correlated with regional cultural and religious distinctions in

Ireland. While 72 and 71 percent of Munster and Leinster soldiers were described as “light,” only 66 percent of those from Connaught earned the same designation from their adjutant.

Though only 65 percent of Ulstermen were described as light, which is problematic given the cultural “advancement” of the island’s northern province, that of soldiers from Connaught reflects the popular notions of the period. When calculated by county, the contrast is even starker. Indeed, soldiers from Ireland’s western counties were nearly 20 percent more likely to be described as “dark” (the high representation of Donegal inhabitants among Ulstermen explains why the data from that province is comparable to Connaught). Pre-modern, Gaelic- speaking, and only nominally Catholic Irishmen from Ireland’s most western reaches were not as

22 Biddoe explained his index as follows: “A ready means of comparing the colours of two peoples or localities is found in the Index of Nigrescence. The gross index is gotten by subtracting the number of red and fair-haired persons from that of the dark-haired, together with twice the black haired. I double the black, in order to give its proper value to the greater tendency to melanosity shown thereby; while brown (chestnut) hair is regarded as neutral, though in truth most of the persons placed in B are fair skinned, and approach nearly in aspect to the xanthous than to the melanous variety. D + 2N – R – F = Index. From the gross index, the net, or percentage index, is of course readily obtained.,” as quoted in Curtis, Apes and Angels, 20; Curtis, Apes and Angels, 18-21.

33 culturally and socially advanced, and, thus, officers did not describe them as “fair” as their countrymen from the east.23

Height

The soldier data indicates that while native-born officers might have subscribed to physiognomy when assessing the appearance of the Irish, the Irish soldiers almost certainly did, using the model to account for the cultural disparities separating those from eastern and western

Ireland. Yet corporeal data from the regimental manuscripts also provides insights to the relative health of the Irish as a result of the Famine and whether or not there was validity to the long-held stereotype that the Irish were short in stature.24

As a result of an incredibly monotonous diet, grinding poverty and the bodily trauma of the Great Famine, the physical wellbeing of the Irish population is a question historians have been asking for generations. Interestingly, scholars found an association between the height of a population and that population’s nutritional status. Cormac Ó Grada and Joel Mokyr, most notably, have uncovered the heights of mid-nineteenth-century Irish males using prison and military records and found that despite stereotypes, the Irish were, in fact, quite tall.

Contemporaries typically categorized the Irish as short and stocky, a physique pseudoscientists associated with inactive, lazy people, and manual laborers. Some even claimed Irish stature was the result of their potato-laden diet, a food believed to be low in nutritional value and only useful as fodder for pigs. Yet according to Ó Grada, the potato “served the Irish very well,”25 resulting in a steady source of nutrition that offset their notoriously deplorable living conditions.26

23 Irish Soldiers Sample. 24 Ibid. 25 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 66. 26 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 282; Ó Gráda, Black ’47: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 13-21; Kraut, “Illness and Medical Care,” 162; Ó Gráda, Ireland Before and After the Famine, Explorations in Economic History, 1800-1925 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988). 8-12.

Introduced to Spain in the late-sixteenth century, the potato quickly spread across Europe, probably reaching Ireland sometime in the 1580s, changing “the direction, and perhaps the course of Irish history.”27 For most of the seventeenth century, potatoes remained confined to southern and southeastern Ireland, playing only a subsidiary role in the diet in most areas.

Nevertheless, Ireland’s mild and frost-free climate proved ideal for early varieties and toward the end of the century, the potato began to replace cereals in Munster and Leinster. By the mid- eighteenth century, the potato grew in popularity among the wealthy and poor – for the former it was a delicacy, for the latter an increasing substitute for grains and dairy. Indeed, it had become part of the diet in every level of Irish society in all four provinces.28

Reaching its zenith sometime between the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, the potato ceased being a substitute and became the staple food of laborers and cottiers. As their existence became more precarious during the Napoleonic wars, with agricultural prices soaring and cottage spinning declining, dependence on the crop further increased. Not long before the onset of the Famine, the Irish had become “Europe’s potato people, par excellence,”29 a portion of the island’s rural poor subsisting almost entirely on that single crop. Only in eastern Ulster, whose poor relied primarily on oatmeal, did those in the lower strata of Irish life not rely primarily on potatoes for subsistence. In fact, for the bottom third of the population, the potato constituted the sole source of nutrition; in such regions, male laborers consumed ten to twelve pounds of potatoes per day.30

27 John Feehan, “The Potato: Root of the Famine,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 28. 28 Ibid. 28-32; 29 Ó Gráda, Black ’47, 17. 30 Ibid., 28-30.

Even with the instability of potato cultivation – the crop did not transport or store well and crop failures were common31 – for the poor the benefits far outweighed the risks. Ireland’s acidic soil and damp, mild climate meant potatoes flourished; and the potato’s yield and nutrition exceeded that of grains, so much so that a farmer’s family could survive on a much smaller plot of potatoes than of grains. Potatoes not only shielded a farmer from the effects of low-cost grain production in Southern and Eastern Europe, and allowed him to pay for rented land with a portion of the crop, but also provided him with the ability to have a large and healthy family.

Indeed, because of the potato, the Irish poor failed to suffer from common conditions that normally plagued impoverished communities: scurvy, opthalmia, and pellagra. Potatoes also increased Irish fertility: between the 1750s and 1821, Ireland’s population grew from 2.3 million to 6.8 million, increasing on average 1.3 percent annually.32

The potato obviously had a significant impact on Irish resistance to disease and fertility, but how did it affect their physical stature? Using the registers from Clonmel Prison – a jail in a prosperous agricultural region of south Tipperary – Ó Gráda found that between 1845 and 1848,

Irish male prisoners between the ages of 23 and 39 averaged 66.4 inches in height. Today, a

5’6” male is by no means tall, but the Irish prisoners in rural Tipperary were a half inch taller than their English counterparts, a group at the time deemed to be healthier than the Irish. The

Clonmel prisoners were also a full inch taller than English inhabitants of urban areas. Similarly,

British military data from thousands of sailors and soldiers in the 1850s shows that Irish recruits were heavier and taller than Scottish or English soldiers. In fact, the Irish were not just taller

31 Crop failures were so common, in fact, that between 1816 and 1842, prior to the Great Famine, over 50 percent of the harvests were either partial or complete failures. From 1816 to 1818, 50,000 Irish died of starvation or disease due to blight, in 1821 crops failed in Munster, bad weather hurt harvests from 1825 to 1829, 1832 saw severe famine in parts of Munster and Leinster, and the early 1840s witnessed three more crop failures. For more details see Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 205-212, 221. 32 Ó Gráda, Black ’47, 13-21; Ó Gráda, Ireland Before and After the Famine, 18

36 than the British, but higher in stature than most soldiers on the continent – a full inch taller than

Bavarians, Danes, and Swedes, and nearly equal in height to Norwegians.33

Akin to their countrymen in red coats serving Queen Victoria, the Irish soldiers donning blue uniforms and fighting for President Lincoln were tall by nineteenth-century standards. In the sample, the heights were listed for over 2,600 Irish-born soldiers. Standing at 67.3 inches,

Paddy Yank was tall, taller than average Irish soldiers in the British military during the Famine and in the post-Famine years, and nearly a full inch taller than Ó Gráda’s Clonmel’s prisoners, and tall enough to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the stereotype. Native-born American soldiers, however, were taller than Irish volunteers. American soldiers stood at 67.7 inches, but, according to the data from the sample, did not enjoy the same health as the Irish, more readily succumbing to disease during the war.34

If Paddy Yank’s height confirms that compared to other ethnics the Irish enjoyed good health, it also shows that some variation existed (Table 1-2).

Table 1-2. Average height in inches among Irish-born soldiers by province of birth. Province Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster Height 67.2 67.5 67.5 67.3 N 178 427 328 430 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

While only slight, Connaught had the lowest average height of any province. This possibly resulted from the region’s living conditions which were so horrific, even by Irish standards, that

33 Ó Gráda, “Heights of Clonmel Prisoners, 1845-9: Some Dietary Implications,” UCD Center for Economic Research Working Paper Series. (University College Dublin, School of Economics); Ó Gráda, Ireland Before and After the Famine, 16, also see Table 2; for anthropometric data on native-born Union soldiers see Benjamin A. Gould, Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers, specifically page 125; for a summary of such findings and on the heights of American soldiers throughout multiple wars see, Robert W. Fogel, Stanley L. Engeran, Roderick Floud, Gerald Friedan, Robert A. Margo, Kenneth Sokoloff, Richard H. Steckel, T. James Trussell, Georgia Villaflor, and Kenneth Watcher, “Secular Changes in American and British Stature and Nutrition,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 14, no. 2, “Hunger and History: The Impact of Changing Food Production and Consumption Patterns on Society,” (Autumn, 1983), pg. 445-481 34 Ó Gráda, “Heights of Clonmel Prisoners”; Ó Gráda, Ireland Before and After the Famine, 16, also see Table 2; Gould, Investigations, 330.

37 one observer said they were “comfortable only in the dirt.”35 Throughout Connaught, reckless population growth yielded continued subdivision as potato cultivation using the archaic rundale system spread even to the most marginal and desolate lands. Crowded into clachans, the inhabitants of Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and Roscommon became increasingly impoverished, living in the poorest mud-walled cabins in all of Ireland. This housing bred disease and high infant mortality rates, despite their potato-laden diet.36

Ulster’s soldiers, who were only higher in stature than Connaughtmen, do not conform to the stereotype of the tall, sturdy Ulstermen. While eastern Ulster rested largely on cereal production, most Irish soldiers were from the central and western regions of the province, where both potato cultivation and population density were high, and where the Famine disproportionately impacted the small farmers. Munster and Leinster, however, contained both the tallest soldiers as well as the shortest men in the sample. Among Munster soldiers, more than

30 percent of those from Tipperary were over 70 inches tall, including 6’5” John Gleason of the

63rd New York. While Thomas Beamish of Cork stood at a mere 62 inches, and James Casey from Limerick a shocking 60 inches. Leinster’s reputation is confirmed by the anthropometric data as a “land of great extremes – poverty and wealth juxtaposed, mud cabins and fat cattle, landlords with elegant lifestyles and the desperate poor scavenging and begging for food.”37

Indeed, Leinstermen possessed the tallest and shortest county averages of any province.38

35 Quoted in Palmer, Police and Protest in England and Ireland, 1780-1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 41. 36 Jordan, “Sons of St. Patrick: Quality of Life and Heights of Young Irish Males at Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Social Indicators Research 102 (2011): 396; William J. Smyth, “The Province of Connacht and the Great Famine,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 282-283. 37 William J. Smyth, “The Province of Leinster and the Great Famine,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013). 326. 38 Smyth, “The Province of Munster and the Great Famine,” 362-370; S. H. Cousens, “Emigration and Demographic Change in Ireland, 1851-1861.” The Economic History Review 114, no. 2 (1961): 285-286; Smyth, “The Province of Leinster and the Great Famine,” 325-329.

While variation within each province existed, and also might shed light on approximately when Irish soldiers immigrated,39 the data is not substantial enough from which to draw conclusions. Regional variation notwithstanding, despite being stereotyped as short by native- born Americans, Irish soldiers were not the short, simian creatures they were characterized as in popular culture. The Irish diet, though dull and repetitious, counterbalanced their often horrid living conditions. Irish Union volunteers appear to reinforce the observations of Arthur Young and Adam Smith who, on a tour of Ireland, noted the athleticism and robustness of the Irish poor, who to them appeared “capable of enduring labour as any upon earth.”40

Age

Not only tall and healthy, Paddy Yank was also quite old – old for a Civil War soldier and older than scholars previously assumed. Contemporaries of Paddy Yank and historians often categorize the Union army as youthful. “Three out of every four Yanks were under thirty years of age and less than half of them had celebrated their twenty-fifth birthday….Youth gave a cheerful tone to camp,” stated Bell Wiley, “made for generosity in human relations and provided a priceless core of ruggedness, optimism and resilience which a succession of defeats could not

39 The heights of the soldier also might loosely expand our understanding of how long Irish Union soldiers resided in America prior to enlistment. Using recruiting data for the British army, Thomas Jordan noted the shift in the heights of Irish men as a result of the Famine. Calculating by province, Jordan found that in all provinces except Ulster, average heights for Irish men decreased due to the hardship brought on by the potato blight. When compared to Irish-born Union volunteers in the sample, the data varies. Comparing the data suggests many Munstermen serving the Union emigrated before the onset of the famine, possessing a similar stature to Jordan’s pre-Famine recruits. The data also suggests that Connaught-born Union soldiers emigrated, not before, but early in the famine years, before starvation and famine-related illnesses took a toll on the male Irish youth, reducing their average height by over three inches. The Union’s Leinster and Ulstermen, however, appear to have emigrated during the later years of the Famine, their height correlating to that of the post-Famine recruits. Though occupational data for Irish-born soldiers is much more suggestive of emigration time, and the connection with the Jordan data is tenuous, it is nevertheless worth noting. 40 Quoted in Ó Gráda, Ireland Before and After the Famine, 17; Gould, Investigations, 330; Fogel et al., “Secular Changes in American and British Stature and Nutrition,” 445-481.

39 crush.”41 The Cincinnati Telegraph and Advocate commented that due to the youthfulness of soldiers present, camp life often had “merry-makings and delights.”42

Using data obtained from the U.S. Sanitary Commission – a civilian organization established by a Unitarian minister to improve conditions for Union soldiers that collected basic data on soldiers – James McPherson found that the average age for Union soldiers was 25.8 years, while the median age was a mere 23.5 years. Ostensibly an old army by today’s standards, contemporaries deemed this a juvenile military. Yet the Irish-born in the sample were considerably older. With an average age of 28.1 years and a median age of 27, Irish-born volunteers were two-to-three years older than the typical Union soldier, with a median age nearly four years above the Union’s. While over half of Union men might have been under 25, nearly

40 percent of Irish-born soldiers in the sample were age 30 or older.43

The advanced age of Irish-born soldiers was not a phenomenon of either ethnic or non- ethnic regiments – both Irish-born soldiers in both types of regiments had an average age of over

28 years. Even time of enlistment failed to have a significant impact the age of Irish-born soldiers. Those who enlisted in 1861 and 1862 had a combined average of 28.1 years, those in

1863 averaged 28.8 years, and the volunteers in 1864 and 1865 were 28 years old when they reported for duty. The consistency of Irish age upon enlistment across the entire war conflicts with conventional wisdom that those enlisting between 1863 and 1865 were young men in dire

41 Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 303. 42 Catholic Telegraph and Advocate, November 7, 1861; Irish Soldiers Sample. 43 J. Mathew Gallman, “Voluntarism in Wartime: Philadelphia’s Grand Central Fair,” in Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays, ed. Maris A. Vinovskis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 94; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, preface, for descriptions of the Irish as soldiers see 607-609; Irish Soldiers Sample.

40 economic circumstances who sought bounties and soldiers’ pay, for men nearing thirty are, in most instances, more economically secure than those in their early twenties.44

While significant differences in age did not exist among soldiers from different provinces, disparities did exist between regiments (Table 1-3).

Table 1-3. Average age upon enlistment among Irish-born soldiers by regiment. All Irish 9th MA 63rd NY 69th PA 90th IL 13th 39th IL 59th NY Age 28.9 25.8 28.8 30.0 28.8 26.9 28.9 N 3,692 1,001 680 813 616 161 421 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Among non-ethnic regiments, the Irish in New York appear to have been older than those enlisting in Illinois. Volunteers in the 59th New York were 28.9 years upon enlistment, while those in the 13th and 39th Illinois were 25 and 27.7 years old respectively. Even starker differences exist among the cities of enlistment for those serving in ethnic regiments. While

Irish immigrants who enlisted in the 63rd New York and the 90th Illinois both had an average age of 28.8, which is close to the sample average, the soldiers living in Philadelphia and greater

Boston did not. Moreover, Irishmen enlisting in the 69th Pennsylvania were, at age 30, considerably older than most other Irish-born enlistees – over 27 percent past age 34. Ninth

Massachusetts men, however, diverged from the other Irish regiments not by being significantly older, but significantly younger. The typical Irishman in the Ninth enlisted at age 25, the same as most Union men.45

Regimental variation notwithstanding, the advanced age of Irish soldiers also provides a glimpse of how long the Irish lived in America prior to enlistment. According to Susannah

Bruce, “the vast majority of military-age Irish-American males were recent immigrants who

44 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 13, 194, 217; Randall M. Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” in Religion and the American Civil War, eds. Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan Wilson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 278-279. 45 Ibid.

41 spent the majority of their lives in Ireland.”46 Kerby Miller agrees, providing vivid descriptions of Union recruitment in Ireland, agents and consuls enticing hapless dupes to serve Lincoln with the promise of a passage ticket. However, the age of Irish soldiers suggests otherwise – at over

28, Paddy Yank was significantly older than the typical Irish immigrant. Between 1852 and

1854, over 42 percent of male emigrants leaving Ireland were between ages 15 to 24, over 65 percent were under 24, and the median age for male Irish immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century was 22.5. In fact, in the late 1860s over 76 percent of McCorkell Line passengers arriving at Philadelphia from Ireland were still under 25 years old. Therefore, Paddy Yank’s enlistment age was five years older than that of the typical Irish male arrival. This alone suggests that he was in America by the mid-1850s at the latest and when age is combined with occupational data, it makes an even earlier immigration year, sometime during the 1840s, more likely.47

Moreover, the vast majority of Irish volunteers enlisted to fight for the Union early in the war. Yet the accounts of late and foreign recruitment, especially for the Irish, focus on the post-

1862 years, when continued crop failures led to an astronomical increase in evictions – a 422 percent rise – in Ireland’s western counties, and spurred many young Irishmen to take advantage of Union enticements. It was in these later war years, when recruitment in Ireland spiked, that

Irish enlistment in the Union army decreased. Many Irishmen were certainly recruited in Dublin and on the wharfs in American cities. However, such men were a minority among the nearly

150,000 Irish Americans who donned blue to fight for Lincoln.48

46 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 54. 47 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, see table 11, pg. 581; Morris, “From Northwest Ireland to America: Tracing Migrants from their Place of rigin to their New Home in Philadelphia” (PhD diss., Temple University, 1988), table 18. 48 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 360-361; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 198-199.

Marital Status

Many of the Irish-born soldiers in the sample were not only older than the typical Union soldier, but also more likely to be married. While only 29 percent of the men who served the

Union were married, over 31 percent of the Irish-born soldiers in the sample had a spouse. Yet again, the sample suggests commonly held assumptions concerning the demographic profile of the Irish soldier are inaccurate. Thirty-one percent for the Irish-born is hardly a vast departure from the Union’s 29 percent, but still noteworthy, and for Irish-born soldiers this number is significant for several reasons. 49

As mentioned before, scholars assume Irish soldiers were young, single, and unskilled, rootless laborers who had little commitment to America and enlisted solely for paycheck or bounty hopped to take advantage of the holes in the enlistment process. Yet bounty hopping was hardly a common activity for married men, lending itself more to those with few or weak familial ties, making it an unlikely endeavor for a sizeable portion of Irish-born volunteers. If bounty jumping was a practice carried out by young single men, native born soldiers, younger and more likely to be single than the Irish, seem to better fit the stereotype.50

To native-born American contemporaries of Paddy Yank, marriage suggested stability; the child-centered family was a symbol of masculinity and the bedrock on which American institutions rested. Yet for Irish Americans, marriage represented something quite different.

Prior to the Great Famine, especially in Gaelic-speaking Ireland, the easy cultivation of the potato, partible inheritance and the availability of the poor land, and lack of parental control led to frequent and early marriages. A young couple could easily support family – though the system would not allow them to improve their condition, they could still survive. All this

49 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, preface. 50 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 37.

43 facilitated rapid population growth, but the poor were becoming poorer and each summer a significant minority of the population starved before new crops became available.51

When Phytopthora Infestans descended on Ireland, the fragile Irish social system, which rested largely on early and frequent marriage, shattered. In response to the catastrophe, Irish farmers not only stopped the frequency with which they subdivided land, but marriages occurred later and with less frequency. This shift in the character of marriage had already occurred in

Leinster, Ulster, and parts of eastern Munster, but by the early 1850s began to engulf the entire island.52

Still reeling from the psychological and physical trauma of the famine, and cognizant of the consequences brought on by early marriage, Irish Americans took spouses later than their countrymen across the Atlantic. Records from Transfiguration Church in New York City’s Sixth

Ward show that between 1853 and 1860, the average Irishman was marrying at age 25. Though still young, and younger than the average white American male who married at age 26-27, this represented a significant departure from teenage marriages in Ireland. Therefore, that only 31 percent of Irish soldiers had a spouse correlates with the trend occurring in both Ireland and Irish

America.53

However – and this is where Irish soldiers begin to appear quite different from most other

Irish Americans – the average age for married Irish soldiers was not 25, as in the case of the

Irishmen at Transfiguration Church. Rather, the average age was 32.5. This might suggest that

Paddy Yank’s aversion to early marriage was more extreme than that of most other Irish

51 William J. Smyth, “Mapping the People: The Growth and Distribution of the Population,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 16-17; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 64. 52 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 349-350; J. David Hacker, “Economic, Demographic, and Anthropometric Correlates of First Marriage in Mid-Nineteenth-Century United States,” Social Science History 32, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 318. 53 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 118-119.

Americans. Yet, why? Cross-tabulating marital data with occupation displays some interesting patterns (Table 1-4).

Table 1-4. Marital status for Irish-born soldiers based on occupation (%). Status White Collar Skilled Semi-Skilled Unskilled Farmer Married 36.8% 28.7% 35.2% 36.5% 22.4% Single 63.2 71.3 64.8 63.5 77.6 N 57 571 142 230 67 Age 26.4 27.2 27.1 29.9 27.0 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The marriage rate for white-collar, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers is significantly higher than that for skilled workers and farmers. Given the scope of the Famine tragedy, one would think Irish soldiers might have put off marriage until they had achieved a degree of economic success. Yet unskilled laborers were nearly as likely as white-collar workers to have a spouse, while skilled workers and farmers avoided the institution with more regularity. Age seems to correlate with the married, unskilled soldiers, yet not for the semi-skilled or white- collar workers, whose average age was comparable to both the skilled workers and farmers.

Coupling marital status with the data on Irish county of origin, however, provides some insights. In the sample, men from Leinster and Ulster were significantly more likely to be marred than those form Connaught and Munster (Table 1-5).

Table 1-5. Marital status (%) for Irish-born soldiers based on province of birth. Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster Married 23.6% 21.8% 31.1% 31.1% Single 76.4 78.2 68.2 68.2 N 72 248 61 44 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

In pre-famine Ireland, however, men from Connaught and many regions in Munster married young and with high frequency. It was Leinstermen and Ulstermen who delayed marriage in

Ireland, their respective societies practicing partible inheritance and viewing marriage through the lens of economics.54

Could the horrors of the Famine, which disproportionately affected Connaught and

Munster, made Irish-born soldiers more reluctant to marry than their comrades from the east and north? Since nearly 70 percent of all married soldiers were Connaught or Munstermen, it appears possible. For Irish-born volunteers, and those from western and southern Ireland in particular, the living memory of Great Hunger continued to impact their decision-making in

America to a greater degree that the Irish immigrants who did not enlist so serve the Union. This pattern could also result from time of immigration. Leinster and Ulster soldiers were more likely to have immigrated prior to the Famine, so their higher marriage rates might simply be a reflection of their arrival in America. Nevertheless, that Irish soldiers had a higher rate of marriage than many of their countrymen on the homefront, further suggests that Paddy Yank was different from the description scholars provided, largely because he seems different from the rest of Irish America.55

Occupation

If marriage rates and age suggest that Irish-born soldiers were slightly different from native-born soldiers and their countrymen on the homefront, occupational data suggests they were very different. For the Irish, as soldiers and immigrants, occupational data is quite important because many scholars of Irish America see the Famine-immigrant experience as tragic. To them, of the Irish immigrants “who survived the voyage and the dreaded quarantine hospitals, many were widow[ers] and helpless orphans; others were so demoralized, deranged, or

54 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 59, 217-219. 55 Ó Gráda, Black ’47, 1-10; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 117.

46 physically weakened by their experiences that they sank into permanent poverty or threw themselves ‘listlessly upon the daily dole of government.’”56

Indeed, during the famine-era, to most native-born Americans and probably to most Irish immigrants, too, the lives of the Irish seemed hopeless. Evidence confirms this. In New York

City, the Irish constituted 60 percent of the almshouse population, 70 percent of the recipients of charity, over 50 percent of the arrests for drunkenness, had a general conviction rate five times that of Germans, made up 40 percent of the inmates at the House of Refuge, and had a 21 percent death rate from tuberculosis, while only three percent of the non-Irish population succumbed to the disease.57

Even in smaller cities, the Irish were viewed, at best, as a social and economic problem.

At only 18 percent of the population in Buffalo, the Irish comprised over 51 percent of poorhouse inmates and were the largest number in jails. Most of those who did not reside in poorhouses were on the waterfront crowded into shanties – single room dwellings made from wooden planks that had poor sanitation, provided little warmth in winter, and in which 10 to 12 people dwelled at a single time. A traveler passing through Troy, New York, described one such residence:

More like dog-kennels than the habitations of men: they were tenanted by Irish emigrants…In a tenement about fourteen feet by ten, lived an Irishman, his wife, and family, and seven boys as he called them, young men from twenty to thirty years of age who boarded with him. There was but one bed, on which slept the man, his wife, and family. Above the bed were some planks, extending half way the length of the shealing, and there slept the seven boys, without any mattress, or even straw to lie upon.58

56 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 316. 57 Florence Gibson, Attitudes of the New York Irish Towards State and National Affairs, 1848-1892 (New York: Arno Press, 1867), 16; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 320; 58 Quoted in Peter Way, Common Labour: Workers and the Digging of North American Canals, 1780-1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 144.

In Jersey City, nearly 56 percent of Irish immigrants were unskilled laborers, and having two times less property than the city’s native born, huddled into tenements along the waterfront. Moreover, the Jersey City Marshal’s Report for November 1860 listed that

72 percent of arrests for drunk, disorderly, fighting, assault and battery, petty larceny, mischief, insanity, burglary, theft, and threats were Irish, while the native born constituted only 19 percent, and the city’s German immigrants 3 percent.59

Social historians have gathered overwhelming occupational evidence that confirms this grim view of mid-nineteenth-century Irish America. Along with arriving disenchanted and half-starved, most famine-era Irish immigrants disembarked from ships in American ports with few, if any marketable skills – in 1855 nearly 90 percent of Irish immigrants arrived in New York as unskilled laborers, compared to only 7 percent of

German immigrants. Concentrating in the Northeast’s urban-industrial centers the Irish entered the American workforce at the very bottom, competing with Blacks for erratic, dangerous, and physically-demanding jobs that most native-born Americans and, indeed, most other immigrants shunned.60

The overwhelming majority famine-era Irish immigrants remained trapped in these menial jobs. Irish immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century fared poorly, whether the result of nativist discrimination (which was most pronounced in cities where the Irish settled most heavily), a consequence of America’s mercilessly competitive industrial economy, or the result of the their unfamiliarity with modern society. Numerous scholars have asserted this phenomenon existed in most American cities, and was most pronounced in New England and the

59 David A. Gerber, The Making of an American Pluralism: Buffalo, New York, 1825-1860 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 123, 130; Douglas Vincent Shaw, “The Making of an Immigrant City: Ethnic and Cultural Conflict in Jersey City, New Jersey, 1850-1877” (PhD diss., University of Rochester, 1973), 25, table xx. 60 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 54; Ferrie, Yankeys Now, Table 2-1; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 320, table 14.

Mid-Atlantic states. Stephen Thernstrom’s innovative study on Boston’s immigrants showed that the Irish, much more so than members of other ethnic groups, seldom rose from the bottom.

Boston’s caste-ridden social structure and narrow economy seemed to provide fewer opportunities for the Irish than anyone else. The Irish, the immigrants who arrived with the least, also fared the worst.61

More notably, however, David Ferrie’s comprehensive study on pre-Civil War immigrants in New York City thoroughly demonstrates the lack of Irish occupational mobility in the antebellum years. Ferrie constructed a social-mobility study of three major ethnic groups:

British, German, and Irish. Ferrie found that many immigrants experienced a great deal of occupational mobility. A mere few years after arrival, the British and Germans were either likely to regain occupational status that was temporarily lost as a result of adjustment, or they would actually move up in status. He also found that the more means with which immigrants arrived – i.e., capital, skills, familiarity with modern western society, etc. – the more success they enjoyed. For example, regardless of occupation on arrival, the literate were more likely to improve their circumstances than the illiterate.62

Ferrie further confirmed Thernstrom’s findings concerning Irish mobility – immigrants from Ireland fared poorly regardless of the means with which they arrived. Laborers remained laborers and those arriving with skills were actually more likely to move down in occupational level than members of any other ethnic group. Indeed, 32 percent of Irish white collar arrivals soon found themselves working as unskilled laborers and 39 percent of skilled Irishmen could only find jobs as manual workers. For most Famine-era Irish immigrants, Ralph Waldo

61 Stephen Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880—1970 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1973), 1-4. 62 Ferrie, Yankeys Now, 188.

Emerson’s statement, “the poor Irishman, the wheelbarrow is his country,”63 was a not simply the poetically worded observation of a native-born Protestant, but a harsh reality.64

Given the lack of Irish economic success in the mid-nineteenth century, scholars have classified Irish-born soldiers overwhelmingly as unskilled laborers. McPherson stated that Irish soldiers were men who had previously “worked low-skill jobs for marginal wages,”65 Bruce similarly claimed that prior to enlistment the occupations of most soldiers were irregular, insecure manual labor, and Lonn pithily stated of pre-war Irish job skills, “their only asset was physical brawn.”66 The Irish occupational profile of those on the homefront is also often juxtaposed with that of native-born soldiers, who looked quite Jeffersonian despite America’s industrial growth during this period, most listing skilled work or farming as their occupation.67

Yet the soldier sample reflects neither the occupational status of the majority of nineteenth-century Irish Americans, nor that previously thought of Irish Civil War soldiers. In fact, it is quite a departure (Table 1-6).

Table 1-6. Occupational status for Irish-born soldiers (%). Irish-born Soldiers Irish Immigrants in Union Soldiers U.S. 3.5 years (Ferrie) (Gould) White Collar 8.3% 14.3% 8.3% Skilled 35.0 6.0 25.1 Semi-Skilled 9.7 -- -- Unskilled 38.8 67.2 15.9 Farmer 8.2 12.1 47.5 N 3,597 -- -- Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; Ferrie, Yankeys Now, table 2-1; Gould, Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers, 206.

63 Emerson quoted in Jay P. Dolan, The Irish Americans: A History (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2008), 43. 64 Ferrie, Yankeys Now, 4, 17, 80, tables 2-1, 5-2, 5-4; Powers, “Invisible Immigrants,” 290; Shaw, “The Making of an Immigrant City,” table ii; Gerber, The Making of an American Pluralism, 123; Diner, “The Most Irish City in the Union,” 99; Patricia Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America: Young Men on the Make in Chicago,” Journal of American Ethnic History 28, no. 4 (Summer 2009): 13. 65 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 609. 66 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 14. 67 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 13; Gould, Investigations, 206.

To be sure, there were a significant amount of laborers in the soldier sample, but not nearly as many as previously assumed. At 38.8 percent, Irish soldiers were more than two times as likely to be unskilled as their native-born comrades, yet nearly half as likely to be unskilled as their countrymen who had lived in the United States for over three years and stayed on the homefront.68

Interestingly, Irish soldiers were as likely to have a white-collar occupation as native- born soldiers. Yet the white-collar native-born Union men were more likely to hold professional positions than the Irish, nearly 60 percent of whom were commercial or proprietary workers.

Most Irishmen with commercial occupations were clerks, while majority of those with proprietary occupations were grocers, butchers, or barkeepers, such as Joseph McGarvey, a

Donegal immigrant who settled in Philadelphia and joined the 69th Pennsylvania.69

In mid-nineteenth-century Irish America, such men were far from inconsequential. In fact, according to Meagher, proprietary businessmen functioned as the “petty neighborhood elite”70 within the Irish-American community. Grocers not only provided much-needed goods, but would offer credit to families fresh off the docks and to those who had fallen on hard times.

Taverns did not simply provide Irish males with an escape from female-dominated domestic life, but served as clubhouses and gathering places for social or church groups, fraternal orders, and political meetings. In fact, the tavern was intimately connected with politics, the politicians themselves frequently acting as owners and operators, soliciting votes as they served drinks.71

What is most surprising, however, is not the presence of Irish soldiers who held white- collar occupations, but the large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers. Nearly 45 percent

68 Irish Soldiers Sample. 69 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 88. 70 Ibid., Stivers, Hair of the Dog, 128. 71 Ibid.

51 of the soldiers in the sample held these positions, a rate far higher than most scholars have assumed. Further, the overwhelming majority of these workers were skilled, not semiskilled.

While blacksmiths, carpenters, and tailors were among the most common, the occupations soldiers held varied widely: John Healy of the 90th Illinois was a wood carver from Cork living in Chicago, Hugh Dornan of the 69th Pennsylvania who immigrated from Derry weaved clothing in Philadelphia, Kerryman James Burke of the 9th Massachusetts made trunks in Boston, and

Peter Regan of Mayo worked as a rope maker in New York City.

Paddy Yank’s occupational status has several other implications. For one, enlistment motivation, which will be discussed in chapter two, likely did not stem from financial concerns.

For a skilled worker, making ends meet was not nearly as much of a concern for an unskilled laborer whose employment was, more often than not, seasonal not to mention low paying. Also, given the difficulty with which the Irish climbed the American economic ladder, this adds further evidence to the assertion that Irish soldiers were not recent arrivals who were either duped into enlisting while still in Ireland or enlisted shortly after arrival after being enticed with soldiers’ pay and three meals per day. For over 53 percent of the soldiers to have held a white collar, skilled or semi-skilled position at the time of enlistment, implies two things: one, they arrived from Ireland with these skills; or, two, they likely immigrated in the early famine years, or at least by 1850, and had been in America for approximately a decade prior to the war. Given their age compared to most Irish immigrants, the latter seems more plausible.

Just as importantly, however, the data suggests that most Irish soldiers were not representative of Irish America in 1861. Based on their economic success alone, they were, indeed, quite different, a visible minority among Irish Americans, a minority on which some scholars have commented. David Doyle has mentioned that skilled workers are often

52 overlooked, making up a small but influential segment in Irish-American communities. David

Gerber has shown that in Buffalo, some Irish immigrants had accumulated enough wealth by

1858, that they were able to purchase homes. In Troy, New York a cadre of Irish immigrants had moved out of the ranks of day laborers and into more lucrative jobs in the textile and iron industries. Upwardly mobile, successful, having adjusted well to American society, they were likely leaders in their communities, people whose status to which most famine immigrants aspired, but could never quite reach. According to Doyle, these immigrants were modest, self- conscious, industrious, patriarchal family men, who by their very success, disassociated themselves from the overwhelming majority of Irish Americans who were hopelessly lazy, shiftless, and hapless. Paddy Yank was no Paddy.72

Regimental variation also existed among the occupations of Irish-born soldiers and adds more complexity to the picture. Indeed, the soldiers from greater Boston, New York City,

Philadelphia, and the Chicago region, were all slightly different (Table 1-7).

Table 1-7. Occupation for Irish-born soldiers by regiment (%). 9th MA 63rd NY 69th PA 90th IL 59th NY 39th IL 13th IL White Collar 6.0% 8.7% 7.3% 10.2% 13.3% 5.3% 4.3% Skilled 57.3 27.2 33.5 15.4 32.8 13.3 26.1 Semi-Skilled 13.4 5.7 8.9 6.1 13.8 8.8 17.4 Unskilled 21.2 56.5 49.7 39.8 33.8 27.4 30.4 Farmer 2.2 1.8 0.5 28.7 6.3 45.1 21.7 N 986 668 790 610 384 113 46 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

All other discrepancies notwithstanding, the Irish Ninth’s proportion of skilled workers is likely the most fascinating. At over 57 percent, the soldiers from greater Boston had the highest rate of any regiment. One might expect such a breakdown from a city like San Francisco, but not

72 Gerber, The Making of American Pluralism, 144; Daniel J. Walkowitz, Worker City, Company Town: Iron and Cotton Worker Protest in Troy and Cohoes, New York, 1855-1884 (University of Illinois Press: Chicago, 1978), 30- 37; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235; Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream, 176; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 103.

Boston, with its Brahmins, limited economic opportunity, lagging industry, and the notorious hardship experienced there by the Irish. Since the Ninth Massachusetts regiment formed from the 13th Massachusetts Militia, the Columbian Artillery, many of these soldiers might have been the most motivated and elite of the Boston Irish. Also, given the discrimination faced by Irish immigrants in this region, those in the Irish community who had achieved success might have had something to prove to Boston’s ruling caste.73

The amount of unskilled laborers in the New York and Philadelphia regiments is also surprising, especially given the low rate of unskilled laborers among the soldiers from eastern

Massachusetts. Although each regiment’s proportion of unskilled workers is substantially less than that of the Irish population in their respective cities, the numbers are nevertheless high, especially when compared to the Massachusetts Irishmen. This is particularly true of the 63rd

New York and 69th Pennsylvania, two regiments associated with New York’s famous Irish

Brigade.

As discussed below, the Irish Brigade enjoyed a prominent place in Irish folk memory, harkening back to the battlefields of Europe when Irish immigrants enlisted to serve the Catholic monarchs of the continent, a tradition stretching back hundreds of years. There, Irish regiments earned battlefield glory as they carried out Ireland’s martial tradition. Consciously drawing upon

Irish history, Michael Corcoran and Thomas Francis Meagher labeled the 69th New York the

“Irish Brigade,”74 a regiment that enjoyed widespread popularity among Irish Americans on the homefront during the war, and a regiment that has been memorialized and glorified ever since.

73 See Handlin, Boston’s Immigrants. 74 While Civil War brigades were large units composed of several regiments, the 69th New York was often referred to as the “Irish Brigade” because it was the primary regiment in the unit, the regiment around which the brigade was built. The 69th New York Volunteer Infantry was formerly the 69th New York State Militia, which achieved widespread fame among Irish Americans when in 1860 the regiment’s colonel, Michael Corcoran, refused to parade the men under his command in front of the visiting Prince of Wales, and whose furious charges at First Bull Run were widely recounted by the Irish-American press (despite a chaotic retreat). See Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, 3 and Jones, Irish Brigade, 72-83.

No doubt, playing on the emotions of Irish immigrants allowed both of these regiments to draw from a wider pool of Irish Americans. Nevertheless, the soldiers in both the 63rd New York and the 69th Pennsylvania were five times more likely to hold a skilled or semiskilled occupation than their countrymen who chose not to fight for the Union.75

While the range of jobs held by soldiers varied widely, regional patterns existed, particularly for the soldiers from Pennsylvania and Illinois. The 69th Pennsylvania possessed an occupational characteristic unique to only that regiment: the strong presence of weavers. While every other regiment had weavers in its ranks, among skilled occupations, they were a minority, which was not the case with the 69th Pennsylvania, where weaving was the most common job among skilled soldiers. The overrepresentation likely resulted from the city’s industry and the type of Irish immigrant Philadelphia received. In the 1850s when Philadelphia lagged behind

New York City, its cotton and wool industries still boomed. Additionally, a disproportionate number of Irish immigrants arriving in Philadelphia had experience in spinning and weaving since the vast majority emigrated from Ulster. Even if only a supplement to the family income, many Donegal, Derry, Tyrone, and Cavan natives participated in the linen trade out of Belfast and Derry, two cities with strong commercial ties to Philadelphia. In this context, a large cadre of weavers in a regiment seems to fit.76

If the soldiers of the 69th Pennsylvania gravitated to weaving, the Irish soldiers from

Illinois seemed to have had a proclivity for farming, an occupation not normally associated with the Irish in America. Historians have given Irish-American farmers little attention, and with good reason. Though prior to their departure most Irish immigrants were farm laborers, once in

America the vast majority settled in urban areas in the Northeast and Upper Midwest, and if they

75 See Jones, Irish Brigade. 76 Gallman, Receiving Erin’s Children, 11; Clark, The Philadelphia Irish, 3, 70-71.

55 did go west, they found homes in mining towns like Denver, Colorado, or in cities such as San

Francisco where they took up trades similar to east-coast Irish immigrants. For decades, scholars believed this aversion to farming stemmed from two separate causes: one, the horrors experienced during the famine revealed to the Irish that farming brought at worst, death and misery, and at best, isolation; and, two, the Irish were a communal people, naturally seeking the companionship of their own countrymen – the solace of kin, parish, and tavern – and did not want to chance loneliness in the American heartland.77

Recently, these notions have been overturned, as scholars have examined Famine-era

Irish immigrants in Canada and Australia, finding that they took to farming quite eagerly. If the famine soured the Irish on anything, it was not farming, but Ireland’s political union with Britain.

The Irish probably avoided farming for reasons of finance, experience, and opportunity. Not only did most Irish immigrants fail to possess the capital or skills for prairie farming of cereal crops, but they found gainful employment elsewhere. It was simply easier obtaining work in urban areas.78

Yet a significant proportion of Irish soldiers from Illinois listed farming as their primary occupation. Nearly 30 percent of Irishmen in the 90th Illinois, and approximately 45 and 21 percent of those in the 39th and 13th Illinois respectively, told regimental adjutants their primary job was farming. Given the meager means with which the vast majority of Irish immigrants arrived to America, it is doubtful these men had the capital to farm from the outset. Many, however, might have worked on the Illinois-Michigan Canal, or had been kin of those that did, and who were paid in land, since most of the towns in which these soldiers resided – Chicago,

Lockport, Ottawa, and Joliet – were on the canal line. To be sure, these men are a minority when

77 Lawrence McCaffrey, Textures of Irish America (Syracuse University Press: Syracuse, 1992), 1, 14-15; David M. Emmons, Beyond the American Pale: The Irish in the West (Norman: Oklahoma University Press), 2. 78 Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 2.

56 examining all Irish soldiers in the sample, but a significant portion of Illinois soldiers, which suggests they diverged from the claims of David Emmons who states that most Irish immigrants in the west served the same function as they did in eastern cities, as laborers. It also might suggest that many of the Irish soldiers who served in regiments from the Upper Midwest, such as the 35th Indiana, 17th Wisconsin, and 23rd Illinois, might have had a similar occupational profile.79

Some variation also exists when soldier occupation is further broken down by province

(Table 1-8).

Table 1-8. Occupation for Irish-born soldiers by province of birth (%). Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster White Collar 9.9% 8.0% 11.0% 7.9% Skilled 32.2 38.1 30.8 33.0 Semi-Skilled 6.3 8.4 11.9 9.7 Unskilled 44.9 36.7 37.2 44.5 Farmer 6.6 8.7 9.1 4.8 N 332 984 481 793 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The data does not coincide with the previously held assumptions concerning provincial origin and occupation in America. Many scholars assert that Irish immigrants from Leinster and Ulster, the two most Anglicized provinces, fared better in America’s fast-paced, industrial economy than those from Munster or Connaught. While within the sample this holds true for Connaught, it does not for Munster. In fact, Munstermen are the most economically successful Irish soldiers, with a combined white collar, skilled, and semi-skilled representation of over 54 percent.80

Equally surprising is the heretofore mentioned high level of unskilled workers among

Ulster-born soldiers, who at over 44 percent are nearly as unskilled as Connaughtmen. This

79 Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 213-216; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 670-674. 80 Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America: Economic Performance and the Impact of Place of Origin, 1850- 1920” (Department of Economics and Institute for Policy Research: Northwestern University and NBER, September, 1997), 10-11.

57 variation might, however, explain the demographic profile of the New York and Philadelphia regiments, whose high level of unskilled workers seems to be a reflection of provincial representation, for New York City contained the highest proportion of Connaught soldiers and

Philadelphia the highest of Ulster soldiers.81

Despite the regimental and thus regional variations among the soldiers – skilled

Bostonians, New Yorkers dockworkers, Philadelphia weavers, and Illinois farmers – the sample still suggests that scholars have inaccurately categorized Irish-born soldiers as menial laborers.

The majority of Irish-born soldiers were white collar, skilled or semiskilled blue collar workers, or farmers, 61.2 percent actually. The soldiers in the sample arre a far cry from the unskilled

Irish laborers scholars describe in the pages of works on the Civil War, and certainly a departure from the profile of most other Irish Americans in 1861, many of whom wallowed in “economic failure, pathological family relationships, public violence, and crime.”82

Provincial Representation

Where immigrants hailed from in Ireland is also an important question concerning their historical experience. In fact, given the regional cultural variation in Ireland, exactly which Irish travel to America is thought by scholars to impact their experience as immigrants and ethnics – religious beliefs, language, social customs, literacy, etc., all play a significant role, yet data for the period is lacking. While the sample is not large enough to break down each American geographical region by Irish county, provincial representation shows among Irish-born soldiers

Munstermen predominated, followed by immigrants from Ulster. Moreover, the data reveals the presence of provincial migration chains and networks. Discerning immigrant chains and networks for the Irish is of significant importance because though crucial to the immigrant

81 Ibid. 82 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 320.

58 experience, data on networks for the Irish is limited. Although not all counties are represented well enough to draw conclusions, several have a high enough representation to be suggestive.

Irish immigration to America has always followed certain patterns, drawing on specific regions in Ireland depending on the social, cultural, and economic circumstances in America, and the Atlantic world more generally. In the eighteenth century, Ulster Protestants dominated, forced to depart as prisoners or choosing to leave Ireland as a result of religious and political grievances, economic motives (they were pulled into broader markets by the Belfast linen trade), and land tenure issues. During the years of the Early Republic, Irish immigration would change, containing fewer convicts, fewer indentured servants, and more Catholics than the colonial migration. Yet the change would be nothing like the shift that followed the Napoleonic Wars.83

Cessation of hostilities between France and England, resulted in a drastic increase in Irish emigration to America. In Ireland, numerous crop failures, a countryside rife with sectarian violence, and changing inheritance patterns dovetailed with the repeal of British passenger legislation and the strengthening economic connections between Liverpool and New York City, which eased movement across the Atlantic, leading to a shift in the type of Irish immigrant who landed on America’s shores. While still dominated by Ulstermen, Irish immigrants now increasingly came from northern Leinster, northern Connaught, and Munster. Furthermore, the immigrants were ever more poor, unskilled, and Catholic.84

The onset of the Great Famine further accelerated these trends. Catastrophic death toll, cultural and socioeconomic affects aside, the famine caused over two million people, one fourth of the Irish population, to emigrate, 1.5 million of whom sailed for America in a panicked flight.

83 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 16-17, 24, 29, 43-44; Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 605-612. 84 Charles Tilly, “Transplanted Networks” in Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, ed. Virginia Yans-McLaughlin (Oxford University Press: New York, 1996), 83; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 201-205.

Indeed, more people left Ireland in the decade after the blight descended than in the previous two-and-a-half centuries. Those who fled were not the poorest, who could not afford transatlantic passage and succumbed to hunger or famine-related illness, but were nevertheless much poorer than their pre-Famine counterparts. They were also religiously different than previous waves of immigrants – over 90 percent Catholic.85

Not only did the Famine increase the volume and change the socioeconomic profile of the

Irish immigrant, it also changed regionally, expanding the pool further south and west. While historians agree that different patterns emerge for the Famine migration when compared to the pre-Famine years, due to poor records they disagree on the extent of these changes. Kerby

Miller and Kevin Kenny see more immigrants coming from Munster and Connaught. However, for Miller and Kenny the shift is slight, and more appropriately applied to the post-Famine years.

