The Civil War Conscientious Objector: A Study of Conflict in Religious Belief and Republican Civic Virtue in Montgomery County

THE CIVIL WAR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR A STUDY OF CONFLICT IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND REPUBLICAN CIVIC VIRTUE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY Douglas L. Royer * “ W ould you stand by and see your wife or children murdered and not save them if you could do so by a resort to arms? If you saw a dog have your only child by the throat shaking its life out and you could save it by shooting the dog would you do it?”1 These are a few of the questions asked of conscientious objectors in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, during the Civil War Militia Draft of 1862. The draft commissioner, James Boyd, did not simply accept a man’s affirmation of his scruples against bearing arms, but he questioned each applicant to determine the extent of his convictions. Contrary to the implementation of the draft in the neighboring counties of Chester, Philadelphia, and Bucks, Boyd initially refused to grant exemptions to anyone in Montgomery County who claimed conscientious scruples without another person’s testimony under oath.2 Since many of the county’s residents were members of the various “peace churches” of Pennsylvania, however, they were unable to take such an oath on religious grounds. In several letters written from petitioners in the county to various state officials of Pennsylvania, Boyd was portrayed as insensitive to the beliefs of the religious * Douglas Royer is a teacher at Susquehanna Township High School. This paper was written in 1999 for a history class under Professor David Godshalk at Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Mr Royer wishes to acknowledge several people who aided in this research by identifying and locating difficult sources throughout the duration of this study. Jonathan Stayer, Reference Archivist at the Pennsylvania State Archives, deserves credit for guiding him to the materials on James Boyd housed in the Archives and providing access to his own personal files and expertise on conscientious objectors in the Civil War, saving countless hours of research. Andy Ness, an Archival Intern from Messiah College, provided the inspiration for this study. The staff at the Historical Society of Montgomery County provided access to information on the background of James Boyd. Their rare book collection on religious groups was a treasure trove of information on the Society of Friends and the Franconia Chapter Mennonites. Nancy Smith, Librarian at Susquehanna Township High School, did an exemplary job of tracking down the obscure Norristown Herald and Free Press microfilm reels. Finally, Sue O’Brien was kind enough to read and proof several drafts. 1 James Boyd, “Copy of the questions propounded.” These questions were enclosed with the letter to Eli Slifer dated 20 September 1862 (?), General Correspondence, Box 18, Folder 1, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg; and James Boyd, Norristown, to Eli Slifer, Harrisburg, 20 September 1862, General Correspondence, Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 2 Isaac Kulp, Skippackville, Pennsylvania, to Governor Curtin, Harrisburg, 24 September 1862, General Correspondence, Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine Vol. 42 (2001) Final copy 31 January, 2010 5 6 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 COPY OF THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED Would you take up arms to defend your own life or the lives of your wife or children? Would you stand by and see your wife or children murdered and not save them if you could by a resort to arms? Would you stand by and see your father or mother murdered and not save them if you could do so by a resort to arms? Then to some two or three I asked the following in addition: Would you allow your property to be taken from you if you could prevent it by a resort to arms and in so doing not imperil your own life or limb? Then I asked two persons (in addition to the above) who I knew were only trying to get out of this draft: If you saw a dog have your only child by the throat shaking its life out and you could save it by shooting the dog would you do it? They said they would not interfere. But their answer to this alone did not determine my decision. The three questions first stated are the ones and I considered them proper under the words “or otherwise howsoever” in this affidavit. Most of the Commissioners ask no questions although the instructions are otherwise. As a consequence every body gets off that wants to particularly in Bucks Co.4 minority and focused on advancing his own self-interest. One petitioner, alluding to an underlying political motive, refers to him as “a most notorious and violent Breckinridge Democrat.”3 A few others wrote to Governor Andrew Curtin pleading for the removal of Boyd as Draft Commissioner. This set the stage for an interesting confrontation between the religious pacifists and the county draft authorities. The conflict between Commissioner Boyd and the men who claimed exemption from the draft was not caused exclusively by self-interest or political motivations, but was rather the result of different interpretations of the meaning of republicanism and civic duty. The perceived meaning of nineteenth-century republican virtue was not static, and different groups of people practiced their beliefs in accordance with their own interpretation of its meaning. James Boyd’s actions as draft commissioner reflected his experience as a prominent, wealthy attorney, and the views 3 William Clemmer, Norristown, to Andrew Curtin, Harrisburg, 22 September 1862, Office of the Adjutant General, General Correspondence, Box 17, Folder 8, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 4 Transcription of the questions propounded by James Boyd to those appealing for exemption. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 7 of the Protestant majority in society, who stressed the importance of duty to the country in a struggle to restore order to the Union. In contrast, the men who filed for exemption from the draft on grounds of conscientious scruples fought for what they believed were their constitutional rights to exercise religious convictions against bearing arms while still remaining loyal to the Union. How these two groups defined republican ideals affects our understanding of Mr. Boyd’s actions as draft commissioner and the nature of the complaints against him. Ultimately, the outcome of this conflict reveals how the state government implemented its draft to accommodate the needs of religious minorities. While numerous researchers have explored the conscription of men into the Union Army during the American Civil War, few have studied the effect the draft had on the home front. Most researchers have focused on the development and ultimate failure of the Federal Government’s first mandatory drafts in 1863 and 1864.5 Upon investigation, “James G. Randall and David Herbert Donald discovered that the number of draftees and substitutes constituted a mere six percent of the total Union forces.”6 Scholars agree that the Union drafts of 1862—64 were probably designed to increase the number of volunteers rather than actually draft men.7 Other scholars have focused on states’ rights in relation to the Federal Government. Examples include the classic study by Fred Albert Shannon, the William B. Hesseltine book, Lincoln and the War Governors, and Jack Franklin Leach’s Conscription in the United States: Historical Background.8 These studies tend to explore the intricate political conflicts that developed over military issues between Lincoln’s wartime administration and the various Governors. Still others have concentrated on class struggles within the system of conscription, substitution, and 5 Fred Albert Shannon, The Organization and Administration of the Union Army 1861— 1865 (Gloucester: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1928; reprint, Gloucester: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1965), 1:295—323 [hereafter cited as Shannon, Union Army]; James Geary, We Need Men: The Union Draft in the Civil War (DeKalb: North Illinois University Press, 1991) [hereafter cited as Geary, We Need Men]; and Eugene C. Murdock, One Million Men: The Civil War Draft in the North (State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1971; reprint, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1990) [hereafter cited as Murdock, One Million Men]. 