WI: A pension for Confederate veterans

[LHB]

One of the biggest outlays of money at the federal level during the post-Civil War era were the somewhat generous lifetime pensions extended to Union veterans. At the same time Confederate veterans were extended no such offer and in many cases would go on to join groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Red Shirts, and other violent paramilitaries who were critical in effectively ending and overturning Reconstruction. One could argue the poverty and lack of support for Confederate veterans, many of whom lost farms and livelihoods during the war, was a major aggravating factor in encouraging them to join such groups.

Historically speaking you see similar waves of violence following large-scale uncompensated demobilizations of soldiers with examples like the Golden Age of Piracy shortly after the conclusion of Queen Anne's War leaving many privateers without work and military experience, the rise of the Wako pirates in East Asia following the end of an extended period of internal conflict for control of the Shogunate in Japan, and the Freikorps, Blackshirts, and other far-right paramilitaries across Europe following the end of the First World War. One could also argue Confederate veterans depending on the federal government for a critical means of support would discourage participation in such organizations and give them a stake in Reconstruction.

What kind of PoD would make it possible for the Union, following the 1864 election, to extend pension benefits to rank and file Confederate soldiers and low-level officers in exchange for oaths of loyalty? Would this make it possible for Jim Crow to be averted?

 

[Indicus]

One of the biggest outlays of money at the federal level during the post-Civil War era were the somewhat generous lifetime pensions extended to Union veterans. At the same time Confederate veterans were extended no such offer and in many cases would go on to join groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Red Shirts, and other violent paramilitaries who were critical in effectively ending and overturning Reconstruction. One could argue the poverty and lack of support for Confederate veterans, many of whom lost farms and livelihoods during the war, was a major aggravating factor in encouraging them to join such groups.

Historically speaking you see similar waves of violence following large-scale uncompensated demobilizations of soldiers with examples like the Golden Age of Piracy shortly after the conclusion of Queen Anne's War leaving many privateers without work and military experience, the rise of the Wako pirates in East Asia following the end of an extended period of internal conflict for control of the Shogunate in Japan, and the Freikorps, Blackshirts, and other far-right paramilitaries across Europe following the end of the First World War. One could also argue Confederate veterans depending on the federal government for a critical means of support would discourage participation in such organizations and give them a stake in Reconstruction.

What kind of PoD would make it possible for the Union, following the 1864 election, to extend pension benefits to rank and file Confederate soldiers and low-level officers in exchange for oaths of loyalty? Would this make it possible for Jim Crow to be averted?

Not many Northerners (even many northern Democrats) wanted to give money to honest-to-god traitors who rebelled against the United States.

 

[Ciryatur]

Would it avert Jim Crow? Probably not, there were similar laws in the North prior to the war. Would it take some of the wind out of organizations like the Klan? I can definitely see it. It could also be used to hasten the return of loyalty of the South and serve to boosts its economy.

 

[Mackus]

Well, tsar supposedly paid pensions of Polish officers, after he squashed their rebellion in 1831.

 

[jahenders]

I can't see this as likely as they were considered traitors.

The only possibilities I can see are:
1) The Union offers low level CSA troops (junior officer and below) the opportunity to change sides. Surrender with guarantees of service and they'll be fed. They'll receive a pension somewhat pro-rated based on service. If they got the word out to CSA troops, it might change some desertions to defections. It'd be worth some money to have 5-10K less rebels to fight.
a) It's possible that, instead of a pension, the US might offer a surrender bounty for a period of time with similar logic -- less rebels to fight

2) Make it a condition for CSA to rejoin the Union that THEY pay their soldiers a pension and that it be contingent on "good behavior."

One of the biggest outlays of money at the federal level during the post-Civil War era were the somewhat generous lifetime pensions extended to Union veterans. At the same time Confederate veterans were extended no such offer and in many cases would go on to join groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Red Shirts, and other violent paramilitaries who were critical in effectively ending and overturning Reconstruction. One could argue the poverty and lack of support for Confederate veterans, many of whom lost farms and livelihoods during the war, was a major aggravating factor in encouraging them to join such groups.

Historically speaking you see similar waves of violence following large-scale uncompensated demobilizations of soldiers with examples like the Golden Age of Piracy shortly after the conclusion of Queen Anne's War leaving many privateers without work and military experience, the rise of the Wako pirates in East Asia following the end of an extended period of internal conflict for control of the Shogunate in Japan, and the Freikorps, Blackshirts, and other far-right paramilitaries across Europe following the end of the First World War. One could also argue Confederate veterans depending on the federal government for a critical means of support would discourage participation in such organizations and give them a stake in Reconstruction.