Rather, they see continuity, believing the majority of Famine immigrants came from south Ulster and the Leinster midlands.86

Still, Cormac Ó Gráda affirms the typical Famine refugee hailed from Munster and

Connaught, not from the more northern and eastern pre-Famine regions. Ó Gráda notes that

Connaught and Munster were the provinces most severely affected by the blight, consistent for both death and emigration. While believing that Connaught folk certainly made up a significant percentage of America’s Famine immigrants, David Doyle and Joseph Ferrie believe most hailed from Munster. Doyle cites increased Munster immigration before the Famine, which the blight only exacerbated, and Ferrie references the increased Munster character of America in the

85 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 291, 295-298; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 223-224. 86 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 293; Kenny, The American Irish, 52-54.

Famine and post-Famine years, noting that “it was not by chance that the chief contemporary investigators of Irish-America were Munstermen, usually from Cork.”87

Recently, however, Tyler Anbinder has departed from the traditional census data used by other scholars. Since approximately 74 percent of Famine immigrants landed in New York City,

Anbinder believes employing ship manifests and Irish county population data provide a more accurate picture of not only how many Irish immigrated during this period, but just as importantly, what counties Famine immigrants came from. Ship manifests often list the county of origin of their Irish passengers among other things, such as where they intended to settle in

America. Since his study used a sample of over 40,000 passengers, the data is quite reliable.88

According to Anbinder, most Irish Famine immigrants did, indeed, hail from Munster.

Nearly 30 percent of Irish immigrants arriving in New York Harbor between 1845 and 1854 immigrated from just four of Munster’s six counties: Cork, Tipperary, Limerick, and Kerry. In fact, Cork sent more famine refugees than any other county, but this is not surprising since it was

Ireland’s most populous county and also disproportionately affected by the Famine. On the other hand, northern Leinster, the Ulster periphery, and southern Connaught also sent a fair amount of immigrants, demonstrating that although Munster might have dominated during the famine, with

Connaught as another new area for migration, immigrants continued to be drawn from pre-

Famine regions. In particular, Cavan and Tyrone in Ulster, and Meath and Dublin in Leinster sent a great deal of immigrants to America during the Famine years.89

Anbinder also recognizes that the Famine immigration did not just vary over space, but differed over time as well. Anbinder notes that eastern Ireland sent more immigrants to America

87 Ó Gráda, Black ’47, table 3.10, 110-113; quote from Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 220; Joseph P. Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 10-11. 88 Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants,” 4. 89 Ibid.

61 in the early years of the Famine, while the south and west of the country came to dominate from

1851 to 1854. To be sure, Anbinder’s data still notes much continuity, with Cavan and

Roscommon in the northern midlands, and Cork, Tipperary, Limerick, and Galway sending large numbers during both periods. However, after 1851 counties such as Donegal and Tyrone in

Ulster, and King’s in Leinster, which sent large numbers during the Famine’s early years, dropped off, only to be replaced by Kerry in Munster and Mayo in Connaught.90

When examining the entire sample of Irish-born soldiers by county, however, no distinct pattern emerges. From Dublin to Antrim, Donegal to Roscommon, Clare to Wicklow, all 32 counties are represented. Thus, at first glance Paddy Yank could have been from anywhere in

Ireland, especially from County Cork, which was overrepresented and also stood out in

Anbinder’s data. Indeed, when compared to Anbinder’s sample, only soldiers from Cork seem to match the pattern (Tables 1-9 & 1-10).

Table 1-9. County of birth representation for Irish-born soldiers compared to Anbinder (tables one, two, and three) (%). County % in Soldier Sample % in Anbinder Sample (1846- 1854) Cork 19.4% 9.3% Tyrone 6.6 4.2 Galway 6.2 5.7 Dublin 5.7 4.9 Limerick 5.4 6.1 Derry 5.1 -- Donegal 4.8 1.7 (1846-49) Tipperary 4.9 8.2 Kerry 3.3 3.6 Clare 3.0 -- Mayo 3.0 3.3 Cavan 3.0 6.3 Roscommon 2.8 5.0 Kilkenny 2.7 -- Waterford 2.3 -- Armagh 2.0 -- Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; Tyler Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants.”

90 Ibid.

Table 1-9. County of birth representation for Irish-born soldiers compared to Anbinder (tables one, two, and three) (%). Meath 1.8% 4.4% Antrim 1.7 -- Laois 1.7 4.0 Wexford 1.6 -- Longford 1.5 -- Louth 1.4 -- Kildare 1.3 -- Sligo 1.3 -- Westmeath 1.3 -- Monaghan 1.2 -- Offaly 1.2 1.1 (1846-1849) Fermanagh 1.0 -- Leitrim 0.9 -- Down 0.7 -- Wicklow 0.6 -- Carlow 0.4 -- N 1,776 -- Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; Tyler Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants.”

Table 1-10. Most represented counties of birth among Irish immigrants. Soldier Sample Anbinder Sample Cork Cork Tyrone Tipperary Galway Cavan Dublin Limerick Limerick Galway Derry Roscommon Donegal Dublin Tipperary Meath Kerry Tyrone Clare Queens Mayo Kerry Cavan Mayo Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; Tyler Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants.”

Since Paddy Yanks are exceptional among Irish Americans, it is not surprising that their origins in Ireland do not match up exactly with overall immigration patterns. Although the rankings might conflict, eleven of the twelve most represented counties in the sample actually do match Anbinder’s top twelve counties for Famine immigration. Only County Clare in the soldier sample and County Laois (Queen’s) in the ship manifest data are different. This suggests that

63 though the soldiers do not fit the exact pattern, they were, for the most part, famine-generation immigrants, not the heavily Connaught immigrants of the Civil War years, while adding to the assertion that Paddy Yank was not a recent arrival as other scholars have posited. When combined with other demographic data, the sample suggests the typical Irish volunteer appears to have come from counties that sent the most immigrants during the Famine, and thus, likely emigrated from Ireland sometime between 1845 and 1854. Given Paddy Yank’s advanced age, comparatively high occupational status, the early period of Famine emigration (1845-51), seems more likely than the latter (1851-1854), which also has implications for the Irish volunteer’s motivation for Union service.

Though no discernible pattern emerges for counties when examining the evidence county-by-county, when broken down by province, patterns do emerge. When combined, counties whose numbers seem inconsequential alone demonstrate that Paddy Yank was likely from one of two provinces (Table 1-11).

Table 1-11. Province of birth for Irish-born soldiers (%). Province Percentage of Sample N Connaught 12.7% 337 Munster 37.9 1,007 Leinster 18.5 491 Ulster 31.0 823 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Indeed, nearly 70 percent of Irish-born soldiers in the sample were from Munster or Ulster.

Moreover, within those provinces, the majority of immigrants came from only a handful of counties (Table 1-12).

Table 1-12. Top three counties of birth for Munster and Ulster from sample. Munster % of Province Ulster % of Province Cork 49.5% Tyrone 25.7% Limerick 14.9 Derry 20.0 Tipperary 12.3 Donegal 18.6 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Among Ulstermen donning Union blue, nearly 65 percent hailed from Tyrone, Derry, and

Donegal, while an astounding 76.7 percent of Munstermen were born in only Cork, Limerick, or

Tipperary. This very specific representation has implications for what type of cultural characteristics the typical Irish soldier possessed.91

Soldiers from the most represented counties in Ulster were not those from the prosperous east, but the province’s periphery. Antrim, Down, and Armagh, counties with a great deal of wealth, industrialization, large population, and an overwhelmingly Protestant culture, made up a mere 15 percent of Irish-born soldiers in the sample. Instead, most soldiers at one time called central and western Ulster home. While this region did not possess the wealth or industrialization of eastern Ulster, it also did not have the poverty levels and sole dependence on subsistence farming that characterized many areas of Connaught. Instead, Ulster’s periphery possessed a cottage-based textile industry that provided rural and semi-urban workers a much- needed supplement to their income. Since Ulster fed the Atlantic World’s need for fabric, the province had the highest percentage of families engaged in manufacturing and trades in Ireland

(32 percent, compared with Munster’s 19 percent). This resulted in 14.6 pounds sterling average income for a laborer, which fell behind only Leinster, while also giving many of its inhabitants a marketable skill for the New World that most natives of Ireland’s other provinces lacked.92

Ulster’s periphery also had a more religiously mixed population than eastern Ulster, where Protestants overwhelmingly dominated. Yet despite supplemental income from textiles, and a high literacy rate, Catholics were still substantially disadvantaged in this region.

Concentrated on the bottom of Ulster’s social scale, Catholics were occupationally relegated to

91 Ibid. 92 Oxley, “Living Standards of Women in Pre-Famine Ireland,” 275; William J. Smyth, “The Province of Ulster and the Great Famine,” in Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, eds. John Crowley, William J. Smyth, and Mike Murphy (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 417.

65 the ranks of cottiers, laborers, and smallholders, while the province’s Presbyterians had large, profitable farms. The influence of the Protestant class in Ulster resulted in only moderate levels of mass attendance in many areas of the central and western regions. Ulster’s Catholics did not practice the folk Catholicism of Connaught’s western counties, but neither did they espouse the devotionalism of Anglicized Leinster or eastern Munster.93

Further, the sectarianism of Ulster fostered nationalist movements during the pre-Famine years. Agitation in Ulster took place in the late eighteenth century, as Defenderism emerged as a response to competition for land and markets, transformed into a Catholic society to defend against attacks from the Protestant Peep O’ Day Boys, only to quickly become indistinguishable from the United Irishmen. Yet when the Rebellion of 1798 failed, devolving into sectarian blood baths, Irish nationalism in Ulster stalled until Ribbonism appeared. Ribbonism’s Catholic communalist ethos spread throughout Ulster’s outskirts in the 1820s, often resulting in violent, religious conflicts with the Orange Order.94

Unlike the Ulster soldiers, Munstermen in the sample did not come from the periphery of their province, but the heartland of the southwest. While soldiers from counties Clare and

Waterford had low representation among the Irish-born soldiers, those from Cork, Limerick, and

Tipperary were the overwhelming majority. Moreover, these counties were much different from those in other areas of the province, sharing significant similarities that distinguished them: high levels of agrarian violence, politicized nationalism, relatively modernized Catholicism, and an overabundance of laborers.95

93 Connolly, Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland (West Tempest: Dundalgan Press, 1985), 4. 94 Garvin, “Ribbonmen and Others: Underground Political Networks in Pre-Famine Ireland,” Past & Present 96 August, 1982): 153. 95 Plamer, Police and Protest in England and Ireland, 46; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 305-308; Connolly, Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, 3-4; Smyth, “The Province of Munster and the Great Famine,” 359.

Munster was primarily agricultural and lacked the textiles and industry of Ulster. Pig farming predominated in the mountainous regions and large cattle and cereal farms in the lush grasslands of the lowland areas. Intensive agriculture created a high demand for labor, giving

Munster the greatest number of rural servants of any province, people dependent on their own manual labor. This also resulted in Munster having the greatest proportion of one-roomed mud cabins of any province. Thus, in this “land of contrasts,”96 laborers, cottiers, and smallholders, existed alongside strong farmers and a middle class that proliferated in the province’s towns.97

Also unlike Ulster, Munster was predominantly Catholic, over 90 percent in fact.

However, though Munster’s Catholicism was generally not the pre-modern folk Catholicism of

Connaught’s inhabitants, or the moderate faith of Ulster Catholics, neither was it as highly devotional and modern as that of Leinster. Munster’s mass attendance rates ranged from 30 to

60 percent in the central region of the province, lower in the boggy upland plateaus of Clare and higher in the wealthy towns of Waterford. Immigrants from Munster, therefore, were much more likely to be Catholic and practicing than those from Ulster, and had less direct contact with members of Protestant faiths.98

Munster’s predominantly laboring population also had a history of agrarian protest and political nationalism. While the Catholic-Protestant party fights and brawls of southern Ulster were largely absent, family feuds and faction fighting were quite common forms of violence in

Munster. Yet the majority of Munster’s incidents during the pre-Famine years were forms of agrarian protest, resulting from the communalism of the laboring population and the scarcity and uncertainty produced by Munster’s landholding system. In pre-Famine Munster, Whiteboys,

96 Smyth, “The Province of Munster and the Great Famine,” 359. 97 Ibid., 360-361. 98 David W. Miller, “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine,” in Journal of Social History 9, no 1 (Autumn, 1975):84-88; Connolly, Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, 4-7.

Rightboys, and Rockites issued threats, beatings, maimings, and assassinations to anyone who threatened the meager stability of their all too precarious existence, Catholic or Protestant, landlord or tenant. In many cases, agrarian gangs conducted open warfare against their perceived opponents sometimes numbering in the thousands, even burning barracks and assaulting parties of British troops.99

Yet Munster’s inhabitants were not simply apolitical peasants attempting to redress economic grievances. Rather, Munster, and central Munster in particular, gave birth to the politicized Irish nationalism that would take root and flourish in America. Daniel O’Connell’s

Emancipation movement galvanized the Munster countryside, familiarizing peasants with modern forms of non-violent protest, mass political action, and linking, for the first time,

Catholicism with Irish nationalism, which had previously been the purview of educated

Protestants. Involvement in O’Connell’s Catholic Association also spawned the Tithe War, which centered on Tipperary, and the Repeal Movement, which utilized the now politicized peasants of the Munster heartland. Young Ireland Rebellion of 1848 was a culmination of

Munster political violence and a glimpse of the Irish nationalism that would soon develop in

Irish America.100

The majority of soldiers in the sample, hailing from one of two regions, likely brought with them distinctive cultural characteristics that no doubt contributed to the tone of Irish regiments. Those from Ulster came to America more likely than their countrymen to have a background in textile production (a marketable skill in America), be Protestant, literate and possess a strong sense of sectarianism given Ulster’s diverse and very volatile religious climate.

99 Palmer, Police and Protest, 46-49; James S. Donnelly, Jr., Captain Rock: The Irish Agrarian Rebellion of 1821- 1824 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009), 35-42. 100 Palmer, Police and Protest, 369-373; Thomas N. Brown, Irish American Nationalism: 1870-1890 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1966), 8-9, 23.

Munstermen serving the Union, however, likely arrived in America as Catholic laborers and while they did not possess the sectarianism of Ulstermen, they were much more politicized, nationalist, and prone to exercise forms of protest to redress grievances.101

Networks and Migration Chains

While the county data demonstrates that most Irish soldiers hailed from one of two regions in Ireland, it also shows the presence of migration chains. Despite the breadth of Irish-

American scholarly work, very little evidence exists on Irish networks and migration chains, unlike that of other ethnic groups such as Italians and Scandinavians. So though immigration is a more integral part of Ireland’s history than most other countries, and historians know about the general shifts in migration from Ireland as the nineteenth century progressed, little is known about what Irish settled where. Certainly, some information has been obtained: we know of

Donegal immigrants settling on Beaver Island in Michigan, that Kerry folk from the Kenmare estate made their way to the Sixth Ward’s Five Points, and that Donegal and Cavan immigrants preferred Brooklyn more so than Galway or Kerrymen, yet most evidence is scattered and incomplete.102

Discerning immigrant networks is quite important. Most immigrants do not migrate as individuals, especially poor ones, but instead as part of large networks, “chains of men and women following relatives and friends.”103 These networks or groups were clusters of people bound together by acquaintance and fate, and by migrating, did not just randomly pack up and move, but participated in much wider and far-reaching social processes.104

101 Irish Soldiers Sample. 102 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 14-15; 99; Tyler Anbinder, Five Points: The 19th-Century New York City Neighborhood that Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World’s Most Notorious Slum (New York: Plume, 2001), 38; Ó Gráda, Black ’47, 119. 103 Timothy J. Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs,” 609-633. 104 Tilly, “Transplanted Networks,” 83-84.

What is more, networks served important functions. They helped immigrants travel to their destination. Not only would communities at home purchase tickets for a brother or sister who made the decision to leave, but those immigrant communities abroad would do so as well.

Remittance money and pre-paid tickets were particularly common among the Irish, most of whom did not possess the means to migrate in family units. In fact, between 1853 and 1854 Irish immigrants in the United States sent $21 million back to family members in Ireland, much of which was in the form of pre-paid tickets, which would often contain notes from family members warning them of the dangers involved in migration. “[B]e wise and take care of yourselves for board of a ship is an awful place to make no freedom with any person…[and] keep to your selves when you land,”105 wrote Michael McKee to his sister Margaret in 1848.106

Immigrant networks also provided words of comfort and encouragement for the unknowing immigrant who might never have traveled outside of his or her town. Letters from immigrant communities told not only of work opportunities and living situations, but assured migrants that their destination was not entirely foreign, instead filled with relatives and companions, their New World destination acting as an extension of their Old World town. In fact to many Munstermen, Boston probably seemed far less foreign than did Dublin.107

The benefits of these connections were not, however, only limited to travel. Networks continued to serve important purposes after arrival, easing the immigrants’ adjustment to the new host society. Surrounded by family and friends, immigrants could more easily find a parish, housing and employment, and develop social bonds to ease their transition. These communal ties were especially important to the Irish, for the risks were high to a group of people with few

105 Quoted in Gallman, Receiving Erin’s Children, 1. 106 Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs,” 617; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 75; Tyler Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 109; Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 241-242. 107 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 82.

70 skills and little money. Correspondence to immigrants from home also played an important role, bringing the chatter and gossip that dominated conversations around the turf fire with family or at the tavern with among friends. As Meagher wrote of networks, “they sustained; they nourished; they kept people alive.”108

Since place of enlistment more often than not corresponded with where the soldiers lived, and many list the soldiers’ county of origin, the manuscripts provide a glimpse into mid- nineteenth-century Irish migration chains and networks. Indeed, while the broad profile of the typical Irish soldier is relatively homogenous, real distinctions emerge when broken down by both province and county. On the national level the typical Irish soldier in an ethnic regiment was most likely a Munsterman, and a Corkman in particular. Each region did have a large contingent from Cork, which resulted from Cork’s massive population and the devastation it experienced during the Famine. Yet each U.S. region shows a varying degree of distinction that departs from the national profile in the sample (Table 1-13).

Table 1-13. Settlement region in U.S. by province of birth (%). Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster N NYC Area 17.2% 38.9% 26.8% 16.0% 570 Greater Boston 15.6 55.8 21.1 7.3 386 Philadelphia 7.3 16.2 17.4 59.2 507 Illinois 16.0 43.5 27.9 12.6 262 All Irish 12.7 37.9 18.5 31.0 2,658 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Those from New York showed the least amount of peculiarity of all the Irish soldiers. Similar to the provincial representation of the entire sample (with the exception of Ulster representation),

New York looks like a general profile of mid-nineteenth-century Irish immigrants. This is likely

108 Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs,” 619.

71 a result of New York City’s status as the nation’s principal economic center and primary point of entry for immigrants and the popular capital of Irish America.109

Each province in Ireland, therefore, had strong networks connecting it to New York.

Only Munster truly stands out, which given the shift in the immigrant pool as a result of the

Famine, is not surprising. The lower rate of Ulster immigration compared to the national profile is likely also a reflection of this trend. Despite its broad, all-encompassing Irish community, when broken down by county, New York’s Irish soldiers do demonstrate a distinctiveness that separates them from the soldiers living in other regions (Table 1-14).

Table 1-14. Top seven counties of origin for Irish-born New York soldiers (%). CountyColumn1 Percentage of Sample Cork 15.7% Limerick 7.5 Tipperary 6.1 Dublin 6.0 Galway 5.8 Clare 5.3 Roscommon 5.1 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

New York soldiers show a stronger presence of strong immigrant networks from Dublin,

Galway, Clare, and Roscommon, counties of which they had the highest rate, and a moderately strong connection to Limerick, of which they had the second highest.110

The Irish soldiers from Illinois also differed slightly from the general sample. The proportion of Munster immigrants was larger, as was, and most notably, that of Leinster. When the Munster- and Leinster-Chicago networks are broken down by county, even more interesting trends emerge (Table 1-15).

109 Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (W.W. Norton: New York, 2005), 529; Evan Cornog, The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience, 1769-1828, (Oxford University Press: New York, 1998), 10; Hasia R. Diner, “The Most Irish City in the Union”: The Era of The Great Migration, 1844-1877,” in The New York Irish, eds. Ronald H. Bayor and Timothy J. Meagher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 87-105. 110 Jones, Irish Brigade, 14-21; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 83; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 119-120.

Table 1-15. Top eight counties of origin for Illinois soldiers. County Percentage of Sample Tipperary 13.0% Cork 12.2 Limerick 9.5 Dublin 5.7 Mayo 5.0 Donegal 4.6 Kerry 4.6 Roscommon 3.8 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The Illinois soldiers were more likely to be from Tipperary than any other county, and had a higher rate of Tipperarymen than any other U.S. region: two times that of New York, four times that of greater Boston, and ten times that of Philadelphia. The Tipperary chain was likely established as a result of canal construction; Tipperary men were among the most common skilled workers on America’s early canals, having gained experience on canal construction in

England, and were likely drawn to the region for that reason. Illinois soldiers also had the highest rate of immigrants from Limerick of the four regions, as well as a significant amount of soldiers from Mayo, Donegal, and Roscommon. The presence of the latter three correlates with information other scholars have found concerning Irish settlement in the Upper Midwest, who were more likely to be from further south in Ireland. 111

The large presence of Leinstermen is the most interesting, however, which coincides with information concerning that region of Ireland and the people it sent to America. Though no counties stand out, apart from Laois and Kilkenny, the overall numbers are telling. Compared with immigrants from other provinces, Leinstermen were more likely to have financial resources, marketable skills, literacy, and a familiarity with modern society. Moreover, traveling past the

111 Daniel Gahan, “From Kilmuckridge to the White River Valley: Irish Catholic Settlement in Daviess County, 1821-1850” in The Wexford Man: Essays in Honour of Nicky Furlong (Dublin: Geographical Publications, 2007), ed. Bernard Browne, pgs. 89-134; Anbinder, “ The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants,” 9; Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 8.

73 city of disembarkation took some means, if only more than those whose only option was to settle in waterfront slums not far from where they landed, which Leinstermen were more likely to possess. What does not coincide with prior research is the absence of Ulstermen, with the exception of Donegal. Anbinder and Ferrie have found that Ulster immigrants were likely to settle in Illinois, but while the soldiers do show the presence of those chains, they are not nearly as strong as those from Munster or Leinster.112

Greater Boston’s soldiers present a more distinct picture than those from New York or northern Illinois. Though Thomas Cass, the first commander of the Irish Ninth, was from the

Midlands, the soldiers he recruited were certainly not (Table 1-16).

Table 1-16. Top eleven counties of origin for Massachusetts soldiers (%). County Percentage of Sample

Cork 42.0% Galway 13.0 Kerry 6.0 Dublin 4.9 Kilkenny 4.7 Waterford 3.9 Limerick 3.1 Clare 3.1 Mayo 2.8 Donegal 2.8 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The soldiers of the Ninth Massachusetts were overwhelmingly Munstermen. In fact, at nearly 60 percent they had the highest rate of soldiers from that province of any regiment, and the majority of them were from Cork. In fact, at 42 percent of the regiment, the typical Ninth Massachusetts soldier was a Corkman. Yet despite the low rate of Connaught immigrants among eastern

Massachusetts soldiers in the sample, the next most representative county was Galway. At 13

112 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America, 1845-1880,” 222-223; Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 8; Anbinder, “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants,” 9; Smyth, “The Province of Leinster and the Great Famine,” 326-327.

74 percent, Galwaymen outnumbered Kerrymen two-to-one, and Limerickmen three-to-one. The trend that appears here does not necessarily correspond to province, but region. The Ninth

Massachusetts men were very western, as the majority were born in counties on Ireland’s

Atlantic coast. When combined, soldiers from Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Clare, Galway, Mayo, and

Donegal, constitute nearly 73 percent of the sample from eastern Massachusetts. The strength of these western networks gives credence to the description of Boston as “the next parish west of

Galway.”113

Despite the uniqueness of the migration chains in the Boston area, Philadelphia’s links to

Ireland are perhaps the most interesting. Though nationally the profile of Irish immigrants arriving in America had shifted south and west, the evidence from the 69th Pennsylvania’s enlistments suggests Philadelphia’s remained strongly northern, its colonial connections with

Ulster continuing through the famine years even as immigrants were drawn from other parts of the island to different cities America. The numbers in the sample are actually quite astounding.

Soldiers from Philadelphia are the only group in the sample that does not have a Munster majority (Tables 1-16 and 1-17).

Table 1-17. Top six counties of origin for Pennsylvania soldiers (%). County Percentage of Sample Tyrone 18.1% Derry 13.6 Donegal 10.8 Cork 8.3 Dublin 5.5 Cavan 5.1 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

In fact, Ulstermen, at nearly 60 percent, comprise a higher proportion of Philadelphia soldiers than Munstermen do among the soldiers of greater Boston. As mentioned above, most of these

113 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 98.

Ulstermen do not originate in the east, but in the central and western regions of the province.

Tyrone is the Philadelphia soldier’s Cork, with over 18 percent of the soldiers in the regiment hailing from that single county. When combined with Derry, Donegal, and Cavan, nearly 50 percent of the Philadelphia soldiers are accounted for. The strong presence of Tyrone and

Donegal soldiers likely resulted from the fact that the Derry’s industrial economy serviced not only its own hinterlands, but those of Donegal and Tyrone as well. Not coincidentally, one of the primary ticket agents in Philadelphia, from whom Irish Americans would purchase pre-paid tickets to bring over their kin, had commercial ties to Derry and was born in Carrickshandrim,

County Donegal. The sample thus suggests that Philadelphia’s Famine migration was more characteristic of how Kerby Miller sees the entire Famine migration, continuing to draw from the

Ulster environs.114

Conclusion

Demographically, the sample suggests that Paddy Yank was very different from what scholars assumed, though diversity among Irish soldiers existed. Something as simple as a soldier’s given name illuminates naming patterns that result from the cultural differences that separate the regions of their birth, and illustrates, quite ironically that Paddy was not, in fact,

“Paddy.” The soldier’s complexion shows not only that native-born adjutants saw the Irish as darker than they saw themselves, but also that the Irish internalized stereotypes, applying physiognomy to their own countrymen from the west. Soldier height also shows that, despite the

Famine, the Irish soldiers were quite tall. They did not suffer from the excessive malnutrition in childhood that would stunt growth.

114 Gallman, Receiving Erin’s Children, 2; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 353; Morris, “From Northwest Ireland to America,” 13, 16, 93, 149.

These soldiers also enlisted at an advance age by comparison. At 28, the typical Irishman clad in blue was nearly three years older than his native-born counterpart and more likely to have a spouse. Moreover, Irish Union soldiers were much more skilled than previously assumed.

Most, in fact, held a white collar or skilled / semi-skilled blue collar occupation. This not only contradicts most of what has been said concerning Irish soldiers, but also separates them from most Irish Americans at the time, who remained trapped in grinding poverty and unreliable, low- paying work. While Paddy Yank was most likely a Munsterman or a Corkman at that, a great deal of diversity existed between U.S. regions. Irish soldiers from New York could have been from any county, while Munstermen were overrepresented; northern Illinois men were more likely to be from Tipperary or Leinster; those from greater Boston were likely westerners from

Cork or Galway; and Philadelphia soldiers overwhelmingly hailed from Ulster. Not only does this add complexity to the profile of the Irish soldier, but also illuminates the presence of Irish migration chains, an understudied aspect of Irish-American scholarship.

When examined together, the Irish soldier’s age, height, marital status, and occupation not only calls into question the commonly-held belief that Irish soldiers were young, single, unskilled laborers, but also that he was a recent arrival, enlisting shortly after he stepped off the gangway in America. In light of this information, Patrick Guiney – Munster-born, educated, and successful – seems more representative of the common Irish soldier than most scholars have assumed.

2 “I have enlisted in a Glorious Cause”: Motivation for Volunteering

Within three months of Lincoln’s election seven southern states seceded from the Union, organized the Confederate States of America and drafted a constitution. Responding to

Republican charges that secession was illegal and the participants were rebels, Thomas Francis

Meagher, a prominent leader in New York’s Irish community stated, “you cannot call eight millions of white freemen rebels.”1 Like many, if not most Irish Americans, Meagher initially sympathized with the South, not harboring any love for abolitionists or their cause and seeing parallels between the Southern desire for independence and that of Ireland’s.2

Indeed, while many northerners held contrasting views on the legality and morality of secession, most Irish Americans, like Meagher, supported the establishment of a new southern nation. A cultural disdain for Blacks and abolitionists, potential economic competition from freedmen, coupled with contempt for the Republican Party (a party that harbored former Know-

Nothings), and sympathy for the plight of peoples who sought political independence, led most

Irish Americans to support the Confederacy. “We say again that the Union is not worth saving,” quipped one Catholic newspaper, “and we, for one, would not lend a helping hand to save it.”3

However, for Meagher and his countrymen Fort Sumter changed everything.4

A military garrison in Charleston Harbor was one of the last Union strongholds in the

Confederacy in early 1861. Major Robert Anderson, the Union commander in the region and ironically a native-born Kentuckian, had abandoned his indefensible post at Fort Moultrie in

1 Michael Cavanagh, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher, Comprising the Leading Events of His Career, Chronologically Arranged, with Selections from his Speeches, Lectures, and Miscellaneous Writings, including Personal Reminiscences (Worcester, Massachusetts: Messenger Press, 1892), 367-368. 2 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 234-235. 3 New York Tablet, February 1,1860. 4 John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003), 49-55. 77

December during the dark of night and stealthily moved his forces to the more formidable Fort

Sumter. Unlike Fort Moultrie, at the entrance of Charleston Bay, Sumter’s eight-foot thick walls stood forty feet tall, had a holding capacity of 650 soldiers, and could stop any boat trying to leave or enter the harbor. There, Anderson and his troops resided for over three months.

Although skirmishes and mutual charges of aggression flew back and forth, neither the

Confederacy nor the North wanted war, but this soon changed, for by the end of March,

Anderson was in dire need of supplies. After much deliberation, Lincoln informed South

Carolina’s governor that he would be resupplying the fort using unarmed vessel. Jefferson

Davis, with all southern eyes watching him and expecting Northern timidity in the face of aggression, could not let this happen and on April 12, before the supply ship could be unloaded,

Confederate troops fired on and captured Fort Sumter.1

Northerners, particularly Irish northerners, did not react the way Davis expected. Upon hearing the news of the South’s aggression, Meagher promptly reversed his position regarding the Confederacy. “Duty and patriotism prompt me to [support the Union]” he stated, “The

Republic, that gave us an asylum and an honorable career—that is the mainstay of human freedom the world over—is threatened with disruption. It is the duty of every liberty-loving citizen to prevent such a calamity at all hazards.”2 Meagher’s support was no longer for a group of “revolutionaries” as he previously called the Confederates, but to the Union, which needed to be preserved from destruction.3

Indeed, the attack galvanized the Irish community. When Lincoln called for 75,000 militiamen for 90 days of national service to put down the rebel insurrection, Irish immigrants from Boston to Chicago whipped into a patriotic frenzy. Demonstrations abounded and speeches

1 Jones, Irish Brigade, 46; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 260-265, 273-274. 2 Cavanagh, Memoirs, 369. 3 Jones, Irish Brigade, 46; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 260-265, 273-274.

79 were given railing against secession, calling for Irishmen to “stand by the Union, fight for the

Union, die by the Union,”4 and subdue the Confederacy. In New York City, Catholic churches began flying the national flag and Bishop John Hughes, previously opposed to war with the

South, publically stated that “foreigners now naturalized, whether Catholics or not, ought to bear their relative burden in defense of the only country on those shores which they have recognized, and which has recognized them as citizens of the United States.”5 Sympathy and aid societies formed, concerned citizens raised public funds for organizing and supporting regiments to be matched by wealthy Irish donors, and the Sisters of Charity volunteered to serve as military nurses, even though the hierarchy urged them to care for the sick at home. More importantly, thousands of Irish Americans enlisted to fight for the Union.6

For the majority of native-born men who enlisted, scholars conclude that patriotism was the primary motive: “the flag, the Union, and democracy – all were symbols or abstractions, but nonetheless powerful enough to evoke a willingness to fight for them,”7 according to

McPherson. Yet for a century-and-a-half scholars have debated what motivated the Irish to voluntarily defend the Union. In fact, most interpretations of Irish motivation for enlistment diverge greatly. A minority assert that the Irish enlisted for ideological reasons, either to combat nativism, to demonstrate American patriotism, or to bolster Fenianism, motives which most scholars fail to recognize are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.8

4 Pilot, January 12, 1861. 5 Times, September 4, 1861. 6 O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 65; Edward K. Spann, “Union Green: The Irish Community and the Civil War,” in The New York Irish, eds. Ronald H. Bayor and Timothy J. Meagher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 202, 195. 7 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 309. 8 Jones, Irish Brigade, introduction; Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 274; Edward K. Spann, “Union Green,” 193-195; William Kurtz, “Missed Opportunity: The Legacy of the American Civil War for Northern Roman Catholics.” Presented at the “Legacies of the Civil War” Conference, Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 273-274; O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 65-66, 78; Gallman, “Voluntarism in Wartime,” 94.

Those who attribute Irish enlistment to nativism claim that the Irish hoped their service would quash the charges that Irish Catholics were unfit and disloyal citizens. Others, predominantly hagiographers, point to Irish displays of patriotism, stating that Irish volunteers were, indeed, devoted to America. 9 More within this minority emphasize the importance of

Fenianism, a physical-force Irish Nationalist organization, the members of which were purportedly only motived to enlist in order to train an army to invade Ireland. Other scholars posit that their motives varied widely and, therefore, generalizations cannot be made.

“Motivations of Irish-American Catholic volunteers and their families” according to Susannah

Bruce, “are as varied as their own communities.”10

Yet the majority of scholars claim that the Irish were not motivated at all. Compared to native-born Protestants, Irish immigrants were reluctant to serve, enlisting at lower rates than members of other ethnic groups, and knew little about the ideological importance of the war for which they volunteered to fight. Such arguments, however, often devolve into recycling age-old stereotypes and paint Irish volunteers as mercenaries, believing bounties, soldiers’ pay, and regular meals provided more than enough incentive for an unskilled immigrant to place his life in jeopardy.11

Nevertheless, the data in the sample suggests that Paddy Yank was not who most scholars had previously assumed; thus, his motivations were likely different as well. Since Irish volunteers did not necessarily reflect the diversity of Irish American communities, the motives

9 Though filiopietist publications on Irish service in the Civil War abound, most are of a poor quality, using few sources and focusing solely on a handful of historical figures and regiments. For semi-scholarly publications trumpeting the patriotism of Irish Americans, see Paul Jones’s Irish Brigade, and Joseph Bilby’s, The Irish Brigade and the Civil War. 10 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 2. 11 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 274-275, 312; James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades,6; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 177; Maris A. Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War? Some Preliminary Demographic Speculations,” in Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays, ed. Maris A. Vinovskis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 8. Costa and Kahn., Heroes and Cowards, 2.

81 were likely not diverse either. In fact, socioeconomically, most Paddy Yanks appear relatively similar. While a recently-arrived Irish immigrant might have been a reluctant and ill-informed soldier, Paddy Yank was likely not a recently-arrived Irish immigrant; he “had been settled in

America for quite some time.”12 Thus, it seems unlikely that Paddy Yank would have been ignorant of the ideological magnitude of preserving the Union. Financial motives might very well have motivated an unskilled Irish laborer to volunteer, but most Irish volunteers were not unskilled laborers. To be sure, few skilled workers who enlisted to serve the Union were enticed by the promise of soldiers’ pay.13

It appears that the hagiographers might have been partially correct in characterizing the motives of Irish volunteers. Since Paddy Yank was an early-Famine arrival, old, occupationally skilled, and with a high probability of having a wife and children, his motives were likely not material. Indeed, contrary to the assertions of the majority of scholars, "Civil War soldiers, including Irish Americans, were highly ideological.”14 Heretofore, the personal letters of Irish soldiers during the war were considered unrepresentative, for most unskilled laborers were not literate. However, the descriptive data suggest that Paddy Yank was exceptional among Irish

Americans, and because he was exceptional the correspondence of Irish soldiers may be reexamined with the assumption that they were, in fact, more representative than previously acknowledged. Letters from Irish soldiers to wives and sweethearts, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, or to Irish newspapers, are not filled with varied ideas, expressions of disillusionment, or concerns about bounties and pensions. To the contrary, aside from the day-

12 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 263. 13 Irish Soldiers Sample. 14 Samito, Becoming American under Fire, 102.

82 to-day descriptions of soldiering, most of the content of these letters concerns nativism,

Fenianism, and patriotism, all interwoven with the concept of duty.15

Yet scholars make the mistake of asserting that among these concepts, there is “no clear pattern…no clear definition of patriotism emerges.”16 To the upwardly mobile Irish immigrant in 1861, however, these concepts were not mutually exclusive. In point of fact, they formed the basis of a new Irish-American masculine identity, an identity Paddy Yank was consciously developing, and an identity which he sought to assert by enlisting to fight for the Union.

As an upwardly-mobile Irish American, Paddy saw the war as an opportunity to affirm a more respectable form of Irish-American manhood that differentiated itself from lower working- class Irish identity. The war also provided Paddy Yank with the ability to increase the influence and membership of the Fenian Brotherhood. Yet this did not present him with “dual loyalties,”17 because to Paddy Yank being an Irish American meant being an Irish nationalist. Lastly, Paddy

Yank’s success in America had transformed him into a patriot and, as a patriot, enlisting was a duty he had to fulfill. Executing his patriotic obligation would in the process: combat nativism, preserve the republican government and liberty that allowed him to escape grinding poverty, and ensure the United States would continue to serve as an asylum for subsequent generations of

Irish immigrants. Thus, service provided Paddy Yank with the opportunity to assert himself as a successful Irish-American man.

Reluctance

Many scholars often describe Irish motivation to serve the Union as weak and less ideological than that of native-born soldiers. In fact, Irish reluctance to don blue uniforms and march south is one the first things scholars mention when addressing Irish service. Rightly,

15 Ibid., 21. 16 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 279. 17 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 82.

83 these scholars immediately reference the low representation of foreign born among servicemen in relation to their total percentage of the northern population. While immigrants made up 30 percent of the North, only one quarter of the soldiers in the Union Army were immigrants. As one historian notes, “despite the fighting reputation of the Irish…, [they] were the most underrepresented group in proportion to the population.”18 Indeed, only approximately 10 percent of Irish-born military-age males residing in the North enlisted for the Union. Only

German Catholics had a lower representation. In contrast, 35 percent of military-age native-born

American men served the Union.19

Such accounts often give several reasons for the lack of Irish ideological motivation and the strength of their economic motivation. Several posit that the Irish, many of whom were recent arrivals, did not fully understand the magnitude of the conflict and possessed little commitment to the United States. These greenhorns, upon arriving in America, found themselves easily hoodwinked by crafty army recruiters and disenchanted once in the service of the Union. Even Susannah Bruce begins her account of Irish service in the Civil War with a story about William O’Grady, an Irish immigrant who enlisted to fight for the Union after having just arrived in America. “As he stepped off the boat and onto the dock, a mass of soldiers, recruiters, and other immigrants whirled around O’Grady,” writes Bruce, “he signed his name and joined the 88th New York…[and he] had only been in America for two hours.”20 Halfway through the war, these same immigrants expressed disillusionment with their decision to fight:

18 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 606. 19 Ibid.; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 577; David Ward, “Population Growth, Migration, and Urbanization, 1860- 1920,” in Historical Geography of a Changing Continent, eds. Thomas F. McIlwraith and Edward K. Muller (Lantham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2001) 290; Sean Michael O’Brien, Irish Americans in the Confederate Army (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2007), 21. 20 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 1.

“we are an emigrant race…we did not cause this war; vast numbers of our people have perished in it.…[T]he Irish spirit for the war is dead! Absolutely dead!”21

To focus on Irish reluctance or ignorance of the cause, instead of emphasizing Irish enlistment in America, some scholars focus on the Union agents and consuls sent to Ireland for recruiting purposes. This narrative estimates that a sizeable portion of Irish volunteers joined the

Union Army without even having set foot in America. In one instance, to secure passage for his son to America one western Irishman wrote to the U.S. consul in Galway that the boy hoped to,

“join his brother…in the U.S. Army… as soon as he arrives.”22 Indeed, after 1862 American consulates in Ireland were besieged with potential immigrants begging for free passage in return enlisting in the Union. The Confederacy even expressed concerns about Union recruiting practices in Ireland, enough so that in 1862 it dispatched two emissaries to counter Union efforts.

Responding to the charges, Secretary of State Seward asserted that Irishmen had not been overtly recruited, but that men had merely been encouraged to voluntarily migrate to meet labor needs in

America’s industrial centers and no official inducements had been offered to the Irish for enlisting upon arrival in America.23

Though potentially a hazard to the Irish still residing in Ireland, shrewd recruiters likely had minimal impact on the overall Irish-American experience in the Civil War. The soldier sample strongly suggests that based on age, occupational status, and county of origin, the typical

Irish-born soldier was a long-time resident in American when Fort Sumter was fired upon. So

21 Quote from Boston Pilot, May 30, 1863; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 606; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 577; David Ward, “Population Growth, Migration, and Urbanization, 1860-1920,” in Historical Geography of a Changing Continent, eds. Thomas F. McIlwraith and Edward K. Muller (Lantham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2001) 290; Sean Michael O’Brien, Irish Americans in the Confederate Army (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2007), 21; Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 3-11. 22 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 199. 23 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 198-200; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 359-360.

85 while soldiers like William O’Grady were certainly a real and widely publicized part of Irish-

American Civil War service, they were a minority among Irish soldiers. “Our standing in this community, the freedom and equality we proudly claim, are due to no local or sectional concession,” wrote one Irishman, “but come to us directly from the whole Union, to which our allegiance is due, under the guarantees of the Constitution which we have sworn to uphold.”24

Paddy Yank was hardly an immigrant recruited on the docks or in Ireland itself with the promise of a passage ticket.25

Irish-American disdain for abolitionism is another notable explanation for Irish reluctance to serve. Prior to the war, Irish Americans, with few exceptions, rejected abolitionism completely and did so for several reasons, most notably: racism, economics, and religion. Irish racism and their embrace of white supremacist ideology is a common topic among whiteness scholars who have used the Irish as the prime examples of “white” in their studies. Noel

Ignatiev and David Roediger have argued that the Irish chose to become white, rejecting what, in their opinion, should have been a natural coalition with Blacks based on working class solidarity in the face of America’s oppressive free market system.26

While whiteness historians accurately comment on the bigotry of the Irish-American community, they often take too shallow a look at the Irish historical experience, not fully examining the social and cultural baggage the Irish carried with them to America. If any ethnic group was sensitive to social status, its importance, and its fragility, it was the Irish. Their experience left them highly sensitive to the loss of status and, therefore, perceived Blacks as a

24 Irish American, April 20, 1861. 25 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 198-205; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 356; Maldwyn Allen Jones, American Immigration, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 148; Oliver Rafferty, “Fenianism in North America in the 1860s,” History 84, no. 247 (April 1999): 264. 26 Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1995), 1-3; David A. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991), chapter 1; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 221-225.

86 significant threat. History was a significant part of Irish folk culture, yet history for the Irish was not reserved for the past, rather it was a “living dimension of the present”27 and Irish history showed the consequences which accompanied the loss of status. Bards and poets continually recounted the death of Gaelic Ireland, for hundreds of years nourishing a sense of dispossession that the Irish people felt on both a personal and a national level.28

In America this issue was exacerbated by the racial comparisons between Irish and

African Americans. A common nineteenth-century American slight for an African American was “smoked Irish,”29 others said that an Irishman was simply a Black man turned inside out, while some of the more offensive expressions characterized the Irish as “white chimpanzees.”30

George Templeton Strong, a notable critic of the Irish, characterized them as “semi-humanized gorillas.”31 Such representations fueled Irish insecurities and contributed to their mounting racial disdain for African Americans, who appeared the most immediate threat to Irish socioeconomic status.

Racism notwithstanding, Irish immigrants also had economic concerns about abolition that coalesced with their notions of group solidarity and insecurity. Working class newspapers had long broadcast that an end to slavery meant economic competition, as freedmen would surely make their way north, taking jobs from Irish dockworkers, laborers, and factory hands.

This, too, dovetailed with the historical experience of the Irish. In Ireland, the cultural inferiority of the native Catholic population was compounded by the tenuousness of the Irish economy.

Responding to grinding poverty, constant crop failures, and a fluctuating market, the Irish

27 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 224. 28 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 137; Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 109; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 225- 227; Palmer, Police and Protest, 197. 29 Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White, 41. 30 Patrick O’Farrell, Ireland’s English Question (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 119. 31 Strong, Diary, November 12, 1863, 3:371.

87 developed a stout sense of communalism, creating secret societies that used sometimes appalling acts of violence to reinforce the status quo, to protect the local group, to hold on to what little stability they knew.32

Though common throughout the country, these secret societies were particularly prevalent in southern Ireland, in Munster and its border with Leinster, where the perpetrators were called Rockites, after the leader of an agrarian insurgent movement in Limerick nicknamed

Captain Rock. Rockism reached astounding proportions between 1821 and 1824 as the peasants’ transgressors were assassinated, dismembered, impaled, or mutilated (ears were cropped, eyes gouged, and tongues ripped out). Even John Marum, brother of the Catholic bishop of Ossary was murdered in 1824 for fear he would displace a family of long-standing Protestant middlemen who had been lenient to their Catholic undertenants.33

Thus, any perceived threat to the stability of the Irish community became an aim. In

America, this meant African Americans, who given their social, economic, and political situation, were easy targets. That emancipation would bring social and economic competition from Blacks seemed a very real threat and a situation the already impoverished and Irish could not afford. Before the 1860 election, the New York Herald warned Irishmen that “if Lincoln is elected you will have to compete with the labor of four million emancipated Negroes…The

North will be flooded with free negroes, and the labor of labor of the white man will be degraded.”34 Another Irishman said to one of his fellow countrymen, “Damn this war, if it is going to set the negroes free, to come North for work.”35

32 Palmer, Police and Protest, 197. 33 Palmer, Police and Protest, 46; Donnelly, Captain Rock, 27-30, 250. 34 New York Herald, November 6, 1860. 35 Quote from New Hampshire Statesman, August 23 1862; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 191-193.

Such sentiments were accompanied by testimonies – albeit inaccurate – that southern slaves lived far better lives than the Irish: “Of course, the negro slaves of America are far happier than the poor Irish: these black creatures are well clad, well fed, well lodged, well cared for in a domestic and medical point of view. They don’t know what is a poor-house for their kindred; they are never transported; they are never shot down by Negro-Orangemen; nor are they ever doomed to be chained in gangs in foreign lands.”36 Consequently, by the eve of the Civil War the Irish as a group had developed a great deal of disdain for Blacks, becoming among

America’s most virulent racists and steadfast supporters of slavery. Observers noticed as well, a

Maine resident stating, “I never saw one of the [Irish] race…who did not hate a negro.”37

Potential social and economic competition from freedmen was not the only factor contributing to the Irish disdain for abolition – religion played a prominent role as well. Unlike evangelical Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church did not see slavery as inherently sinful, but only the abuse of slavery as sinful. Educated Irish Americans argued that according to

Aristotle and Saint Paul, slavery violated neither Church teaching nor natural law. Like many other institutions in life, slavery was a legitimate, if tragic, institution whose victims suffered, but their suffering did not differ greatly from other forms of human agony. In addition, the hierarchical nature of the slave system was not unique and had parallels throughout the world, much like the feudal land system from which so many Irish had fled. Combined with the

Church’s opposition to revolutions that could overturn society and result in chaos, even intellectual Irish Catholics could rationalize opposing abolition.38

36 Irish defense of slavery by Rev. Dr. Cahill quoted in The Liberator, October 25 1861. 37 Quoted in Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery, 46. 38 Angela F. Murphy, American Slavery, Irish Freedom: Abolition, Immigrant Citizenship, and the Transatlantic Movement for Irish Repeal (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010), 3-6; Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 51; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 50-56.