6 James G. Randall and David Herbert Donald, The Divided Union (Boston, 1961), 315, as quoted by Arnold M. Shankman, The Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 1861—1865 (Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1980), 145—51 [hereafter cited as Shankman, Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement]. 7 David Osher, “Soldier Citizens for a Disciplined Nation: Union Conscription and the Construction of the Modern American Army” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1992) [hereafter cited as Osher, “Soldier Citizens”]; Geary, We Need Men; and Murdock, One Million Men for background. 8 Shannon, Union Army, Vol. 1; William B. Hesseltine, Lincoln and the War Governors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), 200—347 [hereafter cited as Hesseltine, Lincoln]; and Jack Franklin Leach, Conscription in the United States: Historical Background (Tokyo: Charles B. Tuttle, Co., 1952). Final copy 31 January, 2010 8 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 commutation fees, claiming the Civil War was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”9 Even research devoted to the effects of the draft on the home front often fails to provide a thorough examination into the special case of conscientious objectors. Several works have been published on draft resistance in Illinois and New York, especially the New York City draft riot of 1863.10 There is ongoing, unpublished scholarship at Penn State University into the issue of draft evasion and resistance within central Pennsylvania, a subject previously, yet lightly, examined in scattered sources.11 James Geary’s recent book, We Need Men: The Union Draft in the Civil War, reexamined the overall conscription effort in light of current research.12 He also reviewed the historiography of this subject in his essay “Civil War Conscription in the North: A Historiographical Review.”13 Eugene Murdock, who has investigated the problems resulting from widespread pecuniary inducements for raising troops, has written comprehensive studies on draft evasion, bounties, commutation, and substitutes. His book, One Million Men: The Civil War Draft in the North, examines the problems encountered in the administration of the draft on a national level.14 Unfortunately, even Geary and Murdock omit a direct examination of how local draft implementation might affect conscientious objectors. Studies dealing directly with the issue of conscientious objectors have tended to focus on the Federal Enrollment Acts of 1863 and 1864, while few studies have been conducted specifically on the 1862 efforts by the state governments to draft men into the militia.15 Arnold M. Shankman’s book, The Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement 1861—1865, offers a detailed examination into the conflict between objectors in Pennsylvania and the Federal Government during this period. Unfortunately, Shankman omits a detailed discussion of the 1862 Pennsylvania Militia Draft.16 Only James Lehman, in his article “Conscientious Objectors during the Civil War,”17 9 Examples include James McCague’s study, The Second Rebellion: The Story of the New York City Draft Riots of 1863; Adrian Cook’s Armies in the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863; and Iver Bernstein, 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) [hereafter cited as Bernstein, New York City Draft Riots]. 10 Iver Bernstein, New York City Draft Riots; and “Civil War Draft Resistance in Illinois,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 64(1971): 244—66. 11 Hesseltine, Lincoln, 279—80; and Shankman, Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 145—51. 12 Geary, We Need Men. Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted exclusively to the 1862 Militia Draft. 13 James Geary, “Civil War Conscription in the North: A Historiographical Review,” Civil War History (March 1986): 208—28. 14 Murdock, One Million Men. 15 Shannon, Union Army, 1: 259—92. 16 Shankman, Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 141—61, 222—30. 17 James O. Lehman, “Conscientious Objectors During the Civil War,” in Nonviolent America: History Through the Eyes of Peace, ed. Louise Hawkley and James Juhnke (North New- Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 9 and Thomas Curran, in “Resist Not Evil: The Ideological Roots of Civil War Pacifism,”18 have dealt with how religious minorities viewed the Pennsylvania state draft. While each of these latter studies includes important backgrounds on religious groups, they reveal little in understanding the unique case of Montgomery County’s Draft Commissioner. “Whether it be the counties of Bucks, Montgomery, or Lancaster. . . , the pattern was much the same. Thousands were drafted but few went.”19 While the pattern might be similar, the manner in which the 1862 draft was handled is not. Montgomery County, whose seat of Norristown is a mere 15 miles from Philadelphia, is a unique case to investigate due to the nature of the conflict that developed there between James Boyd and the men who claimed exemption from military duty on the grounds of conscientious scruples. The majority of these men were members of various “peace church” congregations that were historically opposed to war or violence. According to Jonathan Stayer, Reference Archivist at the Pennsylvania State Archives: The role of the objectors is especially important in Pennsylvania because the Commonwealth was both the population center and power center of the “peace” churches at that time. Furthermore, having been founded by Quaker William Penn, the state’s constitutions protected those having conscientious scruples. In this atmosphere, about 3400 men claimed objector status in [the fall of] 1862, and additional draftees sought exemption in subsequent years. 20 Of these 3,400 objectors in Pennsylvania, 196 of them lived in Montgomery County. The only counties with a larger number of objectors were Lancaster with 667, Bucks with 367, Chester with 221, and Philadelphia with 208.21 They were, in varying numbers, members of the Quakers (Society of Friends), the Mennonites (including the Amish) and the Brethren (Church of the Brethren, German Baptist Brethren, Dunkards, and River Brethren). There were also smaller denominations opposed to conflict, including the Schwenkfelders and the Christadelphians.22 ton: Bethel College Press, 1993), 68—81 [hereafter cited as Lehman, “Conscientious Objectors”]. 18 Thomas F. Curran, “Resist Not Evil: The Ideological Roots of Civil War Pacifism,” Civil War History (September 1990), 197—208 [hereafter cited as Curran, “Roots of Civil War Pacifism”]. 19 Osher, “Soldier Citizens,” 76. 20 Stayer, Jonathan R, “Researching Pennsylvania’s Civil War Conscientious Objectors: A Genealogical Perspective,” Bucks County Genealogical Society Newsletter 10(1991): 12 [hereafter cited as Stayer, “A Genealogical Perspective”]. 