What kind of PoD would make it possible for the Union, following the 1864 election, to extend pension benefits to rank and file Confederate soldiers and low-level officers in exchange for oaths of loyalty? Would this make it possible for Jim Crow to be averted?

 

[606jae]

I think this happened otl for the ones still alive at some point in the 20th century when they confederate soliders were officially declared us veterans.

 

[galveston bay]

many states paid pensions... the Texas State library has a way for you to search by them by name

it states over 54,000 applications were made in Texas

I recall reading once that the biggest outlay for the State of Mississippi at one point after the Civil War was for artificial limbs for disabled Confederate veterans (which is a big sobering when you think about it)

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/pensions/

 

[Anaxagoras]

I think this happened otl for the ones still alive at some point in the 20th century when they confederate soliders were officially declared us veterans.

IIRC, there were just two Confederate veterans still alive when that law went into effect. Of course, it impacted the spouses and children of the veterans. I think there are still a very few children of Confederate veterans, now extremely elderly, who are receiving federal pensions due to their father's service.

 

[BELFAST]

It seems that confederates did get pensions and medical help, just not from the feds.
Confederate veterans did get prosthetic limbs from state governments.

North Carolina responded quickly to the needs of her citizens and became the first of the former Confederate states to offer artificial limbs to amputees. The General Assembly passed a Resolution in February 1866 to provide artificial legs to amputees. (Because artificial arms were not considered to be very functional, it was another year before the state offered artificial arms.) The state contracted with Jewett’s Patent Leg Company, and a temporary factory was set up in Raleigh. During the five years that the state operated the artificial limbs program, 1,550 Confederate veterans contacted the state for help.
https://nccultureblogger.wordpress.com/tag/artificial-limbs/

North Carolina, Confederate Soldiers and Widows Pension Applications, 1885-1953
Description
Pensions were provided for Confederate veterans who were residents of North Carolina and who had lost a leg, eye, or arm, or who were incapacitated for manual labor while in the service of the Confederate States during the Civil War. Widows of soldiers who were killed in service were entitled to the same benefits as long as they did not remarry. Any person, however, who owned property with a tax value of $500.00 or received a salary of $300.00 per year from the nation, state, or county was not eligible. The law was amended to include widows of soldiers who had died of disease while in service. In 1901, a new pension law was passed, in which, “Every person who has been for twelve months immediately preceding his or her application for pension bona fide resident of the State, and who is incapacitated for manual labor and was a soldier or a sailor in the service of the State of North Carolina or of the Confederate States of America, during the war between the States (provided, said widow was married to said soldier or sailor before the first day of April, 1865)" was entitled to a pension. No person holding a national, state, or county office for which he received $300.00 annually, no person with property valued at $500.00 or more, or no person receiving aid under laws for relief of totally blind and maimed was eligible (inmates of the Soldiers' Home, recipients of pensions from other states, and deserters were excluded from benefits under the pension acts, although inmates of the Soldiers' Home were granted quarterly allowances of $1.50 in 1909 -- increased to $3.00 quarterly in 1913).
https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1911763

Confederate Pension Records
Updated December 3, 2012

The agencies listed below are repositories for Confederate pension records. The veteran was eligible to apply for a pension to the State in which he lived, even if he served in a unit from a different State. Generally, an applicant was eligible for a pension only if he was indigent or disabled.
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/confederate/pension.html

 

[sloreck]

In the post Civil War period one of the largest expenditures of the federal government was pensions of various sorts to veterans. This included the provision of artificial limbs with replacements as needed on a scheduled basis. As noted, the former CSA states provided for artificial limbs and other benefits to disabled veterans out of their state budgets, and it could be a lot. In the wake of the war, with large pensions paid to Union veterans and also the expenses of providing medical and other care to freed slaves, adding benefits for Confederate veterans would have meant a strain on the budget requiring more taxation. This was simply politically impossible.

The attraction of former Confederates to the KKK, white camellia, and similar organizations was motivated by reasons other than the lack of a pension for sick/wounded veterans. None of these organizations were about providing financial support to distressed veterans to any meaningful extent. They were about resisting reconstruction and keeping the black population in their place, and getting rid of carpetbaggers. Had the USA provided benefits on anything less than an equal basis with Union veterans, it would have been seen as insulting, and in any case it wasn't going to happen. Even with equal benefits I doubt the history of the south and race relations would be different to any noticeable degree.

 

[gochisox]

I cant see it happening early on, there was too much anger for it to work until much later, when a lot of the feelings had been deadened by time. By 1900's I could see one, but not much earlier then that

 

[Brasidas]

Earlier, bloodier conflict with Spain, possibly involving a significant number of Confederate veterans, resulting in a populous more jingo and more willing to spend money on veterans?