Many abolitionists were also virulently ant-Catholic, which stemmed from both the

Church’s philosophy and the increasing political sway Catholics held in America. Ideologically, abolitionists viewed Catholicism in the same light as chattel slavery: both were corrupt and ancient institutions that inhibited the freedom of the individual, and neither Catholicism nor slavery belonged in a modern, republican society. “Slavery …denies the right of a man to his body” said Anson Burlingame, but “Priestcraft…denies…the right of a man to his soul.”39 In addition, Irish Catholic political power, which steadily grew from the 1840s, placed them in league with Democratic slaveholders. Thus, many abolitionists felt they had to eradicate both slavery and Catholicism: “There are two charges to be met…the despotic Church of the Irish, and the despotic State of the slaveholder.”40 To abolitionists, a republican society free of slavery and popery was Christian perfection.41

Another significant factor contributing to the Irish reluctance to serve was their political allegiance. At mid-century the overwhelming majority of Irish immigrants were members of the

Democratic Party, and as a group, the Irish had taken to the American political system more readily than other ethnic groups. Unlike other immigrants, the Irish had Old World experience with Anglo-Saxon Protestant political systems; it was one of the only advantages they had. In

Ireland, the Irish became skillful at techniques of large-scale agitation, organization, and liberal- democratic politics, largely as a result of Daniel O’Connell’s movements for emancipation and repeal. This combined with the strong communalism of the Irish and their familial and kinship networks, primed them for active political participation.42

39 Burlingame quoted in Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery, 52. 40 Thomas Whitney quoted in Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 52. 41 Murphy, American Slavery, Irish Freedom, 3-6; Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 51; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 50-56. 42 McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora, 7-8.

The Irish found a political home in the Democratic Party for several reasons. When

Jefferson’s Democratic - Republican Party split into two factions in the 1820s, the Whigs and the

Democrats, the Democrats championed the expansion of political enfranchisement to commoners and immigrants, including the Irish, while the Whigs, who attracted a disproportionate number of evangelicals and those who enjoyed success in the market economy, insisted on Protestant cultural conformity across the country by pushing for public schools instilled with Protestant teaching, the prohibition of Sunday recreation, and banning the consumption of alcohol. When the Whigs began to gradually dissolve in the 1850s, the Know Nothing Party emerged to take up many of their issues. Specifically, they focused on curbing the power and influence of the

Catholic Church, an institution they deemed the greatest threat to the fabric of the American republic.43

The Irish remained loyal to the Democratic Party through the 1850s, often fiercely so, as it offered an alternative to the open hostility of Whigs and Know Nothings. Gradually the Irish filled out the party’s lower ranks, benefitting from and doling out to their countrymen its political patronage, while nationally, the Democratic Party promoted a white supremacist ideology which would provide Irish immigrants with better socioeconomic standing than African Americans.

Not surprisingly, Irish Democratic allegiance continued with the emergence of the Republican

Party, which seemed not only to harbor the anti-Catholic and reform-minded former Whigs and

Know Nothings, but also radical abolitionists.44

As a result, Democratic leaders and the Democratic press painted the new party as “Black

Republicans,” whose rule would not only result in Protestant Bible reading in schools, but also the freeing of millions of Black slaves, who would compete with Irish workers for jobs in

43 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 52, 89; Knobel, America for the Americans: The Nativist Movement in the United States (New York: Twayen Publishers, 1996), 90, 98, 109-110. 44 Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy, 705-706, 722.

91 northern cities and undermine their already precarious social standing. Though during the 1860 election Lincoln asserted he would leave slavery alone where it existed, and early in the war’s prosecution he routinely justified the conflict as one to preserve the Union, not to end slavery, criticisms from the Democrats did not relent and every action of the Republican Party was continually painted as a threat to immigrants.45

Consequently, the assertion that most Irish Americans lacked a commitment to the war effort and opposed ending slavery is largely accurate. Countless Irish immigrants were recent arrivals who possessed little loyalty to the United States. Once in America, many if not most, developed into virulent racists, fearing social and economic competition from Blacks. Still more rationalized the institution of slavery using religion and developed a strong disdain for abolitionists and their cause based not only on the goals of abolitionists, but on the anti-Catholic content of their rhetoric. Moreover, the Republican Party seemed to at once embody the ideas of nativism and abolitionism; the Irish were pre-conditioned to not support the war from the outset.

For the average Irish immigrant in America, preserving the Union and ending slavery were not priorities; he lacked any ideological commitment to the former and saw the latter as a threat.

Yet what of the Irish who did serve? The sample suggests that many Irish soldiers were not like Irish-Americans on the homefront. In many ways Paddy Yanks were not typical, they were exceptional, and so likely did not possess the same views as his countrymen who chose not to serve. Probably in America for at least a decade at the start of the Civil War, Paddy Yank was no doubt aware of the magnitude of the conflict. Indeed, numerous soldiers echoed the views

Judge Daley expressed at a recruiting speech for the Irish Brigade: “To the Irish race it has in

45 Ibid.

92 every sense been a country. Here we have free government, just laws, and a Constitution that guarantees equal rights and privileges to all.”46

Moreover, while Paddy Yanks might have possessed the racist views of their countrymen, a sizeable portion did not share their economic problems. Unlike most Irish

Americans, Paddy Yank was economically successful and more likely to possess a skilled or white collar job than other Irish immigrants, the overwhelming majority of who were trapped in menial jobs and grinding poverty. So while the thought of former chattel slaves streaming north might have been a fear for Irish laborers, economic competition was not a threat for most of the

Irish who enlisted to fight for the Union. The majority of plantation slaves possessed few skills, and those they did possess – harvesting cotton or cutting tobacco – were not marketable in the

North’s industrial and fast-paced economy. No doubt, upwardly mobile Irishmen knew this, and also knew declarations stating emancipated slaves would “overstock the market…[with] incalculable risks to white hands”47 did not apply to him. Thus, reluctance to serve because of economic competition seems an unlikely trait for most Irish volunteers.48

Still, even with his familiarity with America’s institutions and his economic success, it is doubtful Paddy Yank was a friend of abolitionists or the emancipation movement. Yet this would not necessarily dissuade a potential Irish volunteer from enlisting. While the primary cause of the war was certainly slavery, the issue had little to do with the enlistment of many soldiers, including the Irish, and especially those who enlisted early in the war, as the case with the majority of the soldiers in the sample. Preserving the Union, as we shall see, was the primary reason for Irish enlistment, hence volunteers were not likely discouraged by the anti-Catholic diatribes by many abolitionist leaders. Irish volunteers “have never had any affiliation with

46 Quoted in Coyningham, The Irish Brigade, 60. 47 Pilot, April 16, 1862. 48 Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians, introduction; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 319-323.

93 abolitionism,” according to Joseph Tully, quartermaster of the 69th New York State Militia, “but their regard for the South is far from equaling their love for the Union…the latter must and shall be preserved.”49 Not ignorant of the cause, not fearing social and economic competition from freedmen, and unconcerned with the rhetoric of abolitionists, it is doubtful Paddy Yank was a reluctant soldier.50

Economics

Though the lack of Irish enthusiasm for service is frequently commented on, the majority of scholars posit that economics motivated most of Irish volunteers to enlist. Indeed, when operating under the assumption that most Irish soldiers were unskilled, this makes sense. While a laborer might make over $300 per year, working in America’s wage labor economy was both physically brutal and ruthlessly competitive. Employment opportunities were not only physically demanding and extremely dangerous, but often uncertain or sporadic, expanding and contracting with the changing of the seasons and fluctuations in the economy. Moreover, the crippling financial panics and the economic depressions of 1857 and 1861 disproportionately impacted unskilled workers, as unemployment skyrocketed and prices for food and housing increased.51

In this context, scholars claim that the “Civil War freed many emigrants from financial concerns”52 and that the “cause of…[the] rush to service was the high rate of unemployment among the Irish.”53 Indeed, for the typical Irish-American, enlistment was no doubt enticing:

49 New York Herald, June 2, 1861. 50 Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), 3-11; Ian Delehanty, “‘History for Which Our Children Will Have Reason to Blush:’ Irish Americans and Slavery in the Civil War,” Presented at the Chestnut Hill “Legacies of the Civil War Conference,” (Fall, 2011), 5-7; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 23-24. 51 For annual earnings based on occupation, see Ferrie, Yankeys Now, 37, table d-1; Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 223. 52 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 336. 53 Spann, “Union Green,” 195.

94 steady pay at $13 per month, regular meals, and the promise of a bounty. Joseph Campbell of the 69th Pennsylvania emigrated from County Donegal and made his living carrying a hod in

Philadelphia. Mayo immigrant Thomas Flynn labored on the canal in Freeport, Illinois before enlisting in the Irish Legion. Patrick Cusack, a Corkman living in Albany, worked unskilled jobs before volunteering for the 63rd New York. To men such as these, financial motives for enlistment cannot be ignored; the precariousness of their existence would have made soldiers’ pay impossible to overlook.54

However, while Campbell, Flynn, and Cusack might resemble the majority of Irish

Americans, they were a minority among Irish volunteers. The sample suggests that the majority of Irish immigrants who volunteered to fight for the Union were atypical for Irish immigrants: early arrivals, old, economically successful. Though for 38 percent of the sample financial motives for enlisting might have been significant, for the overwhelming majority, nearly 62 percent, it seems questionable. Even with the financial difficulties of the 1850s, farmers, skilled, semi-skilled, and white-collar workers likely did not find the Union’s monthly stipend reason enough to enlist.55

Not only did most soldiers in the sample hold occupations that were substantially more stable than that of an unskilled laborer, their jobs also provided nearly twice the annual salary of a soldier. John Gleason of the 63rd New York was a civil engineer, James Lane of the Ninth

Massachusetts a blacksmith, Patrick Connelly of the 69th Pennsylvania a carpenter, Cornelius

O’Brien of the 59th New York a moulder, and John Hollahan of the 90th Illinois a boilermaker, all of whom probably made approximately $500 per year. Thomas Beamish of the 39th Illinois a farmer and John Harvey of the 69th Pennsylvania a lawyer perhaps made approximately $1,000

54 Irish Soldiers Sample. 55 Ibid.

95 per year. Thus, it is unlikely the majority of the Irish-born soldiers in the sample had to choose, as Maldwyn Jones writes, between “starvation or military service.”56 Their socioeconomic status coupled with the fact that most Irish soldiers in the sample enlisted early in the war, prior to the offering of substantial bounties, enlistment did not promise economic gain, it promised economic setback.57

However, it has been noted that the composition of soldiers changed as the war progressed. Scholars often make the distinction between 1861 soldiers and those who enlisted later in the war. While Fort Sumter initially galvanized the northern public, including Lincoln’s most ardent critics, by the summer of 1862 much of the initial fervor had died down. No longer did banners, parades, and glamorous send-offs accompany departing soldiers as the homefront instead concerned itself with not only day-to-day living, but seemingly ineffective military strategy and battlefield casualty lists. What’s more, once Lee drove McClellan’s Army of the

Potomac away from Richmond, forcing McClellan to retreat down the Virginia peninsula, northerners had to grapple with a new reality: the possibility of losing. Northerners had to discard all romantic notions of war and look soberly at the prospect of a long and bloody conflict with a Confederacy that would not be easily swept away.58

Faced with a potentially dire situation, the Lincoln administration quickly realized that they had made a grave error by ordering the termination of recruiting in April 1862. With southern morale high and northern morale low, Lincoln had to replenish the Union’s ranks. In addition to calling for an additional 300,000 troops, the War Department offered an advance of

$25 of the traditional $100 bounty paid with honorable discharge. To heed Lincoln’s call, many

56 Jones, American Immigration, 147. 57 For annual earnings based on occupation, see Ferrie, Yankeys Now, Table D-1; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 8. 58 Gallman, “Voluntarism in Wartime,” 94-116; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 490-491.

96 states improved the offer, with New York’s Governor Morgan offering an additional $50 bounty to the one already offered by the federal government. In addition to obtaining soldiers through conscription, by 1863 local bounties would reach $300 and by 1864 the combination of federal, state, and local bounties approached $1,000 in some places – a payoff of over three times what an unskilled laborer made in a year.59

Recruiting focus shifted to reflect this change; not only were monetary incentives offered upon enlistment, they were advertised as such. The content of recruiting posters no longer used solely patriotic themes. Instead, pay and bounties enjoyed prominent placement. Even recruiting posters for Irish regiments altered. Prior to 1863, advertisements for ethnic Irish regiments most often mentioned Irish nationalism and the Stars and Stripes, had images of bald eagles, sunbursts and Irish harps, and promised a “chaplain of the old faith.” 60 However, by

1864 posters highlighted the financial benefits of soldiering. The 1861 recruiting phrases, “Join

MULLIGAN’S BRIGADE,” “Join MRS. MEAGHER’S OWN,” and “IRISHMEN TO THE

RESCUE!” by 1863 were replaced by “$402 BOUNTY” in large, bold print. Recruiting in

Ireland changed to cater to these new circumstances, as well. No longer did Union representatives in Dublin or Galway seek out Irishmen who wanted to save “the free, the glorious institutions of [America]”61 but men for whom “the temptation of a little ready money…would lead them to go anywhere.”62

Not coincidentally, the offering of bounties dovetailed with an economic squeeze or northern working families. Though the North did experience industrial growth resulting from the

59 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 491; Truslow, “Peasants to Patriots,” 78; Jones, American Immigration, 147; Spann, “Union Green,” 195; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 56; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 194. 60 The Glorious Ninth! Recruiting Poster, Massachusetts Historical Society. 61 Quoted in Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 360. 62 Ibid.; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 57-65; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 491; Truslow, “Peasants to Patriots,” 78; Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 277-278.

97 demands of a wartime economy, negative side effects accompanied the progress. Along with increased taxation, inflation skyrocketed well past the wages of workers; consumer prices increasing 72 percent while wages only increasing 42 percent. As a result, the standard of living for laborers declined precipitously. This fueled protests and strikes throughout northern cities as economic hardships compounded the social difficulties already brought about by the war.

Moreover, as northern morale plummeted and battlefield casualties continually increased, the war aims changed from preserving the Union to emancipating Blacks, and then federal government instituted a draft that appeared to target the poor immigrants.63

This situation led to a different type of volunteer from those who enlisted in 1861 and early 1862. By 1863, across the army those enlisting were concerned with the financial gain from soldiering. While many scholars believe the Irish enlisted for financial reasons from the outset, others note a shift similar to that which occurred among native-born volunteers. “The character of the Irish Catholic soldier changed by summer 1862,” notes Randall Miller, “new arrivals…were fighting for bounties and pay, not for Irish or American nationalism.”64 The sample supports Miller’s assertion (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1 – Irish occupation by enlistment year (%). 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 White Collar 7.1% 10.4% 8.9% 8.0% 10.0% Skilled 42.4 24.6 23.8 28.4 10.0 Semi-Skilled 5% 9.0 7.6 14.9 14.1 30.0 Unskilled 37.7 37.0 47.0 44.1 56.7 Farmer 3.7 20.4 5.4 5.4 3.3 N 2,045 913 168 426 30 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

63 Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War?,” 94-116; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 443-444; Spann, “Union Green,” 203; Gerber, Making of an American Pluralism, 125; Mary Beth Norton, A People and a Nation: A History of the United States (Boston: Wadsworth, 2008), 268; for a vivid description of Irish living conditions, see Anbinder, Five Points. 64 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 263.

After 1862, a significant shift occurs. The proportion of unskilled laborers enlisting to fight increases substantially. While only 37 percent of Irish volunteers in 1861 and 1862, by

1863 laborers constituted nearly 50 percent of those enlisting and by 1865 nearly 57 percent.

The sharp decline in skilled blue collar workers is likely the result of several factors. Lincoln’s

Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation played a large role no doubt. Most of those enlisting early in the war did so to preserve the Union, yet for a soldier volunteering after 1862, the link with emancipation was undeniable – he would be fighting not simply to preserve the Union, but to end slavery. As they supported the war effort, Irish American newspapers simultaneously denounced emancipation and criticized Lincoln for changing the war aims.65

Casualties began to mount as well transforming Irish wives and children into widows and orphans, leaving many Irish Americans with a feeling of hopelessness. This sentiment was particularly pronounced after Fredericksburg where the Irish Brigade lost nearly 50 percent of its strength. The staggering battlefield casualties were compounded by widely circulating rumors that Irish troops were experiencing discrimination at the hands of nativists in ranks. Some editors complained of a dearth in Catholic chaplains to attend to men’s religious needs, while others openly chastised the government for wantonly using Irish troops in combat. The Pilot wrote that government viewed the Irish “only as food for powder,”66 while the Irish American stated “If the [Irish] Brigade were not so markedly and distinctively Irish, they would hot have been treated with the positive injustice and neglect to which they have been exposed.”67 Most in the Irish-American community began to question the cost of the war.68

65 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 136. 66 Pilot, August 10, 1861. 67 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 158. 68 Kurtz, William B., “Let Us Hear No More ‘Nativism’”: The Catholic Press in the Mexican and Civil Wars,” Civil War History 60, no. 1 (March 2014): 24-29; Craig A. Warren, “Oh, God, What a Pity!”: The Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg and the Creation of a Myth,” Civil War History 47, no. 3 (September 2001): 193-195.

Consequently, those men who did volunteer were hardly the elite leaders of the Irish-

American community who enlisted in the early years of the war. The shift in the war’s purpose likely discouraged civilian Paddy Yanks from volunteering, yet for the majority of Irish

Americans, the situation was quite different. Given the North’s economic downturn and increased monetary value of soldiering, economics probably provided the chief motivating factor for enlistment, causing the unskilled to enlist in larger numbers. “The times is miserable in this contery,” wrote William McSparron, “…[since] this rebelion has stoped all publick works and men is going about in thousants that cant get any thing to Do.”69 For most Irish Americans, making ends meet was difficult enough in times of economic stability and certainty, let alone during depression and war. A Corkman in Boston stated, “the business of the Country is wholly prostrate…, and all the people who have lived here by their labour and only from hand to mouth…are going to the War.”70 It was then, in 1863 and not 1861, that many Irishmen were faced with starvation or military service. Indeed, Bishop Hughes’s statement that Irish soldiers were “ragged, ignorant, and half starved”71 finally proved true.

Despite this shift, when examining Irish service over the course of the entire war, laborers still makeup only a small portion of Irish volunteers.

Table 2-2 – Irish soldiers by enlistment year (%). 1861 1862 1863 1864 1864 % of Sample 58.7% 26.0 4.4 10.1 0.8 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Since enlistment dropped off after the fall of 1862 (Table 2-2), subsequent volunteers only constituted 15.3 percent of all Irish-born soldiers. Indeed, even with the shift in the occupational status of Irish soldiers, the vast majority of those who served were not unskilled laborers, and

69 Quoted in Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 359. 70 M. Sexton, November 24, 1861, quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 60. 71 Hughes quoted in Jones, Irish Brigade, forward.

100 therefore, financial motivations likely played only a marginal role in enlistment. Since laborers were a minority among the Irish in the sample, even with the post-1862 spike, McPherson’s assertion about the financial motives for enlistment among native-born soldiers seems to apply equally well to the Irish: “They did not fight for money. The pay was poor and unreliable; the large enlistment bounties received by some Union soldiers late in the war were exceptional; most volunteers and their families made economic sacrifices when they enlisted.”72

Masculinity

Rather, it was the desire to assert themselves as Irish-American men that prompted tens- of-thousands of upwardly mobile Irish immigrants to volunteer for service. Paddy Yank sought to redefine Irish-American manhood combining respectability with the history of Irish physical prowess and military service. Prior to Paddy Yank’s effort to transform Irish male identity, working-class Irish immigrant men had already started to define that identity. They muscled their way into a primary role in America’s emerging democratic, urban working class culture of artisans and laborers, and gave it a distinctly Irish cast. Unwavering loyalty to one’s friends, a fondness for hard drinking and gambling, the centrality of the saloon in social life, membership in gangs or fire companies, and contempt for all pretensions to aristocracy soon became defining characteristics of this Irish-dominated, male working class culture.73

The leading character in these Irish American male communities was the “b’hoy,” who took daredevil risks, displayed masculine swagger in the face of intimidation, and, most importantly, exhibited skill at physical combat. Indeed, antebellum America was filled with countless instances of Irish male violence, as in the case of the Shamrock Society of Worcester,

72 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 5; Irish Soldiers Sample. 73 Patricia Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America,” 8-10, 12; Michael Kaplan, "New York City Tavern Violence and the Creation of a Working-Class Male Identity,” Journal of the Early Republic 15 no 4 (Winter, 1995): 592; Way, Common Labour, 174.

101 which issued savage beatings to those who threatened Irish interests. Yet to Irish American men fighting was not just a tool, but seen as a satisfying pastime: “The love of fighting, among the

Irish,” according to one contemporary, “springs from no malice; it is, indeed, often rather a rough way of showing regard. One the other day knocked down his comrade without provocation, and being asked by him, “’Pat, what did you strike me for?’ replied, ‘Shure, Mick, and ef I struck you myself, I wouldn’t lot any other man do it.’”74 Violence became so associated with the Irish male culture that any instance of a street disturbance was labeled as an

“Irish row.”75

Nonetheless, the middle- and upper-class native-born Protestants did not see male characteristics in the same manner as Irish immigrants. Rather, members of America’s aristocratic establishment viewed manhood through a very different lens. For them, masculinity had a strong moral dimension: men were virtuous and independent, possessing strong wills and, most importantly, self-restraint. Work was the focal point of middle and upper class life, not the firehouse or the tavern, principals took precedence over loyalty, temperance was valued over drunkenness, and devolving into violence on a whim demonstrated nothing but a lack of self- control. According to upper class Victorian values, for all of their physical aptitude, Irishmen were not manly, but effeminate.76

In response, upwardly-mobile Irishmen sought to recast Irish-American masculinity by blending Victorian upper-class values with the physical prowess of Irish manhood. According to

David Doyle, artisan and middle class Irishmen developed a commitment to self-improvement and perseverance that was a reflected in their economic success. Worcester’s pre-Famine Irish

74 Freeman’s Champion, September 29, 1864. 75 Kaplan, “New York City Tavern Violence,” 593-594, 597; Powers, “Invisible Immigrants,” 309-312. 76 Michael T. Smith, “The Beast Unleashed: Benjamin F. Butler and Conceptions of Masculinity in the Civil War,” New England Quarterly 79, no. 2 (June 2006): 255; Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America,” 12; Kaplan, “New York City Tavern Violence,” 592.

102 community provides a fine example: small, close-knit, and with bourgeois inclinations and tastes, Worcester’s Irish married, settle down, and maintained gainful employment. Many even

Anglicized their names – Thomas Leith became Thomas Lee, Robert Overand became Robert

Overman, and Michael Keohane became Michael Cohan. This was not a craven plea to Yankees for acceptance, or a linear form of assimilation, but an assertion of a new Irish-American identity, one distanced from disease-ridden tenements, unskilled drudgery, slothfulness, vice, and lack of education.77

More high-profile men such as James Mulligan and William Onahan attempted to forge this middle-class Irish masculinity by foregrounding their Catholicism. While this might seem like a poor course of action given the anti-Catholic climate of antebellum America, separate from

Irishness, Catholicism actually left more room for respectability than mere Irishness. For Paddy

Yanks like Mulligan and Onahan, Americans would more easily see propriety in the religion linked to the socially-refined French aristocracy than the customs of rural Irish laborers.

Furthermore, their Catholicism was not the folk religion of Ireland’s remote west coast, but that of southern and central Ireland, where strict religious practices were adhered to and where the

Devotional Revolution had taken hold. Strict Roman Catholicism, with its emphasis on frequent communion and confession, observances, puritanical nature, and disdain for folk customs, encouraged behaviors that were more compatible with Victorian norms.78

Despite the best efforts of Mulligan, Onahan and the like, creating a respectable Irish-

American masculine identity grounded in their faith proved fruitless. While upwardly-mobile

Irish Americans successfully forged a new identity for themselves, they failed to achieve

77 Powers, “Invisible Immigrants,” 158-163, 202-203; Miller, “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine,” 84-89; Connolly, Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland, 12-15; Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America,” 20; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235. 78 Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America,” 20.

103 recognition from native-born whites. With the gathering national strength of the Order of the

Star Spangled Banner in the 1850s, the creation of a hegemonic Protestant bourgeoisie, the growing suspicion of Democrats as war approached, and continued Irish immigration, the white protestant middle class ignored any possibility of a respectable Irish Catholic identity.

Consequently, prior to the war, Paddy Yank navigated between two worlds: the rough, working class and the aristocratic. Since he could not possess true bourgeois values, Paddy Yank could be seen as neither respectable nor loyal. Instead, to get ahead upwardly-mobile Irishmen had to scrimp, save, and bide their time while they served as the leaders of the Irish-American community.79

However, when secession occurred, Irishmen saw an opportunity to once again recast

Irish American masculinity, not simply by combining respectability with strict Catholicism, but with the reputation of the Irish for physical courage and their history of military service in foreign armies. Paddy Yank would use the sectional crisis to effectively transform the negative image of the Irish American male into a positive one. Successful Irishmen were not undisciplined, slovenly, and womanly as characterized by middle and upper class Protestants.

They possessed the discipline and character of native-stock Americans, discipline and character that allowed them to rise in a largely hostile society. They were hard-working, honorable family men. Yet unlike the native-stock Americans, the Irish had a history of physical prowess, which they continued to cultivate as an aspect of their respectable Irish American identity. Randall

Miller notes that Irish volunteers embraced their stereotype as fighters, made it their own, and

“trumpeted the military and moral superiority of their group.”80 For Irish volunteers, the Civil

War would demonstrate the superiority of Irish American manliness.

79 Anbinder, Nativism and Slavery, 32-43; Knobel, America for the Americans, 90-96; 80 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 275.

104

Irish Americans were acutely aware of their history, particularly its martial aspects, and they continually relived this history in the lyrics of stories and songs. The history of Irish military service dated back to Gaelic Ireland, a society that valued martial virtues and physical competence in combat, especially that of the lone warrior. In fact, Gaelic Ireland not only had an abundance of freelance warriors, most notably the gallowglass, but actually had dedicated warrior families: the MacSweeneys, MacQuillans, and MacMurrays, to name a few. Though

Ireland itself furnished no standing army, for hundreds of years many of these Irish mercenaries found employment abroad in the service of foreign monarchs.81

Irish mercenaries were highly sought after on the continent for their aggressiveness and willingness to endure hardship. Irish hobelars (light cavalry) fought under Edward I’s war against the Scots, Henry VIII employed the kerne (foot soldiers) in France as did fourteenth- century Calais and Agincourt, and Irish mercenaries are depicted on sixteenth-century Durer prints in Germany. With the collapse of the Gaelic order by 1607, the formerly occasional contingents of soldiers leaving Ireland to serve foreign monarchs transformed into a large-scale military migration.82

Despite the downfall of Gaelic Ireland and England’s increasing hold on the island, the tradition of martial families continued and may have even strengthened, as such families continued to send their warrior-sons to the continent. By the eighteenth century, settled Irish communities sprang up in French garrison towns and these countries continued to recruit Irish

Brigades well into the nineteenth century. France especially utilized its ability to recruit Irish

81 Katherine Simms, “Gaelic Warfare in the Middle Ages,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 99-101, 110-111; Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery, “An Irish Military Tradition?,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 8-10. 82 Harman Murtagh, “Irish Soldiers Abroad, 1600-1800,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 294-297; G. A. Hayes-McCoy, “The Colonisation of Ulster and the Rebellion of 1641: 1603-60,” in The Course of Irish History, eds. T. W. Moody et al. (Lanham, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1967), 151-155.

105 troops and Napoleon’s Irish Legion earned particular fame at Astorga and Waterloo. Even in the

British military, once London removed prohibitions on Catholic military service in the late

1700s, the Irish served the empire in droves.83

This tradition ensured the image of the Irish soldier in exile would be something ever- present in the consciousness of the Irish and would be used by Irishmen in America. So when presented with the opportunity, upwardly-mobile Irishmen began to enlist in integrated units or form distinctively Irish regiments to serve the Union. With permission from General McClellan,

Mulligan announced the creation of the 23rd Illinois Infantry, which would become known as

“Mulligan’s Brigade.” Possessing the same desire as Mulligan, other successful Irishmen took similar steps: Father Denis Dunne and William Snowhook formed the 90th Illinois in Chicago,

Michael Corcoran and Thomas Francis Meagher organized the Irish Brigade in New York,

Patrick Donohoe fostered the creation of the 28th Massachusetts, Thomas Cahill ordered the

Ninth Connecticut, Thomas Cass organized the Ninth Massachusetts, and John McCloskey was instrumental in establishing the 15th Maine.84

Recruiting rallies and posters cultivated this aspect of Irish masculinity. “It should be the vehement desire and the intense ambition of every Irishman,” stated Thomas Francis Meagher at a recruiting rally for the Irish Brigade, “who has one chord within him that vibrates to the traditions of that old lyric and martial land of his, not to permit its flag, so vividly emblematic of the verdure of it soil and the immortality of its faith, to be compromised in any just struggle in

83John Gallagher, Napoleon’s Irish Legion (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997), introduction; David W. Miller, “Non-Professional Soldiery, c. 1600-1800,” in A Military History of Ireland, eds. Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 315-320; Murtagh, “Irish Soldiers Abroad, 1600-1800,” 294; Curtis, Apes and Angels, 19; Bartlett and Jeffery., “An Irish Military Tradition?,” 1, 7, 12, 15, 22. 84 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 77, 135-137, 147; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 117; Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 2-3; Declan Kiberd, Inventing Ireland: The Literature of the Modern Nation. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 37; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 91, 225; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 328.

106 which it is displayed.”85 A poster for the Ninth Massachusetts wrote of Irish “indomitable valor and bravery.”86 “Remember Fontenoy,” read the recruiting poster for the 23rd Illinois, harkening back to an engagement where the Irish Brigade in the service of France proved victorious against the troops of King George II. Even the name “Irish Brigade” – which was not solely used by the famous brigade from New York, but individual Irish regiments that adopted the nickname as well: the 69th Pennsylvania, 9th Connecticut, 23rd Illinois, and the 17th Wisconsin – invoked spiritual qualities, conjuring up images of heroic Irish service for Rome and Bonaparte. It represented the long-standing Irish military tradition of overseas service and provided powerful imagery for both Irish immigrants and native-born Anglo-Saxons alike.87

The heroism of the Irish military tradition was not just a cliché used in speeches in recruiting posters – successful Irish Americans unflinchingly believed their primordial physical courage made the Irish superior to native-born Protestants. “The Irish are a military people,” stated Thomas Davis, “strong, nimble and hardy, fond of adventure, irascible, brotherly and generous – they have all the qualities that tempt men to war and make them good soldiers.”88 In

July 1862, an Irish soldier echoed these sentiments, writing to his wife, “Some of these days when you begin to study History, you will read how the Irish have been fighting all over the world, and how valiant and brave they have always been; and therefore you & I and all of us are glad that they are just as courageous and noble now as hundreds of years ago when our people

85 Quoted in Coyningham, The Irish Brigade, 123. 86 THE GLORIOUS NINTH! Massachusetts Historical Society. 87 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 136; Bartlett and Jeffery, “An Irish Military Tradition?,” 19-20; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 20-22, 116-125. 88 Quoted in Gleeson, The Green and the Gray: The Irish in the Confederate States of America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013), 3.

107 fought in France and Spain.”89 Irish courage and bravery would save the Union as it had numerous other countries, not Anglo-Saxon etiquette.90

The overt emphasis on Irish military prowess is likely why early scholars emphasized the primordial love of war possessed by Irish volunteers. “[Irish] motivation was less idealistic than that of the Germans and some of the other nationalities,” wrote Bell Wiley. “It is quite possible that their predominant urge was the sheer love of combat.”91 Similarly, Ella Lonn posited,

“sometimes it seems difficult to distinguish between the Irishmen who entered the Union forces from warm sympathy for the cause and those who volunteered from sheer love of fighting.”92

Irish Americans, however, did not have an “innate love” of combat. If they did, the Irish would not have had one of the lowest enlistment rates of any ethnic group in American and instead would have served the Union in droves, but they did not. Instead, it was the elite in the

Irish-American community who consciously cultivated this characteristic in attempt to redefine their identity. Using the stereotype to his advantage, Paddy Yank acknowledged that the ability to handle oneself in combat was indeed a defining characteristic of an Irish male. Yet upwardly- mobile Irish-American men did not possess the negative characteristics associated with such ability. Paddy Yank was not unnecessarily violent, he did not needlessly waste this talent in street fights, barroom brawls, or petty squabbles. Paddy Yank, respectable, industrious, and disciplined, would use his version of Irish-American masculinity, which was rooted in Irish martial history, to honorably defend the Union.

89 James B. Turner Papers, July 26, 1862, New York State Library. 90 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 52. 91 Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 308-309. 92 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 280.

108

Fenianism

Paddy Yank’s Irish-American identity was also intimately connected to Irish nationalism, specifically Fenianism, but not for the reasons most scholars assume. If most scholars cite financial gain as the primary motive for Irish enlistment, Fenianism is often mentioned as a second one, and for hagiographers the sole reason for volunteering. According to these accounts, many if not most Irish volunteers were members of the Fenian Brotherhood, an influential, physical-force organization with the goal of violently overthrowing English rule to create an independent Irish republic. Such scholars assert that Fenians enlisted because of the desire to one day use the knowledge gained in the Union Army to send an invasion force to Ireland.

Kerby Miller states, “the Civil War…provided a ready-made military framework for Fenian recruitment and training,”93 and Paul Jones notes that “when…[the Irish]…volunteered in 1861, it was the hope that combat experience…might give them professional military competence to match that of Britain’s occupation troops in Ireland.”94

This approach views Fenianism mainly in an Irish context, rather than an American one.

As a result, themes of “dual loyalties”95 or “dual patriotism”96 are often emphasized and Irish soldiers are portrayed as either being more concerned with the fate of Ireland than that of

America, or experiencing cognitive dissonance as a result of devotion to both, each country supposedly pulling soldiers in a different direction. However, Fenianism was very much an

American creation; it constituted an integral part of Irish-American identity, especially for men.

For most members, Fenianism was simply another facet of the newly-cast Irish-American

93 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 336. 94 Jones, Irish Brigade, forward. 95 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 84. 96 Spann, “Union Green,” 195.

109 identity embodied by Irish Union volunteers, and the majority of its goals were American, not

Irish.97

Fenianism originated with Young Irelanders James Stephens, John O’Mahony, and

Michael Doheny, who found themselves in exile after the 1848 Rebellion. The nationalist movement of which they were a part, through poems and ballads, had enjoyed success transforming Irish perceptions of the famine from God’s chastisement of Irish sins to purposeful

English genocide. However, due to poor planning and worse coordination, their attempts at a rebellion in 1848 failed miserably, culminating with a small, fruitless skirmish in a cabbage patch in the town of Ballingarry, County Tipperary that resulted in the fleeing or forced transportation of the movement’s leaders.98

By 1857, O’Mahony had settled in America and wrote a letter to his compatriot, John

Stephens, who was once again living in Ireland, about establishing a nationalist revolutionary organization. In 1858, Stephens set up the Irish Republican Brotherhood, or IRB, in Dublin, while O’Mahony established its American branch, romantically naming it the Fenian

Brotherhood, after the fabled ancient Irish warrior band.99 Dedicated to physical-force nationalism, the original intention was that the IRB would raise an army in Ireland and the

97 Spann, “Union Green,” 195; O’Donovan Rossa, Rossa’s Recollections, 1838-1898: Childhood, Boyhood, Manhood (New York City: Mariner’s Harbor, 1898), 282-300; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 84-90. 98 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 311-312, 336; Palmer, Police and Protest, 490-491; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 250-251; Brown, Irish American Nationalism, 12. 99 Fionn MacCool, a famous warrior in Irish mythology, was in command of a band of soldiers, the Fianna, who carried the name of their revered leader. Among memorizing twelve books of poetry, candidates for the Fianna were required to complete a myriad of physical challenges before being admitted into one of three one-thousand man battalions. Each soldier also took an oath pledging to never betray Ireland, aid strangers, not take cattle by coercion, to marry women of virtue, and to retreat only when outnumbered nine-to-one. Later Irish sagas suggested that the long-vanished Fianna for centuries had been sleeping in the mountains of Ireland and would mobilize if called upon to fight a domineering opponent. O’Mahony and Stephens seized upon this romantic notion when creating their republican, paramilitary organization. Kiberd, Inventing Ireland, 20; Rollestion, Celtic Myths and Legends, chapter 6; Patrick Steward and Bryan McGovern, The Fenians: Irish Rebellion in the North Atlantic World, 1858-1876 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2013), 23.

110

Fenians would supply that army with weapons, money, and additional soldiers to secure an independent, republican Ireland.100

The Fenians were both a secret society and a paramilitary organization. Structured into secret cells on the local level, they reported to a strictly defined hierarchy that directed the entire brotherhood. Although the identities of the chief officers were widely known, the operations of the organization remained clandestine, shielded from the public eye. Organizationally, the brotherhood was intended to serve as a model for the future Irish government. John O’Neil stated that it “may be fittingly termed the first step of the Irish people toward free self- government.”101

The Fenians were also rooted in the tradition of local militia in Irish-American communities. Much like firefighting associations or benevolent societies, militias functioned as social clubs, with men of similar background gathering to enjoy time away from domestic life.

These organizations also helped Irish immigrants experience with arms and tactics, and provided a constructive outlet for patriotism. “We know of no better way of evincing our appreciation of the laws and institutions of our adopted country,” wrote The Citizen, “than by thus bearing arms and learning their use, holding ourselves in readiness to volunteer at the cry of danger.”102 In nearly every city in the Union, Irish immigrants eagerly formed units, such as the Erin Guards, the Jackson Guards, or the Irish National Grenadiers. Not surprisingly, Fenians recruited heavily from these units.103

100 Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites: Race and Nationality in the Era of Reconstruction. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2007), 55; Timothy G. Lynch, “Erin’s Hope: The Fenian Brotherhood of New York City, 1858-1886” (PhD diss., The City University of New York, 2004), v. 101 Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 63. 102 The Citizen, April 19, 1856. 103 Ibid.; Powers, “Invisible Immigrants,” 385; Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 64, 72; Spann, “Union Green,” 194; Jane H. Ohlmeyer, “The Wars of Religion,” 160-161.

111

Yet it was not their connection to the militias, but the rhetoric of the Fenians that captured the hearts and minds of Irish Americans. Striking a chord with famine immigrants, the

Fenians continued the tradition of Young Ireland by excoriating England for the horrors of the

1840s and characterizing immigration as involuntary exile. Most Irish immigrants were deeply affected by the Great Hunger, having had first-hand experience with starvation, disease, eviction, and immigration. Miller states that “characterizing the Famine as purposeful genocide…fulfilled a cultural and psychological need among [the] Irish.”104 The Fenian Brotherhood of Kansas wrote, “such things are never forgotten by an oppressed people. The groans of slaughtered kindred, the shrieks of violated women, and the last prayer of murdered Priests, are associated in your mind with every thought of Erin.”105

More importantly, Fenians combined the emotional exile-themed rhetoric with the discourse of republicanism. In America, Fenians adopted possibly the most prevalent theme of their host society, the commitment to freedom and constitutional government, which differentiated them from their counterparts in the IRB. This partially demonstrates how

American Fenianism actually was. According to Fenian ideology, Ireland having lain dormant for centuries, would emerge as a republic, not an ancient Gaelic kingdom that might be more in line with the group’s romantic name. In fact, the Fenians had so imbibed American political ideology that they held both of their constitutional conventions in Philadelphia, noting the city’s symbolism, not New York City where the organization was based. Fenian leaders worked tirelessly to create for themselves a place in America, continually holding themselves up as the ideological heirs of America’s republican heritage. They even chided the native-born when their

104 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 312. 105 Freedom’s Champion, January 26, 1865.

112 own republicanism fell short. Indeed, the Fenians discussed America as much, if not more, than they did Ireland.106

Initially the Fenians were divided over the Civil War. While some members though it would divert attention away from the organization’s activities and hinder growth, others believed they had a duty to serve the Union. One nationalist stated that the Irish could not “be induced to forswear the allegiance…[they had] pledged to their adopted country to gratify the secessionists, by abetting them in their unwise and anti-national proceedings.”107 Still, for others the Civil War presented a unique opportunity. Not only could the war serve as a recruitment center for the brotherhood, but members could also acquire professional military training for future use against

Britain.108

Each Fenian circle sent men to serve – the Milford, Massachusetts circle sent 80 of its

115 members to the Ninth Massachusetts and John O’Leary submits that nearly the entire 69th

New York was Fenian – and the organization recruited vigorously among the ranks, which is why Fenian membership rose so rapidly during the war. Prominent Irish Americans serving the

Union also openly professed their membership – Patrick Guiney who commanded the Ninth

Massachusetts; Dr. William Carroll who ran the government hospital at Meridian Hill and visited with President Lincoln daily; and Michael Corcoran, one of the most influential Irish Americans of the Civil War era – to name a few.109

Yet what role did Fenianism play in Irish enlistment? Aside from the high-profile leaders of the brotherhood, we know little of the rank-in-file Fenian, let alone whether or not he chose to

106 Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 223-224, 227-232; Meagher, Columbia Guide, 205; Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 55, 151; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 341-343; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 80-83. 107 Irish American, January 26, 1861. 108 Lawrence J. McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), 152; Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 121; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 336; Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia, 132. 109 Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 115.

113 fight for the Union. Indeed, the membership of the Fenian Brotherhood is a debated topic.

Kerby Miller claims that while the Irish middle class dominated the leadership, most upwardly mobile Irishmen were not involved, the working class comprising the vast majority of its members. Embittered by their harsh experience with American industrial capitalism and still attached to the pre-modern folk culture which they left, unskilled laborers felt a sense of alienation. According to Miller, this was particularly true of the immigrants from Ireland’s west coast. “It was that very intimacy with their birthplace, their physical environment, their archaic association with a living past, which often made western peasants and Irish-speakers feel so alien in America and which provided such a firm basis for a broader and deeper Irish nationalism,”110 writes Miller.111

Thomas Brown disagrees. According to Brown, it was not the working class, but middle- class hopefuls who embraced the movement. Seeing English hatred in the nativism of mid- nineteenth-century America, these economically successful Irish immigrants believed the solution to their social problems lay in Ireland. To gain acceptance and respectability in

America, Ireland needed to be a free nation, not a colony under the yoke of British rule. The middle class was not self-absorbed and ambivalent about their identity, as Miller notes. To the contrary, Fenianism gave coherence and purpose to that identity.112

Paddy Yank might provide some insight. While the profile of the typical Fenian prior to the war is shrouded in mystery, we do know that the organization’s membership increased considerably as a result of the war, peaking at approximately 50,000 by 1865. Many, if not most of these new initiates were soldiers. To be sure, when comparing the Irish-born soldiers in the sample with that of the 1865 Roster of Officers of the Fenian Brotherhood, most underwent

110 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 553. 111 Ibid., 548-551. 112 Brown, Irish American Nationalism, 22-23; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 546-547.

114 initiation during, not prior to the war. Lawrence Reynolds and Michael Keleher of the 63rd New

York, for example, joined in 1862 after the battle of Fair Oaks. Also, if Paddy Yank’s profile suggests most Irish-born Union soldiers were white collar, skilled- or semi-skilled workers, and

Fenian membership increased substantially in the Union ranks, we might assume that the typical

Fenian fit Brown’s profile, not Miller’s.113

For the pre-war years, Miller might still be correct. The typical member might very well have been a disenchanted westerner exiled from his homeland and estranged in his new home, but we have no way of confidently knowing. It is possible, however, that the war fostered a shift in the profile of the typical Fenian, so that by the war’s end, membership was dominated by socioeconomically successful Irish Americans. This also suggests that for most Irish volunteers, though nationalism made up a significant aspect of Irish American masculine identity, Fenianism itself might not have been a primary enlistment motivation for most Paddy Yanks. Nevertheless, given the drastic rise in membership, it certainly constituted an important aspect of Irish service.114

Why so many Paddy Yanks joined the Fenians is also unclear. It simply might have been the monotony and boredom of camp life. When not in battle, soldiering during the Civil War was notoriously dull. A typical day in camp for the 90th Illinois consisted of the following:

“sunrise – reveille and roll call; 7:30 A.M. – breakfast; 8:30 A.M. – surgeon’s call; 9:30 A.M. – guard mounting; 10:30 A.M. to noon – drill and roll call; noon – dinner; 1 P.M. – fatigue call; 2

P.M. – drill and roll call; 3 P.M. – battalion drill; sunset – retreat and roll call; 9 P.M. – tattoo, roll call, and taps.”115

113 Ibid; Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 115; Roster of the Officers of the Fenian Brotherhood, New York, 1865, American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives. 114 Brown, Irish American Nationalism,22-23; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 546-547. 115 Quoted in Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 16.

115

Fenian circle meetings no doubt broke up the monotony. In fact, soldiers would travel to the camps of adjacent brigades just to attend a circle. Thomas Galwey, a First Lieutenant in

Ohio’s Hibernian Guard wrote, “Our meetings take place at eight o’clock in the evening. A few minutes are enough for the dispatch of routine business, for the initiation of new members, and so forth. After this, any officer who has to go on duty is careful to steal back to his camp, often six or eight miles away, for the officers belong to every corps of the army.”116

Also, the mere act of serving in an Irish regiment or company might have increased an

Irishman’s likelihood of joining. Serving in units with names such as the “Hibernian Guards,”

“Irish Rifles,” “Ulster Guard,” “Emmet Guards,” and the numerous units with the moniker,

“Irish Brigade,” might have increased the martial character of Paddy Yank’s identity, making a membership in a paramilitary organization, one which harkened back to a romanticized era of

Irish soldiery, more appealing than it was in the pre-war years. Moreover, those high-profile

Fenians who did enlist were much more like Paddy Yank than most other Irish Americans.

Thus, the presence of Irishmen of a similar socioeconomic standing, no doubt further increased

Fenianism’s appeal. If Miller is correct, and prior to the war the majority of Fenians were unskilled laborers who enjoyed little success in America, few of whom enlisted, Paddy Yank could better identify with the Fenian circles in the Union army, for they were primarily comprised of Irishmen similar to him.117

Regardless of why he joined, Paddy Yank appears to have done so while in the service of the Union, and in the process, changed the nature of Fenianism itself, as seen in the American focus of their postwar activities. The initial Fenian goal of raising an army to invade Ireland shifted drastically. To be sure, an Irish invasion did occur. In 1865, Irish-American soldiers

116 Quoted in Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 75. 117 Ibid.; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 676.

116 landed in Ireland and set up a military council to prepare for the “final call.”118 The British government repressed the IRB that year, forcing the leaders to put off the rising until 1867, and although the Fenians did send the Jacmel Packet to Ireland with 5,000 stands of arms, but that too was unsuccessful.119

However, the majority of Fenian military efforts were directed towards a goal more suited to Irish Americans – an invasion of Canada. In all, three invasions were attempted, in which 10,000 Irish Americans would take part. At the 1866 national convention in Troy, New

York, amid rampant factionalism throughout the brotherhood, O’Mahony supporters organized the first Canadian strike; 200 Fenians from Troy prepared to participate. On Thursday, May 31,

1866, General John O’Neil led an army of 800 men from Buffalo, New York into Ontario.