21 Office of the Adjutant General, “A list of the number of men, by Counties, so far as has been occurred at this Department, who are exempted from military services on the ground of conscientious scruples,” Conscientious Objector Depositions, Folder 1, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 22 Stayer, “A Genealogical Perspective,” 12. Final copy 31 January, 2010 10 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 While the commissioners in the above counties simply recorded the depositions of objectors (thereby exempting them from service on the grounds of conscientious scruples), the commissioner for Montgomery County subjected these men to a rigorous test and initially rejected their claims.23 The appropriate role, or civic duty, of a citizen was perceived differently by the English Quakers, the German denominations, and James Boyd (who reflected the views of the empowered majority groups). Boyd’s refusal to grant exemptions was based on this difference in interpretation. A detailed examination into each group and their interpretation of nineteenth-century republicanism reveals this difference clearly. According to the contemporary historian Sean Wilentz, American republicanism is composed of five elements he refers to as commonwealth, virtue, independence, citizenship, and equality. Five interlocking concepts formed its key elements: first, that the ultimate goal of any society should be the protection of the common good, or commonwealth; second, that in order to maintain this commonwealth, citizens had to exercise virtue, the ability to subordinate private ends to the public good when the two conflicted; third, to be virtuous, citizens had to be independent of the political will of other men; fourth, that to guard against the rise of tyranny, citizens had to exercise their citizenship and be active in political life; fifth, that all citizens were entitled to equality under a representative, democratic system of laws.24 For the conscientious objectors, their religious beliefs played a crucial role in understanding their perspectives on republicanism. Pennsylvania was always a haven for religious groups that faced persecution in Europe. During the latter part of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, immigrants came from England, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland in search of religious freedom.25 Some of the immigrants from England and Ireland were members of the “Society of Friends” (Quakers) while many immigrants from Germany and Switzerland were members of the Mennonites and the Brethren.26 These churches flourished in the New World beside the larger mainstream Christian churches and had not faced any grave challenges to their religious beliefs or tenets until the American Civil War. While there are important differences between the Quakers, the Mennonites, and the Brethren, they all agree in their opposition to warfare and taking legal oaths. The Quakers interpreted republicanism to mean they had an obligation to become active in civic affairs, especially when the government was not 23 James Boyd, “Copy of the questions propounded”; and James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. 24 Sean Wilentz, “Society, Politics, and the Market Revolution, 1815—1848,” in The New American History, ed. Eric Foner (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997), 71. 25 William A. Cornell and Millard Altland, Our Pennsylvania Heritage, 12th ed. (Lansdale, Penn.: Penns Valley Publishers, 1997), 87—103. 26 Stayer, “A Genealogical Perspective,” 12. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 11 acting in accordance with their religious convictions. Unlike most western churches, Quakers lacked a formal, written creed.27 Despite this fact, strong religious beliefs and convictions had evolved. Quakers were opposed to all forms of warfare, capital punishment, legal oaths, intemperance, gambling, membership in secret societies, extravagance, use of legal courts, racial discrimination, salaried ministers, and moral double standards between civic and religious life.28 Members stressed conformity to civil law and respect for civil government, unless that government enacted laws that contradicted their spiritual beliefs. The Quaker interpretation of republican commonwealth and republican virtue was shaped by this belief in eliminating double standards. They paid their taxes and participated in politics by voting for candidates and parties that did not impinge upon their opposition to these double standards in religious and civic life. For example, most Quakers voted for the Republican Party in the election of 1860 because of its stance against the spread of slavery, a morally repugnant institution to the Quakers.29 The abolition of slavery would have eliminated this moral double standard. However, when the government asked the Quakers to pick up arms to accomplish this goal, these Quaker men were faced with the creation of a new double standard. Their frequent meetings throughout the Philadelphia area and the prominence of local Quakers in society reflect the acceptance of Quakers in social and governmental affairs.30 James Boyd’s unwillingness to accept their exemptions was probably viewed by the Quakers as tyrannical. They believed their struggle to maintain their religious freedom was more republican than allowing a moral double standard to exist by submitting to the draft. The groups of German origin, the Mennonites and the Brethren, are similar to the English Quakers in many respects. “Both groups emphasized the need of a personal conversion from sin to God, opposed all warfare and rejected all oaths, had no salaried ministers, and dressed plainly.”31 The core of their beliefs was their biblical nonresistance. The Swiss preacher Conrad Grebel declared that Christians “use neither the worldly sword nor engage in war.” 32 The doctrine means that a Christian 27 William Wistar Comfort, The Quaker Persuasion: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (Philadelphia: Frederick H. Gloeckner, 1956), 42—50 [hereafter cited as Comfort, Quaker Persuasion]. 28 Comfort, Quaker Persuasion, 52—53. 29 Thomas Evans, Philadelphia, to William Meredith, Harrisburg, 16 September 1862, General Correspondence, Box 16, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 30 Comfort, Quaker Persuasion, 55—59; William Dorsey, Philadelphia, to the Governor, Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 13 February 1863, Home File, 87th Session-1, 1863. Box 18, Folder 3, Records of The General Assembly; and Thomas Evans, Philadelphia, to William Meredith, Harrisburg, 16 September 1862. 31 John C. Wenger, History of the Mennonites of the Franconia Conference (Telford, Penn.: Franconia Mennonite Historical Society, 1937), 78 [hereafter cited as Wenger, Mennonites]. 