Note: The Rootsweb Mailing Lists will be shut down on April 6, 2023. (More info)
RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Home

Results for list 'wvhardy'

Total: 4/4
    1. Re: Union Enlistments

    3. In a message dated 3/28/2000 8:17:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: << I see that the reports states that these were Enlistments. Are we sure that these were voluntary enlistments rather than conscriptions ? The Federal Draft had been in effect for some time. >> Enlistments refer to the ENLISTED personnel. Not officers. Those are commissioned. Diane

    03/28/2000 03:19:53
    1. RE: Union Enlistments
    2. mark see

    3. Yes, but my distinction is that an "enlistment" suggest that someone volunteered as opposed to "conscription" which is not necessarily voluntary. I guess I am wondering where these men's hearts were in 1864. Thanks, Mark -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Union Enlistments In a message dated 3/28/2000 8:17:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: << I see that the reports states that these were Enlistments. Are we sure that these were voluntary enlistments rather than conscriptions ? The Federal Draft had been in effect for some time. >> Enlistments refer to the ENLISTED personnel. Not officers. Those are commissioned. Diane

    03/28/2000 02:27:45
    1. Re: Union Enlistments
    2. Roland Elliott

    3. Not only were they conscripted,but the wealthy could buy their replacement or threaten families to supply replacements for the wealthy conscript.Many people up until and including the First War,were sent as representatives for others that had more $ or clout.R ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark see" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 7 27 AM Subject: RE: Union Enlistments > Yes, but my distinction is that an "enlistment" suggest that someone > volunteered as opposed to "conscription" which is not necessarily voluntary. > > I guess I am wondering where these men's hearts were in 1864. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Union Enlistments > > > In a message dated 3/28/2000 8:17:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > << I see that the reports states that these were Enlistments. > Are we sure that these were voluntary enlistments rather than conscriptions > ? > The Federal Draft had been in effect for some time. >> > Enlistments refer to the ENLISTED personnel. Not officers. Those are > commissioned. > > Diane > >

    03/28/2000 12:33:18
    1. Re: Union Enlistments
    2. Veerle Foreman

    3. Record stated "DATE OF ENLISTMENTS" I have no idea if they were volunteers or draftees or both. I was always told my ggrandfather, Benjamin F. Evanns "enlisted" at age 16. In December 1861, were they fradting 16 year olds? Mike [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 3/28/2000 8:17:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > << I see that the reports states that these were Enlistments. > Are we sure that these were voluntary enlistments rather than conscriptions > ? > The Federal Draft had been in effect for some time. >> > Enlistments refer to the ENLISTED personnel. Not officers. Those are > commissioned. > > Diane

    03/28/2000 03:58:33