Despite initial success, O’Neil soon found himself overwhelmed by a numerically superior

Canadian force with his retreat cut off by General George Meade. By 1871, the Fenians would carry out two more unsuccessful invasion attempts.120

Although historians often focus on the impractical and rather delusional nature of these schemes, they seldom examine the widespread support among Irish-Americans they enjoyed.

“Brothers—Arise!” wrote the New York Herald, “The green flag has waved in triumph over

England’s hated emblem…if you discharge your duty to your native land our triumph is certain.

God and justice are on our side. Have iron wills and brave hearts and Ireland will once more be great glorious and free!”121 Similarly the Irish American wrote, “Ireland must and shall be free!

118 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 251. 119 Ibid.; Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 2; Daniel J. Walkowitz, Worker City, Company Town: Iron and Cotton-Worker Protest in Troy and Cohoes, New York, 1855-84 (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 160; Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 183; Steward and McGovern, The Fenians, 166. 120 Ibid. 121 New York Herald, June 5, 1866.

117

The hour has come!”122 Clearly, not only had many Fenians who served in the war supported the invasions, but so did the Irish Americans at home.123

The organizational structure also changed to reflect its American political surroundings: the President replaced the Head Centre, the General Congress replaced the Common Council, and a War Department and Adjutant General’s office were added to the structure. The Fenians now had a government with executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Additionally, the

Fenians held numerous fundraisers to aid the Irish community in America to the chagrin of

James Stephens. Fairs, monster picnics, baseball games, poetry readings, and music concerts were also quite common. Buffalo’s Fenian meeting at Clinton Forest in 1867 had bagpipers, children selling figs, women hawking apples, dancing, 171 kegs of beer and 2,700 cigars, while at Chicago’s First Annual Grand National Irish Fair vendors sold “genuine” Irish turf, pikes, and other ethnic trinkets. Not coincidentally, the majority of these events served Irish-American needs, not Irish ones.124

While Irish nationalism did play a role in enlistment, for it constituted an important aspect of respectable Irish-American masculinity, membership in the Fenian Brotherhood perhaps motivated only a minority of Paddy Yanks. However, this minority proved influential, growing the organization’s ranks to an historical high. Coupled with the drudgery of camp life and the overt nationalism of Irish companies and regiments, the overwhelming absence of impoverished Irish immigrants allowed Fenian leaders to successfully recruit among their fellow upwardly mobile countrymen.

122 Irish American, June 9, 1863. 123 Clark, “Militants of 1860,” 98. 124 Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 56, 62; Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 120; Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 120, 242.

118

This recruitment had long-lasting impacts. It likely changed the composition of the brotherhood, shifting the profile of the typical Fenian from Miller’s pre-modern westerners, to

Irishmen who were the “backbone of…Irish society…modest, industrious, self-conscious, perhaps patriarchal,…family men.”125 Moreover, the recruitment of Irish Union soldiers increased the already American character of Fenianism. Fenianism’s rhetoric became more republican, and the majority of their aims were increasingly directed to improving the cultural, educational, and political state of Irish America, not Ireland. Fenians did not become Union soldiers; Union soldiers became Fenians, and changed the nature of the organization in the process.

Patriotism

The final and most overt aspect of Paddy Yank’s Irish-American masculinity was

American patriotism. That the majority of Irish soldiers possessed an ideological commitment to the United States heretofore seemed dubious given the state of the Irish-American community.

Many scholars see Irish Americans as a tragic group, who were forced to leave their famine and disease ridden country on coffin ships, arriving in America demoralized, deranged, and physically weakened, only to then experience nativist discrimination, economic failure, alcoholism, and pathological family relationships. An immigrant community characterized by such suffering could not possess devotion to the United States and its institutions. In this context, the New York City Draft Riots constituted an appropriate expression of the Irish dedication to the Union.126

To be sure, most Irish Americans expressed a degree of patriotism after Confederate soldiers fired on Fort Sumter, as seen in their patriotic demonstrations to subdue the Rebels.

125 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235. 126 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 316, 320.

119

Two weeks after Sumter word spread through the Irish-American community in Boston’s North

End that a ship in Boston Harbor that had just arrived from Savannah and was flying the

Confederate’s rattlesnake flag. Upon hearing the news, an angry Irish mob gathered on Gray’s

Wharf where the ship was docked. The hundreds of Irish immigrants demanded that the vessel take down the “treasonable colors”127 and replace them with the stars and stripes. Fearing the mob would turn violent, the captain conceded and proceeded to turn the flag over to the crowd, who flung it ashore, tore it to pieces, and paraded it through the streets of the city. The Pilot supported the actions of the Irish mob by stating, “Irish adopted citizens are true, to a man, to the

Constitution.”128 While such demonstrations were not relegated to Boston, for most Irish

Americans devotion to the Union was short lived, turning to overt malice after 1862 and cresting with the Draft Riots of 1863.129

Yet Paddy Yank was different from most other Irish Americans, including Boston mobs, and, therefore, so was his patriotism. He had resided in America for at least a decade, acquired skilled work, enjoyed economic stability, and likely had a family. For him, America was not simply another chapter in a tragic story of anguish and failure, but a place for hope and success.

Indeed, during the entire war expressions of patriotism from Irish soldiers abounded, as soldiers professed their love for the United States. Irish soldiers wrote letters to family, friends, and

Irish-American and Catholic newspapers that were published regularly throughout the war.

Previously, these letters were primarily used by hagiographers to demonstrate proof of the Irish soldier’s commitment to Fenianism and his devotion to America. Yet most scholars considered

127 O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 56. 128 Pilot, April 27, 1861 129 O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 56.

120 such letters exceptional, the reserve of an unrepresentative elite. In light of the information from the sample, that appears unlikely.130

These letters of Irish soldiers may be reexamined in a new context: that they might represent not a minority, but a majority opinion among Irish volunteers. For Paddy Yank,

America and its institutions worked, and for that he was grateful. Paddy Yank’s letters often focused on his loyalty to America, the splendor of the Constitution and the free government which it supported, and the importance in preserving all of these things for future Irish immigrants. Given their success and the possible success subsequent generations of Irish immigrants might enjoy, it was Paddy Yank’s duty to save the Union.131

Despite the charges of nativists, it was indeed possible for Irish immigrants to develop a strong sense of American patriotism largely due to American patriotism’s character: it was civil, not ethnic. While ethnic nationalism rests on group attachment to certain characteristics, such as language, history, or blood, civic nationalism focuses on questions of citizenship, suffrage, and freedom. Therefore, although certain groups certainly enjoyed privilege, American patriotism was contractual and legal, a covenant – as long as one professed loyalty to and admiration for the

Constitution, republicanism, and the ideas of the Revolution, one was an American patriot, even an Irish immigrant. Responding to questions for his enlistment motivation, William McCarter stated, “I…have but one answer, namely, my love for the whole adopted country—not the North, nor the South, nor the East, nor the West, but the ‘Union’ one and inseparable—its form of government—its institutions—its Stars & Stripes—its noble, generous, intelligent & brave people ever ready to the downtrodden & oppressed of every clime & nation.”132

130 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, preface. 131 Ibid. 132 Quote from William McCarter, Notes and Memorandums of My Soldier-Life in the war for the Union, 1861- 1865, In the Union Army. (Philadelphia: December, 1875), 22-23; Knobel, America for the Americans, 41-49;

121

Nativism

Enlistment in the Union Army demonstrated Paddy Yank’s patriotism by proving his loyalty to America, yet Irish loyalty to the United States was something which critics not only frequently questioned but said was impossible. The Civil War occurred only a few short years after the fall of America’s most powerful anti-Catholic political party: the Know Nothings. The

Know Nothings were the political outlet for nativists, a group of native-born Protestant citizens who organized in an attempt to narrowly define American nationality. Nativists were patriots – they sought to remove any “alien” threats to the United States, and no one was more alien than an Irish Catholic. Loyal to a foreign potentate, brainwashed by bishops and priests, and politically powerful, aside from the slave South, Irish Catholics were the greatest threat to the stability and future of the republic. According to nativists, an Irish Catholic could never be a truly loyal American citizen.133

However Paddy Yank was just that, and the Civil War provided the perfect opportunity to silence his most vocal critics and put to bed the belief that Catholics were unfit republican citizens. Joseph Tully of the 69th New York felt “gratification that now an opportunity was at hand to demonstrate…[Irish] devotion to the Union, their pride in the character of their race and fatherland, and their own courage, fortitude and fidelity.”134 “[L]et us hear no more “nativism,” the Boston Pilot’s Patrick Donahoe declared, “for it is dead, disgraced, and offensive, while Irish

Catholic patriotism and bravery are true to the nation and indispensable to it in every point of consideration.”135 Immigrants like Donohoe believed if respectable Irish immigrants fought

Melinda Lawson, Patriot Fires: Forging a New American nationalism in the Civil War North (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 2; Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 9-10. 133 Knobel, America for the Americans, xiii-xxii; John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, 1983), 3-11; William Kurtz, “Missed Opportunity,” 1. 134 New York Herald, June 2, 1861. 135 Pilot, October 19, 1961.

122 gallantly for the Union, nativism would die a natural death and the Irish place in America would be ensured for generations. The Irish could assert themselves and enjoy success free of discrimination.136

To be sure, many Irish soldiers were not only adamant that they were loyal to America, but asserted that the country actually belonged to them. “This is my country as much as much as the man who was born on the soil,” Peter Welsh wrote to his wife. “I have as much interest in the maintenance of …the integrity of the nation as any other man.…this is the first test of a modern free government in the act of sustaining itself against internal enemies”137 In most instances, soldiers referred to America in intimate and loving terms. The Irish American issued

Irish immigrants a call-to-arms, “to be true to the land of your adoption in this crisis of her fate.”138 Another Irish-American publication wrote that “The Irish are citizens of the United

States. By fair contract they owe the country their lives. To their honor let it be said that they have freely and gloriously paid the debt.”139

References to the Revolution also filled Irish accounts. In his diary, James Mulligan wrote, “Oh, how many gallant sacrifices, how much of the tender, the true and the daring, will be given up to forgetfulness by rending in twain the work of the Revolution.”140 Foreshadowing the

Irish Catholic obsession with America’s founding in the early twentieth century, mid-nineteenth century Irish Americans not only discussed the Revolution, but made a conscious effort to link themselves to it. “What is asked of Irishmen in this crisis?” questioned New York City’s Judge

Daley in a recruiting speech for the Irish Brigade. “He is asked to preserve that government

136 Miller, Religion in the American Civil War, 274; Spann, “Union Green,” 193-195; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 56-57; Kurtz, “Missed Opportunity,” 1-3. 137 Peter Welsh to Mary Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA, in Irish Green and Union Blue: The Civil War Letters of Peter Welsh, Color Sergeant, 28th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, eds. Lawrence Frederick Kohl and Margaret Cossé Richard (New York: Fordham University Press, 1986), 65-66. 138 Irish American, April 20, 1861. 139 Pilot, July 9, 1862. 140 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 91.

123 which those Irishmen who signed the Declaration of Independence meant to transmit, with its manifest blessings, to every Irishmen who should make this country the land of his adoption.”141

Delving even deeper into America’s founding, through religion Irish soldiers linked themselves to America’s initial colonization: “As long as the shamrock remains inscribed upon this beautiful flag, as long as that church looks upon this bard of Erin – that church whose standard Columbus first erected on your wild and savage shores – no countryman of mine shall desert it.”142

The belief was widespread among Paddy Yanks that freely and enthusiastically fighting to preserve their “adopted country,” a country that Irish Catholics had fought to preserve multiple times, would not only temporarily, but permanently silence any criticism from nativists who questioned Irish loyalty. After receiving accounts from Missouri, the Chicago Times wrote of Mulligan’s regiment, “The naturalized citizens of this country have been as patriotic and self- sacrificing as the native born. They have given to the nation not only fighting men but leaders…We hope that this lesson will never be lost, and that the American heart will treasure it in memory forever.”143 If Paddy Yank served, and did so with honor, nativists would have irrefutable proof that the Irish were loyal citizens.144

Republican Government

Paddy Yank also frequently expressed that he served out of a love for the Constitution and republican government. “The Laws and Constitution of the United States,” a letter to the editor of the Irish American stated, “[were] the wisest laws ever devised by man, and the only

Constitution that ensures to the citizen liberty and protection.”145 P.S. Devitt, an Irish-born

141 Quoted in Jones, Irish Brigade, 60. 142 Irish American, March 8, 1862. 143 Chicago Times, October 1, 1861. 144 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 274; Spann, “Union Green,” 193-195; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 54. 145 Irish American, April 9, 1864.

124 soldier in the 31st New York wrote, “It is very easy to see why Irishmen fight under the banner of freedom and constitutional liberty. Though oppressed and downtrodden at home, true to their innate principles and the instincts of their nature, they consider the broad principles of constitutional freedom as a gift in perpetuity from God.”146

Irish volunteers were keenly aware that the Constitution was the bedrock upon which rested America’s republic, a system of government they revered. Having lived under another governmental system in which they enjoyed few rights, the Irish believed America possessed the

“best government that ever existed.”147 It was the government under which Irish political rights were guaranteed and religious freedoms were ensured. In fact, the Constitution allowed Bishop

Hughes to politically agitate against the forced reading of the King James Bible in public schools. Paddy Yank’s admiration for American government was justifiably substantial.148

Thus, the Irish viewed the issue of secession as “the first test of a modern free government in the act of sustaining itself against internal enemys and matured rebellion[.] all men who love free government and equal laws are watching this crisis to see if a republic can sustain itself in such a case[.] if it fails then the hopes of millions fail and the desighns and wishes of the tyrants will succeed[.]”149 If the American republic was torn asunder, the republic that was responsible for his success, the social and economic stability Paddy Yank enjoyed might founder, something he could not allow to happen.150

146 Ibid., November 29, 1862. 147 Pilot, July 9, 1862. 148 Emmons, Beyond the American Pale, 56; O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 24-27. 149 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA. 150 Jones, Irish Brigade, 68; Kenny, The American Irish, 84-85; McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora, 73-74.

125

Duty for Future Irish Immigrants

Lastly, Paddy Yank felt he had a duty to fight. “I consider myself duty bound to join the

Ranks of the Army of the North, in any capacity that might offer,”151 wrote William McCall of the 69th Pennsylvania. For upwardly mobile Irish volunteers like William McCall, “no people pay greater reverence to the sanctity of an oath than those of Irish birth.”152 Duty was not the sole purview of McPherson’s native-born Protestant soldiers. It was discussed at length by Irish volunteers as well. “Irishmen fighting for the maintenance and integrity of the Union are performing…an obligatory duty,” wrote P.S. Devitt of the 31st New York. Another Irish immigrant wrote, “it is the solemn and sacred duty of every citizen and of every man who participates in and enjoys the inestimable blessings and privileges of our free government…[to] unite…in defence of our common country, its flag and freedom.”153 According to J.J. Kinsella, who helped organize Illinois’s Irish Legion, those Irish immigrants who felt it was not their duty to enlist deserved “if not hanging, at least to be put out of the country.”154

However, Paddy had a duty to preserve America not only because of the blessings he enjoyed as a citizen and ensure the substance of free government, but to guarantee that America would continue to serve as a refuge for Irish immigrants. “Here thousands of the sons and daughters of Ireland have come to seek a refuge from tyranny and persecution,” stated Judge

Daley in a speech, “And thousands continue to come.”155

. When the blight struck Ireland, it accelerated immigration that had been growing for decades, and would not slow down until the end of the nineteenth century. From the late 1820s,

Irish emigration steadily increased, reflecting the repeal of British passenger legislation, the

151 William McCall Letter to Secretary of War Simon Cameron, October 4, 1861. 152 Irish Pictoral, April 18, 1861. 153 Quoted in Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 43. 154 Quote from Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 6; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 5. 155 Quoted in Coyningham, Irish Brigade, 60.

126 developing Liverpool-New York City trading axis, tenant evictions as landlords cleared land for grazing cattle, the increased practice of primogeniture among small and middling farmers, and a better familiarity with the outside world. Heretofore mentioned, the regional and religious makeup of the Irish immigrant changed during this period as well, as immigrants began to be drawn from outside of Ulster and, for the first time, Catholics became dominant. Consequently,

Irish America began to change as well. Irish Protestants, who would begin to identify themselves as “Scots-” or “Scotch-Irish,”156 melded into the Protestant mainstream as Irish

America became increasingly Catholic, embattled, and militant.157

Phytopthora infestans transformed this steady stream of Irish immigrants into an unyielding flood and making immigration an institution in Irish life. In fact, “more Irish left their island between 1845 and 1855 than had left in the previous two-and-a-half centuries.”158

Unable to handle the blight, the precariousness of Irish society – gross overpopulation, a repressive and ineffective land system, and dependence on the potato – resulted in the emigration of approximately two million people. Kerby Miller notes, “an entire generation virtually disappeared from the land: only one out of three Irishmen born about 1831 died at home of old age – in Munster only one out of four.”159 The data suggests that Paddy Yank was part of this migration, and likely the earlier years.160

156 For a discussion on the development of Scotch-Irish identity, see David N. Doyle, “Scots Irish or Scotch-Irish,” in Making the Irish American, eds. J. J. Lee and Marion R. Casey (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 151-170; Kerby Miller, “Scotch-Irish, Black-Irish, and Real-Irish: Emigrants and Identities in the Old South,” in The Irish Diaspora, ed. Andy Bielenberg (London: Longman, 2000) and “Ulster Presbyterians and the ‘Two Traditions’ in Ireland and America,” in Making the Irish American, eds. J. J. Lee and Marion R. Casey (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 271-285; and Patrick Griffin, The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish, and the Creation of the British Atlantic World, 1689-1764 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). 157 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 52-53, 56-57; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 193. 158 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 74. 159 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 291. 160 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 64-66; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 280.

127

Yet the outflow from Ireland did not stop in 1855. Among the many changes the Famine made in Irish society, it ensured immigration would remain a prominent feature of Irish life for the next half century. After the Famine subsided, the Irish continued to leave Ireland for destinations in the English-speaking world, most notably the United States, creating what Kevin

Whalen has called the “Green Atlantic.”161 Though Ireland’s economy began to stabilize by

1856, life was still difficult for the country’s poor, especially in the western counties.

Landowners continued to clear tenants and consolidate farms as pasturage seemed more profitable than tillage. Farmers began to practice primogeniture, leaving the farm to only one son and the dowry to only one daughter. Compounding the situation, crops continued to fail.

Given the improvements in transportation across the Atlantic and the strong connections Ireland now had with America, for many, emigration remained the only option.162

Thus, every year between the end of the Famine and the onset of the Civil War, the

United States continued to receive tens-of-thousands of Irish immigrants, who were increasingly from Ireland’s west coast. In fact, by the late 1850s immigration was so entrenched in Irish life that westerners began a custom called the American wake. A product of Gaelic culture, the

American wake reflected both the communal attitudes toward emigration, yet the necessity of emigration. The ceremony, which was a combination of mourning and prayers, showed the feelings of guilt and grief of the emigrants who were forced to depart their beloved country, which was regarded as death’s equivalent to those who remained. For the Irish, and for Irish

Americans, an end to Irish immigration appeared nowhere in sight.163

161 Kevin Whalen, “The Green Atlantic in the Eighteenth Century,” in A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in Britain and Europe, 1660-1840, ed. Kathleen Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 216-236. 162 Ó Grádá, Black ’47, 227-229. 163 Tilly, “Transplanted Networks,” 82; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 557-564.

128

Irish volunteers were no doubt aware of the continued distress in “the land of their birth.”164 Daily, ethnic newspapers published articles on the day-to-day struggles in Ireland as well as the continued immigration. News of evictions, the conditions of poorhouses, and the sorrowful departure of immigrants filled the pages of the Boston Pilot, the Irish American, the

Freeman’s Journal, the Catholic Telegraph, and a host of other Irish-Catholic publications. In

1860, the New York Herald wrote, “ANOTHER IRISH EXODUS – The emigration from Ireland this season promises to be the larges that has taken place since 1847…and…the movement is assuming almost the character of panic”165 and as late as December, 1861,another newspaper wrote, “FAILURE OF IRISH CROPS – The extent of failure in the potato crop is appalling…but the blight has not fallen upon the potatoes only; there is a deficit in cereals of all kinds, in green crops, in hay, and in fuel.”166

An integral part of Paddy Yank’s patriotism was not only to preserve the Union for the sake of free government under which he had enjoyed success, but so that the Union’s free government would continue to welcome Irish immigrants. Paddy Yank, as a leader in the Irish-

American community, no doubt felt a responsibility to ensure people fleeing Ireland had a destination, a destination which allowed them to enjoy political liberty and economic success.

The letters of soldiers are filled with references to subsequent generations. “Irishmen and their descendants have…a stake in [this] nation,” wrote Peter Welsh, “America is Irlands refuge

Irlands last hope destroy this republic and her hopes are blasted.”167 Welsh’s sentiments should not be misconstrued for Fenianism; he was referring to America as a haven for immigrants. He later wrote “We have the same nationel political and social interests at stake not only for

164 Irish American, November 29, 1862. 165 New York Herald, May 8, 1860. 166 San Francisco’s Daily Evening Bulletin, December 7, 1861. 167 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA.

129 ourselves but for coming generations and the opressed of every nation for American was a comon asylum for all”168

Since “generous America, under the shadow and protection of the ‘Stars and Stripes,’ wafted bread and money to the famous thousands,”169 if Irishmen fought for the country’s preservation, it would continue to do so. To Paddy Yank, America opened its arms during the

Famine and while other countries certainly received Irish immigrants, especially Britain, Canada, and Australia, America held more promise than any other nation. Nativism notwithstanding,

John McFarland wrote to his brother that “This is a good country[.] If a man canot do well in

America he will not in any country.”170 Though a romantic notion, for Paddy Yank saving the

Union meant the preservation of a land of freedom for all people, including the Irish.

Conclusion

To some scholars, Irish America seemed too large and varied from which to pinpoint a single motivating factor for Union enlistment. According to Susannah Bruce the motivations of

Irish soldiers, like those of all soldiers, must have reflected economic background, age, duration of time in the United States, birthplace, and location in America. Bruce’s claim is in part correct.

Indeed, Irish motivation did reflect their circumstances. However, the sample suggests the majority of Irish soldiers were very similar and did not resemble the majority of Irish Americans.

Instead, the soldiers appear to have had a great deal of social, economic, and cultural similarities, and likely constituted the elite class within the Irish-American community.171

Irish age and occupational data also challenges the theory that most Irish soldiers were reluctant to serve and ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the conflict. This theory, too,

168 Ibid., 101. 169 Pilot, September 10, 1864. 170 John McFarland to William McFarland, March 7, 1864, Army of the James. D732, John McFarland Letter. Public Records Office. Belfast, Northern Ireland. 171 Miller, Religion in the American Civil War, 280; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 3.

130 operates largely under the flawed assumption that the typical Irish volunteer was an illiterate, unskilled laborer who recently stepped off the docks in New York Harbor. If not recent arrivals, the soldiers were duped by recruiters while still in Ireland, who enticed them with tickets to

America and unknowingly got them to sign up for service in the Union. Such soldiers certainly existed in both cases. Accounts of men enlisting not long after arrival, for instance William

O’Grady, provide a window to the experience of some disenchanted soldiers. By the same token, the Union did have recruiting stations setup in Ireland. Yet both illiterate, unskilled laborers and recruits directly from Ireland were a minority among Irish soldiers. Their experience appears to provide the exception to Irish Civil War soldiering, not the rule.172

Financial motivations also seem unlikely in light of the information obtained from the regimental descriptive books. Most soldiers probably did not need the monetary stability of soldiering. As men with secure and well-paying occupations, it is doubtful that most Irish volunteers saw enlistment as an economic decision. If anything, soldiering was an economic setback. To be sure, a shift in the type of Irish immigrant enlisting and being recruited did begin to occur in 1863. However, when examining Irish service in the entire war, these soldiers, appear to also have been a minority, at least in ethnic regiments. Indeed, the muster rolls show the vast majority of Irish Americans who volunteered to serve did do in 1861 and 1862 and had a socioeconomic profile that would not have made soldiering appealing for economic reasons.173

The assertion of Irish-American male identity, with all of its facets – masculinity, Irish nationalism, and American patriotism, etc. – seems the most plausible. Upwardly-mobile Irish-

Americans viewed the war as an opportunity to positively assert a reconstructed form of Irish-

American masculinity, since their previous focus on Catholicism proved fruitless. Combining

172 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 198-205; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 356; Jones, American Immigration, 148. 173 Jones, American Immigration, 147; Spann, “Union Green,” 195; Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 263.

131

Victorian mores of respectability with Irish physical prowess and historic bravery in battle, Irish volunteers viewed themselves as tough, loyal Americans, unlike effeminate native-born

Protestants. The Union would be forever indebted to Irish courage and brawn.174

Irish nationalism, another expression of Irish-American identity, was further cultivated in the Union army, becoming quite popular among Paddy Yanks who joined Fenian circles in droves. Contrary to the assertions of some scholars, Fenianism did not present Irish volunteers with cognitive dissonance, dual loyalties pulling Paddy Yank in opposite directions. Indeed, mainstream Fenianism, especially as a result of wartime recruitment, was an expression of Irish

American identity. It celebrated the Irish martial heritage, emphasized Irish culture, provided the

Irish with a psychological salve for their Famine wounds, and, most importantly, was unapologetically nationalistic, trumpeting American patriotism. By the end of the Civil War, being an Irish-American meant being a Fenian, the war actually increasing the American-focus of the organization.175

The level of participation in the Canadian invasions, and the lack thereof, for an invasion of Ireland, further demonstrates that although the idea of a free Ireland was certainly appealing to

Irish volunteers, the goal of improving the condition of Irish Americans held sway. Fighting for

American liberty and republicanism did benefit Ireland, but more importantly, it benefitted the

Irish in America, who remained the primary focus of most Fenian activities. Thus, “divided loyalties”176 were not an issue for Paddy Yank, for his Fenianism was very much American.177

American patriotism was the final and perhaps most important aspect of Paddy Yank’s identity. Paddy loved the United States; he wanted to prove his worth as a loyal citizen and

174 Wiley, Life of Billy Yank, 308-309; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 280, 299-300. 175 Jones, Irish Brigade, forward; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 336-337, 341-343; Spann, “Union Green,” 195. 176 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 49-50 177 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 204-205; Snay, Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites, 12-15; Lynch, “Erin’s Hope,” 227-242; Rafferty, “Fenianism in North America,” 260-261.

132 once-and-for all silence nativism. He constantly declared that the Unites States was his adopted country, that the Irish served nobly in the Revolution, and that Columbus, the founder of

America, was a Catholic. Then, Paddy laid immediate claim to the United States by donning a blue uniform and fighting for Lincoln. Paddy’s patriotism also rested on a deep respect for republican government and the Constitution. Unlike the majority of his fellow countrymen,

Paddy had enjoyed a great deal of success in America – he had a good job, a wife, family, and a voice in politics.178

While some scholars express reservations concerning the Irish volunteer’s love for

America given his reputation for anti-abolitionism, such concerns are unfounded. Especially at the beginning of the conflict, most Union soldiers, including Irish volunteers, viewed the reason for war as the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slavery. Lastly, Paddy’s patriotism showed concern for subsequent generations. America had welcomed Paddy and he felt it was his duty to ensure the country endured for future generations of Irish immigrants, who continued to pour into American cities on the eve of and during the war.179

Despite the assertions of previous scholars, it appears Paddy Yank’s enlistment motivation rested on his Irish-American identity. When the war began, he sought to assert himself as an Irish American: a man, a Fenian, and a patriot; indeed, it was his duty to do so.

Even James T. Brady, an Irish politician in New York addressing a crowd at a patriotic rally, referred to himself as a Yankee, stating that despite the word’s previous connotation, anyone supporting the “preservation of [America’s] Government,”180 including an Irishman, was a

Yankee. If Brady was correct, then Paddy, the typical Irish soldier, was very much a Yank.

178 Spann, “Union Green,” 193; O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 56; McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora, 73. 179 Ibid. 180 Times, 7 March 1863.

133

William Dennis, one such Paddy Yank, summed up the Irish motivation to serve when he wrote to his brother on the homefront stating, “I have enlisted in a Glorious Cause.”181

181 Quote from William Dennis to John Dennis, 15 October 1861. Washington, D.C. William Dennis Letters. New York State Library, Albany, New York; Spann, “Union Green,” 207.

3 “For I’m sure I’ve had enough of your hard fightin’”: Deserting the Army

On the morning of September 17, 1862, John and Michael Flynn marched with their unit through Antietam Creek and, approaching the sound of gunfire, pressed towards the East Woods.

John and Michael, twin brothers who emigrated from Dublin, were living in Philadelphia when

Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter. By September 1861, both decided to enlist in the newly formed 69th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. The Flynn brothers had honorably demonstrated “their devotion to the Union”1 in “Paddy Owen’s Regulars” – they drilled and trained diligently, behaved in camp, and fought well at Fair Oaks, Savage’s Station, Glendale, and Malvern Hill. This, however, would soon change.2

Once in the East Woods, the 69th Pennsylvania marched into an open cornfield to pursue withdrawing Confederate troops, where they received intermittent artillery fire. Eventually making their way into the West Woods, the 69th Pennsylvania was suddenly met with musket fire, as Rebels sent barrages into the regiment’s left flank. The unit attempted to turn and meet the attack, but the woods prohibited any such maneuver, and the scene devolved into bloody chaos as the Irish troops fixed bayonets and charged at the enemy. Amid the carnage, John and

Michael Flynn decided soldiering was no longer worth the risk, and deserted. As they fled the woods and headed for Hagerstown Pike, John was hit by a shell fragment and killed. Refusing to leave his dead brother’s side, Michael was then captured by a Confederate patrol. Though released a few weeks later, Michael did not reenter the Union army.3

1 New York Herald, June 2, 1862. 2 Irish Soldiers Sample; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 113-116; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 148-149; Anthony W. McDermott, A Brief History of the 69th Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers from its Formation until Final Muster out of the United States Service (Philadelphia: D. J. Gallagher & Co., Printers and Publishers, 1923), 14-21. 3 Ibid. 134

135

For many scholars, John and Michael Flynn present examples of how many Irish immigrants soldiered for the Union. Indeed, the Irish are cast as among the worst soldiers in the army. Though the Flynns were by all measures good soldiers until they deserted, most Irish are cast as undisciplined and averse to authority figures, often drunk and fighting in camp, and unreliable in battle. According to Ella Lonn, soldiers who were members of the Irish “race had certain qualities that were trying to… commanders,”1 such as improvidence, intemperance, vengefulness, and slovenliness. As recently arrived, unskilled, non-idealistic volunteers, the

Irish are also said to have deserted in droves, shirking their duties as Union soldiers more than any other ethnic group, especially native-born Protestants. Contemporaries noted the lack of commitment Irish soldiers had to their units and historians have used those accounts to construct the image of the Irish volunteer as just that, a deserter.2

The data from the regimental manuscripts only partially supports these claims. Paddy

Yank deserted, and did so in high numbers, at a rate of over 18 percent, compared to the Union army’s 12 percent. Yet he cannot be narrowly categorized as a deserter. Moreover, aside from simply being Irish (a characteristic which some scholars claim automatically increased one’s likelihood of desertion), the typical reasons associated with Irish desertion do not correlate with those of Paddy Yank. Demographically, scholars characterize Irish deserters much the way they do Irish soldiers generally: young, late enlisting, unskilled laborers, who deserted after 1862.

However, although the demographic dataset is limited, it suggests that the Paddy Yanks who deserted were old, and did so in the early years of the war, when desertion was more of a problem than historians sometimes acknowledge. He was only slightly more likely to be an unskilled laborer than a skilled worker, but when combined, white collar and skilled workers had

1 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 647. 2 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 607; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 3-4; Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 169, 309.

136 a higher desertion rate than laborers. Moreover, the Paddy Yanks most likely to desert were not the pre-modern Irishmen of Ireland’s west coast, but Ulstermen, the Anglicized and industrious

Irish immigrants.3

Paddy Yank’s desertion also fails to correlate with the political issues typically associated with his decision to abandon the Union army. According to scholars, General McClellan’s removal from command of the Army of the Potomac, Lincoln’s emancipation proclamations, the

Federal Conscription Act and the Draft Riots, and Lincoln’s reelection in 1864, all resulted in large spikes in Irish desertion. However, Paddy Yank did not desert in large numbers in any of those instances. In fact, the data from Paddy Yank suggests Irish desertion often decreased during times of political tumult on the homefront.4

Instead, Paddy Yank’s desertion seems to have resulted from reasons that were less

“Irish” and more characteristic of typical Union soldiers. Troop morale likely had a significant impact on Paddy Yank’s decision to stay and fight. Regimental turmoil in the officer corps, not national political tumult, impacted Irish soldiers significantly, as desertion rates spiked when competition among officers became venomous. Battlefield casualties also played a significant role, for each time a large engagement occurred, a large contingent of Paddy Yanks headed for home. Lastly, it appears that Paddy Yank’s economic success prior to the war made it difficult to stay in ranks. Since he made an economic sacrifice by entering the Union, when government paychecks failed to arrive and the wartime economy soured, Paddy Yank was forced to return home. Although Paddy Yank deserted at a higher rate than the Union average, he deserted for very different reasons than many have assumed.5

3 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 607; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109. 4 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 6097; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 137-138; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 97; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 3-4, 218. 5 Ibid.

137

Desertion in the Union Army

Desertion was not, however, solely limited to Irish soldiers. Despite the pomp and circumstance that accompanied a regiment’s departure from the homefront, the romantic image of combat, and the powerful concepts of duty and honor espoused by most volunteers, desertion plagued the Union army throughout the war. By 1865, from an army of over two million, approximately 200,000 soldiers had deserted the battlefield and attempted to head home to family and kin.6

The extent of desertion fluctuated throughout the war. The number of soldiers abandoning the front ebbed and flowed depending on a variety of circumstances: soldier morale, battlefield casualties, national politics, the level of support for the war on the homefront, etc.

Spikes in desertion, however, increased as the war progressed. Battle casualties mounted; the

Lincoln administration shifted the war aims from preserving the Union to ending slavery; wives and children on the homefront fell on hard times as inflation rose and army paychecks failed to arrive, placing pressure on enlisted men to return home and support their families; and after

1862, new waves of recruits entered the military, not motivated by ideology, but conscription or substantial bounties, causing a rift among veterans and these greenhorns. In these circumstances, soldiers deserted in droves.7

Moreover, for Union soldiers deserting was actually quite easy. During or before battle, in camp at night, or while at the hospital, soldiers could simply slip away and would not be missed until the next roll call. In addition, most deserted in groups, varying in size from five to twenty, increasing anonymity and thus the likelihood a soldier would take the chance. More

6 Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War?,” 10; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 13, 93. 7 Ibid.

138 importantly, desertion rarely carried the penalty of execution: “A deserter’s probability of being executed was equivalent to the chance of flipping ten heads in a row with a fair coin.” 8

Only in extreme circumstances overseen by overzealous officers was a soldier shot for desertion. Rather, fines, loss of pay, public dishonor, or, in the worst cases, imprisonment, constituted the typical punishments. “One of our deserters…was caught a few days since,” wrote

James Harrocks to his parents, “He lost his bounty,…his head was shaved and he is placed upon a gun carriage every day with the word deserter on his back in Capitals.”9 Such a punishment would hardly deter most potential deserters. Mounting disaffection on the front and at home, the ease of slipping away, and the near guarantee that one would not be executed, made desertion an appealing option.10

Irish Stereotype

From the early twentieth century, scholars have attempted to ascertain which soldiers deserted and why. Later historians have used desertion as a measure of soldier devotion for the entire war, not just the hard-fighting later years of the conflict. Such scholars posit the ease with which one could desert and the minor penalty it carried makes it a probable gauge for measuring soldier commitment to the Union cause. Leaving one’s comrades for the homefront would only be an option for a soldier who was not duty-bound to uphold the Constitution or for someone who only had shallow patriotism. Ella Lonn identifies a number of factors that predisposed men to desert: they lacked a commitment to the cause, hailed from the Border States, endured disproportionate hardship in camp, experienced battlefield defeats and war weariness, enlisted after 1862, and were not native-born Americans. While soldiers from every ethnic and

8 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 90; Drew Faust, “The Civil War Soldier,” The Journal of Southern History 67, no. 1 (February, 2001): 29-30. 9 A. S. Lewis, My Dear Parents: An Englishman’s Letters Home from the American Civil War (London: Victor Gollancz, 1982), 26. 10 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 90, 93, 107; Faust, “The Civil War Soldier,” 29-30.

139 socioeconomic background deserted, many scholars posit that immigrants, particularly the Irish, were the most common offenders.11

This image rests largely on the stereotype of the typical Irish soldier. According to James

McPherson, the recent arrival of the Irish means they could not have possessed a strong ideological commitment to the United States – this alone makes them likely to desert. Moreover, most deserters were young men “who worked low-skill jobs for marginal wages.”12 Assuming that the majority of Irish soldiers fit this profile, their commitment to the Union must have been shallow: “Many of the conscripts, substitutes, and bounty men who made up an increasing proportion of both armies” many of whom were Irish, “were motivated marginally if at all by duty, honor, or ideology.”13 Irish soldiers were fated to desert.14

The inaccurate demographic profile of the Irish soldier notwithstanding, the Irish homefront also provides fodder for scholars. By 1863, Irish opinion had turned against the war.

Thousands of Irish American soldiers had perished on southern battlefields or returned home maimed and unable to work. Lincoln elevated the status of slaves, instituted the draft, and then, to pour salt in an already open wound, created the draft exemption clause. Compounding the issues on the Irish homefront, in the fall of 1863 accusations of large-scale Irish desertion surfaced with a resurgence of nativism and never subsided. A recently arrived, unskilled laborer, whose community did not support the war effort, would certainly not stand his ground in battle and fight for a war which was now about ending slavery. “Contrary to their great fighting

11 Ella Lonn, Desertion During the Civil War (Gloucester, Massachusetts: American Historical Association, 1923), 127-143; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 607. 12 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 609. 13 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 168. 14 Ibid; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 437.

140 reputation,” according to McPherson, the Irish “had a disproportionate number of…deserters.”15

To such scholars, Paddy Yank was a poor soldier.16

Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn’s study, however, does not utilize the biased sources of the above-mentioned scholars. Using army records, pension records, and census data, Costa and

Kahn examined 41,000 soldiers. Instead of relying on testimony from native-born Protestant professionals, who were not representative of most soldiers in the Union army, Costa and Kahn used a database to trace the lives of the soldiers in their sample from youth to death. With this information, Costa and Kahn created a profile of the typical deserter.17

The study showed that McPherson’s assertions, though based on second-hand, unrepresentative testimony, were not wholly inaccurate. According to Costa and Kahn, the soldier most likely to desert was a young, married, Irish-born, unskilled laborer from a diverse company who enlisted later in the war. Soldiers under the age of twenty had a 10 percent probability of desertion, while those over 40 had only an eight percent chance. That young soldiers would be more likely to desert than older is not surprising, as their level of commitment to the Union might not be as fully developed. Costa and Kahn’s finding that married solders were more likely to desert than those who did not have a spouse also coincides with

McPherson’s assertions. Soldiers with families dependent on their income, no doubt, had immediate, persistent reasons to leave the front and head home, which is possibly why married

Union men were one-and-a-half times more likely to desert than single soldiers.18

The Irish were also more likely to desert than members of any other ethnic group other than the British. In fact, an Irish immigrant was nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to

15 Ibid., 9. 16 Ibid., 168; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 3-5, 218. 17 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 6-11, 30-34. 18 Ibid, 100-109; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 138.

141 desert than a native-born soldier. Laborers, and especially illiterate and propertyless laborers, were much more likely to desert than soldiers from any other occupation. In addition, men who served in companies with high birthplace, occupational, and age diversity that did not vote

Republican in the 1860 and 1864 elections were also highly likely to desert. Thus, men serving in companies raised in urban areas had a higher rate of desertion than those serving in companies raised in small, tight-knit, pro-Lincoln towns. Lastly, those who enlisted late in the war, when advertisements for bounties and soldiers’ pay filled recruiting posters, deserted at a higher rate than the likely more ideological early enlistees. The soldier who fit this profile had the highest probability of desertion when desertions where already high and when the Union was losing battles.19

The data from the regimental manuscripts supports the assertions of previous scholars that the Irish had a predilection for desertion. Indeed, Paddy Yank, appears to have had deserted at a very high rate (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1 – Wartime Desertion Rate for Irish, Blacks, Native-born Whites, and Union Army (%). Irish Soldiers Blacks Native-born Union Army Sample Whites Desertion Rate 18.2% 8.0% 9.0% 12.0% N 675 ------Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 112; Vinovskis, Toward a Social History, 10.

Over the course of the war, the Irish had desertion rate of an astonishing 18.2 percent, a number made even more troubling when compared to the rates of other soldiers. The overall desertion rate for the entire Union Army was only 12 percent. What is more, for native-born whites in the

Union the rate of desertion was only nine percent, and for African-American troops, a mere eight percent, and even lower among freedmen serving under an abolitionist officer. 20

19 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109. 20 Irish Soldiers Sample; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 112.

142

Such a number cannot be ignored. The assertions of scholars such as Lonn, McPherson, and Costa and Kahn appear true – the Irish were more likely to desert than most other groups of soldiers. Yet Paddy Yank was likely a leader in his community, an upwardly-mobile exception among Irish Americans, which is why the characteristics of deserters in the sample do not parallel those typically associated with Irish deserters. This confuses the attempt to ascertain why Irish soldiers deserted at such a high rate.21

Age

Irish deserters are normally categorized as young. These men, who enlisted for financial reasons, lacked the maturity and therefore the values of older men, who stood and fought despite the horror of the war. However, the sample suggests that as a deserter, Paddy Yank was quite old (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2 – Irish deserter enlistment age by desertion year. 1861-1865 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 Avg. Age 27.5 23.6 27.3 28.1 26.3 28.2 N 624 61 336 174 40 13 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Over the course of the war when Paddy Yank deserted, he did so at age 27.5. To be sure this was younger than then average Irish enlistment age, which was 28, so among Irish soldiers, the younger did desert. Yet it was still quite old for the Union as a whole. The average Union enlistee was only 23.5 years old, and Costa and Kahn continually make reference to the high probability of a 20 year old Union soldier deserting.22

The age for Irish desertion did fluctuate over the course of the war. In 1861 the average desertion age for Paddy Yank was 23.6, which is quite close to the average Union enlistment age and, therefore, the very young desertion age. So in the first year of the war, Paddy Yank the

21 Lonn, Desertion during the Civil War, 138; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 168; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 6-11, 30-34. 22 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 608; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100.

143 deserter was young as scholars have posited. However, the average age for Irish deserters climbs thereafter, reaching 28.2, the Irish enlistment age, by 1865. While a dip occurs in 1864, the age only drops to 26, still six years older than the high-deserting 20 year olds of Cost and Kahn’s study, suggesting that most Irish deserters were not quite like native-born deserters.23

Desertion and Enlistment Year

The existing scholarship on desertion also fails to fully explain when soldiers in these units chose to desert. While desertion across the Union army certainly occurred between 1861 and 1862, it did not become endemic until 1863 and then remained a persistent problem until the war’s end. With a drop in troop morale after the removal of McClellan, the demoralizing defeat at Fredericksburg, the changed war aims following the Emancipation Proclamation, and

Burnside’s incompetent leadership, “men in the ranks were deserting at a rate of a hundred or more every day.”24

Moreover, it was in 1863 that the “new” type of Union soldier began to appear. To replace the tens of thousands killed, wounded, and discharged were conscripts, substitutes, and men who enlisted for bounty money. Since these men did not have ideological motivations for enlisting, they were not conscience-bound to stay and fight.25

Without a doubt, the poor quality of post-1862 soldiers was noted by contemporaries.

One veteran soldier claimed most new soldiers were “off-scourings of northern slums…dregs of every nation…branded felons…thieves, burglars, and vagabonds.”26 Irish-born Colonel

Matthew Murphy, after the Battle of Spotsylvania, reported he could account for the veterans

23 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100. 24 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 584. 25 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 720; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109. 26 Quoted in Catton, A Stillness at Appomattox, 25-29.

144 under his command, but the new troops were “drunk on the road.”27 Another officer noted, these new solders “kept deserting, a dozen at a time, until they were nearly all gone.”28 Costa and

Kahn echo the claims of contemporaries and subsequent historians, positing that all soldiers were more likely to desert late in the war, and those who enlisted after 1862 were more likely to desert than those who enlisted prior, when ideology motivated most to serve.29

Yet McPherson asserts that after 1862, it was the Irish who “furnished a large number of deserters and bounty jumpers.”30 Indeed, it is in the post-1862 years that officers and civilians also made accusations of large-scale Irish desertion. Nativism resurfaced and charges of Irish disloyalty once again became common both at home, especially following the Draft Riots, and on the front. A highly publicized 1864 federal investigation concluded that new recruits to the

Irish Brigade had deserted and provided Confederates with sensitive military information that resulted in the capture of hundreds of Union soldiers. Once again, in the eyes of nativists the

Irish ranked “least of all in the scale of patriotism.”31 “No wonder St. Patrick drove all the venomous vermin out of Ireland!,” wrote George Templeton Strong of Irish conduct during the later years of the war, “Its biped mammilia supply that island its full average share of creatures that crawl and eat dirt and poison every community they infest.”32 The majority of these accounts point to Irish desertion in the later war years, when it is believed most Irish volunteers entered the army.33

However, most Irish volunteers in the sample did not enlist late in the war for financial reasons. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Irish soldiers in the sample, nearly 85 percent,

27 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 218. 28 Quoted in McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 720. 29 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 720; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109. 30 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 607. 31 Craig Lee Kautz, “Fodder for Cannon: Immigrant Perceptions of the Civil War – the Old Northwest,” (PhD diss., University of Nebraska, 1976), 140-141. 32 Strong, Diary of the Civil War, 342-343. 33 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 218.

145 enlisted between 1861 and 1862, not between 1863 and 1865. Moreover, only 15 percent enlisted as conscripts, substitutes, or for bounties. Contrary to scholarly assertions, most Irish deserters were early enlistees and deserted not late in the war, but by 1862 (Table 3-3).34

Table 3-3 – Irish desertion as percent of total deserters in sample (%). 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 N Year of 9.8% 54.6% 27.3% 6.1% 2.1% 624 Desertion Yr of Des. 14.8 39.7 34.3 8.3 2.9 411 w/out 90th Desertion 17.1 26.9 15.7 16.0 10.0 624 Probability by Enlistment Yr Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The overwhelming majority of Irish soldiers in the sample deserted prior to 1863. Combined, nearly 65 percent of desertions occur in 1861 and 1862, not during the later years of the war, when historians such as Bruce and McPherson claim Irish desertion rose precipitously. Indeed,

Paddy Yank did not desert in high numbers when morale plummeted on both the homefront and

Union camps and desertion reached “alarming proportions.”35 Instead, he was more likely to desert early in the war before casualties mounted under the command of Grant and incoming new recruits changed the tone of the army.36

What is more, the soldiers most likely to desert were not late enlistees, the men enlisting for soldiers’ pay or as a result of the federal draft. On the contrary, the soldiers with the highest probability of desertion were those who enlisted in 1862, the ideological soldiers most likely motivated by duty, honor and patriotism, not the financial benefits of soldiering. Indeed, their probably of desertion was nearly two times that of soldiers who enlisted in 1863 and 1864 and over twice that of soldiers who enlisted in 1865. Thus, while McPherson and Costa and Kahn

34 Irish Soldiers Sample. 35 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 123; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 218. 36 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 720; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109.

