America’s Civil War: Why the Irish Fought for the Union

 | Civil War Times  | one comment  |  Print This Post  |  Email This Post

Many of the Irish leaders who raised regiments — such as Meagher, Corcoran and James Mulligan, who organized the Irish 23rd Illinois in Chicago — were members of the Fenian Brotherhood. The Fenians, a not-so-secret organization active in both the United States and Ireland, aimed to overthrow British control and establish an Irish republic. As far as Corcoran and many others were concerned, a major purpose of the Irish participation in the war was the acquisition of military skills and experience. When the war was over, Corcoran told a crowd in Philadelphia in 1862, ‘there will be thousands of Ireland’s noblest sons left to redeem their native land from the oppression of old England.’ Irish service in the war would also, the Fenian general insisted, leave the nation indebted to the Irish and allow for ‘the kind of politics we want.’

How much Fenianism spurred Irish enlistments is unknown, though it had its appeal to many. But in the end, for most enlistees the strongest motive dealt more with the needs of the Irish in America. In the words of soldier, journalist and Union propagandist Charles Halpine, the Irish recruit was motivated by ‘the thought that he was earning a title which no foul tongue or niggardly heart would dare to dispute, the full equality and fraternity of an American citizen.’

Despite the large numbers of enlistees flocking to the Irish regiments in 1861 and 1862, initially aided by high unemployment caused by the secession crisis, many Irish held back, concerned by what they saw as the rising influence of abolitionism in the Republican Party. Indeed, despite the wartime and historical fame of the Irish units, Irish Catholics, in relation to their percentage of the general population, were the most underrepresented of the various ethnic groups in the Federal armies. Those who did support the conflict were generally War Democrats committed to destroying the rebellion, but equally determined not to meddle with the ‘peculiar institution.’ The growing drumbeat calling for the liberation of the slaves was perceived as a threat to the tenuous economic and social status the Irish had struggled for in American society. The evolving situation caused many Irishmen to view their effort in the war with a sense of contingency. Corcoran, for example, publicly proclaimed that he supported the Lincoln administration ‘for the time being,’ implying that Irish support for the war was dependent on whether Irish interests were protected by the administration.

Unsurprisingly, relations between Yankee officers, especially New England abolitionists, and the Irish were often strained. John R. Winterbottom, a native officer, put aside his misgivings and sought a commission in the 155th New York, Corcoran’s Legion, as a means of securing officer’s rank. While serving on Corcoran’s staff, he privately disparaged the Irish enlisted men as ‘childlike, drunken and poorly educated.’ Some were even harsher. Robert Gould Shaw, who later led the black 54th Massachusetts, harbored a typical nativist disdain for the Irish that he made little attempt to conceal and which intensified as he made contact with Irish soldiers. He consistently distinguished the Irish from ‘American’ troops. In 1861 he wrote home that the ‘Irishmen seem sometimes utterly unable to learn or understand anything.’ Commenting favorably on the appearance of the 13th Massachusetts near Winchester, Va., in March 1862, Shaw decided that ‘with the Irish left out, the other New England regiments are of as good material as the thirteenth.’ When he began training his black troops in 1863, he contrasted them favorably to the Irish. Blacks, he wrote, ‘learn all the details of guard duty and camp service infinitely more readily than the Irish I have had under my command.’

That remark may have been a reflection of his own prejudices. On the other hand, it may have been true. More than a few commanders, including several Irish-born officers, described the process of instilling discipline and order in many of the Irish regiments as tough going. Irish-born Colonel Patrick Guiney, who took over the 9th Massachusetts after Malvern Hill in June 1862, was criticized for his tough discipline. ‘I made up my mind long ago,’ Guiney countered, ‘that Irish soldiers cannot be governed by a military dove with the rank of colonel. They need to be handled as severely as justice will permit when they do wrong.’

The blacks in the 54th Massachusetts knew they had something to prove, and adhered to strict discipline and military bearing. Irish troops were less inclined to behave well for superiors — particularly upper class, Anglo-Saxon officers. Additionally, Fenianism — or opposition to it — and the urban politics that were a major element of their civilian life often promoted discord in Irish units. Most Irish recruits came from large cities, where many had been gang members or members of the rivalry-ridden volunteer fire companies — the two often interchangeable. This experience led to a skeptical, sometimes combative attitude toward any authority but their own. This was especially true when the authorities involved were Yankee Brahmins whose anti-Irish attitudes were well attested and frequently on display, a factor that never occurred to officers like Shaw.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to

Tags: 19th Century, American Civil War, Civil War Times, Historical Conflicts

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.