32 As quoted in Wenger, Mennonites, 57. Final copy 31 January, 2010 12 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 may not participate in, or support, war or violence in any form. This does not mean Mennonites are opposed to government. “They believe that the constituted governments are established by God and that it is their duty and privilege to be good citizens and to obey rulers in every point which does not do violence to the conscience.”33 Like Quakers, the Mennonites and Brethren willingly paid their taxes and did not accept a double standard in civic and religious life. Their interpretation of republican commonwealth and virtue was similar to the Quakers. Unlike Quakers, however, the German groups did not widely vote or participate in civic affairs.34 Since the civic government often acted outside their religious beliefs, the German groups interpreted their role as citizens to be one of minimal obedience. They wished to be left alone by the larger, Englishspeaking groups in the county. This distinction is an important one that will be revisited below. Providing support to civil authorities was a critical belief in each of these religions, except when civil law and religious law conflicted. Then the belief against a double standard in civic and religious life asserted itself. Thus, the objectors’ perspective on republican virtue and loyalty to state was characterized by their struggle to maintain their conscientious scruples while avoiding support of the war. This was the critical difference between the religious groups and James Boyd in the interpretation of republicanism. James Boyd was a prominent attorney and citizen of Montgomery County. He served as a Norristown Burgess and as the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association. At various times throughout his life he served as President of the Perkiomen Railroad Company, President of the Stony Creek Railroad Company, Director of the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, and the President of the Plymouth Railroad Company. He was an organizer and owner of the Norristown Insurance and Water Company, and he founded the Norristown Gas Company. He held stock in many of the prominent Philadelphia area corporations and held valuable property throughout the county. “He was generally regarded as one of the wealthiest men in Norristown.”35 Politically, Boyd aligned himself first with the Whigs and later with the Democrats. While a prominent citizen in his community, Boyd never ran for state or federal office. Despite this apparent lack of interest in politics, he was well acquainted with Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and other notable contemporaries and was even conferred the honorary title “Colonel” by the Governor of Pennsylvania. In 1873, he was elected a member of the constitu33 Wenger, Mennonites, 57. 34 Wenger, Mennonites, 57, 80—84; and “The Dunkards,” article clipped from the Phoenixville Republican, found in Scrapbook D-7, 80, Historical Society of Montgomery County, Norristown. 35 Ellwood Roberts, ed., “Col. James Boyd,” Biographical Annals of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 1: 3 [hereafter cited as Roberts, “Col. James Boyd”]. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 13 tional convention of Pennsylvania on the Democratic ticket and took a prominent part in its proceedings and deliberations. Observers spoke of James Boyd at a banquet held in his honor in 1902 describing him as “independent in his bearing, his humor and sarcasm are powerful weapons against his adversaries in legal contests.”36 Boyd held a significant place in Norristown society based on his profession, reputation, and wealth. He was empowered not only by his official position as Draft Commissioner, but also by his natural authority and status within the community. James Boyd interpreted republican virtue differently than the religious objectors because he reflected the Protestant majority view that the war was necessary to abolish slavery and restore order within the Union. There was little conflict in the definition of republican virtue for Boyd; it was the citizen’s duty to subordinate personal interests (even if they were religious) to the common good, or commonwealth. Since Boyd spent his professional life as an attorney, it is obvious that he was interested in a strict interpretation of the law and the establishment of order. He was fulfilling his requirements as Draft Commissioner to meet his perception of what that duty meant. Boyd developed his perspective on republican virtue within the majority culture of his community in Montgomery County. That majority culture was largely Protestant, of English-Irish descent, and ensconced in traditional obedience to law and order. While there is no direct evidence of James Boyd’s religious affiliation, based on his position in the community, it is likely that he was a Protestant Christian in good standing. Protestant denominations in the North gave overwhelming support to the Federal government during the Civil War. In his essay, Thomas Curran paraphrases Ernest Lee Tulveson, “Protestant Americans believed that God had chosen the United States as the new Israel; those in the North interpreted the conflict as part of the ongoing struggle between Christ and the Antichrist, as foretold in the book of Revelation. The war, preordained by God, would purge the nation of slavery, cleanse both the North and South of the sin of perpetuating such an institution, and bring the United States further along the path.”37 While Boyd understood the religious convictions of the objectors, he also had a duty to fulfill quotas; it was this duty, combined with his view of republican virtue, that shaped his perception of his duty as Draft Commissioner. The appointment of Boyd as Draft Commissioner occurred in the early fall of 1862 in the midst of a national debate over the need for conscription. The United States Senate approved Senate Bill 394 on 17 July 1862. This bill updated the President’s power to call up the state militias to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. It also authorized him to draft 36 Roberts, “Col. James Boyd,” 1: 3. 37 Curran, “Roots of Civil War Pacifism,” 198—99. Final copy 31 January, 2010 14 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.38 Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, issued General Order Number 99 on 9 August detailing Lincoln’s request for 300,000 men by early October.39 The draft would be held by the states to meet preset quotas established by the War Department. The states then issued quotas to each county to meet the state quota. The quota of men established for Montgomery County was 4,147. (This number constituted 33% of the male population of the county.)40 The order also gave detailed instructions on how the draft should be implemented and carried out. A commissioner was to be selected from each county to supervise the enrollment and draft of county residents. James Boyd was selected as the commissioner for Montgomery County, and he was sworn in on 4 September 1862. 41 When the war initially broke out between the North and the South in 1861, the religious groups hoped to maintain their civic loyalties to the government, but with the initiation of the draft, it became more difficult to avoid support of the war. The war became localized when Lincoln issued his call for 300,000 troops in August of 1862. According to James Lehman: Local papers got a surprise when the draft wheels turned. At Doylestown, Pennsylvania, 900 men crowded forward apprehensively to see if their names had been drawn. Many men sought exemption. Some Mennonites came doubly prepared should the draft strike their names. They had gone beforehand to secure exemptions for physical disability as well as certificates that declared exemption for conscientious scruples. Governor Curtin couldn’t wait for the legislature to set a fee for exemption from militia duty. He had ordered the preparation of a certificate for conscientious objectors to sign and have notarized. Many of these certificates are now on file at the Pennsylvania State Archives. The wording was unmistakable. Signing this “deposition” was a declaration that one had conscientious scruples to bear arms, whether it be in selfdefense, or in protecting his country, and that this belief had been formed “carefully, deliberately, and conscientiously,” and that it applied to all war. 42 While many Pennsylvania religious groups were exempted from the draft enrollment via Governor Curtin’s “depositions,” it is clear from the appeals to the Governor and Secretary Slifer that most men who applied in Montgomery County were refused these exemptions. Hearing the 38 United States Senate, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, 17 July 1865, 414; and Norristown Herald and Free Press (19 August 1862); available on microfilm at The Historical Society of Montgomery County, Norristown. 