146 were correct in asserting Irish soldiers deserted in high numbers, the sample suggests Paddy

Yank did not desert when he should have, when most other soldiers chose to bounty jump, skulk from battle, or leave hospitals for the homefront, rather than remain with their units and fight the

Rebels. 37

In fact, even when Paddy Yank was reported absent without leave, he returned. Costa and Kahn found that Irish soldiers were highly likely to go AWOL, especially if under the command of an Irish officer, if in the same company as their kin, or at home on furlough. Paddy

Yank had an AWOL of 7.6 percent, yet only 10.2 percent of those reported AWOL actually deserted. Paddy Yank might have remained at home with kith and kin longer than allowed or attended a Fenian Circle meeting among Irish soldiers in a different regiment. Paddy Yank might not have rejoined his regiment in a punctual manner but appears to have done so nevertheless.38

Occupation

While Paddy Yank might not have deserted at the high rate scholars have asserted, they were correct that the Paddy Yanks who did desert were unskilled laborers. The sample data confirms that among Irish troops, unskilled laborers made up the majority of deserters, fleeing their units more often than Irish soldiers of other occupations (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4 – Deserter occupation. As % of Deserters Desertion Probability White Collar 8.7% 18.2% Skilled 30.7 15.3 Semi-Skilled 8.9 16.0 Unskilled 43.7 19.7 Farmer 8.0 16.8 N 629 -- Source: Irish Soldiers Sample

37 Ibid. 38 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 93, 104.

147

While only 38.8 percent of the sample, unskilled laborers constituted nearly 44 percent of all

Irish desertions during the war.

Although these laborers deserted out of proportion to their numbers, they were not the overwhelming majority. Combined, white-collar, skilled and semi-skilled Irish soldiers actually constitute nearly 49 percent of Irish desertions, outnumbering unskilled laborers. This is not simply a result of their higher numbers within the regiment. While unskilled laborers had the highest probability of desertion, white-collar Irish volunteers trailed closely behind. Unskilled laborers might have been the most likely to desert, but the high numbers of successful Irishmen deserting the Union is telling.

These unskilled deserters were not McPherson’s bounty jumpers, since most Irish desertion occurred before 1863. Moreover, the skill level of Irish deserters actually increased as the war progressed. By 1863 and 1864, clerks, blacksmiths, stevedores, carpenters and the like actually made up a majority of Irish deserters, not those who possessed menial jobs (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5 – Deserter occupation by combined desertion year (%). 1861-2 1863-5 White Collar 9.9% 6.7% Skilled 28.9 14.2 Semi-Skilled 6.8 30.0 Unskilled 44.7 42.1 Farmer 9.6 6.9 N 364 221 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

While most Irish who would desert had done so by December 1862, those remaining who would chose desertion instead of potentially meeting their fate on a southern battlefield were once again not the unskilled Irish laborers so often discussed by scholars, but members of the Irish-

American community who had enjoyed economic success in America and likely did not enlist for bounty money or as substitutes.

148

Province

Though not directly commented on by scholars, the regional origins of soldiers appear to have had an impact on whether or not they deserted. While the county data from the sample is too small to be significant, when broken down by province trends appear. Heretofore mentioned, immigrants from Munster and Leinster were English-speaking, literate, very familiar with

Victorian culture, and practiced a Romanized Catholicism. Though not as catechized as

Leinstermen and Munstermen, most immigrants from Ulster were English-speaking, literate, market-oriented, and familiar with modern society. Certainly soldiers from these regions would readily identify with republicanism and American values, and thus, fight to defend them.39

Immigrants from Ireland’s west coast, however, were much different. Uprooted from their traditional communities and pre-modern customs, upon arriving to America westerners were bewildered. Many did not know English, most were illiterate, and nearly all were unfamiliar with the modern world, let alone America’s increasingly fast-paced industrial economy. In nearly every way, they were unprepared for life in the United States. Among Irish soldiers, most would assume men from this region would have a higher probability of deserting.

They should have possessed neither a commitment to America nor a comprehension of what they were fighting for. Yet the data suggests otherwise. (Table 3-6).40

Table 3-6 – Desertion probability by province of birth (%). Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster Desertion Rate 14.2% 16.5% 18.3% 19.2% N 48 166 90 158 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The supposedly communal, fatalistic, Gaelic-speaking, pre-modern Irish immigrants were not more likely to desert than their more Anglicized countrymen. Rather, the Irish immigrants

39 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 220-224. 40 Ibid.; Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 6-8.

149 from Ulster and Leinster were more likely to shirk their duty and head home than Munstermen or

Connaughtmen. Indeed, immigrants from Connaught were the least likely among the Irish-born to desert. While Irish soldiers from Connaught had a desertion rate of 14.2 percent, the Munster soldier’s rate was 16.5, the Leinster soldier’s 18.3, and the Ulster soldier’s 19.2. These results run contrary to what most scholars say about Irish Americans – Ulstermen and Leinstermen should have been more willing to stand and fight for the Union.41

Residence in America as well as Irish cultural distinctions might provide some insight.

Most of the western Irishmen in the sample settled in New York City or eastern Massachusetts, particularly Boston – cities with an entrenched native-born population that was incredibly hostile to Irish Catholics. Each city’s Irish population was known for its increasing unemployment, crime, violence, and depravity, which the native-born population attributed to the continued influx of Irish immigrants. “Their inferiority as a race compels them to go to the bottom,”42 wrote Unitarian Minister Edward Everett Hale of the Boston Irish.43

This was especially true of Connaughtmen, who fared worse in 1850s America than

Irishmen from any other province. Yet the western Irishmen in the sample were not unemployed, depraved laborers, but likely men of some social standing. Thus, if any group of

Irish Americans was motivated to demonstrate their loyalty to the native-born, it was the successful men from Connaught who resided in New York and Boston.44

Demonstrating their loyalty to Boston Brahmins and New York City blue-bloods aside, western Irish-born soldiers also might have wanted to prove themselves to their fellow countrymen. The Irish were well aware of the social, religious, and cultural differences among

41 Ibid. 42 E. E. Hale, Letters on Irish Emigration, First Published in the Boston Daily Advertiser, 1852 (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), 56. 43 Handlin, Boston’s Immigrants, table xiv. 44 Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 11.

150 them. Indeed, regional and county factionalism was a significant characteristic of antebellum

Irish America and, among some immigrants, persisted into the twentieth century. Inhabitants of

Ulster, Leinster, and eastern Munster viewed the inhabitants of Ireland’s remote west coast as backward. They relied on subsistence agriculture, irresponsibly married young, practiced a folk-

Catholicism the rested on superstition and pagan customs, lived in mud hovels, and spoke a language which Daniel O’Connell declared “inferior to the English tongue.”45

For lack of a better term, Connaughtmen were the “Rednecks” of Ireland.

Connaughtmen in the sample, however, had achieved a degree of stability and success in

America. Heretofore mentioned, nearly 50 percent of Irish soldiers from Connaught held a skilled or white-collar occupation. With stable well-paying jobs, wives and children,

Connaughtmen neither resembled their kin back in Ireland nor the majority of their countrymen in America, even those from Ireland’s more Anglicized provinces. Therefore, these Irish immigrants might have been trying to demonstrate their progress to other Irish immigrants, immigrants who viewed them as the least “civilized” of Irish Americans.46

Political Issues

Thus, while Paddy Yank certainly deserted at a high rate, his demographic information does not correlate with what most scholars have associated with Irish deserters. He was old, enlisted and deserted early. Although likely to be unskilled, Paddy Yank actually had a probability of being either a white-collar, skilled or semi-skilled worker, and he was perhaps from Leinster or Ulster, the provinces which sent the most “fit” Irish immigrants to the United

States. Moreover, the political issues that supposedly gave extra impetus to Irish desertion do not seem to apply to Paddy Yank the deserter.

45 Quoted in Michael MacDonagh, The Life of Daniel O’Connell (London: Cassell and Company, 1902), 298. 46 Meagher, Columbia Guide, 91; Maurice O’Sullivan, Twenty Years A-Growing (Nashville: J. S. Sanders & Company, 1998), 25; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 77.

151

Political Issues: McClellan’s Removal

Scholars see Lincoln’s removal of General McClellan from command as deeply impacting Irish-Americans and contributed to the showcasing of Irish disloyalty to the Union.

When the Department of Northeastern Virginia and the Department of Washington were combined to form the Army of the Potomac, 34 year old General George B. McClellan was named general in chief. Not only was McClellan a staunch Democrat and a conservative general, he refused to move against the Confederacy until his forces were totally prepared, all of which appealed to the Irish on the homefront. According to McPherson, this “conservatism” was a result of McClellan’s military career. Prior to the war, McClellan had been “too successful” as an army officer, “he had never known defeat or the humiliation of failure.”47 His fear of failure resulted in a timidity that made him shrink from taking risks, as he constantly prepared his army for battle, though it ever seemed to be ready. 48

Yet among the Irish on the homefront and serving in the army, McClellan was revered.

“Little Mac” gave Mulligan and Meagher permission to create their Irish Brigades, and his conservatism protected husbands, brothers, and sons from harm. The general even earned place in several Irish folk songs of the period: “Then here’s to brave McClellan, whom the army now reveres / He’ll lead us all to victory, say the Irish volunteers.”49 However, the Lincoln administration was not as smitten with McClellan as were the Irish. Due to his reluctance to engage Confederate troops, in March 1862 McClellan was stripped of his position as General- in-Chief of the Union army, but retained his command of the Army of the Potomac. On

47 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 359. 48 O’Connor, Civil War Boston, 81; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 360-365; Stephen W. Sears, George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon (New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1988), 323; Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative, Volume I, Fort Sumter to Perryville (New York: Random House, Inc., 1958), 109-111. 49 S. Fillmore Bennett and J. P. Webster, “The Irish Volunteer,” in Joe English’s Irish and Comic Songster, ed. Joe English (New York: Dick & Fitzgerald Publishers, 1864).

152

November 5 of that same year, due to a series of embarrassing defeats and his refusal to go on the offensive after victories, McClellan was relieved from command entirely. 50

The Irish community interpreted McClellan’s removal as another Republican slight that coincided with mounting economic distress and Lincoln’s preliminary Emancipation

Proclamation. “The fate of the Republic is growing darker every day...,” wrote the Irish press,

“The brave general who made the grand army…has been removed in disgrace.”51 The Irish on the homefront began their transformation from flag-waving patriots, to, in the eyes of nativists, foreigners who threatened the longevity of the republic.52

Most scholars have equated the Irish community’s disenchantment with the removal of

McClellan with that of Irish soldiers. They note that after the removal of McClellan, “desertion reached a high point”53 among all soldiers, including the Irish. The General’s farewell was emotional. “Stand by General Burnside as you have stood by me, and all will be well,”54

McClellan instructed the troops as they cheered their beloved leader. Though he might have grieved the loss, Paddy Yank does not appear to have deserted in large numbers in November,

1862, when the administration relieved McClellan of command (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7 – Irish desertion in 1862 without 90th Illinois (%). Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec % of 1862 0.6% 8.6 8.6 0.6 1.2 7.4 11.0 22.2 12.3 16.0 4.3 7.4 Desertions N 1 14 14 1 2 12 18 36 20 26 7 12 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

When an anomaly for the 90th Illinois is removed from the data, which will be discussed below,

November desertions only constitute 4.3 percent of 1862 desertions – hardly a rise because of

50 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 360-365. 51 Irish American, January 24, 1863. 52 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 360-365. 53 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 97. 54 Quoted in G.S. Hillard, Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan, Major-General, U.S. Army (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1865), 29.

153

McClellan’s removal. While a slight increase occurred in December, the overwhelming majority of those deserters fled after Fredericksburg. This does not suggest that Paddy Yank did not disagree with McClellan’s removal – he surely felt the same sympathies as other troops.

However, if it was as important to Paddy as the rest of the Irish American community, who did not withhold from expressing their disapproval, he would have likely deserted. Yet he did not – Irish desertion actually decreased from the previous month. Despite the Irish home front’s vocal condemnation, Irish troops appear to have remained undeterred. The low desertion rate of the soldiers in the sample at the end of 1862 suggests that the patriotism of Irish soldiers did not rest on the maintenance of cults of personality in the officer corps – their commitment, like that of the native born, seems to have been more ideological.55

Political Issues: Emancipation

Emancipation, too, is often cited by scholars as contributing to Irish disloyalty and, therefore, an increase in desertion among Irish volunteers. Though Lincoln revoked General

Fremont’s emancipation order in 1861, the looming question of how to deal with freedmen and the increasing number of contraband slaves forced Lincoln to shift his opinion by the fall of

1862. On September 22, Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, warning the Confederacy that if military engagements did not cease and the seceding states did not rejoin the Union by January 1, 1863, that all slaves in the Confederacy would be freed: “…on the first day of January all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”56 Jefferson Davis and the individual Confederate states failed to heed

55 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 156; Irish Soldiers Sample. 56 Abraham Lincoln, “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation” (1862), National Archives and Records Administration.

154

Lincoln’s warning, and in January the administration officially issued the Emancipation

Proclamation.57

Though recent historians have demonstrated that the war was, in fact, always about slavery, in the minds of many people in 1862, especially Irish Americans on the homefront,

Lincoln’s decision to issue the proclamation changed the course of the war. A war for preserving the Union transformed into a conflict that would liberate an entire class of people, a class of people who might socially, politically, and economically challenge the Irish.

Consequently, the press published sensationalist stories concerning emancipation’s impact on the

Irish. The New York Weekly Day-Book stated that with emancipation Irish laborers would “be degraded to a level with Negroes.”58 There would be “a nigger’s hand in an Irish potato pot,” wrote the Chicago Times, “or his mouth covering the nozzle of an Irishman’s whiskey bottle.”59

Irish-American leaders expressed similar opinions. Richard O’Gorman, prominent in

New York City’s Irish community, stated that “The party in power [is] conducting the war in a manner to make Union impossible. The Union for which Democrats fought did not mean such a

Union as that between Great Britain and Ireland.”60 Given that the community’s newspapers and leaders responded harshly to Lincoln’s decision, it is hardly surprising that the Irish multitudes reacted similarly. “We won’t fight to free the nigger” read banners carried by Irish protesters in

Indiana and Ohio calling for “The Constitution as it is, the Union as it was.”61 Given the strong response to emancipation by numerous members of the Irish community on the homefront, one

57 Mark Grimsley, Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy toward Southern Civilians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 3-4; Ira Berlin, Barbara J. Fields, Steven F. Miller, Joseph P. Reidy, and Leslie S. Rowland, Slaves No More: Three Essays on Emancipation and the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), chapter 1; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 30, 355-358. 58 Weekly Day-Book, September 29, 1862. 59 Chicago Times, September 30, 1862. 60 New York Times, October 9, 1862. 61 Quoted in Robert E. Sterling, “Civil War Draft Resistance in the Middle West” (PhD diss., Northern Illinois University, 1974), 96-97.

155 might expect a similar reaction from Irish-born soldiers, a reaction that would undoubtedly manifest itself through spike in desertion.62

Nevertheless in the months following the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and the official proclamation, the sample does not show such a trend – indeed, no massive spike occurs

(Table 3-8).

Table 3-8 – Irish Desertion in 1862 (without the 90th Illinois) and 1863. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec % of 1862 0.6% 8.6 8.6 0.6 1.2 7.4 11.0 22.2 12.3 16.0 4.3 7.4 Desertions N 1 14 14 1 2 12 18 36 20 26 7 13

% of 1863 9.8% 5.8 5.8 5.2 9.2 21.4 12.7 2.3 13.3 12.7 1.7 0.0 Desertion N 16 10 10 9 16 38 22 4 23 22 3 0 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Omitting the 90th Illinois with its severe internal wrangling, the month of October, the time by which word of the Emancipation Proclamation would have spread, only accounted for 16 percent of 1862 desertions, a decline from August. Moreover, the desertions which occur in October might just as likely result from the battles of Harpers Ferry and Antietam, where Union troops suffered heavy losses, as Lincoln’s proclamation.

While a spike occurred in October, most of the desertions occurred in the 69th

Pennsylvania. Having fought and suffered heavy losses in Antietam, the Pennsylvania Irish marched to Harper’s Ferry, Virginia and made camp. It was here that most desertions occurred, when men had time to sit and take account of the 88 men who were wounded or killed at

Antietam. Though November’s numbers dip, a slight rise occurs in December, which appears to be the result of the heavy losses sustained at Fredericksburg. The spike occurs in January 1863, when 9.8 percent of that year’s desertions occurred, and did so at the end of the month not the

62 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 9.

156 beginning when Lincoln’s proclamation was released. Not only had many of these soldiers suffered severe casualties at Fredericksburg in December, but had to endure the abortive Mud

March, Burnside’s winter offensive. In fact, 60 percent of January desertions occurred promptly after Burnside’s embarrassing attempt to restore his reputation and the morale of the troops. For many soldiers, the war’s outcome, not just its aims, looked bleak.63

That the Irish soldiers did not desert when the war aims shifted and the Irish community turned against the Lincoln administration, runs counter to some scholarly claims. Paddy Yank’s information suggests that Irish soldiers were quite different from the majority of Irish Americans.

Yet remaining in the army as an Irish Catholic after Lincoln transformed the war from preservation of the Union, which serves the interests of all Irish Americans, to the abolition of slavery, which potentially hurts the majority of Paddy Yank’s countrymen, is quite telling.

Paddy Yank might have held great disdain for abolitionists, and probably did, but that he failed to desert suggests that he was largely indifferent to emancipation, at least when compared to the preservation of the republic. Writing to the Rockford Register, Patrick Flynn, an officer from the 90th Illinois stated, “I saw a small paragraph in the Chicago Post saying I… offer[ed] my resignation on account of the President’s Proclamation. I merely state such is not the fact— there is not one word of truth in it. I have raised no issue on that question, and I leave all such to the people at home to settle. It is none of my business, even if I differ with the President. I will faithfully endeavor to do my duty to my country by fulfilling every obligation I woe as an officer and a soldier.”64

Not only did Paddy Yank value duty to the Union more than he feared emancipation, while serving Lincoln he even came to question the morality and legitimacy of institution of

63 McDermott, A Brief History of the 69th Regiment, 21; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 584. 64 Quoted in the Pilot, March 17, 1863.

157 slavery. Unlike their countrymen on the homefront, Irish volunteers realized that Confederate notions of sovereignty could not be divorced from the preservation of the institution slavery.

According to Chandra Manning, “broad consensus existed in…[the] army as to why a war needed to be fought in the first place.”65 Moreover, waging war on Rebel soil brought Irish soldiers face-to-face with the horrors of the peculiar institution. When the Union army occupied slave territory, Irish soldiers witnessed the conditions in which slaves lived, many realizing that the stories of how slaves were “better fed and clothed than the poor Irish farmers”66 contained more than a hint of exaggeration.67

In fact, Irish soldiers were dismayed when they witnessed how elated slaves were to finally be in Union hands. No doubt having heard how comfortable and happy southern chattel slaves were, Michael Finnerty of the Ninth Massachusetts stated, “[s]everal negroes were…received within our lines by Lieutenant-Colonel Guiney…” Finnerty continued, “…they seemed overjoyed when received, and anxious to give us every possible information.”68 Irish

Americans had pondered what would be the slave’s response to freedom. Would he embrace it or want to remain in the comfort of bondage? After witnessing the actions of slaves first hand,

Irish-born soldiers realized that with emancipation, “thousands of slaves will run blindly to freedom.”69 Not only did slaves desire freedom, Paddy Yank realized they were capable of civilized conduct in a modern republic. Letters from Irish-born soldiers claimed their interactions with runaway slaves confirmed that the slaves were “moderately intelligent”70 and

“rational beings,”71 not the semi-humanized creatures the Irish press had constructed.72

65 Manning, What this Cruel War was Over, 4. 66 Quoted in Gleeson, The Green and the Gray, 14. 67 Manning, What this Cruel War was Over, 50-51. 68 Pilot, April 26, 1862. 69 Pilot, January 27, 1863. 70 Irish American, November 18, 1862. 71 Pilot, September 19, 1863.

158

Paddy Yank not only developed a degree of respect for southern slaves, he also came to the conclusion that slavery was antithetical to republican government, the government that was responsible for his socioeconomic success. “I willingly admit and that there is disatisfaction and loud denucnaition of the course of the executive in the army with the course pursued in the slavery question” wrote Peter Welsh, “but if slavery is in the way of a proper administration of the laws and the integrity and perpetuity of this nation then I saw away with b[o]lth slaves and slavery sweep both from the land forever rather [than] the freedom and prosperity of a great na[t]ion such as this should be destroyed.”73 The United States and Irish immigrants themselves would benefit from a republic in which all citizens were free.

The anti-slavery opinions of some Irish soldiers, however, did not interfere with their disdain for abolitionists and racism against Blacks – far from it. Though soldiers might tout the benefits of emancipation for the republic, in the same breath they would state that “we are no abolitionists,”74 still harboring resentment for the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant evangelical

Protestants who made up the bulk of anti-slavery agitators. Furthermore, among the soldiers

Irish-American racism remained alive and well. Despite support for emancipation we should not

“insinuate that the Negro is the equal of the Irishman, either mentally or physically,”75 wrote one

Irish soldier. When combined with the lack of desertion surrounding Lincoln’s proclamations, such sentiments suggest that Irish-born soldiers maintained their disdain for Africans, yet begrudgingly accepted emancipation, or at least did not find it a strong enough reasons to turn

72 Manning, What this Cruel War was Over, 21. 73 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA. 74 Quoted in Ian Delehanty, “’History for Which Our Children Will Have Reason to Blush,’” 5-7; Manning, What this Cruel War was Over, 21. 75 Catholic Telegraph and Advocate, March 11, 1864.

159 against the war. This was an impossible intellectual leap for most of their countrymen on the homefront.76

A fine example of Paddy Yank’s opinion of Blacks rests in the writings of Charles G.

Halpine. Born in 1829 in County Meath, Halpine moved to New York City, began a career as a journalist, and then joined the 69th New York Volunteers when the Civil War erupted. While soldiering, Halpine wrote a series of stories about a fictional character he created, Private Miles

O’Reilly, an Irish-born soldier serving the Union. Originally published in newspapers throughout the North, in 1864 Halpine’s stories were collected in a wartime best-seller – Lincoln is even said to have been amused by them. Though parody, Halpine’s writings, and, thus those of his character Miles O’Reilly, often accurately reflected the views of Irish-born soldiers.

Paddy Yank’s balance of support for emancipation with racism towards African Americans shows through in Halpine’s piece, Sambo’s Right to be Kilt:77

“in battle’s wild commotion / I shouldn’t at all object / if Sambo’s body should stop a ball / that was comin’ for me direct; / and the prod of fa Southern bagnet, / so ginerous are we here, / I’ll resign, and let Sambo take it / on every day in the year, boys, / and wid none o’ your nasty pride, / all my right in a Southern bagnet prod, / wid Sambo I’ll divide! /// the men who object to Sambo / should take his place and fight; / and it’s betther to have a nayger’s hue / than a liver that’s wake and white. / though Sambo’s black as the aace of spades, / his finger a thrigger can pull, / and his eye runs sthraight on the barrel-sights / from undher its thatch of wool. / so hear me all, boys darlin’, / don’t think I’m tippin’ you chaff, / the right to be kilt we’ll divide wid him, / and give him the largest half!78

Political Issues: Federal Draft

The Federal Draft was also supposed to have had a significant impact on the desertion rate of Irish soldiers. By the end of 1862, Union states had produced 421,000 new three-year

76 Delehanty, “History for Which Our Children Will Have Reason to Blush,” 10; Manning, What this Cruel War was Over, 21. 77 Charles Fanning, “The Life and Adventures of Private Miles O’Reilly,” in Exiles of Erin: Nineteenth-Century Irish-American Fiction, ed. Charles Fanning, (Chester Springs, Pennsylvania: DuFour Editions, Inc., 1997), 145- 149. 78Charles Halpine, The Life and Adventures, Songs, Services, and Speeches of Private Miles O’Reilly (New York: Caleton Publisher, 1864), 55.

160 volunteers, but federal quotas were still not filled. To ensure the Union would have adequate soldiers to continue fighting, and convinced only a powerful federal draft bureau could raise an effective army, Congress passed the Federal Conscription Act, which Lincoln signed on March

3, 1863. Unlike the prior state drafts, the Conscription Act provided for direct action by the

Federal government. Dividing the country into enrollment districts, it declared all male citizens, and all male immigrants who had declared their intention to become a citizen, all men between the ages of 20 and 35, and unmarried men between the ages of 35 and 45, who were physically fit, liable to be drafted into military duty for three years. The caveat: aside from physical exemptions, the administration offered the option of paying $300 commutation fee or hiring a substitute in lieu of serving.79

Though the overwhelming majority of immigrants would end up avoiding the draft,80 the

Irish community felt they were directly targeted and characterized the Conscription Act as proof that the administration was attempting to shift the burden of the war to the immigrant working poor, and vocally proclaimed their opposition. The act included not just citizens, but aliens who

79 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 491; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 440-441; Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots, 6-9; Tyler Anbinder, “Which Poor Man’s Fight? Immigrants and the Federal Conscription Act of 1863,” Civil War History 52, no. 4 (December, 2006), 354-355. 80 According to Tyler Anbinder, most Irish immigrants were actually underrepresented among draftees who were held to service. While immigrants were less able than the native-born to purchase their way out of the draft, they readily took advantage of the many exemptions available. Indeed, for an Irish immigrant, claiming an exemption was actually quite easy. Fourteen percent of exemptions were for those aliens who had not yet declared citizenship. Thirty percent of exemptions were claimed by men due to an age issue, by those who were the only son of a widow or infirmed parents, the father of motherless children, by those who already had two brothers in service, those who had already been in uniform, those convicted of a felony, and men who were the only brother of children under twelve years. Yet most draft exemptions resulted from physical disabilities, 55 percent in fact. Hernias, limps, poorly healed fractures, disease, and even stammering – many of which Irish immigrants had as a result of their Famine experience or as a product of daily performing back-breaking and dangerous manual labor – were considered ailments that prohibited a soldier from properly performing his duty. Many Irish, however, simply did not report. Irish laborers did not have the community ties that would be destroyed upon flight, unlike a wealthy business owner. Moving was a common practice especially among young, single Irishmen, who frequently uprooted to search of better housing in different neighborhoods or moved from boardinghouse to boardinghouse. Lastly, given the dense population of the cities, finding and arresting draftees was a difficult task to say the least. Native- born rural laborers, on the contrary, were typically physically robust and did not suffer from the same ailments as many urban laborers. Raising funds also proved difficult as they did not have adequate familial, community, or political connections at their disposal. Moreover, if a rural laborer failed to report, he could easily be found, unlike those living in northeastern urban-industrial centers. In Anbinder, “Which Poor Man’s Fight,” 351-353, 372.

161 declared their intention to one day become citizens, something most Irish immigrants did upon arrival. John Lynch, the Monaghan-born bishop of Toronto, stated, “When the Irish come to

America and see the freedom the people enjoy, and the laws protecting the poor tenants as well as the rich landlord, and no compulsory support of [a] state church which they detest, their feelings of exasperation against their former ruler know no bounds; they take the oath of allegiance to the United States almost immediately upon their arrival and renounce their formal allegiance ‘with a vengeance.’”81

Further, unskilled laborers, who made up the majority of the Irish American community, only made approximately $300 per year, and could certainly not afford such a high commutation fee. The wealthy, however, could. The New York Herald opined, “inasmuch as the rich could avoid [the draft] by paying $300…the poor man, who was without ‘the greenbacks’ was compelled to go to the war.”82 Irish views were even parodied in song, “We’re coming, Ancient

Abraham, several hundred strong / We hadn’t no 300 dollars and so we came along / We hadn’t no rich parents to pony up the tine / so We went unto the provost and there we mustered in.”83

Moreover, while there was no explicit mention of race in the Conscription Act, only whites were subject to the draft. Not only was the conflict was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight, it was a rich black man’s war and a poor white man’s fight.84

As Irish opposition to the act continued to mount, the idea of violently resisting took hold. Even Horatio Seymour, governor of New York, warned Republicans, “The bloody and treasonable doctrine of public necessity can be proclaimed by a mob as well as by a

81 Quoted in Steward and McGovern, The Fenians, 68. 82 Quoted in Anbinder, “Which Poor Man’s Fight?,” 344. 83 Quoted in Peter Levine, “Draft Evasion in the North during the Civil War, 1863-1865,” The Journal of American History 67 (March 1981): 816. 84 Anbinder, Five Points, 9-12; Clark, The Irish in Philadelphia, 73; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 440-441; Ferrie, Yankeys Now, table D-1.

162 government.”85 Indeed, public violence as a means to address problems was not a foreign concept in the Civil War United States. Americans had long believed that citizens had to act to close the gap between natural and civil law; even in the colonies, public demonstrations were deemed a necessary part of a free society. As American society became more ethnically, religiously, politically, and economically complex in the post-Revolutionary years, public demonstrations very often took the form of riots. While riots were viewed harshly by the upper class, for many they were still a legitimate outlet for grievances – thus Governor Seymour’s comment.86

The draft and the Irish reaction to it was not simply Irish-Catholic racism, though that certainly played a part. It highlighted a host of issues plaguing most urban areas with large Irish populations. Northern cities were highly sensitive to racial issues. Most had long-standing ties to southern slavery, were hubs of both abolitionist and anti-abolitionist organizations, and had large, white, working-class populations who were threatened by the potential of northern-bound freedmen. The social and political order of most cities was also in a state of flux, as questions of class and privilege, and the balance of power between municipal, state, and federal government, were highly volatile. Economic issues were also at the fore: growing industrialization, inflation, worker unrest, etc. To this, add the Irish Catholic experience in mid-nineteenth-century

America. Indeed, even without the draft, northern cities were powder kegs ready to explode.87

When Union officials in New York City read the names of the first draftees on Saturday morning, July 12, 1863, the fears of Irish Catholics were realized – immigrant after immigrant was told to report for duty. Yet this time, the Irish community did not limit its opposition to

85 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 178. 86 Paul Gilje, Road to Mobocracy: Popular Disorder in New York City, 1763-1834 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 3-6, 87 Bernstein, New York City Draft Riots, 8-11.

163 conscription to words. That Monday, an Irish mob gathered at the draft office, tore up the telegraph lines and means of transport, and with the help of Irish fire companies, burned the draft offices. The violence continued all day: rioters assaulted police officers (even Irish ones) and

Black citizens, and in a particularly heinous act, looted and burned the Colored Orphan’s

Asylum. 88

Between Tuesday and Thursday, the riots increased in strength and the targets of the rioters broadened. Now anyone associated with the end of slavery or the implementation of the war was besieged, including abolitionists and Republicans. African Americans were dragged from their homes, beaten, lynched, and their bodies mutilated. Even the home of Provost

Marshal Robert Nugent, formerly a member of the 69th New York, was destroyed. Having lasted for five days, the rioting only stopped when a detachment of soldiers from Gettysburg arrived to aid the police force in suppressing the ever-increasing mob.89

Some scholars see the draft riots as the point at which most Irish Americans, including soldiers, completely withdrew their support for the war – simply compounding the disenchantment caused by the removal of McClellan and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Indeed, many prominent members of the Irish-American community not only failed to condemn the riots, but actually attempted to justify the actions of the protesters by pointing to the unreasonable policies of Republicans and anti-Catholicism of nativists. The Boston Pilot even went so far as to say that the Irish did not orchestrate the violence: the Irish were “the cat’s-paws and tools of actors behind the scenes. The leaders of the riots in New York…were not

88 Anbinder, “Which Poor Man’s Fight,” 351; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 177-181; Bernstein, New York City Draft Riots, 9. Though due to their size and ferocity the New York City Draft Riots were the most widely publicized at the time, and subsequently the most studied, riots occurred in other northern cities as well. Nearly 4,000 Irish rioters in Chicago’s Third Ward blocked draft enrollment, Irish miners in Rutland, Vermont drove away draft officials with stones and sticks, Irish women in Boston took to the streets on draft day, and Irishmen in Troy, New York and Pottsville, Pennsylvania, and Milwaukee, Illinois took to the streets. In Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 47, 455; Knobel, America for the Americans, 162. 89 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 177-181.

164

Irish….There is no more law-abiding class in the country…than the Catholic Irish population.”90

According to Bruce, only among Irish Protestants did the war remain popular after the draft.91

Yet Irish Catholic soldiers continued to support the war despite the draft and the Irish community’s reaction. Indeed, if the draft spurned many Irish Americans on the homefront to riot, certainly Irish soldiers would have deserted in large numbers, but they did not (Table 3-9).

Table 3-9 – 1863 Irish desertion by month (%). Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1863 9.8% 5.8 5.8 5.2 9.2 21.4 12.7 2.3 13.3 12.7 1.7 0 N 16 10 10 9 16 38 22 4 23 22 3 0 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Irish desertion in July of 1863 drops to nearly half of what it was in June and while 12 percent of

Irish desertion in 1863 is certainly higher than other months, the vast majority of soldiers left their unit prior to July 12. Indeed, 80 percent of Irish desertion in July occurred in the few days following the Battle of Gettysburg, not after the New York City Draft Riots, and thereafter

August’s desertion plummets to a mere 2.3 percent.

Not only does a mass desertion from the Union ranks fail to occur, some Irish soldiers even expressed support for the draft. “No conscription could be fairer then the one which is about to be enforced…And those drafted men may never have to fight a battle [,] the successful carrying out of this draft will do more to end the war then the wining of a great victory,” wrote an Irish soldier, “it will show the south that we have the determination and the power to prosecute the wary and they have no possible means of raising an adequate force to oppose the army we can raise by this conscription.”92 Much like emancipation would benefit America, a draft would benefit the army.

90 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 182. 91 Ibid., 181. 92 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, July 22, 1863, Bloomfield, VA.

165

Moreover, unlike the vocal members of the Irish-American community on the homefront,

Irish soldiers openly condemned the draft riots. Peter Welsh wrote to his wife, “I am very sorry that the Irish men of New York took so large a part in them disgracefull riots[.] God help the

Irish. They are to easily led into such snares which gives their enemys an oppertunity to malighn and abuse them.”93 Patrick Guiney commented on the riots as well, very strongly stating “the soulless ruffians of New York and Boston I see are making trouble in the very hour of victory. I hope the artillery will exempt them from the draft forever!”94 Given how different Paddy Yank was from most Irish Americans on the homefront shows in their two very different reactions to the situation. In a suggestive departure from the Irish homefront, Paddy Yank embraced the idea of the draft and condemned the actions countrymen who rioted in cities throughout the northeast.

Political Issues: Election of 1864

Susannah Bruce cites the fall of 1864 as the final instance of political tumult which resulted in Irish soldiers deserting the army in droves. Specifically, she claims the outcome of the 1864 presidential election had a significant impact on Irishmen clad in Union blue. The defeat of McClellan and Lincoln’s reelection meant many things for the Irish-American community. His execution of the war would result in unparalleled carnage that would go on for years to come. Moreover, Lincoln would no doubt continue to institute policies, similar to the

Emancipation Proclamation and the Conscription Act, which would potentially hurt the Irish both during and after the war. However, the data shows that Paddy Yank failed to desert in large numbers then, too.95

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln faced a difficult election. Not only had public opinion turned against the war, an incumbent president had not won reelection since 1832 and Lincoln’s

93 Ibid., August 2, 1863. 94 Patrick Guiney to Jeannette Guiney, August 8, 1863, Beverly Ford, VA. 95 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 211, 226-231; Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 126.

166 renomination as the Republican candidate was not assured. Despite the Republican Party split,

Lincoln eventually won support from the dissenting Radicals and their nominee, John C.

Fremont. However, as his Democratic opponent Lincoln faced one of his former generals,

George B. McClellan. His failures notwithstanding, McClellan received wide support among both War and Peace Democrats, especially those in the Irish community. The Irish saw

McClellan’s fumbles as commander of the Army of the Potomac as the result of Lincoln’s meddling with military affairs. Lincoln’s attempts to command the army from Washington, DC, not McClellan’s personal failures, were responsible for the war dragging on. Hence, the Irish endorsed him enthusiastically.96

The Irish believed the election of McClellan would result in “Peace, the Union restored, the Constitution unimpaired; [and] the Constitutional rights of every one preserved” while

Lincoln’s election would usher in “[w]ar, fierce, bloody, long, disunion, the Constitution violated, Constitutional rights trampled upon, debt overwhelming and increases, taxes burdensome, beggary, ruin and national death.”97 According to the Irish on the homefront, the

Lincoln Administration had made “strides of despotism…so rapid and gigantic, that we had almost begun to tremble for the liberties of our country.”98 Supporting McClellan allowed Irish

Americans to protest the direction of the war while remaining loyal to the Union. They turned out in multitudes to cast their ballots for Little Mac.99

While Lincoln won the election, the manner in which most civilians cast their vote adhered to specific patterns. McClellan practically swept the Irish civilian vote. In some areas, such as New York City, McClellan won two to one over Lincoln and in the Sixth Ward

96 Ibid.; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 713-717. 97 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 216. 98 Pilot, September 10, 1864. 99 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 226-231.

167

McClellan received over 90 percent of the vote. Religious patterns emerged as well – those who were members of liturgical faiths (Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Episcopalianism) voted for

McClellan, while those who were members of pietist religions (Methodism, Baptist,

Congregationalist, Presbyterian) voted for Lincoln. Region also played a role: counties in the

Mid-Atlantic and East North Central regions were more likely to swing McClellan than New

England counties, and those most likely to support Lincoln were in the North West Central region. Lastly, voters who were poorer and not in manufacturing industries, generally, supported

McClellan.100

Given the Irish community’s support for McClellan and the massive spike in desertion that occurred in 1864, one would expect Irish soldiers prominent among the droves who fled to the homefront. Indeed, “McClellan’s defeat was a defeat for the Irish.”101 Yet no such mass exodus occurred (Table 3-10).

Table 3-10 – 1864 Irish desertion by month (%). Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1864 5.3% 0.0 7.9 13.2 7.9 12.7 7.9 13.2 7.9 5.3 2.6 5.3 N 2 0 3 5 3 9 3 5 3 2 1 2 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

In fact, desertions among Irish soldiers actually decreased from the previous month, and although there is a slight increase in December, it is not nearly as high as the rate for October.

Paddy Yank obviously did not share the opinions of his countrymen concerning the president.

In fact, most soldiers, including the Irish, did not fit the voting pattern that characterized the homefront. Though by 1864 the Union army contained a high number of soldiers from liturgical religions, from Mid-Atlantic counties, and who had previously worked in manufacturing, the soldiers overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln. Despite the voting pattern of

100 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 96, 166-167. 101 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 231.

168 civilians, 80 percent of Union soldiers cast their ballots for the Republican Party. Since most of the new recruits in the army were not Irish, and they were likely conscripted into service or fought for bounty money or as substitute, it is likely this new contingent that made up a majority of the 20 percent of soldiers who cast their ballot for McClellan. While speculative, given the high number of soldiers who voted for Lincoln many of the veteran Irishmen still in the army might not have voted for McClellan.102

It is also doubtful that the religious pattern applied to Irish soldiers. Though on the homefront members of liturgical religions were more likely to vote for McClellan, the Irish soldier’s Catholicism was no longer as liturgical as it had been prior enlistment. While many if not most Irish soldiers were more formally churched than the majority of Irish Americans in

1861, Paddy Yank’s Catholicism underwent significant changes during the war.103

On the homefront, a Catholic Revival occurred, as priests attempted to purge the Irish community of any folk customs they still maintained, something that had likely already occurred among upwardly-mobile Irishmen. However, during the war Paddy Yank’s Catholicism moved in the opposite direction. When Irish soldiers entered the army, they had been practicing a modern Catholicism not yet adhered to by most Irish Americans. Formal, respectable, and devotional with his religious practices, Paddy Yank no doubt looked down on the folk religion of most Irish immigrants entering America in the late 1850s.104

However, once in the army Paddy Yank had to deal with a dearth of priests. While the priests’ blessing troops before battle, particularly Father Corby’s famous absolution at

Gettysburg, received widespread attention from the press and in postwar commemorations, the majority of their duties were largely unofficial: writing letters for the illiterate, taking soldiers’

102 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 96. 103 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 268-272. 104 Miller, “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine,” 84-89.

169 money and letters back home, and delivering news from the homefront. “The meaning of

Catholicism for soldiers was never so priest-centered as memory would have it,”105 according to

Randall Miller.106

Due to the shortage of Catholic chaplains, religiously, Paddy Yank was left to his own devices. Reading material was an option. Many soldiers had prayer books from home, the St.

Vincent de Paul society collected Catholic works and sent them to soldiers’ camps and hospitals, and the Superior Council of New York published the Manual of the Christian Soldier (premised on a culture of sin and ironically the need for clerical authority and the sacraments) and had it among disseminated among Catholic soldiers. Yet there was still a huge lack of Catholic literature in Union camps.107

Coupled with the inadequate number of chaplains and the deficiency of formal Catholic literature, soldiers’ Catholicism was redefined. The religious authority of priests decreased as

Paddy Yank practiced a simpler form of his faith. Pietism took hold: Paddy became less formal with his practices and more in tune with his individual relationship to God. Also, despite the devotional revival occurring on the homefront, Paddy Yank’s faith transformed into that of his forebears – superstitious and mystical. Irish soldiers began wearing their rosary beads, carrying talismans, and pinning religious objects to their uniforms. By the 1864 election, Paddy Yank might have in practice become a pietist and voted accordingly.108

Charles Halpine’s Miles O’Reilly accurately predicted this shift. “The boys who for the last two years and more have been carryin’ their butchery, bakery, and grocery in a haversack over one hip and their tavern in a canteen over the other,” wrote Halpine, “will all vote just as

105 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the American Civil War,” 265. 106 Ibid.; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 71-88. 107 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the American Civil War,” 265. 108 Ibid., 285.

170 they have been taught to fight—facin’ the same way, and touchin’ the elbow.”109 This political alliance reflects their overall difference from the Irish community. Although the Pilot’s declaration that “[T]he Irish spirit for the war is dead! Absolutely dead!”110 might have accurately described the Irish homefront, it could not have been further from the truth for Irish soldiers.

Possible Causes of Desertion: Regimental Squabbling

Prior to the Civil War, the United States army was small and unprofessional. At only

16,000 men, most of whom were employed in the West, the primary objective of the army was to keep Indians in check. Additionally, when eleven southern states seceded from the Union when the “Black” Republicans in the presidential election of 1860, one third of the army’s officers who were southerners, chose their state over their country and resigned to join the Confederacy.111

According to McPherson, “the army had nothing resembling a general staff, no strategic plans, no program for mobilization.”112 Therefore, when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, and

Congress subsequently called for another 500,000, the Union had to build the army from scratch, using mostly civilians, which included filling the literally hundreds of officerships that would have to be created. Each new regiment would have a colonel, lieutenant colonel, and four staff officers, along with ten companies each with one captain and two lieutenants.113

This created a great deal of political rancor because officers in most volunteer regiments were elected, not appointed. Therefore, politics played a significant role in the early formation of units. Men aiming for positions as lesser officers would campaign among the men to receive

109 Halpine, The Life and Adventures, 175. 110 Pilot, May 30, 1863. 111 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 80-84; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 313; Gary W. Gallagher, “Blueprint for Victory: Northern Strategy and Military Policy,” in Writing the Civil War: The Quest to Understand, eds. James M. McPherson and William J. Cooper, Jr. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 8-12. 112 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 313; Mitchel, “Not the General but the Soldier,” 82. 113 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 80-83.

171 votes. This obviously created divisions among the volunteers as they fought over who would be captain or major. In Irish regiments, jockeying for position among officers was especially pronounced. Many of the upwardly mobile were desperate to bring honor to Irish Americans and espouse a bourgeois form of Irish-American masculinity. Thus, they campaigned furiously among the enlisted men. In Irish regiments, this political rancor seems to have contributed a great deal to the preponderance of desertion, as many Irish regiments experienced some of their highest desertion rates during regimental formation, not in the latter years of the war when casualties mounted and soldiers enlisting for bounties filled the ranks.114

The most poignant example of the internal politics of a regiment impacting desertion rates occurred during the formation of the 90th Illinois (Table 3-11).

Table 3-11 – Desertion for Irish-born in 90th Illinois by year as percentage of total Irish-born 90th Illinois desertion (%). 1862 1863 1864 1865 Deserters 83.5% 14.6% 1.9% 0.5% N 172 30 4 1 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Indeed, over 83 percent of the regiment’s desertion over the course of the war occurred in 1862, and over 98 percent of the 1862 desertion occurred before the unit left for the front.

On a hot and humid Chicago evening, in August of 1862, the city’s Irish leaders crammed into a classroom at St. Patrick’s parish. The purpose was to raise a second ethnic regiment from Chicago’s Irish population, the 23rd Illinois, Mulligan’s Brigade having already formed in the spring of the previous year. Several men present had been conducting disparate recruiting efforts to raise individual companies with only moderate success, while Smith

McCleavy and Colonel William Snowhook had made limited progress forming their own regiment. The chairman, Monsignor Denis Dunne, vicar-general of the Chicago diocese, called

114 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 327-332; Irish Soldiers Sample.

172 the meeting to order stating that its purpose was to “the Catholic people…should join the military forces of the country, called for by the Government to protect the Union.”115 The meeting ended with the attendees concluding that they should combine their efforts to ensure the formation of a second Illinois Irish regiment.116

After the regiment received its designation as the 90th Illinois Volunteers or the “Irish

Legion,” the leaders of Chicago’s Irish community began recruitment and quickly filled out the lower staff positions. The regiment officially mustered into service on September 7, 1862 and was stationed at Camp Douglas, just south of Chicago. It was during this period that a heated competition for the regiment’s leadership began, the effects of which impacted the entire regiment.117

Enlisted men elected lower officers, whom in tern cast an advisory vote on regimental officers, which the governor takes into account when appointing the positions. Two men were jockeying for the position of regimental colonel: Timothy O’Meara and William Snowhook.

Backed by Monsignor Dunne and his followers, O’Meara was a Tipperary-born veteran and outspoken proponent of emancipation, who by the fall of 1861, had already seen combat at the

Battle of Ball’s Bluff in the 42nd New York. Captured and sent to a Confederate prison at

Salisbury, North Carolina, O’Meara there became acquainted with Michael Corcoran. After both were released, Corcoran endorsed O’Meara for commander of the 90th Illinois, stating in a letter to Monsignor Dunne, “I know no man better qualified, nor none in whom I have more implicit confidence and trust that he will [be] acceptable to you.”118 Snowhook, on the other hand, was backed by Chicago’s influential Republicans. Though a lawyer, staunch Democrat, and

115 Chicago Evening Journal, August 9, 1862. 116 James B. Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion: The 90th Illinois Volunteers in the Civil War (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009), 5-6; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 90. 117 Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 13-15. 118 Chicago Morning Post, September 9, 1862.

173 successful businessman, Snowhook had a Protestant wife and his military expertise was minimal, confined to northern Illinois. Given the poor performance of Mulligan’s Brigade, due largely to inexperience, Dunne wanted to ensure this Irish regiment would not meet the same fate and would honor the state’s Irish Catholic community.119

As the volunteers drilled and trained, letters flew back and forth between the regimental officers, Washington, and Chicago’s leadership. When a dispatch from Springfield indicated that Snowhook would be the likely choice, Dunne’s supporters whipped into a frenzy, conjuring up support for O’Meara. Meanwhile, Governor Yates, knowing the predicament he was in, stalled by appointing O’Meara Lieutenant Colonel and leaving the position of regimental colonel open. The political turmoil over O’Meara and Snowhook did not just take place outside of the regiment. Within the unit, the rank-and-file as well as officers, fought to win over supporters for whomever they backed for colonel, creating a toxic environment at Camp Douglas. Finally, on

November 19, Dunne claimed a victory and Governor Yates named O’Meara as colonel of the

Irish Legion.120

Though many were satisfied with this decision, the Chicago Post stating that O’Meara was “a good disciplinarian and indefatigable worker, and a thorough go-ahead man, possessing the necessary qualities to command the brave boys of which the Legion is composed,”121 others remained dissatisfied. Indeed, it was during this period of intra-regimental political turmoil that the majority of the Legion’s desertions occurred, before they had even left for the warfront. Not only did over 83 percent of the 90th’s desertions occur in 1862, the year it was formed, of those,

119 Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 18; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 139; Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 125. 120 Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 18, 22. 121 Chicago Post, November 22, 1862.