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, the US did just this...

The only possibilities I can see are:
1) The Union offers low level CSA troops (junior officer and below) the opportunity to change sides. Surrender with guarantees of service and they'll be fed. They'll receive a pension somewhat pro-rated based on service. If they got the word out to CSA troops, it might change some desertions to defections. It'd be worth some money to have 5-10K less rebels to fight. - a) It's possible that, instead of a pension, the US might offer a surrender bounty for a period of time with similar logic -- less rebels to fight

Actually, the US did just this... historically, some six regiments of United States Volunteers were organized under federal authority (5,500-6,000 men total, including "northern" officers) from ex-Confederate POWs after 1863, and served - largely - on the Great Plains west of the Mississippi, in the field against various "Indian" groups and as security troops and the like, in 1864-66.

In addition, many southern-born men - total numbers are estimates, of course - including more former POWs are among the 100,000 southern white men that RN Current estimated served in the US forces between 1861-65. See Lincoln's Loyalists:

https://books.google.com/books?id=RIbFlZS5V6oC&pg=PA111&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Silver bullets have a long history in the US, especially in the "Indian wars"; "Indian Scouts" of various tribes, including the Pawnee and Omaha during the Civil War, were widely recruited...

In BROS, I have this individual Colonel Edward Gantt, former commanding officer of the rebel 12th Arkansas, raising some "galvanized yankees" in the North in 1862 as part of the call for a "second" 500,000 long-service volunteers (historical 300,000 + as many USCVs/USCTs, IRGs/USITs, CVs, and USVs are justifiable, based on the historical enlistment numbers in northern territory as of 1863 and afterward)... Gantt, for example, was mentioned in Chapter 13 of BROS; here he is in the NYT's Disunion feature:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...-rebel-addresses-new-york-abolitionists/?_r=0

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

There is really no upside to this politically. Why would the US government give pensions to traitors? To encourage more treason?

 

[BELFAST]

There is really no upside to this politically. Why would the US government give pensions to traitors? To encourage more treason?

You are right.
It would be like the British giving pensions to the American traitors who rebelled against the British empire in 1776 or the Irish traitors in 1798 who rebelled against the British empire.etc.

 

[Anaxagoras]

There is really no upside to this politically. Why would the US government give pensions to traitors? To encourage more treason?

A priority of domestic policy for the federal government for decades after Reconstruction was to reconcile the peoples of the North and South.

 

[Saphroneth]

Perhaps part of the question here is - were the majority of the Southern population who served in the military actually actively involved in the rebellion itself for reasons that they agreed with, or had they been misled into believing it was in their best interests by a relatively small number of individuals in the upper ranks of the Confederacy?

If the former, then that line of argument suggests that no pension should be granted -but it also suggests a degree of popular support for the secession for its own sake which might - if followed - suggest that the Northern armies were indeed occupying a group which did not want to be part of the United States.

If the latter, then reconciliation is the goal - demonstrate that the group who promulgated falsehood is the object of condemnation, not the people taken in by it. That might provide a useful framing in which the granting of a pension would be seen as a gesture of reconcilation and a demonstration that the Federal government does not blame those who were misled into taking up arms against it. It also derails the occupying army narrative... and it could be finessed with some kind of sunset clause on an amnesty. One stating that further action against the Federal government would lead to suspension or cessation of that individual's pension, perhaps?

It's a complicated question, since "is this right" and "is this a good idea" are all mixed up together.

 

[Johnrankins]

A priority of domestic policy for the federal government for decades after Reconstruction was to reconcile the peoples of the North and South.

True, but not in a way to encourage another rebellion or that would cost a lot of money. "Rebel against the lawfully elected government of the US and get a pension" is not a policy I would want to sell.

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

A priority of domestic policy for the federal government for decades after Reconstruction was to reconcile the peoples of the North and South.

At the total expense of the Black populations in the south many of whom had to wait another 90 years before any sort of equality.

In fact it could be argued blacks in the south in the 1870's had more political rights than they did in the 1950's.

 

[Anaxagoras]

True, but not in a way to encourage another rebellion or that would cost a lot of money. "Rebel against the lawfully elected government of the US and get a pension" is not a policy I would want to sell.

I don't see how it would encourage another rebellion, since they would obviously lose the pensions if they rebelled again. As for a political upside, once Reconstruction was over, the South had plenty of electoral votes and congressional seats to play a crucial role of support for any government, didn't it? What better way to get that support than dangle the possibility of a pension before the voters?