39 New York Times, 12 August 1862, 1; and Norristown Herald and Free Press (12 August 1862), 3. 40 “Commissioners Report of the Draft of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,” RG 19, Box 4, Pennsylvania State Archives. Available on microfilm at Harrisburg; and Norristown Herald and Free Press (12 August 1862), 3. 41 “Regulations for the Enrollment and Draft of the Militia,” Norristown Herald and Free Press (19 August 1862), 3; Roberts, “Col. James Boyd,” 1:1—3; and “Official Document for Oath of Office,” 4 September 1862, Box 2, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 42 Lehman, “Conscientious Objectors,” 75—76. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 15 appeals for exemption from the draft enrollment was one of Boyd’s duties of office, and this is what ultimately led to the conflict between Boyd and the conscientious objectors.43 His instructions relative to exemptions are as follows: The second section of the sixth article of the Constitution of this State provides as follows: “Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. No citizen, otherwise subject to military duty, will be exempted under the foregoing clause of the Constitution, without first being duly sworn or affirmed, and subscribing to the oath, declaring his conscientious scruples against bearing arms. . . . The Commissioner is fully empowered to administer oaths to persons claiming [exemptions] and to examine them under oath; and also to qualify and examine under oath any person claiming exemption upon grounds not otherwise clearly established; the Commissioner may also require additional testimony, where it is within the power of the applicant to furnish it, upon any point touching disability or other claim to exemption.”44 James Boyd’s interpretation of these instructions was based on his experience as an attorney and shaped by his perspective on republican virtue. He was accustomed to defining duty under the law by strict adherence to the letter of the law. The words “duly sworn or affirmed ” clearly indicated to him that each conscientious objector must swear a legal oath. The instructions also indicated that commissioners were “empowered” to examine applicants under oath and require additional testimony if deemed necessary. Boyd carried these instructions out explicitly without regard for the interests of the religious objectors, who clearly could not testify under oath. According to the version printed in the Norristown Herald and Free Press on 19 August 1862, the Commissioner would notify the county by handbills and notice in the newspaper when hearings would be held for those claiming exemption.45 These appeal hearings for exemption were announced in the paper on 9 September for various dates and locations throughout September. Those claiming exemption were required to attend these hearings, overseen by Commissioner Boyd.46 The issue of conscientious scruples caused anxiety for many in the county. An article in the Norristown Herald and Free Press reprints an article from the Lancaster Examiner on the same day the hearings were announced. It appears right next to the hearing announcements and is addressed to those members of the “Quakers, Dunkards, and the Mennonites” who resided in Montgomery County to “show that the apprehensions which have been excited are not well founded.” The article contin43 “Instructions to Commissioners,” Box 14B, Folder 4A, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 44 “Instructions to Commissioners.” Italics are quoted as they originally appear in the printed instructions. 45 Norristown Herald and Free Press, 19 August 1862, 3. 46 Norristown Herald and Free Press, 9 September 1862, 3. Final copy 31 January, 2010 16 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 ued to explain to these men the responsibilities of the enrolling officers and the Commissioner of the Draft, “All who are exempt from the performance of military duty under the laws will have no trouble in having their names stricken from the rolls thus made out. . . . Another officer called a ‘commissioner’ passes upon those who are and are not to remain upon the rolls from which the draft is to be made.” The article clearly stated that all able-bodied men were to be enrolled despite scruples against bearing arms. It would be the Commissioner alone that decided who was exempt.47 All of the religious objectors were united in their belief against taking legal oaths, but the English and German groups would not be viewed equally by Boyd. According to the Quaker argument, “Legal Oaths tacitly imply the existence of a double standard, whereas the truth under all circumstances is the only rule for the Quaker in giving evidence.”48 The churches did not consider Governor Curtin’s affirmation (or deposition) a legal oath since applicants were not placed under oath when signing the document. However, James Boyd insisted on having someone bear witness to the affirmation and testify to the applicant’s conscientious scruples. Quakers were expressly unable to take such an oath according to their testimony, as previously illustrated. The Mennonites, according to Mr. Boyd, held a meeting and resolved not to even attend the appeal hearings. He continued, “They are very numerous and are very strict– never vote–and are more intense than the Quakers.”49 Based on this letter, it appears Boyd accepted the Mennonite position while questioning the validity of Quaker claims to conscientious scruples against bearing arms. Boyd accepted the German groups because they did not interact in civic affairs. He deemed their religious observance as more “strict.” There was little contact between Boyd and these men; however, the Quaker men who claimed conscientious scruples were men with whom he had frequent contact from the Norristown area. The German churches interacted differently with the majority groups in the county than did the Quakers, which suggests a cultural foundation for this discrimination between groups. Based on an analysis of surnames in the Conscientious Objector Depositions housed at the Pennsylvania State Archives, objectors with German surnames were largely settled in the northwestern townships of Montgomery County, which even today are still largely Mennonite.50 While the Quakers were settled in the urban 47 Norristown Herald and Free Press, 9 September 1862, 3; and W. E. Barber, West Chester, to enrolling officers, West Chester, 23 August 1862, General Correspondence, Box 15, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 48 Comfort, Quaker Persuasion, 52. 49 James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. 50 “Conscientious Objector Depositions,” Records of the Department of Military Affairs, Subgroup: Records of the Office of the Adjutant General., Folder 1, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 17 areas in the southeast of the county and frequently engaged in political elections and civic affairs, the Mennonites were mainly rural farmers who spoke German dialects. The German-speaking groups were viewed differently by the majority groups in the county since they rarely engaged in civic affairs beyond paying taxes. According to Mennonite historian John Wenger, there was no pressure placed on the Mennonites to serve in the military during the American Civil War. Boyd apparently did not expose the Mennonites to the same questions the Quakers faced.51 James Boyd himself claims in his letter to Eli Slifer, Secretary of the Commonwealth, that only 36 men appealed for exemption and that none of them were members of the “German” churches who refused to take the oath since it violated their religious beliefs. This discrimination, and possible prejudice, between English-speaking and German-speaking groups becomes more apparent in light of a lampoon in the Norristown Herald and Free Press on 11 November 1862. The article, “Trying to Avoid the Draft,” recalls a story from New Jersey about a German man who was faking disability to get a Surgeon’s exemption. He claimed to have been in bed for the past three months with a bad back, however, he later admitted his accident only occurred the week before. Upon discovering the mistake the German replied, “Ich nix for stay, Ich can nicht so much English sprecken all Jer while.” 