174 nearly all occurred when the intense, noxious politics of choosing the regiment’s colonel occurred.122

Furthermore, of that 83 percent, nearly half of the men who deserted did so in November and of the November desertions, nearly 84 percent occurred after O’Meara was named colonel.

Though some of these soldiers certainly may have deserted because of the Preliminary

Emancipation Proclamation, or lack of commitment to the Union, it is more likely that most did so because of the O’Meara-Snowhook controversy, a controversy that obviously divided the regiment.123

However, the 90th Illinois was not the only Irish regiment that suffered from political rancor during the early stages of its formation. In fact, in Irish regiments, jockeying for position among officers was a common occurrence that likely contributed to high desertion rates. From the outset, as in nearly every regiment, a sizeable proportion of enlisted men and lower officers objected to the command structure.124

The Ninth Massachusetts was no exception. Seventeen percent of the regiment’s deserters abandoned the regiment in the months before their first military engagement, 61 percent of these occurring before the Ninth even left Boston. Thomas Cass, the appointed

Colonel, had many supporters, but the regiment was plagued by turmoil as soon as it began training at Fort Warren on Long Island in Boston Harbor. Cass’s detractors complained that the officers were inept bullies and that Cass himself was a bigot and a tyrant. These issues

122 Irish Soldiers Sample. 123 Ibid. 124 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 233.

175 continued, regimental soldiers “mauver[ing] like ward politicians”125 even when the unit was in camp in Washington.126

The political rancor in New York’s Irish Brigade, of which the 63rd New York was part, was as relentless as any other Irish unit. As in the other regiments, a large proportion of the 63rd

New York’s desertions occurred as the unit was forming, before having seen the horrors of Civil

War battle. Forming in September 1861 from companies recruited mostly in New York City, but also in Boston, Albany, and Brooklyn, the 63rd was the first regiment in the Irish Brigade to reach full strength. So with its colors in hand, on November 28th the regiment left to join the

Army of the Potomac. During this period, when officers were being chosen and NCO’s jockeyed for position, 20 percent of the regiment’s wartime desertions occurred. A number of its officers even resigned as a result of the daily tumult.127

While few desertions occurred in the early months of the 69th Pennsylvania’s formation, a large number of Irish-born volunteers in non-ethnic regiments fled for home. Over 36 percent of the Irish volunteers in the 59th New York and over 35 percent of those in the 39th Illinois deserted before the regiments left for the front. At a rate much higher than Irish-born soldiers in ethnic regiments, the early Irish desertion rates in the integrated units suggest that not only were political struggles an issue, as they were in all regiments, but alienation and prejudice on the part of native-born soldiers might have played a role as well. “I didn’t vote for you and I…wouldn’t vote for any damned Irish son of a bitch,”128 claimed a native-born soldier who was reprimanded by his Irish lieutenant. In December 1861, an Irish officer wrote from Detroit that his

125 Ibid., 130. 126 Irish Soldiers Sample; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 130-133. 127 Phisterer, New York in the War of Rebellion, 293; Irish Soldiers Sample; Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, 22-27. 128 Quoted in Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 312.

176 commanding officer “was an inveterate enemy of Catholicism.”129 In another instance, an Irish soldier in the 14th Michigan requested a transfer to Mulligan’s Brigade so he could serve

“amongst…[his] own race and people,” instead of the “bigotedly Protestant”130 officers under which he currently served. Indeed, Irish complaints of nativist discrimination in integrated units were quite common.131

Possible Causes of Desertion: Casualties

Thus far, it seems that if an Irish-born soldier was going to desert, he was very likely to do so when regimental elections were taking place. However, it does appear that military engagement, and the effect it had on troop morale, impacted the Irish soldiers most. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding these events – witnessing comrades perish in action, watching friends become crippled from debilitating wounds, experiencing the psychological trauma of war – and not the reasons scholars usually provide, drove many Irish soldiers to desert.

The large, battle-oriented desertion began with the Seven Days, a series of battles from

June 25 to July 1, 1862. In the midst of his Peninsula Campaign, McClellan met Lee in a minor battle at Oak Grove. However, the following day the conflict quickly escalated, as Lee began attacking the Union at Mechanicsville. Though McClellan won Mechanicsville, he failed to go on the offensive, which allowed Lee to attack the Union at Mill on June 27th, Glendale on June

30th, and finally Malvern Hill on July 1, all as McClellan’s forces retreated up the peninsula.

Over the course of the battles, 30,000 men were killed or wounded, which equaled the number of casualties in all the battles in the western theater during the first half of 1862. It was this series of battles that established a trend in the Civil War: hard fighting and high casualties.132

129 Quoted in Steward and McGovern, The Fenians, 50. 130 Ibid. 131 Irish Soldiers Sample. 132 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 468-471.

177

This trend greatly impacted Irish-born volunteers, such that it caused a sizeable minority of them to desert. The Irish regiments engaged in the Seven Days battles engaged in the hard fighting and experienced heavy casualties that will be addressed below, but it was these casualties that likely caused Irish-born soldiers to desert. Though engaged in picket and trench duty at Yorktown, the 63rd New York was engaged in the fighting at Seven Days, when 12 percent of the regiment’s 1862 desertions would occur. At Harrison’s Landing where the Union had withdrawn to after Gaines’s Mill, a cluster of men from Company K slipped away.

Similarly, over fourteen percent of the 69th Pennsylvania’s 1862 deserters abandoned their posts at Harrison’s Landing, as did 35.6 percent of the Ninth Massachusetts’s deserters for that year.

The rate for the Irish Ninth was particularly high, likely because of the death of Colonel

Cass, who was mortally wounded leading the regiment at Malvern Hill. The love of many men for Cass and the disdain they had for his successor, Patrick Guiney, further added to the desire of the 18 men to abandon the regiment in the wake of the battles. Guiney had been a long-time critic of the Colonel’s. On numerous occasions Guiney commented on Cass’s

“arbitrary…manner[s],” that he did “not care a cent” for the troops,” and that he grew “worse with the progress of his days.”133 Yet so many men were dismayed with the loss of Cass that

Governor Andrew even received a petition stating Lt. Colonel Guiney shirked from battle, and was more interested in self-glorification than the well-being of the regiment.134

Antietam was the next major engagement that caused widespread desertion among the

Irish regiments. Famous for its incredibly high casualty rates and the slaughter that occurred at

Bloody Lane, both the Ninth Massachusetts and the 63rd New York had high desertion rates, where they each lost over 20 percent of the year’s deserters. Hard battle after hard battle had the

133 Patrick Guiney to Jeannette Guiney, July 26, 1861, July 31, 1861, Virginia. 134 Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 130.

178 same impact. The brutality at Fredericksburg, and in particular successive charges on Marye’s

Heights, sent over 21 percent of the 63rd New York’s 1862 deserters back to New York City, while Burnside’s futile Mud March in January of 1863 pushed morale low enough where nearly

20 percent of the deserters decided to leave in the 63rd New York’s heaviest desertion year and nearly 8 percent of the soldiers from the 69th Pennsylvania did the same. Van Dorn’s attack at

Cold Water and the subsequent march to La Grange caused the first spike in the 90th Illinois’s ranks since the political turmoil surrounding the O’Meara-Snowhook controversy in September and November of 1862.

The winter of 1862-1863 witnessed desertions of proportions not yet seen in the war.

The demoralization after Fredericksburg was epidemic, the war seemed as if it would drag on and, to make matters worse, the winter encampments of the Union army ran rampant with disease as a result of dietary and sanitary deficiencies that only worsened as the early spring approached, resulting in another spike in desertions in the 69th Pennsylvania. In the west, the men of the 90th Illinois men grew weary and frustrated with inadequate supplies, which forced them to regularly “forage...over a country pretty well foraged already.”135 Though these problems affected the entire army, the supply lines in the western theater had been disrupted by

Confederate raiders, so the daily food ration for the men in the 90th Illinois was a paltry “few crackers and a little pork.”136 Harmful enough in good conditions, the effects of the soldiers’ diet were exacerbated by the weather and conditions in camp. “Now the night is so cold and damp and we have so much rain that the men take cold and they take a kind of chill that is common in this country and it carries them off in a short time,” wrote Thomas Mitchell, “I hope I will not

135 Quoted in Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 51. 136 Quoted in Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 53.

179 take one of them.”137 Indeed, sickness plagued Camp Yates, where the Irish Legion was stationed, three men dying from disease in February alone.138

After the hard winter, when warmer weather brought better health and higher troop morale, the hard fighting began again. The 90th lost another 20 percent of its 1863 deserters on the long and hard march to Vicksburg, Mississippi in May, while high casualties at

Chancellorsville caused many soldiers in the 69th Pennsylvania to flee the ranks. June brought even more desertions for the each of the regiments in the Army of the Potomac as they pursued

Lee across Maryland and Virginia. With the Siege of Vicksburg and the losses at Gettysburg, desertions spiked again, especially in the 69th Pennsylvania. The large desertions seem to end with the 63rd New York’s October flight, during their continued pursuit of Lee in Virginia.

While on the march, during the early part of the month and after their engagement at Auburn on the 14th of October, sixteen men, fifteen of which were from Brooklyn, left in what was largest group of deserters in a single month for the 63rd New York for the entire war.

By the end of October, the vast majority of Irish-born soldiers in the sample who would desert had done so. In fact, over 90 percent of wartime deserters chose to leave during this period, not in 1864 or 1865. To be sure, hard fighting continued, and casualty rates only worsened, yet the soldiers who did not desert early in the war remained committed. It appears that troop morale – impacted by internal regimental politics, demoralization from long, diseased winters in camp, or high battlefield casualties – had the most significant impact on an Irish soldier’s decision to forgo his duty.139

137 Maryanne Wallace, “Civil War Diary of Thomas K. Mitchel—Company C.” 138 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 584; Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 53. 139 Ibid.

180

Possible Causes of Desertion: Marriage

Whether or not a soldier was married also had a significant impact on his decision to stay and fight or desert his unit. McPherson posited that desertion rates were higher among married men than those who were single. Left at home to fend for themselves, wives not only had to continue with their domestic duties, but now had to enter the workforce to offset their husband’s absence. Moreover, the pay soldiers earned was poor and unreliable, checks from the Union often failing to arrive to families in dire need of them. Compounding an absent husband and inconsistent soldiers’ pay was the economic hardship experienced by many northern civilians during the war. Rising inflation and increased taxes drained the resources of even comfortable families, making it difficult for a married soldier to remain on the front.140

Yet it was not just the financial hardship experienced by many soldiers’ spouses, Irish- born and native-born alike, but also an issue of separation. Indeed, many soldiers expressed that they missed their wives and children and that was reason enough to desert. One soldier in the

First Ohio wrote to his wife, “I want to see you and the children the worst in the world…I wood give my monthly wages and my hundred dollars bounty to be at home.”141 Costa and Kahn confirmed this belief, finding that among their sample married men were nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to desert than soldiers without spouses regardless of economic status.142

The date from the regimental manuscripts suggests that, concerning the decision to desert the Union army, marriage mattered for Paddy Yank as well (Table 3-12).

140 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 5; Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War?,” 12. 141 Quoted in McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 138. 142 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100.

181

Table 3-12 – Desertion rate for marital status (%). Single Married % of All Deserters for Whom 50.1% 49.4% Marital Status is Known % for Marital Status (rate) 15.2 32.1 N 173 169 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Despite only constituting 31 percent of Irish enlistees, married soldiers made up nearly half of the deserters (for whom marital status is known) over the course of the war, and were nearly two times more likely to desert than single Irish soldiers. Moreover, the majority of married deserters were skilled workers, not unskilled laborers (Table 3-13).

Table 3-13 – Occupation for married Irish soldiers (%). All Married Soldiers Married Deserters White Collar 7.8% 7.0% Skilled 43.2 41.0 Semi-Skilled 13.3 11.0 Unskilled 28.2 34.0 Farmer 7.5 7.0 N 412 169 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

Paddy Yank probably volunteered to fight for the Union as a way of asserting his Irish-American identity, which encompassed his masculinity, nationalism, patriotism and duty. However, while

Paddy might have believed it was his duty to save the Union, he had other duties as well, duties that competed with his military service.143

According to Reid Mitchell, soldiering was possible only when “things were alright at home; otherwise, the claims of home threatened…[the soldier’s] devotion to the army.”144 Since

David Doyle stated that economically successful Irish-American males were patriarchal family men, concern for their home was likely an issue for Paddy Yank. Despite their comparable economic success, Irish soldiers were not so well-off that they could no longer worry about

143 Reid Mitchell, “The Northern Soldier and His Community,” in Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays, ed. Maris A. Vinovskis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 86-87. 144 Mitchell, “The Northern Soldier and His Community,” 86.

182 money. Their success was not inherited, but hard fought, and likely still tenuous. They might have been an upper crust among Irish Americans, but as clerks, artisans, publicans, etc., they needed to continue working to support their families.145

While Paddy Yank knew he was taking a significant pay cut by enlisting, he likely was not aware of the inconsistency with which checks from the Union would arrive, and neither was his spouse. Paddy Yanks anticipated that their service in the Union army would result in adequate support of their families. However, by the fall of 1862, Paddy was presented with a vastly different situation, as even prosperous Irish families were not immune from the hardships brought on by the war. Indeed, like most native-born Union soldiers, Paddy’s decision to volunteer presented a potential contradiction he likely did not see upon enlistment: “A true man fought for the Union, which was indeed a way of fighting for his family. But a true man also sheltered his family. A man was expected to earn a living; a man was expected to protect and support his family.”146

Given the impact the economic hardship of Irish families, even successful ones, coupled with inadequate Union pay, it is not surprising that married Irish soldiers had a higher probability of desertion than single soldiers. In fact, the letters of Irish soldiers are filled with justifications to their families as to why they chose to serve. “I have enlisted in the Cause of American Liberty and Suport the Flag of our Glorious union,” wrote William Dennis to his brother, “What All

Adopted Citizens Has Sworn to Protect.” 147 Indeed, in numerous letters home to his wife, Peter

Welsh addressed how his wife felt and why he continued to serve. “My dear wife I hope you will try and look at our situation in a different light,” wrote Welsh, “i know it is hard for you and

145 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235. 146 Mitchell, “The Northern Soldier and His Community,” 86. 147 William Dennis to John Dennis, October 15, 1862, New York State Library, Albany, NY.

183 that you must feel lonesome and it is also hard for me.”148 While Paddy Yank’s identity as an

Irish-American man probably caused him to enlist, it was also likely a contributing factor to his desertion.149

Conclusion

Though Paddy Yank deserted, he does not confirm the other characteristics normally associated with Irish soldiers who fled the front. He was old, not quite as old as Irish enlistees, but significantly older than native-born Union men, especially deserters. Paddy did not desert late in the war, when most scholars assume Irish desertion spiked. Neither was he a non- ideological, late enlistee, but a volunteer who chose to serve the Union early in the war, when ideology motivated most to serve. Unskilled laborers were more likely to desert than any other single occupation, but only slightly so. Additionally, menial workers were actually less likely to desert than white- and blue-collar Irish soldiers combined. Thus, because he does not confirm the characteristics typically associated with Irish deserters, questions of age, enlistment, desertion year, and occupation fail to answer why Paddy Yank deserted.150

What is more, the political issues that were supposed to increase the likelihood of Irish desertion appear to have had little effect on Irish enlistees. The removal of McClellan, the

Lincoln administration’s first blow the Irish community, did not result in large scale desertions.

So too with Emancipation – transforming the war aims from preservation of the Union to ending slavery should have, yet did not cause Irish soldiers to flee the ranks. While the Conscription

Act of 1863 angered Irish immigrants on the homefront to the point where they rioted in New

York City for five days, Irish soldiers did not abandon their duty and in many instances supported the draft while condemning the actions of their countrymen. Lastly, the potential for

148 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA. 149 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235. 150 Ibid.

184 the continuation of Lincoln’s policies not only failed to cause most Irish soldiers in the sample to desert, but probably caused many of them to vote Republican in the 1864 election.

Paddy Yank’s reasons for deserting seem to be those most often associated with skilled native-born soldiers, troop morale. For Paddy Yank, morale seems to have rested on three things: the internal squabbling that developed during regimental formation, especially competition among officers; battlefield casualties and misery; and the economic pull from spouses on the homefront. It was this last piece that seemed to intensify the former two. As a leader within the Irish-American community, who made an economic sacrifice by enlisting,

Paddy Yank probably had a number of people dependent on him, especially if he was married, and his family no doubt felt the economic setbacks the North was experiencing by late 1862.

Thus, disenchanted with regimental formation, facing potential death or the probability of being permanently crippled, some Paddy Yanks made the choice that as responsible American men, whose duty was to support his family and community on the homefront.

4 “Mowed down like grass”: Fighting and Dying for the Union

At 1:00pm on 3 July, 1863, Michael Mullin was crouched behind a low stone wall, clinging to the earth and watching shells pass overhead as Confederate troops bombarded

Cemetery Ridge. After two harrowing hours, the barrage slowed and Mullin watched divisions of Confederates emerge from the trees and advance towards his regiment. Mullin’s commander,

Colonel Denis O’Kane, addressed the troops telling them that, “Should any among us flinch in our duty…the man nearest him would kill him on the spot” and not to fire “until the enemy came so close to us that we could distinguish the whites of their eyes.”1

Mullin found himself in a situation he probably had not imagined when he and his family immigrated to the Unites States from County Derry. Like many from the north of Ireland, the

Mullin family followed immigrant networks to Philadelphia, where Michael found work as a weaver, helping support his parents and two brothers. Inspired by the opportunity to assert his

Irish-American identity and preserve the Union, Mullin enlisted in the 69th Pennsylvania in the summer of 1861. Mullin was promptly promoted to First Sergeant, and by that February, Second

Lieutenant. He served with distinction, earning a reputation for bravery in battle. Despite his close encounter with death and the mounting opposition to the war on the homefront, Mullin remained steadfast, fighting at Antietam (where he was wounded), Fredericksburg,

Chancellorsville, and would continue to do so in Pennsylvania.2

To build on his campaign in Maryland, on June 30, 1863, Robert E. Lee led his Army of

Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania in order to threaten Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., and to hopefully capitalize on the northern home front’s growing discontent with the war. By 1 July,

1 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 170. 2 1860 United States Federal Census, Roll M653-1154. 185

186 the Union army began to amass its forces and met Lee at the small town of Gettysburg. Among the many regiments that marched into Pennsylvania to meet Lee’s forces, Mullin and the rest of the 69th were posted at the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge behind a two-foot tall wall.1

When the Confederates were within fifty yards, Mullin and his comrades unleashed a massive volley, decimating the Rebel line. However, the Confederates began to penetrate on both flanks of Mullin’s regiment, particularly the right where the 71st Pennsylvania and artillerymen had abandoned their position, leaving a 40 foot gap between Mullin’s regiment and an angle in the stone wall. The Confederates charged into the 69th Pennsylvania and the fighting descended into bloody chaos, as Mullin and his men began swinging their muskets as clubs to defend their position. Here, in the hand-to-hand combat at the “Bloody Angle,” which would become one of the most famous landmarks at Gettysburg, Mullin was mortally wounded, succumbing to his injuries six days later.2

If the story from the previous chapter of John and Michael Flynn deserting the Union army is a common one attributed to Irish-born soldiers, so is the account of Mullin’s valor in the face of danger. Indeed, while most serious scholars portray the typical Irish soldier as more likely to desert than other soldiers, hagiographers sketch a portrait of a valiant soldier charging headlong into battle; even older scholarly publications recount Irish “zeal for combat.”3

As mentioned above, hagiographers more than any other scholars, recycle the age-old image of the fighting Irishman, often commenting on primordial Irish aggressiveness and love

1 Stephen W. Sears, Gettysburg (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), 15; Don Ernsberger, At the Wall: The 69th Pennsylvania at Gettysburg (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2006), introduction; Don Ernsberger, Paddy Owen’s Regulars: A History of the 69th Pennsylvania “Irish Volunteers” (Philadelphia, Xlibris, 2004), volume 1; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 168-169. 2 McDermott, A Brief History of the 69th Regiment Pennsylvania, 28-31; John Michael Priest, Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg (Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Publishing Company, 2002), chapter 4. 3 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 647.

187 for combat, using contemporary accounts from Irish leaders as evidence. The Irish Brigade “did more fighting and it is that which reduced its ranks” stated General Meagher at a recruiting rally in 1862. He continued, “If Irishmen had not long ago established for themselves a reputation for fighting, with a consummate address and a superlative ability, if it had not long ago been accepted as Gospel truth, that Galway beats Bannagher, and Bannagher beats the devil; and if the boys of the Irish Brigade had not…shown themselves…just as eager and ravenous for a fight as that magnificent old heathen from Connaught…the Irish Brigade would not have had any more fighting to do than anyone else.”4

Scholars commonly reference the Irish Brigade and its war record. As the 69th New York

State Militia, the nucleus of the Irish Brigade “established a reputation as a fine fighting outfit”5 at First Bull Run, according to Joseph Bilby. Bilby claims that the Irish Brigade’s status continued throughout the war, as the unit racked up casualty numbers only outmatched by two other brigades in the Union army. Indeed, the Brigade’s charges at Antietam and Fredericksburg captivated the popular imagination during the Civil War, and would go on to become the stuff of legend.6

Hagiographers often cite comments by Paddy Yank’s contemporaries when discussing his performance in battle. Harper’s Weekly wrote of the 69th NYSM at First Bull Run, the Irish

“stripped themselves, [and] dashed into the enemy with the utmost fury. The difficulty was to keep them quiet.”7 Even Confederates took notice of the fighting tenacity of the Union Irish. At

Malvern Hill, Stonewall Jackson is rumored to have said of the waves of Irish Brigade charges,

4 Quoted in Jones, Irish Brigade, 133. 5 Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, ix. 6 Ibid., x; For postbellum romanticization and commemoration of the Irish fighting reputation and war record, see: Christian B. Keller, “Flying Dutchmen and Drunken Irishmen: The Myths and Realities of Ethnic Civil War Soldiers,” The Journal of Military History 73, no. 1 (January 2009): 131; Warren, “Oh, God, What a Pity!,” 195; Kurtz, “Missed Opportunity,” 3-10. 7 Harper’s Weekly, August 10, 1861.

188

“Here comes those damn green flags again.”8 Corporal Charles Ward wrote of the Ninth

Massachusetts, “They fight like tigers and no regt. of Rebels can stand a charge from them. They have a name which our Regt. will never forget.”9 In his report on the Battle of Gettysburg,

General Joseph Hooker commented on the “reckless daring”10 exhibited by the Irishmen of the

69th Pennsylvania. Contemporaries often found themselves in awe of Irish battle charges.

Older scholars often commented on Irish fighting ability. Bell Wiley stated that Irish

“excessive fondness for drink made them tough to discipline,” and “on the whole they were less effective in sustained defensive operations.”11 Yet he also mentioned that when battle ensued, the Irish were quite effective for offensive spurts, their love for charging into battle proving quite effective. Ella Lonn stated that during combat the Irish possessed a demeanor unmatched by other soldiers, having “poise and steadiness,…watchfulness,…patience in impending battle; cooly, indifferently, even lazily, he met the dread intimations that death had commenced its havoc.”12

Lonn supports her claims about the Irish demeanor by chronicling the heavy losses in

Irish regiments, even at the less celebrated battles of Cold Harbor and North Anna River.

Subsequent historians of the Irish in America, such as Lawrence McCaffrey, built upon these assertions as well, stating that while Irishmen in the Union army quickly acquired a reputation for insubordination and sloppy discipline, they also earned repute as fearsome fighters.13

8 Coyningham, Irish Brigade, chapter 10. 9 Quoted in Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 309. 10 Quoted in Bradley M. Gottfried, Stopping Pickett: The History of the Philadelphia Brigade (Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, White Maine Publishing Company, 1999), 230. 11 Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank, 309. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid., 481-482; McCaffrey, Irish Catholic Diaspora, 103; This image of the Irishman forms the basis of the work of Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson. Though much of their writing in Attack and Die deals directly with the South and the Confederacy, it may be applied to the Irish in the North and the reputation they enjoyed as soldiers. In Cracker Culture, McWhiney posits that the South was distinctive, much different from the North. Yet the disparity did not directly result from the institution of slavery, but the ethnic and cultural composition of the two

189

Exactly why Civil War soldiers chose to fight in the face of such carnage is an important question among scholars. In fact, what motivates soldiers to fight is not only an important question for the Civil War, but for all wars. “What is the force that compels a man to risk his life day after day, to endure constant tension [and] the fear of death?”14 wrote two psychiatrists studying American soldiers. Some scholars believe soldiers serving in different wars had different reasons. Common explanations include characterizing depression-era Army Rangers as fighting out of duty to their comrades, as part of a band of brothers, and baby-boomer, army grunts in Vietnam as fighting for survival. What of Civil War soldiers?15

Scholars such as Thomas Rogers and James McPherson see the motivation for Civil War soldier fighting as not pragmatic, but highly ideological. McPherson does acknowledge emotional, fraternal bonds played a role in the willingness of Civil War soldiers to fight; it just was not the primary, motivating factor. He instead asserts that soldiers were duty-bound to fight, duty-bound by Victorian concepts of masculinity. The concept of masculinity was pervasive and well-understood in mid-nineteenth-century America. Victorian men understood their masculine

regions: the South was “Celtic” and the North was Anglo-Saxon. The Celtic south was an amalgam of Irish, Scotch- Irish, Scottish, Cornish, and Welsh peoples and its culture reflected this ethnic presence. McWhiney lists and describes in detail South’s Celtic, or we may infer, Irish, characteristics: idleness and gaiety, reverence for the spoken word over the written, enjoyment of sensual pleasures (drinking, smoking), and a love of fighting. McWhiney’s description of southerners fits the popular nineteenth-century stereotype of Irish Union soldiers, one reused by later scholars. McWhiney comments at length on the Celtic predilection for violence. The Celts, including the nineteenth-century Irish, were warlike and fierce, they “loved to fight and feud.” McWhiney and Jamieson examine Civil War battle tactics through this lens of Celtic aggression, in order to explain the incredibly high death rates of certain units, particularly in Confederate forces. Frontal assaults on fortified positions that incurred heavy losses garner much of their attention. According to McWhiney and Jamieson, southerners, and the Irish units fighting for the Union, were “culturally conditioned for offensive war.” They trace the Celtic love of fighting and manner of combat back to ancient Rome, and provide accounts of the battles of Ireland’s Cromwellian Wars along with discussions of Gettysburg. Celtic soldiers, throughout time and by nature, “prefer bold rather than cautious actions,…lack…self-discipline, patience, and tenacity.” Unruly in camp and brave in battle, Irish soldiering had a specific style, and that style resulted high casualty rates. Perry D Jamieson and Grady McWhiney, Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1982); Grady McWhiney, Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988). 14 Roy R. Grinker and John P. Spiegel, Men Under Stress (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1945), 37-38. 15 Grinker and Speigel, Men Under Stress, 37-38.

190 identity involved a “binding moral obligation…to defend the flag under whose protection one had lived.”16

Thus, there existed no better test of one’s masculinity than war – it separated the manly from the effeminate. Despite the various types of manhood that existed among the soldiers, each had this common characteristic and soldiers from all social strata were eager to fight and when fear did set in, they resisted at all costs, so that their manhood would not be in question. Since

Victorian masculinity was virtue-driven, soldiers believed individuals were responsible for their own successes and failures – standing one’s ground and fighting was a reflection of one’s character.17

McPherson, therefore, relies on battlefield casualties as a measure of commitment to the

Union cause. Disagreeing with Doris Costa and Mathew Kahn who see desertion as a more accurate measure, McPherson asserts that battlefield valor is the true test – soldiers could remain in ranks and still shirk duties or skulk from battle. He quantifies soldier commitment by using casualty rates, which provide him with numerous subjects given the Union’s five percent rate over the course of the war. “The best way to tell who fought is to look at casualty figures,” according to McPherson, “The fighting regiments were those with the highest casualties; the fighting soldiers were those most likely to get killed.”18

McPherson highlights native-born, middle-class officers, 17 percent of whom in his sample perished in battle or of wounds received in battle. It was these men, according to

McPherson, “who did the real fighting.”19 While singing the praises of high-ranking, New

16 Quote from McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 23; Thomas Rodgers, “Billy Yank and G. I. Joe: An Exploratory Essay on the Sociopolitical Dimensions of Soldier Motivation,” The Journal of Military History 69, no. 1 (January 2005): 95. 17 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 23-26, 30. 18 Ibid., ix. 19 Ibid., ix, 9-11; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 606-607; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 100-109.

191

England-born soldiers, McPherson disparages Irish soldiering. According to him, the Irish were not good fighters; in fact, they were quite poor soldiers. “Despite the fighting reputation of the

Irish Brigade,” states McPherson, “the Irish were the most under-represented group [in the Union army]…[and] furnished a large number of deserters and bounty jumpers.”20 According to

McPherson, Irish valor in battle has been exaggerated by many scholars. While the Irish might have performed well in certain battles, over the course of the war they did not prove as effective as other soldiers.21

While there is certainly evidence showing high Irish desertion rates, McPherson makes these assertions without addressing the fighting ability of the vast majority of Irish-born soldiers, those who stayed in ranks. His own sample is skewed heavily in favor of educated elites and cites little, if any information when critiquing the performance of Irish soldiers, often resorting to nativist testimony and referencing New York City’s infamous draft riots. This is largely due to the lack of statistical evidence on Irish-born soldiers. However, the regimental manuscripts provide that information, in detail, and demonstrate that by McPherson’s standards yet contrary to McPherson’s assertions, Paddy Yank fought gallantly.22

Table 4-1 – Casualty rate for Irish-born soldiers (%). Casualty B-R Casualty KIA & DOW Wounded N Rate Rate Rate Rate Irish-born 31.3% 26.8% 9.7% 17.1% 1,159 Union 32.1 18.8 5.0 13.8 -- McPherson -- -- 17.0 -- -- Sample The Battle-Related Casualty Rate, or B-R Casualty Rate, column refers to all war-time casualties not including disease, which are included in the Casualty Rate row. During the Civil War, disease was nearly as destructive to Union forces as Confederate muskets. However, disease should not be included when quantifying casualty rates as a measure of commitment to the Union cause. KIA, or Killed in Action, and DOW, or Died of Wounds, column represents soldiers who experienced battlefield casualties and immediately or consequently succumbed. Also note, Wounded, does not include subjects who died from their wounds. Source: Irish Soldiers Sample; McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, ix.

20 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 606-607. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

192

The casualty rate for Irish-born soldiers is slightly lower than the Union average, though it does not appear to be from a lack of fighting. When examining the battle-related casualties, that is not including soldiers who died from disease, Irish-born soldiers were nearly two times more likely to be killed in battle or die from wounds received in battle than the typical Union soldier, and 1.3 times more likely to be wounded. While Paddy Yank might not have been as courageous as McPherson’s native-born soldiers, he certainly fought harder than McPherson acknowledges. Indeed, by McPherson’s own measure, Paddy Yank was a good soldier who fought and died for the cause. Far from the worst, Paddy Yank was a better soldier than the typical Union soldier with a battle-field casualty rate of 26.8 percent to Billy Yank’s 18.8 percent.

Demographically, some interesting trends emerge. The typical Paddy Yank who died or was wounded in battle, continues to look different from the fighters in McPherson’s sample.

First, Irish-born casualties were older than those in the McPherson sample. At enlistment, the typical Paddy Yank who would die or receive wounds in action was 27.1 years old, over a year older than all of the soldiers in the McPherson sample, whose enlistment age was 25.8 years.

This is likely due to the high enlistment age of Irish-born soldiers in the sample, 28.1 years. 23

It is worth mentioning, however, that younger Irish soldiers tended to get wounded at a higher rate than older ones. This is especially true of soldiers wounded multiple times. Of those

Paddy Yanks who were struck by musket shot on more than one occasion, the average age at enlistment was 24.7 years. William Burns, born in Donegal and working as a shoemaker in

Lawrence, Massachusetts, enlisted in the Ninth Massachusetts at age 20 and was wounded at

Gaines Mill and Chancellorsville. Tyrone-born barkeeper Dennis McGowan enlisted in the 69th

23 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, viii.

193

Pennsylvania at age 26 and received bullet wounds at both Gettysburg and the Wilderness, just like his countryman Hugh Meehan, a Longford-born laborer serving in the 63rd New York.

Could the younger soldiers have been more reckless? Might they have had something to prove to their older comrades? Possibly.

Yet older soldiers fell at a high rate, too. Forty-eight year old Martin McMahon of the

63rd New York was killed in action at Antietam, the same happened to 44 year old William

Manning of the 90th Illinois at Missionary Ridge, 32 year old William Gillis of the Ninth

Massachusetts died of wounds received at the Wilderness, and 31 year old John Campbell of the

69th Pennsylvania was wounded at Fredericksburg only to be wounded again at Gettysburg. In fact, while the average casualty age was low and soldiers in their 20s had a battle-related casualty rate of 31.5 percent, soldiers in their 30s had a 27.9 percent chance of either being killed in battle, wounded, or dying from wounds received in battle. It is lower than that for younger soldiers, but still quite high compared to the Union average.

When battle-related casualty rates are broken down by marital status, interesting trends appear as well, though the numbers are lower due to the inconsistency in marital status data in the manuscripts. Married Paddy Yanks had a battle-related casualty rate of 12.5 percent, while those who were single had a rate of 17 percent. Just like their native-born comrades, married

Irish-born soldiers were significantly less likely to die or receive wounds in battle than bachelors.

Married men had more cause to be conservative in battle, because of their responsibility to their families – they could not protect their families and communities if they perished in the field.24

Indeed, wives frequently sent letters to their husbands on the front begging them to avoid combat, especially if already wounded. Writing to his wife about the possibility of his death,

John Halloran of the 19th Wisconsin stated, “I believe every man has a sertain length of time to

24 Ibid., 111.

194 live and when that time expires we must all go in our turn, great or small rich or poor. For my part I would as leave die on the field of battle as any where else, if a man dies on the field of battle he dies an honorable death. and if he is doombed to die there, he will never die any where else.”25

Though Halloran’s letter might not have comforted his spouse, Peter Welsh certainly attempted to do just that after receiving a wound at Spotsylvania: “My dear wife[,] i write those few hurried lines to let you now that i got slightly wounded on the 12th[.] It is a flesh wound in my left arm[,] just a nice one to keep me from any more fighting or marching this campaign…it was the greatest battle of the war[.] we licked the saucepans out of them.”26 Welsh would die from his wound, but the concern he demonstrates for his wife must have weighed on his mind throughout the war. Thus, though many married soldiers might have been resolute and did not desert the field, they certainly displayed concern for the preservation of their own lives, at least more so than Irish-born soldiers who did not have wives and children on the homefront.

The occupation of the Paddy Yanks who fell in battle diverges from McPherson’s as well. The majority of Irish-born soldiers who constituted battle-related casualties were skilled and semi-skilled workers, not surprising given their overrepresentation in the sample. However, their casualty rate was higher than soldiers of other occupations as well (Table 4-2). Table 4-2 – Battle-related casualty rate by occupation (%). B-R Casualty KIA & DOW Wounded N Rate Rate Rate White Collar 21.1% 7.6% 13.5% 64 Skilled 32.7 10.4 22.3 412 Semi-Skilled 31.2 7.4 23.8 109 Unskilled 24.1 8.8 15.3 335 Farmer 17.8 8.4 9.4 53 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

25 John Halloran to Maria Halloran, February 24, 1862, Windsor, MD, John Halloran Letters, 19th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment. Civil War Miscellaneous Collection. United States Army Military Institute, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 26 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, May 15, 1864, Washington, DC.

195

As mentioned, McPherson’s sample was heavily skewed towards rich, literate soldiers, and also towards soldiers who had a high occupational status. In fact, over thirty percent of McPherson’s soldiers held a white-collar occupation and he attributed the majority of the killed-in-action or died-of-wounds received in action to these soldiers specifically. The real fighting was done by the upper class.27

Yet among Irish soldiers, that was not necessarily the case. Across class lines, Irish soldiers fought hard, with soldiers from each occupation having high casualty rates, higher than the Union average in each instance. Even Irish farmers, who had the lowest killed-in-action and died-of-wounds rate, were 1.7 times more likely to fall in battle than the typical Union soldier.

Irish-born unskilled workers, McPherson’s supposed skulkers and bounty jumpers, were nearly two times as likely to charge headlong into battle as Billy Yank. Moreover, the skilled and semi- skilled workers, those who had made up a large portion of the Irish community leadership on the homefront, had the highest rates, especially for wounds received in battle the rate of which was nearly two times as high as that of white collar workers. Consistent with the contentions of hagiographers and contrary to the assertions of McPherson, Irish soldiers seem to have fought bravely in battle, even those lower on the occupational ladder.

As with desertion, battle-related casualty rates do not coincide with the typical characterizations of Irish immigrants based on provincial origin (Table 4-3).

27 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, ix.

196

Table 4-3 – B-R Casualties and casualties by province of birth (%). % of All B-R B-R Casualty KIA & DOW Wounded N Casualties Rate Rate Rate Connaught 13.2% 20.4% 5.3% 15.1% 109 Munster 40.4 18.6 5.4 13.2 334 Leinster 16.8 18.9 6.3 12.6 139 Ulster 29.5 14.6 6.0 8.6 243 The % of All B-R Casualties column shows, of those soldiers who experienced casualties and had county of birth listed, the proportion of men from each province. The rate columns, however, show the actual probability of or rate at which men from each province were killed in action, died of wounds, or were wounded. Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

The overwhelming majority of battle-related casualties in the sample were among Munstermen.

Constituting over 40 percent of all battle-related casualties, Irish-born soldiers from Munster perished in large numbers, followed by soldiers from Ulster, then Leinster, and lastly Connaught.

Obviously, the battle-related casualty numbers reflect the overall composition of the Irish-born in the sample: Munstermen dominate, Ulstermen comprise a close second, with Leinster and

Connaught making up the remainder.

Yet the actual rate at which soldiers from these counties fought and died diverges from the makeup of the sample. Though the rates are extremely close for Munster and Leinster soldiers, who stood nearly the same chance of being killed or wounded, those of Ulster and

Connaught are surprising. Among Irish immigrants, scholars have found Ulstermen to fare quite well socially and economically in the United States. From a modern, commercialized province, anglicized and literate immigrants from Ireland’s north tended to achieve a modicum of success compared to their southern and western countrymen, and should be the most “American” of Irish immigrants. Thus, one would expect Ulstermen to perform better as soldiers for the Union, especially with regard to fighting. Ulster Paddy Yanks not only deserted at a higher rate than other Irish-born soldiers, fewer of them also fought and died.28

28 Smyth, “The Province of Connacht and the Great Famine,” 282; Smyth, “Variations in Vulnerability,”186; Smyth, “The Province of Ulster and the Great Famine,” 417-418; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 369-370, 282; Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 7-11; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 220.

197

Connaughtmen follow a similarly paradoxical pattern. From pre-modern province of clachans, rundale farming, partible inheritance, Gaelic speakers, illiteracy, and folk Catholicism, most Connaughtmen in America were, according to David Doyle, “truly uprooted and bewildered.”29 One would “Uprooted and bewildered” soldiers to have a lower casualty rate, as these men should skulk from battle, feign sickness on days of engagement, and desert from the ranks. Nevertheless, Paddy Yanks from Connaught were not only least likely among their countrymen to desert, but the most likely to suffer a battle-related casualty. Though the sample is small, it is nevertheless suggestive. Irish soldiers from Connaught are consistently younger than those from other provinces, which possibly contributes to the youthful character of those being wounded in or dying from an engagement with Confederates. Though not statistically significant, nearly 60 percent of the Connaughtmen wounded or killed in battle held a white collar, skilled, or semi-skilled job, a rate significantly higher than the sample average for

Connaught-born soldiers.30

As stated above, economically successful Connaughtmen might have had more to prove than other Irish soldiers. Not only did they face the same obstacles as their countrymen from other provinces, they had to deal with cultural discrimination within the Irish community as well.

Many Irish immigrants dismissed and scorned them as backward. They might have believed fighting gallantly in battle would prove their worth. To be sure, Connaughtmen on the homefront were uprooted and bewildered. But Paddy Yanks from Connaught were not hapless peasants from Ireland’s west coast; they were upwardly mobile, successful, and patriotic Irish

Americans.

It is in the regimental differences, however, not the demographic data, that real

29 Doyle, “Remaking of Irish America,” 223. 30 Smyth, “The Province of Connacht and the Great Famine,” 282; Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 107-110, 114-127; Ferrie, “A New View of the Irish in America,” 7-11; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 220.

198 discrepancies emerge (Table 4-4).

Table 4-4 – Irish-born casualty rates by regiment (%). Irish-born B-R KIA & DOW Wounded All Irish-born in Casualty Rate Rate Rate Regiment (N) 9th MA 47.7% 15.9% 31.8% 1,001 63rd NY 20.7 8.4 12.3 680 69th PA 24.6 12.8 11.8 814 90th IL 12.2 4.5 7.7 624 59th NY 14.5 0.7 13.8 421 13th & 39th IL 23.0 5.6 17.4 161 Source: Irish Soldiers Sample.

While the Irish-born soldiers in some regiments have very high casualty rates, others are quite low. The soldiers in the Ninth Massachusetts and 69th Pennsylvania had very high casualty rates, but those of the 63rd New York were small by comparison. Extremely low were those from the

90th Illinois and the 59th New York. Though still above the Union average, they pale in comparison to their comrades serving in different regiments.

Cohesion might partly explain the high rates of death from the Ninth and 69th. Costa and

Kahn posit that within a unit, performance improved if men were from the same birthplace, had the same occupation, and were of a similar age. However, many of the Paddy Yanks resided in, and therefore enlisted in different towns than soldiers from other companies. Though most men from the 69th Pennsylvania resided in Philadelphia, those from the Ninth Massachusetts were recruited not just in Boston, but Salem, Milford, Marlboro, and Stoughton. Explanation by country of birth also does not seem a valid explanation. Each Irish regiment had a varying percentage of Irish-born in the regiment (Table I-1). In fact, the 90th Illinois which had the lowest casualty rates among both ethnic and non-ethnic regiments, contained proportionally the most soldiers of Irish birth, while the 69th Pennsylvania, which had the second highest casualty rate, had the lowest percentage of Irish-born soldiers. Indeed, nearly 40 percent of the regiment was American-born.

199

However, the Ninth Massachusetts and 69th Pennsylvania had the highest proportion of soldiers from a single province, while the other regiments had a much more diverse group of

Irish-born soldiers. For the Irish Ninth, over 55 percent of the soldiers were from Munster; for the 69th Pennsylvania, nearly 60 percent were from Ulster. Moreover, the soldiers in these regiments came from only a handful of counties. For the Ninth Massachusetts, 42 percent of its soldiers hailed from Cork. The 69th Pennsylvania did not have a county with such similar representation, but 42 percent of its soldiers were born in just three Ulster counties: Tyrone,

Derry, and Donegal. Thus, these regiments had the basis for cohesion, but it appears to have not been based on nationality or town of residence, but province of birth, Old World loyalties that still held sway.

A more obvious explanation could simply be the level of exposure to carnage the soldiers experienced. This not only varied based on theatres of war – those in the east participated in more and bloodier battles than those in the west – but battle-by-battle, and within battles as well.

As a result, men of both the Ninth Massachusetts and the 69th Pennsylvania had numerous opportunities to die or be wounded for the Union cause. As members of the Army of the

Potomac, the Irishmen the Pennsylvania unit witnessed their numbers thin at the same battles as the 63rd: Glendale, Antietam, where they took substantial casualties, and Petersburg.31

Yet none compared to Gettysburg, where the 69th Pennsylvania incurred nearly 40 percent of its killed and wounded for the entire war. As heretofore mentioned, this regiment defended Cemetery Ridge during Pickett’s charge and fought desperately in hand-to-hand combat at the Bloody Angle. The fighting descended into such chaos because Captain George

Thompson, who was supposed to give a command to change front and fire, took a musket ball through the head before he could give the order. According to Private Anthony McDermott, on

31 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 168.

200 that sweltering day, “the heat [was] almost stifling [and]…not a breath of air” offered the men of the unit relief as “the stench of death surrounded them”32 while they swung their muskets at the swarming Confederate troops.33

To be sure, the fighting was fierce. McDermott also recalled how Corporal Hugh

Bradley, who “was quite a savage sort of fellow wielded his piece, striking right and left, and was killed in the melee by having his skull crushed by a musket in the hands of a Rebel.”34 John

Harvey, Tyrone-born, who enlisted with his father in 1861 fell at the hands of a Confederate soldier, as did James Hand of Cavan, Andrew McGucken of Derry, Michael Logan of Antrim, and Patrick O’Connor of Louth. Another Irishman from the 69th “used his piece as a club, and when called upon to surrender replied tauntingly, ‘I surrender’ at the time striking his would be captor to the ground.”35

Unlike the 69th Pennsylvania, the Irish Ninth was not just an outlier among the Irish regiments in the sample for wounds and deaths; it was exceptional as a Union regiment. The

Ninth Massachusetts ranked in the top 50 regiments in the Union Army in losses, and in the top

20 for men killed in a single battle. They took heavy losses at several battles: Fredericksburg, the Wilderness, Laurel Hill, and Spotsylvania. None, however, compared to the losses they suffered during the Seven Days Battles. At just two engagements, Gaines’ Mill and Malvern

Hill, the Irish-born in the Ninth suffered 63 percent of their battle-related casualties for the entire war.36

32 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 168. 33 Ibid., 166. 34 Ibid., 171. 35 Ibid. 36 William F. Fox, Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865: A Treatise on the Extent and Nature of the Mortuary Losses in the Union Regiments, with Full and Exhaustive Statistics Compiled from the Official Records on File in the State Military Bureaus and at Washington (Albany, NY: Albany Publishing Company, 1889), 3, 17; MacNamara, History of the Ninth Regiment, introduction; Stephen W. Sears, The Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), xi.

201

The culmination of the Peninsula Campaign, the Seven Days Battles was a series of major encounters between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia, newly under the command of Robert E. Lee. Lee, more aggressive than his predecessor, Joe Johnston, went on the offensive after McClellan’s failed attack on Richmond. Lee’s and McClellan’s forces met at Oak Grove, Mechanicsville, Gaines’ Mill, Savage’s Station, Glendale, White Oak

Swamp, and Malvern Hill. The Ninth witnessed some action at Beaver Damn Creek, but would play a critical role at Gaines’ Mill, the first of their difficult engagements.37

Following the Union victory at Mechanicsville, the Irish Ninth was assigned to hold a bridge over the mill creek to prevent further Confederate encroachment. However, regiments en route to support the Ninth were delayed, and heavy fighting ensued as the Confederates attacked.

After the fighting, one member of the Ninth recalled that many of the soldiers ran out of their standard-issued sixty rounds of ammunition and had to take “the ammunition from the boxes of the dead and wounded.”38 That day the Irish Ninth inflicted heavy casualties on the Rebels and, eventually, with the help of the delayed support units repelled three separate Confederate assaults.39

Still, Union forces could not hold their defensive line once Lee’s army reorganized, and thus retreated over the Chickahominy, burning the bridges behind them. Despite the significant number of Rebels felled by the Massachusetts men, the Ninth suffered substantial losses as well, with 231 soldiers killed, wounded or missing. For the Irish-born enlisted men in the regiment, it was the most costly battle of the war – 26 percent of their wartime, battle-related casualties

37 Sears, The Gates of Richmond, 196, 280. 38 Quoted in Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 102. 39 Ibid., 183-200; MacNamara, History of the Ninth Regiment, 147; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 101-102; Sears, Gates of Richmond, 250-267.

202 occurred on that single day. Yet, despite the losses, Gaines’ Mill would have an even more profound and lasting impact on the regiment.40

Several days after the fighting at Gaines’ Mill had ceased, the Union army found itself stopped at the James River, where they could receive support from federal warships. They occupied a defensible position atop Malvern Hill, clearing the slopes of timber to ensure good visibility and an open line for artillery fire. On July 1, Lee’s encircling forces attacked the fortified federal position directly following an artillery barrage. The Ninth withstood the repeated Confederate assaults, but took heavy casualties in the process, heavier than those sustained at Gaines’ Mill. These casualties included the unit’s commander, Colonel Thomas

Cass, who was shot in the face and succumbed to his wounds while receiving treatment in

Boston. The losses experienced at Malvern Hill left the Irish Ninth able to muster only 250 men.41

In contrast to the 69th Pennsylvania and Ninth Massachusetts, the 90th Illinois and 63rd

New York had a much more provincially diverse group of Irish-born soldiers. The Irish Legion had a strong contingent from Leinster and an even higher representation from Munster, but did not have the extremes of the Ninth’s Munster or the 69th’s Ulster representation. Soldiers in the

63rd New York were distributed even more uniformly across a provincial and county spectrum.

Yet cohesion alone may not explain the lower casualty rates among these two regiments.

Both the 63rd New York and 90th Illinois saw less action than the Massachusetts and

Pennsylvania Irish regiments. The Irish Brigade took heavy casualties, losing over 4,000 men killed and wounded over the course of the war, more than the brigade’s strength at any one time.

40 Ibid; Fox, Regimental Losses, 17. 41 Ibid; Brian K. Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances: The Seven Days Battles (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 307; Sears, Gates of Richmond, 313; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 470; MacNamara, History of the Ninth Regiment, 150; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 130.

203

In fact, the Irish Brigade had the third highest casualty rate of any brigade in the Union army.

Between 1861 and 1865, the 69th New York, the Brigade’s primary regiment, lost over 17 percent of its men to death alone. Despite being a unit within the brigade, the 63rd New York never suffered the same losses as the 69th New York.42

This was likely due to the regiment’s role as a support unit, providing flank and rearguard cover, removing artillery stuck in swamps, and the like. To be sure, the 63rd New York participated in the most famous of the Irish Brigade’s engagements. Remembered as one of the bloodiest days in American history, Antietam decimated the 63rd New York. Positioned on a series of hills overlooking Antietam Creek, just north of Sharpsburg , Maryland, Robert E. Lee’s

Army of Northern Virginia waited while McClellan attempted to take the Confederate left flank.

The Irish troops advanced through the Bloody Lane, attacking the Sunken Road where

Confederate troops “literally cut lanes through [the] approaching line.”43 The Irish Brigade approached within 30 feet of the Confederate line, their colors were shot down 16 times, with the

63rd New York losing 60 percent of its mustered men. 44

The 63rd New York also participated actively in the battle of Fredericksburg, where just above the town Confederates had entrenched themselves on a bluff called Marye’s Heights. The

Irish pushed beyond a swale and into an open field just under Marye’s Heights where they were met with a hail of bullets and cannon fire. “We had to cross that distance witch is low and level with their batteries playing on us both in front and from right and left,” wrote an Irish soldier who was present for the assault, “the storm of shell and grap and canister was terible mowing whole gaps out of our ranks and we having to march over their dead and wounded bodies[.] We

42 Fox, Regimental Losses, 119, 202. 43 Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 118. 44 Bilby, The Irish Brigade in the Civil War, 39, 66; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 116; Spann, “Union Green,” 200.

204 advanced boldly despite it all and drove the enemy into their entrenchments but the storm of shot was then most galling and our ranks were soon thined …old troops say that they never were under such heavy fire before in any battle.”45

Amid the successive waves of assaults on the fortified Confederate position, a horrified

Major John Dwyer of the 63rd New York looked up and saw how “the dead were piled in heaps.”46 Though the Irish advances got within 100 yards of the hilltop, supposedly closer than any other troops, the assault was fruitless and the Brigade lost nearly 50 percent of its men, with the 63rd losing over 10 percent of its troops for the entire war in this single engagement. It was

“simply a slaughter-pen”47 wrote Fr. William Corby. After the battle a Yankee officer noted, “It will be a sad, sad, Christmas by many an Irish hearthstone in New York, Pennsylvania, and

Massachusetts.”48

The 90th Illinois suffered even fewer casualties than the Irish Brigade’s support regiment, the 63rd New York, though their later entry into the war, mass desertions before leaving for the front, and position in the western theater likely contributed to this. Nevertheless, Irish Legion suffered casualties, particularly in the charge up Missionary Ridge in the Battle of Chattanooga.

Despite participating in many battles in the western theater, from the siege of Vicksburg to the

Atlanta Campaign, over 20 percent of the 90th’s Irish-born casualties occurred at Chattanooga.

As part of the Army of Tennessee, the 90th Illinois was assigned to assault the right flank of

Bragg’s army on the ridge’s north end. The assault proved fruitless and the 90th took serious casualties, losing several important officers, including the regiment’s commander, Timothy

O’Meara. A soldier in the 100th Indiana described O’Meara’s demise: despite an amulet worn to

45 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, December 25, 1862, Falmouth, VA. 46 John Dwyer, “63rd Regiment Infantry,” in New York at Gettysburg, ed. William J. Fox (Albany, New York: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Company, 1898), 42-43. 47 Corby, Memoirs of Chaplain Life, 132. 48 Quoted in Steward and McGovern, The Fenians, 54.

205 keep him from harm, a “sharp shooter’s ball pierced…[O’Meara’s] body; and after a few hours of suffering, while faithfully attended by the Catholic Chaplain of the regiment, he gave his life for the country he called his own.”49

This had a profound impact on the regiment. In a letter to O’Meara’s brother, John, Fr.

Denis Dunne wrote, “May God have mercy on his soul! I cannot describe to you my feelings. I loved him as a brother and a nobler man never lived…I cannot offer you any consolation. May

God console you.”50 James Conway, another regimental officer, also fell at Missionary Ridge.

The 90th’s colonel wrote, “Conway…fell as the sun went down, kneeling as if at evening prayer.

We found him as daylight broke, frozen stiff, but gracefully among the tall weeds, resting on his right knee and left wrist, his sword firmly grasped in his right hand, extended as at salute, his pistol in his left, his head bowed low. Peace to his gallant soul.”51

Despite the lower rates among the 90th Illinois, 63rd New York, and the Irishmen in the

59th New York, Irish-born losses were all still higher than the Union average; in the case of the

69th Pennsylvania and Ninth Massachusetts, substantially so. Therefore, aside from cohesion fostered by provincial commonalities in the case of the latter two regiments, what caused

Irishmen to fight and die or fight and be wounded at such a high rate?

Patriotism was undoubtedly a motivation. Though already addressed, Paddy Yank’s patriotism was deeply felt. He had lived in America long enough to develop a sense of devotion to its ideals, had a love for the liberty he and other Irishmen enjoyed in America, had achieved a degree of social and economic success unavailable to him in Ireland, and revered the

49 Quote from Oscar Osburn Winther, With Sherman to the Sea: The Civil War Letters, Diaries, & Reminiscences of Theodore F. Upson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1943), 86-87; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 677-680. 50 Quoted in Swan, Chicago’s Irish Legion, 112. 51 Ibid.

206

Constitution which protected and ensured his rights. Like many other soldiers, the ideological reasons for which Paddy Yank enlisted were intimately connected to the reasons he fought.52

For Paddy Yanks, America was not only the country of their adoption, but a beacon of liberty. Thus, they wanted “to prove they appreciate this Republican Government and the many blessings they receive and enjoy under its protection; - they feel the justice and equality of its laws.”53 “Why do Irishmen fight for the Union?” a soldier wrote to the editor of the Irish

American, “Because within the shadow of its protecting power they first tasted the sweets of liberty, first felt the ecstatic thrill of freedom and the divine right of speech and thought.”54

Paddy Yank not only wanted prove his loyalty, he wanted to stake claim to America.

“We call upon every adopted citizen of Irish birth to stand true to the country which has become the home of so many millions of our race and of the oppressed of the Old World,” stated a group of Irish Bostonians, “and not permit the liberties for which Washington fought and Montgomery died to be trampled under foot by the slave oligarchy of the South.”55 In his diary James

Mulligan wrote, “But by the blessing of God, it should not be. the selfish & traitorous spirit of this day humbled and overthrown shall in the contrast, glorify the purity and the heroism of

Washington & his companions. Amen.”56 Many Irishmen even tried to directly connect themselves to the founders in an effort to justify their service. “In the war of Independence Irish- born men played a noble part,”57 according to an editor in an Irish newspaper. He continued,

“At the battle of New Orleans the country was saved by Andrew Jackson, the son of an Irish

52 Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 102. 53 Ibid. 54 Irish American, November 29, 1862. 55 Quoted in Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 43. 56 James A. Mulligan Diary. James a. Mulligan Papers, 1849-1900. Chicago History Museum. Chicago, Illinois. 57 Irish Pictoral, April 18, 1861.

207 peasant, and in the war now inaugurated Irishmen will be found loyal to the Government and the country which has been an asylum and a home to the oppressed of every nation.”58

Thus, if Paddy Yank did not fight, free government, the free government that cloaked

Irish exiles with liberty, could not be sustained. Should the Union fail, “then the hopes of milions fall and the desighns and wishes of all tyrants will succeed,” wrote Peter Welsh, “[and] the old cry will be sent forth from the aristocrats of Europe that such is the comon end of all republics the blatent croakers of the devine right of kings will shout forth their joy the giant republic has fallen.”59 Encouraging Irishmen to serve, the Pilot wrote, “the Irish race in America have now a permanent grip on the soil; and their healthy blood is diffusing itself so rapidly in every direction that nothing can check it….The suppression of the rebellion absolutely requires the Irish arms.”60

Yet Irishmen did just not express their devotion to America in abstract terms. Letters from the front contained testimonies of Irish soldiers professing their willingness to die for the

Union. One soldier wrote, “our blood…[we] freely shed in defense of her honor.”61 Irish songs from the period also contain the same theme of willing sacrifice. A verse from the “List of

Generals” states, “Columbia's flag--the Star of Freedom--still has ruled on land and say; / Fools may rave, but never heed them--to bate our foes we know the way. // Volunteers we have by thousands, ginerals trusty, true, and brave; / For the union they arouse, and all would die our flag to save.” 62

58 Ibid. 59 Peter Welsh to Margaret Welsh, February 3, 1863, Falmouth, VA. 60 Pilot, August 24, 1861. 61 Irish American, November 29, 1862. 62 Joe English, “List of Generals,” in Joe English’s Irish and Comic Songster, ed. Joe English (New York: Dick & Fitzgerald Publishers, 1864).

208

In one song about a fictional Irish soldier in the 69th New York, the character was ready and willing to die: “Och, murdher! says Pat, it's a shame for to see / Brothers fighting in such a queer manner: / But I'll fight till I die,… / For America's bright Starry Banner.” At the end of the song, “Pat Murphy of Meagher’s Brigade” does fall in battle, and is glorified for having done so:

“The battle was over…the dead lay in heaps: / Pat Murphy lay bleeding and gory: / A hole through his head, from rifleman's shot, / Had finished his passion for glory; / No more in the camp, shall his laughter be heard, / Or his voice singing ditties so gaily; / Like a hero he died…for the Land of the Free. / Far away from the land of Shillaly.” 63

Even in the midst of mounting death tolls and hostile northern opinion, many Irish soldiers were unapologetic that their countrymen had died fighting for the Union. Peter Welsh, arguing that Irishmen should continue to enlist and fight wrote, “[Irish] blood has stained every battlefield of this war Thousands of Irlands brave sons lay mouldering in the soil of Virgenia

Missouri Maryland and Tenesee and in every state where a battle has been fought And should those brav lives be sacrifised in vain The heart of every true Irishman will answer no emphaticaly no They had a vital interest in the preservation of our national existence the perpetuation of our instutions and the free and untrameled exicution of our laws We who survive them have a double motive then to nerve us to action.”64 Not only were the Irish willing to die for the Union, the Union’s preservation required continued Irish sacrifice.

In America, Paddy Yank found stability and success, and enjoyed freedoms not available to him in the Old World. As an Irish-American male he was a patriot, and believed he had a duty to preserve American institutions from destruction, for the sake of his family, community, and

63 Anynymous, “Pat Murphy of Meagher’s Brigade,” in Fattie Stewart’s Comic Songster, ed. H. De Marsan (New York: Dick and Fitzgerald Publishers, 1863). 64 Peter Welsh to Patrick Prendergast, June 1, 1863, Falmouth, VA.

209 future generations of Irish immigrants. Given the death toll of Irish soldiers, it seems Paddy

Yank was not only willing to fight for the Union, but die for it as well.

A degree of fatalism might also have been responsible for Paddy Yank’s willingness to lay down his life for the Union. While Paddy Yank was certainly not Kerby Miller’s hapless peasant from Ireland’s west coast whose culture, language, and precarious living situation reinforced passivity,65 he likely possessed a degree of fatalism nevertheless. The resignation of

Civil War soldiers has been addressed by several historians. In any war, soldiers become fatalistic. Since “shells and bullets fall on the just and unjust alike,”66 existing religious convictions intensify with exposure to battle. Civil War soldiers were not an exception, and as many were products of the Second Great Awakening, they were arguably some of the most religious soldiers in American history. Therefore, if it was God’s will for a soldier to die in

65 According to Kerby Miller, in Ireland, secular Gaelic society was not only communal, but “hierarchical,…traditional, and familial,” each of which increases passivity and the acceptance of one’s condition. Irish history, comprised of hundreds of years of failed rebellions, and daily Irish life, filled with poverty and oppression, taught that fate was fixed. What’s more, even Irish music and the Irish language itself reinforced the fatalism in Irish culture. Unlike English, which is “normative,” Gaelic is static-active. Languages that are normative acknowledge opposition between experiencer and initiator and are weighted toward action, control, and independence, whereas those that are static-active do not and are weighted toward dependence and passivity. Even for those Irish who gradually abandoned Gaelic, Hiberno-English maintained the same structure as Gaelic, reinforcing passivity. See, Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 106-108, 114, 118-120, 125. This fatalism was further increased among impoverished immigrants who, while in America, were politicized by Irish nationalists. Even Irish music, which underwent significant changes in America, continued to nourish a fatalistic mindset. While traditional Irish music might have focused on instrumentals, with songs sung in Gaelic with themes locale, romance, and loss. Irish American, music, on the other hand, was written in a folk-style, in the English language, and contained different themes. Consciously politicized by the Young Irelanders and Fenians and massed produced in books and broadsides, Irish American music was permeated with a sense of victimhood, which in turn, bred fatalism despite its distinctiveness from traditional Irish music. See, Geróid Ó hAllmhuráin, “The Great Famine: A Catalyst in Irish Traditional Music Making,” in The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America edited by Arthur Gribben (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 104-106, 1206-127; Mick Moloney, “Irish-American Popular Music,” in Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States, eds. J.J. Lee and Marion R. Casey (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 351; Kerby A. Miller, “’Revenge for Skibbereen’: Irish Emigration and the Meaning of the Great Famine,” in The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America edited by Arthur Gribben (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 188-192. 66 McPherson, For Cause and Comrades, 62.

210 battle, there was nothing he could do, and he would simply resign his fate. Yet the roots Paddy

Yank’s fatalism differed from Billy Yank’s.67

Many, if not most Irish-born soldiers lived through the Great Famine. In 1845, when

Ireland’s prophesied destruction became a reality, Paddy Yank was in his early teens. Since the young were the least likely to perish during the blight, and Munster, from which most Irish-born soldiers hailed, had a population that was two times more likely to die than natives of Ulster or

Leinster, Paddy probably watched as the world around him unraveled. It is reasonable to assume that during a five year period in his youth, nearly two out of every ten people Paddy Yank knew died, succumbing to starvation, hunger edema, or famine-related illnesses such as typhus or cholera.68

Paddy had likely come to terms with his own mortality prior to the start of the war making his courage in the face of almost imminent death draw the attention and praise of even the harshest of Irish critics. “Never at Fontenoy, Albuera or at Waterloo was more undaunted courage displayed by the sons of Erin,” wrote the London Times of the Irish at Fredericksburg,

“than during those six frantic dashes which they directed against the almost impregnable position of their foe.”69 Paddy Yank probably had a familiar relationship with death his New England born comrades in blue could not fathom.70

While Billy Yank’s fatalism was religiously influenced by the Second Great Awakening,

Paddy Yank’s religiously-influenced acceptance of death stemmed from the nineteenth-century

Catholic revival. Most Paddy Yanks hailed from regions in Ireland that, early on, experienced the Devotional Revolution, instituted by Bishop Paul Cullen to purge Irish Catholicism of its folk

67 Ibid., 62-64. 68 Miller, Emigrants and Exiles, 280; O’Grada, Black ’47, table 3.10. 69 Quoted in Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 512. 70 Ibid.

211 customs. The reforms were collective, emphasizing devotionalism and orthodoxy. Irish immigrants carried this with them to America and continued the reforms, as they attempted to institutionalize a ramshackle church in a hostile country.71

Much as in Ireland, the focus of the Catholic revival in America was on mass attendance, confession, community, and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Thomist philosophy called not only for a more intense focus on experiential piety, it also emphasized miracles, and moral absolutes. Though certainly not Calvinist predestination, Thomism nevertheless also stressed suffering as inevitable. In particular, Thomism focused on the suffering of Christ. To mid- nineteenth century Catholics influenced by this revival, Christ was not so much the teacher or risen lord, as the one who suffered for man’s sins. His suffering was required, a sacrifice needed for redemption. Thus, human suffering was a necessary, if tragic part of life.72

Thomism’s emphasis on the miraculous and the inevitable undoubtedly dovetailed with the religious shift that occurred among Civil War soldiers. The institutional church was largely unavailable to Irish soldiers during the war. Given the dearth of chaplains, soldiers turned to talismans and mysticism. Moreover, pre-war assumptions about just who should die quickly dissipated in the hard fighting of early 1862. “The Civil War took young, healthy men and rapidly, instantly, destroyed them with disease or injury,” states Drew Faust. The Victorian notion of a “good death”73 was shattered. Anyone could die in any manner, so for Irish soldiers, their already passive faith became even more fatalistic. As an Irish-American corporal stated

71 Miller, “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine,” 83-90; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 12-14, 29-31. 72 McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 25-28. 73 For mid-nineteenth-century Americans, dying was an art. A “good death” consisted of the ability to prepare oneself based off of a standard “how to” template: how to give up one’s soul willingly, how to meet Lucifer’s temptations, how to model one’s dying on Christ’s, and how to properly pray. For more on dying during the Civil War, see Drew Gilpin Faust, “The Civil War Soldier,” 8-11.

212 after the Seven Days Battles, “all our lives are in the hands of God and…he can save from danger those who put their trust in him, tho' encompassed by hosts of enemies.”74

Thus, Paddy Yank might have been preconditioned to be fatalistic. His familiarity with death undoubtedly made the carnage of the Civil War seem not normal, but maybe reminiscent of the Irish countryside that was littered with corpses during his formative years. Moreover, his religious dogma encouraged an intense focus on suffering as a necessary part of life. Both likely encouraged an easy adaptation to the superstition and intense fatalism of soldier religiosity.

“There is an old proverb which says,” wrote Private John Halloran, “He that is born to be hung will never be drowned. If a man was not born to be killed in war he will never be killed there.”

Halloran continued, “what is the use of being afraid to die. we are just as liable to die in time of peace as war. the coward dies an hundred times, the brave man but once. For my part I am willing to die when my time comes.”75

Most importantly, however, Paddy Yank’s masculine identity influenced his decision to charge headlong into battle. Fighting ability was part of the respectable Irish American masculinity consciously cultivated by Paddy Yank. Since the stereotype of the Irishman was deeply entrenched in American society prior to the mass arrival of Irish Catholic immigrants, upwardly mobile Irishmen were forced to work within the confines of the preexisting stereotype while trying transform it into something respectable. The violent aspect of the Paddy character could neither be dispelled nor ignored, so respectable Irish Americans “seized on the fighting stereotype and made it their own…trumpet[ing] the military and moral superiority of their group.”76 Paddy’s failings became virtues. If Paddy was “a childlike buffoon…highly

74 Quoted in McPherson, For Cause and comrades, 66; Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 273-285; McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom, 26-27; Faust, “The Civil War Soldier”,” 8-11. 75 John Halloran to Maria Halloran, February 24, 1862, Windsor, MD. 76 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 275.

213 temperamental and always ready to fight,”77 Paddy Yank was mature, respectable, and was not indiscriminately violent; he was courageous and had a natural physical prowess that made him indispensable in battle.78

Paddy Yank could express pride in this stereotype. His communalism and clannishness became loyalty, his fatalism became a deep Catholic faith, his demand for political rights became a deep-rooted love for the Constitution, and his violent tendencies became martial skill. Yet once constructed, Irish soldiers had to fulfill this stereotype, for an Irishman to not be brave in the face of danger meant he was not an Irishman, but an effeminate Yankee. “There is an elasticity in the Irish temperament,” wrote Felix Brannigan of the 79th New York, “which enables its possessor to boldly stare Fate in the face.”79 Irish-born Philip Kearney is often quoted as saying, “I love war. It brings me indescribable pleasure, like that of having a woman."80

Upwardly mobile Irishmen linked their skill for combat to Irish soldiers throughout history. The Irish had always been fine soldiers; it was their birthright they claimed.

Commenting on the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, an Irish newspaper wrote, “TO ARMS!

TO ARMS!!...that fine old Celtic race…never yet turned its back upon a foe!”81 A Washington,

DC paper wrote of Mulligan’s Irish Brigade in Missouri, “prove that the men composing

Mulligan’s Irish brigade justify the reputation which their native countrymen have won in every civilized nation for loyalty and high military courage.”82

The Irish history of military service, in particular, played a central role in this aspect of their identity. Following the war, Major General St. Clair Mulholland of the 116th Pennsylvania

77 Meagher, “Fireman on the Stairs” 629. 78 Ibid., 625. 79 Quoted in Steward and McGovern, The Fenians, 59. 80 Quote from Gerald F. Linderman, Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War (New York: Free Press, 1987), 74; Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream, 3. 81 Irish Pictoral, April 18, 1861. 82 Quoted in Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, DC, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 1861; Jamieson and McWhiney, Attack and Die, xv.

214 wrote, “the story of the Irish race is the history of a people fearless in danger and peerless in battle…in every age in which they have appeared, in every land where they have fought, under every flag they have defended, they have added to their glory and increased their renown.” He continued, “in every age, in every clime, it has been the same thing. In India, in Africa, in China, and on all fields of Europe, they have left their footprints and the records of their valor.”83

A comrade echoed Mulholland’s sentiments. “There are few battle-fields in Europe in which the Irish soldier has not left his footprints….The flower of the Jacobite army, after the surrender of Limerick, took service under the Fleur de Lis of France, and their military career is part of the history of Europe,” wrote D. P. Conyngham, “[but] a new field now opened to Irish valor and Irish gratitude, and the tried heroism of Meagher’s Brigade, and several other Irish brides and regiments, has added a new chaplet to our heroic record, and has given us a stronger claim to the protection and gratitude of the American nation.”84

Indeed, when the Irish performed well in battle, they did not interpret it as luck, or chance, but a fulfillment of their own primordial traits and history. “For the present it is enough to know that the fight was well contested, and won by deliberate and considerate courage and skill;” wrote James B. Turner of the 63rd New York as he commented on the Battle of Fair Oaks,

“that the men engaged in it fought worthily; and, above all, that the military fame of our nation— almost her only heritage—was stoutly and honorably maintained by the generation of today.”85

Patrick Guiney even noted that native-born officers expressed a degree of jealousy with regard to Irish fighting prowess and “falsely confessed they were Irish.”86 The Irish had a tradition of being physically tough, of having fighting competence, a tradition they felt duty-

83 Quoted in Corby, Memoirs of Chaplain Life, 351. 84 Conyngham, The Irish Brigade, 6, 8. 85 Irish American, June 28, 1862. 86 Patrick Guiney to Jeannette Guiney, December 27, 1861, Miner’s Hill, VA.

215 bound to uphold and, as in the case of the 69th Pennsylvania and the Ninth Massachusetts, the more Irish cohesion existed within a unit, the more liable they were to that tradition.

Given their desertion and battle-related casualty rates, the Irish present a predicament.

They do not fit neatly into either paradigm established to determine the dedication and worth of a

Civil War soldier. According to Costa and Kahn, desertion is the best measure of who failed to meet that standard. The Irish-born soldiers in the sample desert at a higher rate than the Union average, so by that measure they appear to be poor soldiers or at least had weak social networks.

However, McPherson asserts killed and wounded rates are a more accurate way to quantify duty and honor. Yet the Irish-born soldiers in the sample fight, are wounded, and die in battle at a much higher rate than other soldiers in the Union, so by McPherson’s standards, the Irish fought for the cause.

Regardless, their willingness to fight and die for the Union appears to have rested partly on ethnic cohesion as it pertained to province of origin and partly on the duty and patriotism that encouraged their enlistment in the first place. The Irish familiarity with death as a result of the

Great Famine and their exposure to the mid-nineteenth-century Catholic revival also likely aided in their development of a unique Civil War soldier fatalism. Lastly, and most importantly, Irish soldiers, by fighting, were fulfilling their purpose as Irishmen, as heirs to a martial tradition that dated back centuries, a tradition that played a central role in their identity as Irish American men, a tradition they were not only proud, but obliged to uphold. Perhaps then, both McPherson,

Costa and Kahn, and the hagiographers are right. If so, the Irish might have been at once the best and worst soldiers in the Union army.

216

Afterword & Conclusion: Paddy Yank, Lost and Possibly Found

Patrick R. Guiney, who in 1861 enlisted in the Ninth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry to demonstrate “loyalty to his adopted state and country,”1 had to precede his regiment home prior to the war’s end. Years of hard fighting had worn down Guiney physically. Coupled with his war-weariness, a head wound he received at the Wilderness had made soldiering all too difficult.

So in June 1864, with his “health shattered,”2 Guiney mustered out of service, meeting his wife in Washington, DC who traveled with him back to Roxbury, Massachusetts.

Upon returning home, his young daughter did not recognize him. “It was my earliest glimpse of the painful side of war, when he stood worn, pale, drooping, waiting recognition with a weary smile, at the door of the sunny little house we all loved,” wrote Louise Guiney. “What was this spectre with whom I must not perch, whose head, bound in bandages, I must not handle?,” Louise continued, “What was he, in place of my old-time comrade, blithe and boyish…?”3 Indeed, the health problems Guiney developed as a result of his service would plague him until his death in 1877.

Though Guiney was able to greet the Irish Ninth upon its return home in 1865, and lead the regiment as it paraded through the hot and steamy summer streets of Boston, his deteriorating health continued to make life difficult. In the subsequent years, Guiney was nominated for

Assistant District Attorney by the state governor, appointed Major General and Commandant of the Massachusetts chapter of the U. S. Veteran Military League, and even promoted by President

Andrew Johnson to Brigade General for his meritorious service during the war. Yet Guiney was forced to resign as assistant district attorney as well as colonel of the Ninth Massachusetts

1 Samito, Commanding Boston’s Irish Ninth, prologue. 2 Ibid., 249. 3 Ibid.

217

Militia. Recurring bronchial issues diminished Guiney’s physical stamina while his wartime head wound caused the vision in his right eye to deteriorate and triggered recurring dizzy spells.4

Guiney returned to private law practice, making his own hours and working at a pace suitable to his diminished physical capacity. Walking home from work one March day in 1877,

Guiney coughed up a bit of blood. Sensing death was near, he knelt by a tree, took off his hat and passed on at the young age of 42. Guiney’s postwar experience is not dissimilar from that of some Paddy Yanks. A sizeable portion reentered their prewar lives successfully, many moved from their town of enlistment, while other Irish veterans could not quite recreate the dynamic lives they enjoyed prior to enlisting, suffering from physical ailments obtained while fighting on the front, some succumbing to alcoholism and depression while they experienced a decrease in occupational status and were forced to apply for federal pension as invalids. Paddy Yanks’ service might have had positive long-term ramifications for Irish America, but for them, service was a sacrifice, and for many a sacrifice that held consequences which plagued them in the postbellum years.5

For the country more broadly, the Civil War had many long-term impacts. It answered the oft-debated question whether or not the Union would endure and dealt a death-blow to the institution of slavery. The term “United States” transformed from plural to singular, the government began a long march toward centralization, feel-labor capitalism took over the entire economy and paved the way for the United States to become a world power. Postwar America was a very different place from that which went to war over the expansion of slavery. On the

4 Ibid., 250, 252-255. 5 Ibid., 256.

218 other hand, the war left a mixed legacy of segregation, inequality, violence and poverty in the

South.6

For Irish America, the picture is also mixed. Several scholars point to the positive impacts of the war while others posit that Irish service did little, if anything to further improve the condition of Irish immigrants. For older scholars, such as John Higham and Ella Lonn, the

Civil War “Americanized” the Irish and temporarily quelled nativism. Many later scholars agree. Marion Truslow writes, “the American Civil War was, for the recruits and families of the

Irish Brigade contingent, both the cauldron and the catalyst for their acculturation into American life.”7 Edward Spann posits that, "by the end of the 1860s, most of the Irish Americans of the

Civil War generation had come to identify themselves with the United States."8 For Spann, the war served as an assimilative vehicle that shifted Irish immigrant focus from Ireland to

America.9

Christian Samito asserts that Irish wartime service accelerated the demise of nativism and softened the image of Fenianism in the context of heightened republicanism and democracy.

More importantly, it challenged Americans’ concept of citizenship, aiding in solidifying a more inclusive definition of citizenship into law and increasing the political consciousness of Irish

Americans. In the postwar years, the Irish, according to Samito, were able to argue that “loyalty trumped ethnicity, as a mark of citizenship.”10 Despite otherwise being an alien and dangerous group, since the Irish demonstrated their allegiance to the Union, they now qualified for citizenship. Irish service in the army allowed the Irish American community to demand the federal government remove the legal distinction between naturalized and native-born citizens,

6 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 859-862; Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 9. 7 Truslow, “From Peasants to Patriots,” 13. 8 Spann, “Union Green,” 209. 9 Lonn, Foreigners in the Union, 658-662; Higham, Strangers in the Land, chapters 1-2. 10 Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 5.

219 which would benefit present and future Irish immigrants. For Samito, the changes wrought by

Irish Civil War service were overwhelmingly positive and enduring.11

Randall Miller also believes the results of Irish service were affirmative and lasting.

According to Miller, Irish wartime service provided Irish America with heroes. Glossing over draft rioters and soldiers who enlisted for bounty pay or deserted, Irish Americans built on the masculine idea of the Irish-Catholic American patriot embodied by the upwardly mobile

Irishmen who volunteered to serve the Union. No longer did the predominantly Catholic Irish

American community have to try to make tenuous connections to the Protestant Irish founding fathers – they now had their own heroes. Irish Catholics had fought for and saved the Union. In addition, since the Civil War became the defining moment for American identity, it too became the defining moment for Irish American identity.12

Scholars from Burton to Bruce acknowledge that several Irish soldiers contributed heavily to their own canonization with memoirs and regimental histories. D. P. Coyningham’s,

The Irish Brigade and Its Campaigns, set the stage, trumpeting Irish soldiers’ patriotism and valor in battle, valor unmatched by any other soldiers in the Union. Even Fr. William Corby, chaplain to the 88th New York wrote an account of the war. Like Coyningham, he recounted

Irish patriotism and gallantry, but added a religious dimension to the memory of the Irish soldier,

11 Ibid., 221. Samito rightly asserts that national citizenship prior to the Civil War existed as a vague concept. The war itself changed this. For the first time, Americans were challenged to think about the concept of citizenship in certain terms. The army created strong links between the people and the federal government, raising the political consciousness of soldiers and civilians. Given people’s wartime relationship with the federal government and its rapid expansion, when the war ended, citizenship became primarily national in character. It was now the Federal government which was supposed to safeguard the rights of all citizens. Irish and African Americans in particular, fostered the change in understanding citizenship. Pushing for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution Irish and African Americans helped solidify three principles into law: “the primacy of national citizenship that incorporated certain rights,” the “concept that individuals had the right to change their birth citizenship and allegiance,” and the “doctrine that all citizens stood in equal rights and protections regardless of race or prior status as slave or alien.” See Samito, Becoming American Under Fire, 4-6. 12 Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 282-285. Irish Catholic service in the Union army would become especially important later in the nineteenth century when the immigration of Eastern and Southern Europeans and increased Catholic political power forced the church to demonstrate its Americanism in the face of nativist attacks.

220 focusing on Irish religiosity and unwavering faith in the face of certain death. Yet none influenced wartime mythology more than St. Clare Mulholland. Mulholland’s account of the

116th Pennsylvania sanctified Irish soldiers, casting them as patriotic, if not more so than native- born Protestants. With the unveiling of statues dedicated to Irish regiments on southern battlefields, the Irish ensured their place in American memory. Indeed, from then, few could think of Antietam, Fredericksburg, or Gettysburg or without simultaneously imagining the heroism of Irish troops.13

Some scholars, however, do not see the Irish postwar experience in such positive terms.

Craig Warren asserts that the mythologizing of Irish service masked its reality and consequences.

All Irish works on the war, including and especially Mulholland’s, ignore the dissatisfaction on the Irish homefront with emancipation and the draft. The consecration of Irish service, furthermore, does not address the thousands of Irish widows created by Irish valor in battle and the hardships that emerged in the postbellum years for them as well as the families of soldiers who returned home wounded, both physically and mentally.14

William Kurtz also asserts that postwar developments for Irish Americans were not as positive as other scholars would believe. Only on the local level, according to Kurtz, did Irish wartime service have an affirmative and lasting impact. For generations, the hagiography of Irish soldiers only appealed to the Irish community, not America more broadly. Kurtz explains that scholars ignore the memorialization of Irish troops by the Irish American community was done in direct response to the resurgence of anti-Catholicism in American social and political life. For

13 Coyningham, The Irish Brigade, preface; Corby, Memoirs of Chaplain Life, introduction; Mulholland, The Story of the 116th Regiment, preface; Miller, “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War,” 284; Burton, Melting Pot Soldiers, 151; Bruce, The Harp and the Eagle, 174, 259; Clark, The Philadelphia Irish, 127; Joseph M. Hernon, Celts, Catholics, and Copperheads: Ireland Views the American Civil War (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1968), 116. 14 Warren, “Oh, God, What a Pity!,” 193-194.

221

Kurtz, the continued presence of nativism is proof that Irish service did not have the impact for which many had hoped. Irish Catholics remained suspect, foreign, and threatening to the republic despite their valorous battlefield charges at places like Marye’s Heights. In fact thirty years after the publication of Mulholland’s celebrated account, nativism surged again, coalescing with Anglo-Saxon racism and taking the form of the Second Ku Klux Klan. Thus, while war generally has the potential to accelerate change in American society, the Civil War provided

Irish Catholics with “few long-term successes in overturning longstanding religious prejudices,” according to Kurtz.15

While the debate over the impact of Irish service on Irish America is diverse, few comment on the long-term impact on Irish soldiers themselves. For Union soldiers generally, however, Costa and Kahn note several trends. First, they posit that Civil War veterans had a high rate of geographical mobility. In the postwar years, 44 percent of native-born soldiers moved between their state of enlistment and state of residence in 1880. Among all soldiers, half lived in a state other than that of their birth by 1880. In fact, deserters were more mobile than any other soldiers, 60 percent moving from their place of enlistment, and were also more likely than other soldiers to move within their home state.16

Costa and Kahn also found most soldiers retained their prewar occupations. Sixty percent of farmers remained farmers, over 40 percent of artisans remained artisans, 40 percent of laborers remained laborers, and 40 percent of proprietors remained proprietors. Once settled in to a new home and similar prewar occupation, many of these soldiers joined the Grand Army of the Republic, a fraternal organization for veterans that helped them cope with postbellum society. Dominated by the native born, anti-immigrant, excessively patriotic, and resistant to

15 Quote from Kurtz, “Let us Hear No More Nativism,” 31; Kurtz, “Missed Opportunity,” 3; James R. Barrett, The Irish Way: Becoming American in the Multi-Ethnic City (New York: Penguin Press, 2012), 98. 16 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 180.

222 change, the GAR sought to preserve for veterans an older, romanticized image of the nation in the midst of massive social change. It provided a refuge for veterans who, together, interpreted their saving of the Union in the antebellum millennial tradition.17

While many scholars address postwar America, Irish America, and native-born veterans, few address what life was like for Irish-born veterans. Ryan Keating has found that for Irish soldiers, the post war world varied. According to Keating, those Irish soldiers who fulfilled their terms of service had a vibrant post-war experience, gaining employment in their postwar occupations and, like native-born soldiers, exhibiting a large degree of geographical mobility.

Paddy Yank also appears to have been highly mobile in the postbellum years (Table AC-1).18

Table AC-1 – Postwar Irish soldier geographic mobility to 1900 (%). Remained in Moved within Moved to N Place of Enlist. Same State Different State All Irish-Born 34.8% 43.9% 21.2% 300 Illinois Irish 23.1 61.5 15.4 96 MA Irish 15.9 63.2 21.1 57 NY Irish 50.0 26.9 23.1 78 PA Irish 46.2 38.7 15.1 69 N 104 132 64 -- Source: Irish Veterans Sample.

As mentioned above, the postwar sample for the Irish soldiers is small, but suggestive nevertheless. Using the Federal Census and Pension Records to trace the soldiers following the fulfillment of their terms of service suggests Irish soldiers were nearly as mobile as their native- born comrades. Among all Irish soldiers found in the census and pension records, over 65 percent moved from their place of residence in 1861. Not even 35 percent of veteran Paddy

Yanks remained in their town of enlistment in the postwar years. To be sure, most Irish soldiers moved within their home state, normally to adjacent towns, unlike native-born soldiers. Costa

17 Ibid., 181; Stuart McConnell, Glorious Contentment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 1865-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), xiii-xiv. 18 Ryan Keating, “Wound Warriors, Public Wards: The Socioeconomic Implications of Civil War Service” (paper presented at the Legacies of the Civil War Conference, Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania, November 10-12, 2011).

223 and Kahn found that 44 percent of Billy Yanks had moved between their state of birth and their state of enlistment, so that by 1880, nearly half lived in a state other than that of their birth. So while Paddy Yanks might have been less likely to move to a different state than Billy Yanks, they were actually more likely to move within their state of enlistment.19

Paddy Yank’s high rate of mobility coincides with assertions made by David Ferrie that mid-nineteenth-century immigrants were a highly mobile group. In Ferrie’s study, 70 percent of the Irish-born subjects changed county of residence at least once in the decade prior to the Civil

War. Ferrie claims that this demonstrates, “genuine mobility, not the effects of mortality and census underenumeration that often bias the measurement of geographic persistence.”20 In the decade prior to the Civil War, Irish immigrants were a highly mobile population. Following the cession of hostilities, that trend appears to have continued, even among Paddy Yanks. The overwhelming majority of Irish-born soldiers in the sample moved from the town in which they resided at the time of their enlistment. Most did so within the state, which also matches trends documented by Ferrie who found that the Irish, even when moving, relegated their mobility to but a handful of regions.21

Variation existed between states of residence as well. Soldiers who resided in

Massachusetts or Illinois upon enlistment had an 84.3 and a 76.9 percent probability of moving to a different town or state after mustering out of service. In fact, they were nearly two times as likely to move postbellum than their comrades from New York and Pennsylvania. Thomas

Clancy of the Irish Legion settled in Rush, Illinois, 30 miles away from his prior residence in

Galena, while Charles Collins of the Irish Ninth moved from Bridgewater to Belmont,

Massachusetts, only 40 miles north, while Patrick J. O’Connor of the 63rd New York moved

19 Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 174-178. 20 Ferrie, Yankeys Now, 186. 21 Ibid., 185-186.

224 from Albany to the town of Oxford in Central New York. Migrations such as this were quite common.

A smaller percentage of soldiers who moved, found residence in a different state. To be sure, most moves of this nature were to neighboring states. As in the case of James Baxter of the

90th Illinois, who moved from Braceville, Illinois to New Castle, Indiana; Jeremiah Coffee of the

Irish Ninth who moved from Holliston, Massachusetts to Stamford, Connecticut; Patrick

Chambers of the 63rd New York, who moved from New York City to Dunmore, Pennsylvania; and George Williams of the 69th Pennsylvania who moved from Philadelphia to Cleveland, Ohio.

However, in a minority of cases, the moves were much further. James Bane of the 59th New

York, for example, moved from Plattsburgh, New York to Savannah, Georgia. This was rare, but occurred nevertheless.

When examined closely, however, it appears this trend of postwar geographical mobility might not solely correlate with Civil War service. While there does not appear to be a correlation with disability or marital status, the majority of soldiers who chose to change towns or cities of residence in the postwar years did not reside in their city of disembarkation. The majority of soldiers who remained in their place of enlistment were residents of large, eastern urban ports: Philadelphia and New York especially. Even the majority of the soldiers from

Boston remained there after Appomattox. It was the Irish soldiers who had already moved from immigration entry points at the time of enlistment – such as the several towns in eastern

Massachusetts where companies for the Irish Ninth were recruited, Albany, or the Irish settlements in northern Illinois – who were the most likely to move again postbellum. This is likely why the geographical mobility rate for Massachusetts and Illinois soldiers is so high.

These soldiers were already mobile and given that they had more means than Irish soldiers still

225 residing near where they stepped off the gangway after their journey across the Atlantic so many years before.

Occupationally, Keating asserts that soldiers who were not discharged moved into the same jobs they held in the prewar years, but those who were wounded or contracted a disease found earning gainful employment more difficult. The same appears true for Paddy Yank (Table

AC-2).

Table AC-2 – Postwar occupational mobility for Irish soldiers to 1900 (%). Mustered Out in Mustered out but Discharged due All Post-War Good Health Wounded to Disability Same 26.3% 30.7% 33.3% 28.8% Increase 44.7 30.7 6.6 33.3 Decrease 28.9 38.5 60.0 37.9 N 115 40 45 200 Those soldiers mustered out do not include discharged or wounded soldiers. The soldiers in the wounded column were wounded at various points in the war and were not discharged due to disability. Thus, the discharged soldiers are not included in the wounded column. Source: Irish Veterans Sample.

Of the soldiers traced through the census, those who were mustered out in good health, discharged, or wounded during the war and finished their terms of service had much different experiences. Paddy Yanks who did not succumb to disease during the war or have the ill-luck to be struck by a Confederate musket ball, enjoyed success postbellum. The overwhelming majority, 71 percent, either maintained their prewar occupation or experienced occupational mobility. These men were Keating’s soldiers on the move: mobile, successful, dynamic. A sizeable portion, however, nearly 30 percent, could not maintain their pre-war economic success.22

What is more telling is the lack of occupational mobility for those soldiers wounded and mustered out as well as those discharged for disease or disability. Occupational stagnation climbs, occupational increase plummets, and occupational decrease reaches an astounding 60

22 Keating, “Wounded Warriors.”

226 percent. Overall, though the Irish soldier postwar experience contains a degree of diversity, a great deal of soldiers, many Paddy Yanks had a similar, jaded experience. For these soldiers, the postwar years were filled with economic hardship and uncertainty, as most were unable to maintain the prewar economic success that separated them from the majority of the Irish

American community just a decade prior. Many of these men would eventually cease working altogether. Unable to physically perform an array of jobs, these once sturdy men became dependents in their families, relying on wives, children, and siblings to provide food, shelter and income.

Yet Irish immigrant Civil War service alone might not explain their postbellum experience. In the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, the American economy changed drastically. Railroads traversed the continent and steamships cruised the Atlantic, vastly expanding existing markets and opening up new ones. Entrepreneurs created large corporate bureaucracies, centralizing management and driving technological developments that doomed older industries while increasing production in others. In some cases, this led not only to an increased demand for unskilled labor and the automation of jobs, but a decrease in the prestige and economic independence of once skilled artisans. Compounding these radical changes were two economic depressions (one in the 1870s and one in the 1890s, the deleterious effects of each lasting for years), and the resurgence of the nativist movement in response to growth Catholic political power, both of which severely impacted working class immigrants.23

Scholars assert that despite measured Irish progress prior to the Panic of 1873, many Irish immigrants responded to the economic uncertainty of the late-nineteenth century by settling for more predictable, low paying jobs. Indeed, Stephan Thernstrom found that among Irish males in

Boston in 1880 and 1890, 67 and 65 percent respectively held “low manual” jobs. Other Irish

23 Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians, 76; Knobel, America for the Americans, 121-220;

227 immigrants attempted to deal with harsh circumstances through labor activism. In many cases,

Irish Americans were at the forefront of organized resistance to low pay, dangerous working conditions, long hours, and unfair business practices, exemplified by figures such as Mother

Jones, Terence Powderly, Denis Kearney, or even in the actions of the Molly Maguires.

According to Hasia Diner, the Irish level of involvement in the labor movement demonstrates the continued “shakiness of Irish economic adjustment”24 to circumstances created by America’s

Second Industrial Revolution. Therefore, Paddy Yank’s service might not have determined his postwar experience; it could simply been the economic and social climate of America from the

1870s through the 1890s.25

Many Irish veterans, whether having fallen on hard times due to their Civil War service or the turbulent postwar economy, applied for government pensions. The Civil War pension system lasted from 1862 through the twentieth century, initially providing a monthly stipend for all men totally disabled as a result of the war and to widows of soldiers killed in service and after

1890 providing for any veteran who was honorably discharged and no longer able to perform manual labor. By 1900, 85 percent of all Union army veterans were covered by the pension, and the government approved the majority of claims filed.26

Just like Billy Yanks, Paddy Yanks applied for pensions in droves, and the overwhelming majority of applications were granted (Table AC-3).

Table AC-3 – Pension applications for Irish-born soldiers and reason granted by 1900 (%). Old Age Invalid Widows Granted 39.4% 29.8% 30.9% N 37 28 29 Source: Irish Veterans Sample.

24 Diner, “The Most Irish City in the Union,” 98. 25 Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 230; Thernstrom, The Other Bostonians, tables 6.9 and 8.5. 26 Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War?,” 22-23, 25; Costa and Kahn, Heroes and Cowards, 228.