52 This comic view of Germans suggests a certain prejudice and distaste for GermanAmerican culture. While being drafted carried a social stigma associated with a lack of patriotism, the majority groups viewed the avoidance of duty for conscientious scruples against bearing arms even more negatively.53 Society associated this unpatriotic act of conscientious objection with the German groups. Quakers, however, were largely English and interacted frequently in society. This discrimination between English and German groups possibly prejudiced Boyd’s opinion of the Quaker men who appealed for exemption. This explains why Boyd was more critical of the Quakers who applied than of the German men who did not. To Boyd, Quakers were worse citizens than the German men were because they profited from interaction in society, yet they refused to meet the responsibilities of Boyd’s own interpretation of republicanism. Of course, it is difficult to tell which objectors belonged to which denomination without consulting additional church records to identify each man’s affiliation. Since there are no minutes or formal records of the draft exemption hearings available, conclusions about what proceeded and how some 51 Wenger, Mennonites, 64. 52 Norristown Herald and Free Press, 11 November 1862, 1. The English version of this German sentence is filled with errors in both grammar and spelling. The writer was either unfamiliar with German or was attempting to satirize the use of the German language by combining both English and German within the sentence. 53 Geary, We Need Men, 38. Final copy 31 January, 2010 18 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 conscientious objectors perceived events can be drawn only from available letters written by the objectors and Boyd’s official reports. Some letters of protest reflect the discrimination between the German churches and the Society of Friends, if we assume the authors to be Quakers. We can make this assumption based on the English origins of the surnames and references within the letters to “Friends.” As early as the 16 September, there was already discontent among citizens of the county. In a letter to the state Attorney General William Meredith, the prominent Friend Thomas Evans describes how members of the Society of Friends were treated in the hearings. The Commissioner refused to administer the affirmation put forth by the Governor and thyself–said there was no exempting clause in the Constitution; that he had refused to exempt any of the Friends who had applied to him, and intended to refuse all. . . . Another Friend waited on him, the first day he sat to hear appeals–he administered the affirmation to him, read it to him twice, and took his signature. The Friend was about to leave, and give place to others; when the commissioner stopped him, and said he had questions to propound to him–beginning with a query. What would you do if you saw a person with a pistol standing behind your father about to shoot him? . . . The Friend replied that he could not take life under any circumstances; but in each case he should probably endeavor to have the person secured. . . . The Commissioner refused to exempt him, or to hear any argument in his case, as he also did this morning.54 This letter clearly indicates the perspective of a Quaker writing on behalf of other Quakers. It shows that many Quakers believed they were being discriminated against in these hearings, “he had refused to exempt any of the Friends who had applied to him, and intended to refuse all. . . .” The emphasis on the questions propounded reflects the misunderstanding between the expectations of the Quaker men and James Boyd. The Quakers expected simply to sign Governor Curtin’s affirmation against bearing arms since the Pennsylvania State Constitution guaranteed them exemptions.55 However, James Boyd expected the objectors to follow explicitly the instructions issued commissioners regarding testimony and his examination of each objector under oath. In another case, it appears that a citizen with a German surname accused Boyd of political motivations as an explanation for his refusal to grant exemptions. In a letter written to Governor Curtin, William Clemmer called for Boyd’s immediate removal from office. It is unclear in Mr. Clemmer’s case whether he was Quaker, Mennonite, or Brethren. Although there seems, based on the personal insults contained within, to be some personal animosity between Mr. Boyd and Mr. Clemmer, the 54 Thomas Evans, Philadelphia, to William Meredith, Harrisburg, 16 September 1862, Office of the Adjutant General, General Correspondence, Box 16, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 55 “Instructions to Commissioners,” Box 14B, Folder 4A, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 19 topic of his letter still bears further examination. He claimed that James Boyd was acting on behalf of the Democrats to ensure that the largely Republican “peacemen” of his community would be drafted and therefore removed from voting in the fall elections: A large number of our citizens I among them conscientiously scruple to bear arms and in pursuance of thy orders we have appealed to this man for exemptions which he in every instance has refused (to the best of my knoledge [sic])–well knowing our sincerity and republican proclivities–for all of us who vote[,] vote the republican ticket. He has violated the religious and political sentiment of this community and denied us our Constitutional privileges. I demand therefore, with prayerful solicitude the immediate removal of this insolent and thoughtless man from the position he holds. 56 A few researchers have noted that there is validity to this claim of political motivation on the part of some Democrats during the Civil War. David Osher suggests that the draft led to a spirit of bipartisan support. Democrats applauded the draft as an opportunity to get rid of Republican voters. Republicans liked the draft because it forced Democratic “scoundrels” to fight. “Both Republicans and Democrats found political advantage in drafting. . . . Thomas Scott observed, ‘The game was to urge and manage to get Republicans into army and hold Democratic votes at home.’ ”57 From Boyd’s own letter, it appears that the majority of objectors with German surnames avoided politics. If Mr. Clemmer is representative of the majority of “peacemen” who voted in the county, it is equally likely the majority of the objectors with English surnames probably did vote the Republican ticket. Without party registration lists from this period (these lists have not been located), it is difficult to ascertain if the 36 men who applied for exemption (and were subsequently rejected) were all Republican voters in the 1860 election. Conversely, James Geary suggests that Republicans were critical of Democrats for not providing enough support of the war or the draft. He points out that Republicans used the comedic cartoon character Petroleum V. Nasby as a satirical attack on Democrats who were evading the draft.58 In this political environment a Democrat, like James Boyd, may have been overly sensitive to these attacks and became more zealous in his effort to draft men. This is a plausible explanation, but difficult to support with existing sources. Thus, there is minimal evidence suggesting political motivation as the sole explanation for Boyd’s actions. It is more likely that Mr. Clemmens was using the political rhetoric of “Breckinridge Democrat” as a term of derision, which was common during the Civil War period. John Breckinridge was the proslavery and states’ rights candidate for the Democratic 56 William Clemmer to Governor Curtin, 22 September 1862. 