228

Marion Truslow found that the utilization of the pension system demonstrated the resilience of

Irish families. According to Truslow, the pension kept afloat the families of veterans, as most were able to remain above the lower class and those that were in the lower class were prevented from descending into the underclass. Though this is true, the pension did indeed keep families from spiraling downward, Paddy Yank was not part of the lower class prior to the war. Truslow also found that by 1900, the average recipient received only $139 by 1900, when many if not most Paddy Yanks made several times that amount in 1860. Paddy Yank and his kin might not have starved, but the amount of income he received from the government paled in comparison to his salary prior to enlisting.27

Moreover, while nearly 40 percent of Paddy Yanks who applied for a pension did so because of old age, another nearly 30 percent did so as invalids. Paddy Yanks suffered from a number of war-related maladies: wounds, consumption, chronic pneumonia, etc. However, most

Irish soldiers applying for pensions suffered from stomach maladies. Paddy Yank might have survived the war, but years of being crowded into tents with other men, drinking tainted water and eating rancid food took its toll. Indeed, dysentery and persistent diarrhea sapped the health of many Irish veterans in the postwar years. So much so that in many cases Paddy Yank had become an invalid, unable to support himself or his family.28

Paddy Yank’s widow also applied for government pensions. Whether due to the high

Irish-born casualty rate in the war or the frequency with which Irish veterans succumbed to early death in the postwar years, the Civil War created droves of Irish widows. In the antebellum years, Paddy Yank and his wife no doubt had similar values and ambitions. She likely embraced middle-class notions of respectability, was modest and industrious, and devoutly Catholic, so

27 Ibid.; Truslow, “Peasants to Patriots,” 184, 304-305. 28 Vinovskis, “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War?,” 27; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 486.

229 much so that they “may have been the principal participants in the Devotional Revolution.”29

In fact, Paddy Yank’s wife might have actually been more concerned with social mobility than him. Known for their assertiveness and independence, Irish American women were also notorious social climbers. Many worked as domestic servants, an occupation considered detestable and belittling to native-born Protestants, but an occupation that exposed Irish immigrant women to middle and upper class notions of decorum and taste, many of whom attempted to translate these norms to their own lives. Indeed, it is largely from their wives that

Irish-American men learned these customs.30

While Paddy Yank was attempting to recast his Irish American identity in respectable terms, he was likely doing so with the support and urging of his wife. Thus, it is not likely that

Paddy Yank’s wife was pleased with her postbellum economic situation. Many wives, whose husbands could no longer hold gainful employment, surely returned to work after embracing domestic duties while their husbands enjoyed economic success. Widows undoubtedly did. The amount of Paddy Yanks who experienced a decrease in occupational status after the war or applied for a pension as invalids, or the amount of widows petitioning the government for assistance suggests it was necessary. For many Paddy Yanks and their families, the postwar years looked bleak.

Conclusion

The information from the regimental manuscripts, while seemingly inconsequential, suggests that Paddy Yank, the common Irish soldier of the Union, is not who scholars thought.

To be sure, a larger sample is needed, particularly of Irish-born soldiers serving in non-ethnic

29 Quote in Meagher, Columbia Guide, 177; Doyle, “The Remaking of Irish America,” 235; Kelleher, “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America,” 15-16. 30 Hasia R Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 80-86, 139-142.

230 units. However, generalizations may be made. His given name shows hints at cultural and religious diversity in Ireland and the categorization of his complexion suggests Paddy Yank might have imbibed the racial prejudices of the mid-nineteenth-century. Tall for a soldier, even a Union one, Paddy Yank seems to have enjoyed good health despite his exposure to the famine.

The occupational data is perhaps the most telling demographic information. Contrary to scholarly assertions, Paddy Yank was very different from other Irish Americans. He was significantly less likely to be an unskilled laborer than those Irish American men who chose not to volunteer for the Union. Paddy Yank was actually, more likely to hold a skilled or semi- skilled occupation than anything else. When combined with white collar workers and farmers,

Paddy Yank had over 61 percent chance of being anything other than a laborer (Table 1-6).

County of origin suggests that most Irish soldiers were Munstermen, from Cork specifically. Yet this data also reveals that Paddy Yank’s origins varied depending on the

American city in which he resided. Those soldiers residing in New York City may be from anywhere in Ireland, because as America’s primary immigrant destination, New York received the overwhelming majority of Irish immigrants. Those in eastern Massachusetts were the most likely to be from Munster and the least likely to hail from Ulster. Cork’s predominance as an immigrant county is exemplified by soldiers residing in this region, 42 percent of whom were from Cork. Illinois Paddy Yanks were more likely to be from Tipperary and Limerick than any other soldiers, and those calling Philadelphia home were born in the periphery of Ulster. This undoubtedly is the result of the presence migration chains and networks, connecting areas in

Ireland to specific places in the U.S., an area of inquiry understudied in the history of Irish

Americans.

231

The demographic information has larger implications. It suggests that Paddy Yank’s motivation for enlisting might also have been improperly categorized by historians. Paddy Yank was not a reluctant greenhorn who enlisted for the promise of soldier’s pay. For most Irish-born soldiers enlisting in the army meant making an economic sacrifice. In light of Paddy Yank’s socioeconomic standing, the correspondence of soldiers, heretofore thought unrepresentative of most Irish soldiers, may be reexamined. It shows that Paddy Yank was highly ideological. His enlistment was part of the process of recasting Irish American masculinity by upwardly mobile

Irish immigrants. This identity at once encompassed martial prowess, Irish nationalism, a disdain for nativism, American patriotism (in particular a devotion to the constitution), and a sense of duty to preserve the Union for future Irish immigrants – ideologies that were mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.

The manuscripts also reveal that as a soldier, Paddy Yank was what both scholars and hagiographers have posited. He deserted, and did so at a higher rate than the Union army average. Yet Paddy Yank appears to have done so for reasons typical of Union soldiers generally, not for the commonly-believed reasons. The removal of McClellan, Emancipation, the Federal Draft, and the election of 1864 appear to have had a minimal impact on Paddy

Yank’s decision to stay in ranks. To the contrary, regimental squabbling, mounting casualties, low troop morale, and hardship experienced by family members on the homefront appear to have been of more importance. Paddy Yank, however, also fought, and fought hard. His battle- related casualty rate was significantly higher than the Union average. Paddy Yank cast himself as a fighter, a stereotype that once battle commenced, he was duty-bound to fulfill. A deserter and a fighter, Paddy Yank calls into question the categories scholars have used to measure ideological commitment to the Union cause.

232

Lastly, while Paddy Yank’s service might have benefitted Irish America postbellum and many Irish veterans for that matter, for a sizeable portion (nearly 40 percent) service appears to have caused significant hardship. Irish service provided Irish America with tangible heroes, directly linked the community with the preservation of the republic, and gave Irish leaders fodder with which to combat nativism. Scholars diverge as to the degree of change that occurred as a direct result of Irish service. Yet for Irish soldiers specifically, the postwar years were not so well-ordered. Some Paddy Yanks, those mustered out in good health, appeared to have experienced geographic and occupational mobility. However, for those discharged for disease or disability, or wounded in battle, the postwar years were filled with hardship. Unable to acquire gainful employment, many moved down the occupational ladder, others applied for federal pensions as invalids. In many instances, widows did as well.

While for generations Paddy Yank has been lost, he has, with the help of the regimental manuscripts, possibly been found. Paddy Yank’s experience was dynamic. He was an elite in the Irish American community, had an inconsistent service record, and a lackluster life in the postwar years. Paddy Yank and his service provide new insights into the study of Civil War history and the history of the Irish in America.

Appendix A: Irish Soldiers Sample

This study relies primarily on regimental descriptive books to construct the profile of

Paddy Yank, the common Irish-born Union soldier. As mentioned above, to obtain my sample I selected soldiers from four ethnic regiments and three non-ethnic regiments, totaling approximately 8,000 subjects. However, because the descriptive books are incomplete, I could only obtain adequate information for 5,551 subjects. Since approximately 35 percent of each ethnic regiment contained non-Irish soldiers (see Table I-1), I was only able to obtain information on 3,701 Irish-born soldiers across the seven regiments (Table A-1) which I entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Table A-1 – Number of Irish-born soldiers in sample by regiment (N). 9th MA 63rd NY 69th PA 90th IL 13th IL 39th IL 59th NY Total % Sample 27.0% 18.4% 22.0% 16.9% 1.2% 3.1% 11.4% -- N 1,001 680 814 624 46 115 421 3,701 Source: Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations, National Archives and Records Administration.

Each of these books was compiled by the regimental adjutant who not only took roll on a regular basis, but was responsible for mustering in soldiers assigned to the regiment. When a soldier arrived for service, the adjutant would write down in the descriptive books an array of anthropometric and demographic information in books with pre-printed, horizontally listed categories that spanned two pages (shown vertically here, see Table A-2).

233

Table A-2 – Regimental descriptive book categories. Category Sub-Category Sub-Category Sub-Category Sub-Category Name Surname Given Name -- -- Rank ------Company ------Age Feet Inches -- -- Description Height Hair Eyes Complexion Married or Single ------Occupation ------Nativity Town County Country -- Enlistment Town County Date Term Mustered in/out When Where By Whom -- Remarks ------Source: Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations, National Archives and Records Administration.

Despite the richness of this source, it has limitations. In many cases, the categories for each soldier are incomplete, with no apparent pattern. Several soldiers would be listed with detailed information, followed by several with only names. In some cases quotes followed certain soldiers, in which adjutants obviously did not want to rewrite the same information. However, in many cases, the columns were left blank. Whether some adjutants were lazy, sloppy, busy, or distracted by the goings on in camp is not determined. Regardless, not all Irish-born soldiers in the sample were listed with complete information (see Table A-3).

Table A-3 – Missing or unknown information for Irish-born soldiers in sample (N). Category Known (N) Missing (N) Missing (%) Name 3,701 0 0.0% Rank 3,701 0 0.0 Company 3,701 0 0.0 Age 3,692 9 0.2 Appearance 1,818 1,882 49.1 Married/Single 1,072 2,629 29.0 Occupation 3,597 104 2.8 Nativity (county) 1,776 1,925 52.0 Enlistment 3,660 41 1.1 Mustered in/out 1,643 2,058 55.6 Remarks 2,456 1,245 33.6 Source: Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations, National Archives and Records Administration.

234

For the first three categories of the sample, all the information is complete. Adjutants listed surname, given name, and very often middle name or middle initial as well. Rank, given its importance in hierarchy of the army, was very detailed, and each promotion a soldier received was recorded in the “Remarks” section of the books, as was the soldiers’ company and any changes it underwent. Age was recorded in years, but not months and was nearly as thoroughly attended to as the first three categories.

The first real dearth of information occurred with the record of soldier appearance. To be sure, over 50 percent of the time adjutants took note of the soldiers’ physical characteristics.

Height was measured in feet, inches, and fractions of inches, adjutants normally noting in quarter inches the details of a soldier stature. Eye color, hair color, and complexion were also noted.

Fairly typical were the categorizations for the former two: blue, grey, brown, black, green, and hazel for the eyes; and blond, sandy, red, brown, and black for hair. However, a significant degree of variation occurred in adjutant characterization of soldier complexion: dark, brown, black (six soldiers bore this description), medium, sallow, light, fair, red, Irish, ruddy, and florid.

Soldier marital status was also inadequately recorded, though this was likely due to the categories provided in the descriptive books. Only in the descriptive books of Massachusetts and

Illinois regiments actually contained this category and adjutants in regiments from other states did not fill in the information in the remarks category. This obviously skews the marital information a significant degree, as soldiers from Pennsylvania and New York are not included in this sub-sample.

Unlike appearance and marital status, occupation of soldiers at the time of enlistment was one of the most thoroughly recorded categories. Since this study draws conclusions about the economic status and mobility of Irish-born soldiers on the basis of evidence found in regimental

235

descriptive books, pension records, and census records, it was necessary to create occupational categories to more easily measure status and mobility. To create my occupational hierarchy, I merged the categories from two separate occupational mobility studies, Stephan Thernstrom’s

The Other Bostonians and Joseph Ferrie’s Yankeys Now. Both studies offer sophisticated insight to the reasons for immigrant mobility or lack thereof, Ferrie for the antebellum years and

Thernstrom for the turn-of-the-twentieth-century era to 1970, yet each used different methods of categorization.

For his study, Thernstrom created two broad occupational classes, white collar and blue collar, and five occupational strata, high white collar, low white collar, skilled blue collar, semiskilled and service blue collar, and unskilled and menial blue collar. Thernstrom derived these occupational categories from a wide range of criteria: levels of earnings, vulnerability to unemployment and regularity of earnings, required education and skill, ability for future advancement, working conditions, occupational independence, and social prestige. Though

Ferrie used similar criteria, he created four occupational classes: white collar, skilled, farmers, and unskilled. For the white collar class, he also included three subcategories: professional, commercial, and proprietary.

Borrowing from both, I created five broad occupational classes: white collar, skilled, semiskilled and service, farmer, and unskilled. In the white collar class, I also included three subcategories: professional, commercial, and proprietary. For the first category I borrowed directly from Ferrie, since Thernstrom’s study extends to 1970, his white collar categories are too complex, and not necessarily as representative as Ferrie’s of mid-to-late-nineteenth-century white collar sub-classification. Ferrie’s skilled and farmer categories are also quite representative and were used in this study as well. However, while I did not create a large blue

236

collar stratum like Thernstrom, his distinction between semiskilled and service workers and unskilled laborers provides a more comprehensive picture than Ferrie’s very broad skilled and unskilled categories. In 1860, certainly a railroad conductor or barber was not at the same occupational level as a hod carrier or a coal heaver (Table A-4).

Table A-4 – Socioeconomic coding of soldier occupations. White Collar Professional Accountant Counselor Gentleman Schoolmaster Artist Dentist Professor Student Attorney Doctor Publisher Surgeon Chemist Editor Reporter Teacher Clergy Engineer

Commercial Accountant Clerk Salesman Telegraph Operat. Banker Merchant Secretary Wholesaler Broker

Proprietary Apothecary Decorator Junk Dealer Pressman Baker Druggist Keeper, Bar Printer Barber Foreman Keeper, Inn Salesman Book Keeper Grocer Keeper, Store Showman Butcher Hair Dresser Manufacturer Stereotyper Compositor Hide Dealer Musician Steward Confectioner Huckster Peddler Surveyor Contractor Ironmonger Photographer Tobacconist Dealer Jeweler Pressman Undertaker

Skilled Blacksmith Cooper Millwright Ship Joiner Bleacher Cordwainer Miner Shoe Pegger Boilermaker Cutter Molder Shoemaker Bookbinder Distiller Morocco Dresser Silver Plater Boot maker Dryer Oyster Opener Slater Bottler Dyer Painter Smith Brass Finisher Fastener Pan Maker Sorter Brewer Finisher Paper Maker Spinner Bricklayer Foreman Paper Stainer Steelworker Brick Maker Founder Paper Hanger Stone Cutter Broom Maker Gasfitter Pen Maker Sugar Boiler Brush maker Gasser Plasterer Tailor Burnisher Glasscutter Plumber Tinsmith

237

Cabinetmaker Groom Polisher Tobacco Stripper Card Grinder Gunsmith Potter Trunk Maker Carpenter Harness Maker Reed Maker Turner Carriage Maker Hatter Rigger Typecaster Carver Horse Shoer Riveter Upholsterer Caulker Lithographer Roofer Varnisher Chandler Locksmith Rope Maker Wagon Maker Cheese Maker Machinist Rudder Watch Maker Cigar Maker Marble Cutter Sail Maker Weaver Coach Maker Mason Sawyer Wheelwright Coffer Mechanic Sculptor Wood Carver Composor Miller Ship Fastener Wool Comber

Semiskilled & Service Barber Expressman Rail Switchman Store Tender Baggage Man Ferrier Saddler Teamster Boatman Fireman Sailor Wagoner Brakeman Fisherman Servant Waterman Conductor Operative Soldier Waiter Cook Peeler Stevedore Whaleman Drayman Railroadman

Farmer Unskilled Carman Deck Hand Hod Carrier Porter Cartman Digger Hostler Raftman Coachman Farm Laborer Laborer Rag Picker Coal Heaver Gardener Messenger Water Drawer Currier Helper Source: Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations, National Archives and Records Administration.

There are limitations to this categorization, however, most notably, when occupations are listed in the regimental manuscripts that require further delineation so they can be accurately categorized. For example, “miner” is listed as an occupation in the descriptive books, but regimental adjutants never wrote whether or not miners were skilled or unskilled. Luckily, such instances were rare, and when they did occur, occupations such as mining made up only 0.6

238

percent of soldier occupations and 1.7 percent of blue collar occupations and thus did not drastically impact the data.

Although nativity is an important category for this study in order to trade migration chains and to discern the experience of soldiers who hailed from culturally different areas of

Ireland, unfortunately it is not nearly as complete as the occupational data. Forty-eight percent of Irish-born soldiers were asked their county of birth by the regimental adjutant, but only a very small percent of those gave town of birth as well. In order to expand on the sample of soldiers whose county or province of origin could be determined, I followed Joseph Ferrie’s use of

Robert Matheson’s twentieth-century study on Irish surnames.

Most Irish surnames in the nineteenth century were regionally specific, occurring in a mere few counties or single province. Matheson charted these geographic patterns, using

Ireland’s birth records for 1891. Ferrie used the surname data to fill the gaps in New York ship manifests to trace from what county his Irish subjects hailed. Though problematic for the more common surnames, for the less common ones it is a relatively reliable way to overcome the limitations of the regimental manuscripts, and if ascertaining a subject’s county of origin may be unreliable as well, province of origin is generally much more consistent. Therefore, I only used the Matheson data to infer provincial origin, and did so for 882 subjects (Table A-5, Map A-1).

Table A-5 - Irish soldier province of origin including Matheson data (N). Connaught Munster Leinster Ulster Total Descriptive 254 672 383 467 1,776 Books Descr. Books 337 1,007 491 823 2,658 + Matheson Source: Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations, National Archives and Records Administration; Robert E. Matheson, Special Report on Surnames in Ireland with Notes as to Numerical Strength, Derivation, Ethnology, and Distribution; Based on Information Extracted from the Indexes of the General Register Office (Dublin: Alex, Thom & Co., 1909) 37-70; Robert E. Matheson, Varieties and Synonymes of Surnames and Christian Names in Ireland for the Guidance of Registration Officers and the Public in Searching the Indexes of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Dublin: Alex, Thom & Co., 1901).

239

Map A-6 – Nineteenth-Century Ireland, province and county.

Source: University College Dublin Library.

Unlike soldier county of birth, adjutants paid close attention to where, when, and for how long soldiers enlisted. In only 1.1 percent of the subjects was this information missing. Though the descriptive books contain columns for both town and county, adjutants normally only noted the city and state where the soldier enlisted, which was often the same as the soldier’s hometown. Along with the exact date of enlistment and the term of service, it was in this category that most adjutants noted whether or not a soldier was drafted. Of those soldiers who

240

enlisted as a result of the Conscription Act, most adjutants simply put, “drafted,” next to the term of enlistment. In a smaller number of cases, however, the soldier’s adjutant wrote the congressional district from which the soldier hailed.

Though sometimes officers noted whether or not a soldier received a bounty in the

“Remarks” column, in most instances it was written near the soldier’s term of enlistment. Here, adjutants listed the type of bounties (local, state, and/or federal) and the dollar amount the soldier received, or had yet to receive but was due. Only if the soldier had been partially paid and still owed money, was the remaining amount listed along with other remarks.

The most incomplete category in the descriptive books was “Mustered In / Out.” In the sample over 55 percent of subjects contained no information in this category. Adjutants might not have thought noting when and where a soldier mustered in was worthwhile, given that, in most instances, they already recorded when and where the soldier enlisted, and if they did so, even more rarely did they include “By Whom” they were mustered in. Yet adjutants also rarely recorded if and when soldiers mustered out.

If this category was the most in complete, the information that was entered into it might have also been the most random or diverse given the specificity of the columns. Indeed, it contained a host of information one would think might be reserved for the remarks column.

Here, officers noted whether or not a soldier was discharged and for what reason. The remarks were especially detailed if the soldier was discharged for disability, as the officers would often note exactly what problem the soldier suffered from. They also recorded transfers in this section.

If a soldier was transferred from another regiment, or moved from one company to another as a result of consolidation, promotion, or demotion was recorded, as were instances where soldiers were transferred to the Invalid Corps. Reenlistments were recorded here as well, not the

241

enlistment section, which might have been for practical reasons – since soldier muster was paid little heed, it provided adjutants with extra space to note if a soldier chose to rejoin his unit after his term of enlistment ended.

The last column, Remarks, was spatially the largest, comprising a long column on the end of the right page in the descriptive books. Here, adjutants would record an array of information, that would not fit in other columns: bounty payments due (as mentioned above), changes in rank, etc. However, the majority of the information in this section dealt with soldier conduct and physical health. If a soldier came back late from furlough, was Absent Without Leave (AWOL), was insubordinate or disrespectful to an officer, drunk in camp or quarreling other soldiers, and more. Soldier health was also addressed: those soldiers wounded in battle (and adjutants sometimes described the wound in detail), those with a disease or malady of some sort that impacted soldiering, and if a soldier Died from Wounds (DOW) or was Killed in Action (KIA).

Soldiers unlucky enough to get captured and sent to a Confederate prison as a Prisoner of War

(POW) were also dealt with in this section.

242

Appendix B: Irish Veterans Sample

To supplement the wartime data and track how the soldiers in the sample fared in the postwar years, I randomly selected soldiers for pension record examination at the National

Archives and Records Administration. I then entered into the database select information from their pension records. Namely, when and how many times they applied, if they were approved, where they were living in the postwar years, what their occupation was, if they had any war- related infirmaries, whether or not they were married, and if they had any children. These records proved daunting, as they are filled with affidavits, testimonies, and letters along with the paperwork for multiple applications, which is why I capped the sub-sample at 100.

However, 100 soldiers it too small to even be suggestive. So I supplemented the postwar information obtained from the soldiers’ pension records by randomly selecting more soldiers from the Irish Soldiers Sample and traced them through the US Censuses of 1870, 1880, and

1900 using Ancestry.com. Given the common recurrence of Irish surnames and given names, however, this proved problematic. It was difficult to ascertain if the name in the census records was actually the soldiers being searched. Therefore, less common names were easier to find that common ones. This obviously skews the data, as soldiers with uncommon names might themselves be uncommon (culturally, religiously, etc.) and not representative of the majority of soldiers in the sample. Thus, I limited the census sample to 200 soldiers, making the total postwar data set 300 subjects.

For the socioeconomic coding of the postwar occupations, I implemented the same method of categorization used for the Irish Soldiers Sample, which was derived from both the techniques of Joseph Ferry and Stephan Thernstrom. This was done primarily for continuity.

While it organizes and gives shape to the soldiers’ postwar occupational mobility, this method of

243

categorization is potentially problematic. During the postbellum era, significant changes occurred in the American economy, changes that transformed the nature, independence, and status of many white collar and skilled blue collar jobs. Yet most soldiers in postwar years maintained their occupations and even if this maintenance was accompanied by a decrease in pay, most veterans supplemented their income with the federal pension.

Nevertheless, the postwar sample is small, only 300 subjects, and is therefore only meant to be suggestive. No sweeping conclusions are derived from this information, only assertions that the postwar experience for these soldiers was characterized by both success and hardship, and requires further investigation.

244

Bibliography

MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS

Massachusetts Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston The Glorious Ninth! Recruiting Poster

Illinois Chicago History Museum, Chicago James A. Mulligan Papers

New York State New York State Library, Albany William Dennis Letters James B. Turner Papers

Northern Ireland Public Record Office of Northern Ireland John McFarland Letters

Pennsylvania United States Military Institute, Carlisle John Halloran Letters William McCall Letters

Washington, D.C. Catholic University of America, American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives (ACUA) The Fenian Brotherhood Records J. O’Donovan Rossa Personal Papers National Archives and Records Administration Lincoln, Abraham. “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” 1862. Ninth Census of the United States: 1870 Tenth Census of the United States: 1880 Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900 Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, Book Records of Union Volunteer Organizations Pension Records Ninth Massachusetts Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book Thirteenth Illinois Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book Thirty-Ninth Illinois Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book Fifty-Ninth New York Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book Sixty-Third New York Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book Sixty-Ninth Pennsylvania Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book

245

Ninetieth Illinois Infantry Regimental Descriptive and Letter Book

NEWSPAPERS

Boston Investigator Boston Pilot Catholic Telegraph and Advocate Chicago Evening Journal Chicago Morning Post Chicago Post Chicago Times Cincinnati Catholic Telegraph and Advocate The Citizen Daily Evening Bulletin – San Francisco Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, DC) Freeman’s Champion Irish American Irish Pictoral Irish World The Liberator New Hampshire Statesman New York Herald New York Irish American New York Tablet New York Times Weekly Day Book

PUBLISHED PRIMARY SOURCES

Beaudot, William J. K. and Herdegen, Lance J., editors. An Irishman in the Iron Brigade: The Civil War Memoirs of James P. Sullivan, Sergt., Company K, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers. New York: Fordham University Press, 1993.

Cavanagh, Michael. Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher, Comprising the Leading Events of His Career, Chronologically Arranged, with Selections from his Speeches, Lectures, and Miscellaneous Writings, including Personal Reminiscences. Worcester, Massachusetts: Messenger Press, 1892.

Conyngham, D. P. The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns: With Some Account of the Corcoran Legion, and Sketches of the Principal Officers. Edited by Lawrence Frederick Kohl. New York: Fordham University Press, 1994.

Corby, C.S.C, William. Memoirs of Chaplain Life: Three Years with the Irish Brigade in the Army of the Potomac. Edited by Lawrence Frederick Kohl. New York: Fordham University Press, 1994.

246

De Marsan, H. Fattie Stewart’s Comic Songster. New York: Dick and Fitzgerald Publishers, 1863.

Dwyer, John. “63rd Regiment Infantry.” In New York at Gettysburg. Edited by William F. Fox. Albany, New York: J. B. Lyon Company, 1902.

Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendum of the War of Rebellion: compiled and arranged from official records of the federal and Confederate armies, reports of the adjutant generals of the several states ,the army registers, and other reliable documents and sources. Des Moines, Iowa: Dyer Publishing Company, 1910.

English, Joe. Joe English’s Irish and Comic Songster. New York: Dick & Fitzgerald Publishers, 1864.

Fox, William F. Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865: A Treatise on the Extent and Nature of the Mortuary Losses in the Union Regiments, with Full and Exhaustive Statistics Compiled from the Official Records on File in the State Military Bureaus and at Washington. Albany, NY: Albany Publishing Company, 1889.

Gould, Benjamin Apthorp. Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers: Actuary to the U.S. Sanitary Commission. New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1869

Hale, Edward E. Letters on Irish Emigration: First Published in the Boston Daily Advertiser. Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Company, 1852.

Halpine, Charles. The Life and Adventures, Songs, Services, and Speeches of Private Miles O’Reilly (47th Regiment, New York Volunteers). New York: Caleton Publisher, 1864.

Lewis, A. S. ed. My Dear Parents: An Englishman’s Letters Home from the American Civil War. London: Victor Gollancz, 1982.

Kohl, Lawrence Frederick, and Richard, Margaret Cossé, eds. Irish Green and Union Blue: The Civil War Letters of Peter Welsh, Color Sergeant, 28th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers. New York: Fordham University Press, 1986.

McCarter, William. Notes and Memorandums of My Soldier-Life in the war for the Union, 1861- 1865, In the Union Army. Philadelphia, December, 1875.

McDermott, Anthony W. A Brief History of the 69th Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers from its Formation until Final Muster out of the United States Service. Philadelphia: D. J. Gallagher & Co., Printers and Publishers, 1923.

MacNamara, Daniel George. The History of the Ninth Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer

247

Infantry, Second Brigade, Army of the Potomac, 1861-64. Boston: E. B. Stillings & Co, 1899.

Rossa, O’Donovan. Rossa’s Recollections, 1838-1898: Childhood, Boyhood, Manhood. New York: Mariner’s Harbor, 1898.

Samito, Christian J., ed. Commanding Boston’s Irish Ninth: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Patrick R. Guiney, Ninth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. New York: Fordham University Press, 1998.

Strong, George Templeton, The Diary of George Templeton Strong. Edited by Allan Nevins. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988.

Wallace, Maryanne. “Civil War Diary of Thomas K. Mitchell—Company C.” http://4thillinoiscavalry.tripod.com/ThomasKMitchellDiary.html.

Winther, Oscar Osburn, With Sherman to the Sea: The Civil War Letters, Diaries, & Reminiscences of Theodore F. Upson. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1943.

The Union Army: A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States 1861-65—Records of the Regiments in the Union Army—Cyclopedia of Battles—Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Madison, Wisconsin: Federal Publishing Company, 1908.

Zimmermann, Georges Denis. Songs of Irish Rebellion: Irish Political Street Ballads and Songs, 1780-1900. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002.

BOOKS

Anbinder, Tyler. Five Points: The 19th-Century New York City Neighborhood that Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World’s Most Notorious Slum. New York: Plume, 2001.

———. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Berlin, Ira, Fields, Barbara J., Miller, Steven F., Reidy, Joseph P., and Rowland, Leslie. Slaves No More: Three Essays and Emancipation and the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1992.

Bernstein, Iver. The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Bilby, Joseph G. The Irish Brigade in the Civil War: The 69th New York and Other Irish Regiments of the Army of the Potomac. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1995.

248

Bourgeois, Maurice. John Millington Synge and the Irish Theatre. London: Constable & Company, 1913.

Brown, Thomas N. Irish American Nationalism, 1870-1890. Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1966.

Bruce, Susannah Ural. The Harp and the Eagle: Irish-American Volunteers and the Union Army, 1861-1865. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Buisy, Joseph G. and O’Neill, Stephan D., eds. My Sons Were Faithful and Fought for the Irish Brigade at Antietam: An Anthology. Hightstown, New Jersey: Longstreet House, 1997.

Burton, Brian K. Extraordinary Circumstances: The Seven Days Battles. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2001.

Burton, William L. Melting Pot Soldiers: The Union’s Ethnic Regiments. New York: Fordham University Press, 1998.

Carnog, Evan. The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience, 1769-1828. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Catton, Bruce. A Stillness at Appomattox. New York: Garden City, 1953.

Clark, Dennis. Hibernia America: The Irish and Regional Cultures. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

———. The Irish in Philadelphia: Ten Generations of Urban Experience. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

Connolly, Sean. Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Ireland. West Tempest: Dundalgan Press, 1985.

Costa, Dora L. and Kahn, Matthew E. Heroes and Cowards: the Social Face of War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Curtis, Jr., Perry. Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997.

Diner, Hasia R. Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

Dolan, Jay P. The Irish Americans: A History. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2008.

Donnelly, Jr., James S. Captain Rock: The Irish Agrarian Rebellion of 1821-1824. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009.

249

Emmons, David. M. Beyond the American Pale: The Irish in the West, 1845-1910. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010.

Ernsberger, Don. At the Wall: The 69th Pennsylvania at Gettysburg. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2006.

———. Paddy Owen’s Regulars: A History of the 69th Pennsylvania “Irish Volunteers.” Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2004.

Fanning, Charles, ed. Exiles of Erin: Nineteenth-Century Irish-American Fiction. Chester Springs, Pennsylvania: DuFour Editions, Inc., 1997.

Ferrie, Joseph P. Yankeys Now: Immigrants in the Antebellum United States, 1840-1860. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Fischer, David Hackett. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative, Volume I, Fort Sumter to Perryville. New York: Random House, Inc., 1958.

Gallagher, John. Napoleon’s Irish Legion. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997.

Gallman, Matthew. Receiving Erin’s Children: Philadelphia, Liverpool, and the Irish Famine Migration, 1845-1855. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Galwey, T. F. The Valiant Hours: Narrative of “Captain Brevet,” an Irish-American in the Army of the Potomac. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Press, 1961.

Gerber, David A. The Making of an American Pluralism: Buffalo, New York, 1825-1860. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Gibson, Florence. Attitudes of the New York Irish Towards State and National Affairs, 1848- 1982. New York: Arno Press, 1851.

Gilje, Paul. Road to Mobocracy: Popular Disorder in New York City, 1763-1834. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

Gleeson, David T. The Green and the Gray: The Irish in the Confederate States of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013.

Gottfried, Bradley M. Stopping Pickett: The History of the Philadelphia Brigade. Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Maine Publishing Company, 1999.

Griffin, Patrick. The People with No Name: Ireland’s Ulster Scots, America’s Scots Irish, and the Creation of the British Atlantic World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

250

Griffith, Paddy. Battle Tactics of the Civil War. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989.

Grimsley, Mark. Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy toward Southern Civilians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Grinker, Roy R., and Spiegel, John P. Men Under Stress. Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1945.

Handlin, Oscar. Boston’s Immigrants, 1790-1865. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941.

Hernon, Joseph M. Celts, Catholics, and Copperheads: Ireland Views the American Civil War. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1968)

Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983.

Hillard, G. S. Life and Campaigns of George B. McClellan, Major-General, U.S. Army. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1864.

Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Jamieson, Perry D and McWhiney, Grady. Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1982.

Jones, Maldwyn Allen. American Immigration, Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Jones, Paul. The Irish Brigade. Washington-New York: Robert B. Luce, Inc., 1969.

Kenny, Kevin. The American Irish: A History. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2000.

Kiberd, Declan. Inventing Ireland: The Literature of the Modern Nation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Knobel, Dale T. America for the Americans: The Nativist Movement in the United States. New York: Twayen Publishers, 1996.

Knobel, Dale T. Paddy and the Republic: Ethnicity and Nationality in Antebellum America. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1986.

Lawson, Melinda. Patriot Fires: Forging a New American Nationalism in the Civil War North. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002.

Lonn, Ella. Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951.

251

———. Desertion during the Civil War. Gloucester, Massachusetts: American Historical Association, 1923.

MacDonagh, Michael. The Life of Daniel O’Connell. London: Cassell and Company, 1902.

Manning, Chandra. What this Cruel War was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J. Textures of Irish America. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992.

———. The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984.

McGreevy, John T. Catholicism and American Freedom: A History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

———. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

McWhiney, Grady. Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988.

Meagher, Timothy J. The Columbia Guide to Irish American History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Miller, Kerby A. Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Murphy, Angela F. American Slavery, Irish Freedom: Abolition, Immigrant Citizenship, and the Transatlantic Movement for Irish Repeal. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010.

Norton, Mary Beth, Sheriff, Carol, Blight, David W., Chudacoff, Howard, and Logevall, Fredrik. A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, Volume 1: to 1877. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008.

Ó Gráda, Cormac. Black ’47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

———. Ireland Before and After the Famine: Explorations in Economic History, 1800-1925. New York: Manchester University Press, 1988.

O’Brien, Sean Michael. Irish Americans in the Confederate Army. Jefferson, North Carolina:

252

McFarland and Company, Inc., 2007.

O’Connor, Thomas H. Civil War Boston: Home Front and Battlefield. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997.

O’Farrell, Patrick. Ireland’s English Question. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

O’Sullivan, Maurice. Twenty Years A-Growing. Nashville: J. S. Sanders & Company, 1998.

Palmer, Stanley H. Police and Protest in England and Ireland, 1780-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Phisterer, Frederick. Editor. New York in the War of Rebellion, Third Edition. Albany: J.B. Lyon Company, 1912.

Priest, John Michael. Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. Shippensburg, Pennsylvania: White Mane Publishing Company, 2002.

Quinn, Peter. Looking for Jimmy: A Search for Irish America. New York: Overlook Press, 2007.

Roediger, David A. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New York: Verso, 1991.

Rolleston, T. W. Celtic Myths and Legends. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1917.

Samito, Christian G. Becoming American Under Fire: Irish Americans, African Americans, and the Politics of Citizenship During the Civil War Era. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Scally, Robert James. The End of Hidden Ireland: Rebellion, Famine, Emigration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Sears, Stephen W. George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon. New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1988.

Sears, Stephen W. Gettysburg. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.

Snay, Mitchel. Fenians, Freedmen, and Southern Whites: Race and Nationality in the Era of Reconstruction. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2007.

Steiner, Paul F. Disease and the Civil War: Natural Biological Warfare in 1861-1865. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1968.

Steward, Patrick and McGovern, Bryan. The Fenians: Irish Rebellion in the North Atlantic World, 1858-1876. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2013.

253

Stivers, Richard. Hair of the Dog: Irish Drinking and Its American Stereotype. New York: Continuum, 1976.

Swan, James B. Chicago’s Irish Legion: The 90th Illinois Volunteers in the Civil War. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009.

Thernstrom, Stephen. The Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis, 1880-1970. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Walkowitz, Daniel J. Worker City, Company Town: Iron and Cotton Worker Protest in Troy and Cohoes, New York, 1855-1884. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1978.

Way, Peter. Common Labour: Workers and the Digging of North American Canals, 1780-1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Wiley, Bell Irvin. The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951.

Williams, William H. A. ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream: The Image of Ireland and the Irish in American Popular Song Lyrics, 1800-1920. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996.

ARTICLES AND ESSAYS

Anbinder, Tyler. “The Origins of Irish and German Immigrants of the Era of the Famine and Revolution, 1846-1854.” Working Paper. College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University.

———. “Which Poor Man’s Fight?” Immigrants and the Federal Conscription Act of 1863.” Civil War History 52 no. 4 (December, 2006): 344-372.

Bartlett, Thomas and Jeffery, Keith. “An Irish Military Tradition?” In A Military History of Ireland. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery, 1-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Barrett, James R. The Irish Way: Becoming American in the Multi-Ethnic City. New York: Penguin Press, 2012.

Brady, Ciaran. “The Captains’ Games: Army and Society in Elizabethan Ireland.” In A Military History of Ireland, edited by Bartlett , Thomas and Jeffery, Keith, 136-159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Clark, Dennis. “Militants of the 1860s: The Philadelphia Fenians.” The Pennsylvania Magazine

254

of History and Biography 95 no 1(January, 1971): 98-108.

Cousens, S. H. “Emigration and Demographic Change in Ireland, 1851-1861.” The Economic History Review 114, no. 2 (1961): 275-288.

Delehanty, Ian. “A History for Which Our Children Will Have Reason to Blush:” Irish Americans and Slavery in the Civil War.” Paper presented at the Legacies of the Civil War Conference, Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania, November 10-12, 2011.

Diner, Hasia R. “The Most Irish City in the Union:” The Era of the Great Migration, 1844- 1877.” In The New York Irish, edited by Bayor, Ronald H. and Meagher, Timothy J., 87- 105. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Doyle, David N. “Scots Irish or Scotch-Irish.” In Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States, edited by J. J. Lee and Marion R. Casey, 151- 170. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

———. “The Remaking of Irish America, 1845-1880.” In Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States, edited by Lee, J.J. and Casey, Marion R, 213-252. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Feehan, John. “The Potato: Root of the Famine.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 28-37. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

Faust, Drew. “The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying.” The Journal of Southern History 67, no 1 (February 2001): 3-38.

Ferrie, Joseph P. “A New View of the Irish in America: Economic Performance and the Impact of Place of Origin, 1850-1920.” Department of Economics and Institute for Policy Research: Northwestern University and NBER, September, 1997.

Fogel, Robert W., Engeran, Stanley L., Floud, Roderick, Friedan, Gerald, margo, Robert A., Sokoloff, Kenneth, Steckel, Richard H., Russell, James T., Villaflor, Georgia, and Watcher, Kenneth. “Secular Changes in American and British Stature and Nutrition.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14, no. 2 (Autumn, 1983), 445-481.

Gahan, Daniel. “From Kilmuckridge to the White River Valley: Irish Catholic Settlement in Daviess County, 1821-1850.” In The Wexford Man: Essays in Honour of Nicky Furlong, edited by Bernard Brown, 89-134. Dublin: Geographical Publications, 2007.

Gallagher, Gary W. “Blueprint for Victory: Northern Strategy and Military Policy.” In Writing the Civil War: The Quest to Understand. Edited by James M. McPherson and William J. Cooper, Jr., 8-35. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.

Gallman, J. Matthew. “Voluntarism in Wartime: Philadelphia’s Grand Central Fair.” In Toward

255

a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays, edited by Maris A. Vinovskis, 93-116. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Garvin, Tom. “Ribbonmen and Others: Underground Political Networks in Pre-Famine Ireland.” Past & Present 96 (August, 1982): 133-155.

Hacker, J. David. “Economic, Demographic, and Anthropometric Correlates of First Marriage in Mid-Nineteenth-Century United States.” Social Science History 32, no 3 (Fall 2008): 307-345.

Hayes-McCoy, G. A. “The Colonization of Ulster and the Rebellion of 1641: 1603-60.” In The Course of Irish History, 139-151. Edited by T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, and Dermot Keogh. Lantham, Maryland: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1967.

Jordan, Thomas E. “Sons of St. Patrick: Quality of Life and Heights of Young Irish Males at Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Social Indicators Research 102 (2011), 389-340.

Kaplan, Michael. “New York City Tavern Violence and the Creation of a Working-Class Male Identity.” Journal of the Early Republic 15 no 4 (Winter, 1995): 591-617.

Kautz, Craig Lee. “Fodder for Cannon: Immigrant Perceptions of the Civil War – the Old Northwest.” PhD diss., University of Nebraska, 1976.

Kelleher, Patricia. “Class and Catholic Irish Masculinity in Antebellum America: Young Men on the Make in Chicago.” Journal of American Ethnic History (Summer, 2009): 7-42.

Keller, Christian B. “Flying Dutchmen and Drunken Irishmen: The Myths and Realities of Ethnic Civil War Soldiers.” The Journal of Military History 73 no. 1 (January, 2009): 117-145.

Kraut, Alan M. “Illness and Medical Care among Irish Immigrants in Antebellum New York.” In The New York Irish, edited by Bayor, Ronald H. and Meagher, Timothy J., 135-168. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Kurtz, William B. “Let us Hear No More Nativism’”: The Catholic Press in the Mexican and Civil Wars.” Civil War History 60, no. 1 (March 2014): 6-31.

———. “Missed Opportunity: The Legacy of the American Civil War for Northern Roman Catholics.” Paper presented at the Legacies of the Civil War Conference, Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania, November 10-12, 2011.

Levine, Peter. “Draft Evasion in the North during the Civil War, 1863-1865.” The Journal of American History 67 (March, 1981): 816-834.

Luskey, Brian P. “Jumping Counters in White Collars: Manliness, Respectability, and Work in the Antebellum City.” Journal of the Early Republic 26 no. 2 (Summer, 2006): 173-219.

256

Lynch, Timothy G. “Erin’s Hope: The Fenian Brotherhood of New York City, 1858-1886.” PhD diss., City University of New York, 2004.

McCaffrey, Lawrence J., Skerrett, Ellen, Funchion, Michael F., and Fanning, Charles, eds. The Irish in Chicago. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

McDannell, Colleen. “True Men as we Need them.”: Catholicism and the Irish-American Male.” American Studies 27 no. 2 (Fall, 1986): 19-36.

Meagher, Timothy J. “The Fireman on the Stairs: Communal Loyalties in the Making of Irish America.” In Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States, edited by J.J. Lee and Marion R. Casey, 609-648. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Miller, David W. “Irish Catholicism and the Great Famine.” Journal of Social History 9, no 1 (Autumn, 1975): 81-98.

———“Non-Professional Soldiery, c. 1600-1800.” In A Military History of Ireland, 315-334. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Miller, Kerby. “Ulster Presbyterians and the ‘Two Traditions’ in Ireland and America.” In Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the Irish in the United States, edited by J. J. Lee and Marion R. Casey, 255-270. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

———. “’Revenge for Skibbereen’: Irish Emigration and the Meaning of the Great Famine.” In The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America. Edited by Arthur Gribben. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

———. “Scotch-Irish, Black-Irish, and Real-Irish: Emigrants and Identities in the Old South.” In The Irish Diaspora, edited by Andy Bielenberg, 139-157. London: Longman, 2000.

Miller, Randall M. “Catholic Religion, Irish Ethnicity, and the Civil War.” In Religion and the American Civil War, edited by Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagan Wilson, 261-283. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Mitchell, Reid. “Not the General but the Soldier”: The Study of Civil War Soldiers.” In Writing the Civil War: The Quest to Understand. Edited by James M. McPherson and William J. Cooper, Jr., 81-95. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.

———. “The Northern Soldier and His Community.” In Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays. Edited by Maris A. Vinovskis., 78-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

257

Moloney, Mick. “Irish-American Popular Music.” In Making the Irish American: History and Heritage of the United States. Edited by Lee, J. J., and Casey, Marion R. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Morris, Stephanie A. “From Northwest Ireland to America: Tracing Migrants from their Place of Origin to their New Home in Philadelphia.” PhD diss., Temple University, 1988.

Murtagh, Harman. “Irish Soldiers Abroad, 1600-1800.” In A Military History of Ireland, 294- 314. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Ó Gráda, Cormac. “The Heights of Clonmel Prisoners, 1845-9: Some Dietary Implications.” UCD Center for Economic Research Working Paper Series. University College Dublin, School of Economics.

Ó hAllmhuráin, Geróid. “The Great Famine: A Catalyst in Irish Traditional Music Making.” In The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America. edited by Arthur Gribben (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Ohlmeyer, Jane H. “The Wars of Religion, 1603-1660.” In A Military History of Ireland. Edited by Bartlett , Thomas and Jeffery, Keith, 160-187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Oxley, Deborah. “Living Standards of Women in Prefamine Ireland.” Social Science History 28 no. 2 (Summer, 2004): 271-295.

Powers, Vincent Edward. “Invisible Immigrants: The Pre-Famine Irish Community in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1826 to 1860.” PhD diss., Clark University, 1976.

Rafferty, Oliver. “Fenianism in North America in the 1860s.” History 84 no. 247 (April, 1999): 257-277.

Rodgers, Thomas E. “Billy Yank and G. I. Joe: An Exploratory Essay on the Sociopolitical Dimensions of Soldier Motivation.” The Journal of Military History 69 no. 1 (January, 2005): 93-121.

Shaffer, Donald R. After the Glory: The Struggles of Black Civil War Veterans. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2004.

Shaw, Douglas Vincent. “The Making of an Immigrant City: Ethnic and Cultural Conflict in Jersey City, New Jersey, 1870-1877.” PhD diss., University of Rochester, 1973.

Simms, Katherine. “Gaelic Warfare in the Middle Ages.” In A Military History of Ireland. Edited by Thomas Bartlett and Keith Jeffery, 99-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

258

Smith, Michael T. “The Beast Unleashed: Benjamin F. Butler and Conceptions of Masculinity in the Civil War.” New England Quarterly 79 no 2 (June, 2006): 248-276.

Smyth, William J. “’Born Astride of a Grave’: The Geography of the Dead.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “Mapping the People: The Growth and Distribution of the Population.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 13-22. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “The Province of Connacht and the Great Famine.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 281-290. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “The Province of Leinster and the Great Famine.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 325-333. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “The Province of Munster and the Great Famine.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 359-370. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “The Province of Ulster and the Great Famine.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike, 417-425. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

———. “Variations in Vulnerability: Understanding Where and Why People Died.” In Atlas of the Great Irish Famine, edited by Crowley, John, Smyth, William J., and Murphy, Mike. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

Spann, Edward K. “Union Green: The Irish Community and the Civil War.” In The New York Irish, edited by Ronald H. Bayor and Timothy J. Meagher, 193-209.

Sterling, Robert E. “Civil War Draft Resistance in the Middle West.” PhD diss., Northern Illinois Univeristy, 1974.

Tilly, Charles. “Transplanted Networks.” In Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, 79-93. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Truslow, Marion Archer. “Peasants into Patriots: The New York Irish Brigade Recruits and their Families in the Civil War Era, 1850-1890.” PhD diss., New York University, 1994.

Vinovskis, Maris A. “Have Social Historians Lost the Civil War? Some Preliminary

259

Demogrpahic Speculations.” In Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays, edited by Maris A. Vinovskis, 1-30. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Ward, David. “Population Growth, Migration, and Urbanization, 1860-1920.” In Historical Geography of a Changing Continent, edited by Thomas F. McIlwraith and Edward K. Muller, 285-306. Lantham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2001.

Warren, Craig A. “Oh, God, What a Pity!”: The Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg and the Creation of a Myth.” Civil War History 47 no. 3 (September, 2001): 193-221.

Whalen, Kevin. “The Green Atlantic in the Eighteenth Century.” In A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in Britain and Europe, 1660-1840, edited by Kathleen Wilson, 216-236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

260