57 Thomas A. Scott to Simon Cameron, 13 August 1862, Simon Cameron MSS, Box 10, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, as quoted in Osher, “Soldier Citizens,” 205. 58 Geary, We Need Men, 39. Final copy 31 January, 2010 20 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 Party in the 1860 presidential election in the southern states. Given the cultural environment and history of Montgomery County, it is unlikely that Boyd had much contact with slavery or supported that institution. There is no mention of the topic in any of the sources consulted, nor any indication of slaves residing in the county. Finally, some citizens of the county with German surnames appeared to have been confused or misinterpreted the procedure of enrollment and exemption. Isaac Kulp and John Berge wrote to Governor Curtin requesting assistance in dealing with the Draft Commissioner. “We have learned from official sources that our neighboring Commissioners have granted exemptions to nearly all who took the required oath and our Commissioner has not granted any on the day of appeals.”59 They did not understand why Commissioner Boyd was refusing draft exemptions at the time of the enrollment. These men wrote this letter before the appeal hearings had been completed. It is likely they were Mennonite or Brethren and had heard that Quakers had been previously rejected. Another citizen, Jacob Fry, wrote to Secretary Slifer requesting an additional hearing to defend his beliefs. He claimed he was unaware of the hearing dates and had not seen the notice in the Herald and Free Press.60 The results of the enrollment and exemption hearings were printed in the Norristown Herald and Free Press on 23 September 1862. According to the article, only thirty-six individuals claimed exemption on the grounds of conscientious scruples, none of which was allowed by the Commissioner (according to ’s letter to Eli Slifer, all thirty-six were Quakers). The press article also lists the county’s quota of 4,147 men, the number of men already sent to the militia (2,757), the number of men to be drafted (1,390), and a breakdown of how many men would be drafted from each township.61 Considering the letter Boyd wrote Secretary Slifer, it is obvious that Boyd was not counting members of the Mennonites, Schwenkfelders and Dunkards as exemptions during this enrollment phase.62 Evan Jones provides insight into how members of the “peace churches” viewed James Boyd within the community. Based on his English surname and the language of his letter excerpted below, we can assume Mr. Jones 59 Isaac Kulp and John Berge, Skippackville, to Governor Curtin, Harrisburg, 24 September 1862, General Correspondence, Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 60 Jacob Fry to Eli Slifer, 20 October 1862, Slifer-Dill Collection, Box 6, Dickinson College, Pennsylvania; Norristown Herald and Free Press (9 September 1862), 3; and James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. The announcement notice for exemption hearings in the newspaper is approximately three inches of space among other brief notices. It is likely that many of the German-speaking Mennonites did not see the notice since it was published in an English language paper. Based on these reasons, there is certainly some validity to Jacob Fry’s claims. 61 “Township Quotas and the Draft,” Norristown Herald and Free Press (23 September 1862), 3. 62 James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 21 was a Quaker. He responded to the above newspaper article with a letter of complaint to Governor Curtin describing the religious community’s low regard for Boyd’s character: Unfortunately for the people of Montgomery County, who, conscientiously scruple to bear arms, there has been a man appointed Commissioner, who, as a lawyer has long been noted for his impudence and who has not permitted his conscience to interfere with his worldly pursuits. Therefore as might be expected, he has not had proper regard for the ideas of others. There were but very few, who, are opposed to bearing arms, who attended the Courts of Appeal held in this County from the fact that those who did were asked such absurd questions that others were disgusted and knew that it was useless for them to attend. It was not his intention to free any one from the draft having scruples against bearing arms, this is very apparent from the fact that he did not exempt one on that account although there are many nonresistants in the county. My authority for stating that their was not one exempted for reasons above mentioned is the Herald and Free Press, published at Norristown of the 23rd inst.?63 This letter suggests career aspirations as still another reason for Boyd’s unwillingness to grant exemptions. In his words, Boyd “has long been noted for his impudence” and “has not permitted his conscience to interfere with his worldly pursuits.”64 From this letter, it appears that many of the objectors viewed Boyd as self-centered and interested only in his own affairs. Considering his accomplishments and enormous wealth, this is probably a valid assumption to a certain extent. Mr. Jones assumed Boyd was not granting exemptions because he was filling a difficult quota and had future political aspirations. While there is some evidence at the National Archives that James Boyd was employed by the Provost Marshal’s office in 1863—65, he never ran for elected office after his service as town burgess. Therefore, there is little evidence suggesting Boyd was motivated by personal political aspirations.65 There is no record of any response to these letters; however, Secretary Slifer, Governor Curtin, or Attorney General Meredith surely investigated the nature of these complaints. One or more of these state officials wrote Commissioner Boyd, since he responded to these allegations at least twice. In letters written to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Eli Slifer, and Governor Curtin, Boyd explained and defended his actions as Draft Commissioner.66 He also included a copy of the questions he posed to the potential conscientious objectors he elected to reject. The instructions issued to each County Draft Commissioner clearly empowered commissioners to investigate fully any claims of exemption 63 Evan Jones, Three Tons, to Governor Curtin, Harrisburg, 26 September 1862. 64 Evan Jones to Governor Curtin, 26 September 1862. 65 Jonathan Stayer, interview by author, 15 October 1999. 66 James Boyd, Norristown, to Eli Slifer, Harrisburg, 20 September 1862; and James Boyd, Norristown, to Governor Andrew Curtin, Harrisburg, 29 October 1862, General Correspondence, Box 17, Folder 7, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Final copy 31 January, 2010 22 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 or disability, “The Commissioner may also require additional testimony, where it is within the power of the applicant to furnish it, upon any point touching disability or other claim to exemption.”67 Boyd claims in his letter to Secretary Slifer that any man who answered all his questions in the affirmative had to simply produce a witness on his behalf that would attest to the conscientious scruples, and he would be exempt from the draft. Only thirty-six men arrived for hearings, but all of these objectors refused to take such an oath on religious grounds, as previously illustrated.68 The majority of the objectors were Mennonite or Brethren. These groups did not even attend the appeals hearings on the basis they could not swear to a legal oath, as also illustrated above. In the Norristown Herald and Free Press, a Republican newspaper, it is apparent the public at large supported the draft commissioner in his execution of his duties. The lack of negative commentary or criticism of how he carried out the enrollment and draft procedure suggests public acceptance of James Boyd’s actions. Unfortunately, this is the only paper available by which we can measure public opinion in the county. There are no other newspapers available, nor are there any first hand accounts of the public mood. On 21 October 1862, an article appeared listing the names of all men drafted in the county. It is entitled, “The Draft in Montgomery County, It Passes Off Quietly, The People Willing to Respond.”69 All men listed were ordered to report for duty within five days of receiving their order. Clearly, many of the men drafted on Thursday morning 16 October were later discharged from service for conscientious scruples. The majority of these men had German surnames and were probably Mennonites or Brethren. In an article from the same paper the following week, many of the men listed as draftees were listed again as exemptions for the purpose of “Conscientious Scruples.” It is unclear from the sources available if Boyd was pressured to provide exemptions by Secretary Slifer or Governor Curtin. However, many of the men who had been refused for exemption during the enrollment process were now exempted from the draft.70 Boyd’s difficulty in achieving his draft quota is a possible explanation of why these men were not simply accorded exemptions from the enrollment. According to Boyd in his letter to Governor Curtin, many men were evading the draft or simply not reporting for duty.71 He was having difficulty fulfilling his quota and was fully investigating every case in 67 “Instructions to Commissioners,” Misc. Collection, Box 14B, Folder 40, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 68 James Boyd, Norristown, to Eli Slifer, Harrisburg, 20 September 1862. 69 “The Draft in Montgomery County,” Norristown Herald and Free Press, 21 October 1862, 3. 70 “Exemptions on The Draft,” Norristown Herald and Free Press, 28 October 1862, 3. 71 James Boyd, Norristown, to Andrew Curtin, Harrisburg, 29 October 1862. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 23 order to meet that quota. James Boyd was asking tough questions of those who came to claim exemption because he wanted to separate those who had true conscientious scruples from those who were merely attempting to avoid being drafted. He even accused his fellow draft commissioner in Bucks County of being too lenient in not investigating claims thoroughly. “Most of the Commissioners ask no questions although the instructions are otherwise. As a consequence every body gets off that wants to particularly in Bucks Co.”72 Boyd also mentioned in his letter to Governor Curtin that 250 of the men he mustered for duty refused to go if those with scruples were not forced to serve.73 His profession and position of authority in the community empowered James Boyd to develop enrollment and draft procedures in accordance with his interpretation of republicanism. This explanation for Boyd’s behavior is far better substantiated with the present sources available than any theory purporting selfinterest or political motives. The results of the 1862 militia draft in Montgomery County can be pieced together from existing official reports and newspaper accounts. Boyd’s office reported 119 discharges of draftees due to conscientious scruples.74 These men constituted a mere 9 percent of the total number of men exempted from duty. The other exemptions were granted based on age, disability (surgeon’s certificates), or alien status. Upon review of the Conscientious Objector Depositions, however, 196 men filed affirmations of their scruples. It is difficult to reconcile the differences in number between the affirmation depositions and the final commissioner’s report. It is unclear if further review by Boyd convinced him that the remaining 119 men had legitimate claims of exemption, or if there was some intervention from the Governor’s office on behalf of the objectors in Montgomery County. No record of any such intervention has been found. It is possible the remaining men’s names were never drawn on draft day and therefore the exemption issue was moot. There are limitations placed on the historian interested in explaining Boyd’s actions as Draft Commissioner. James Boyd did not keep any correspondence or papers of any kind, nor did he record his actions in any journal or record. Governor Curtin’s personal papers are, unfortunately, privately held and inaccessible to researchers. Nothing related to the issue of conscientious objectors was found among his official correspondence at the Pennsylvania State Archives. Therefore, conclusions about Boyd’s change of attitude towards exemptions for conscientious objectors can only be drawn from sources currently available. 72 James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. 73 James Boyd to Governor Curtin, 29 October 1862. 74 Office of the Adjutant General, “Commissioners Report of the Draft of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 1862,” Drafted Men and Substitutes 1862; microfilm at the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Final copy 31 January, 2010 24 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 Boyd eventually accepted the position of the “peace” churches after compromising between notions of republican equality and practical convenience.75 It is possible he exempted these men after they had been drafted rather than simply striking their names from the enrollment. His decision to remove the objectors after the draft was probably made for practical considerations. They would not fight even if they were compelled into service. By forcing these men to undergo the draft, Boyd revealed his perspective on the final element of Wilentz’s definition of republicanism–equality. Requiring the conscientious objectors to stand for the draft, along with the others in the community, may have been to ensure a perceived equality under the law. This would explain Boyd’s comments to Governor Curtin regarding those men who promised disobedience if the objectors were not compelled to serve.76 While Boyd never explicitly stated this rationale, his action of granting discharges for objectors after the draft appears to support this idea. Regardless of why the exemptions were granted, those individuals who were exempted from the draft on the grounds of conscientious scruples were still required by law to pay a commutation fee to be set by the state legislature.77 The official notice stated: You are hereby notified, that having been exempted from military duty because of conscientious scruples against bearing arms, in accordance with Section 2, Article VI, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, you will be held liable to pay the Commonwealth, such sum as an “equivalent for personal service,” as the Legislature may direct by law enacted for that purpose.78 Payment of a commutation fee was also an anathema to members of the peace churches. According to their beliefs, simply refusing to bear arms in the conflict was not enough to clear the conscience. They were not to engage in any support of warfare either, and paying a commutation fee constituted support. William Dorsey wrote a letter of petition in which he expressed the official view of the Friends, “We believe that our neighboring States of New York and Maryland have enacted laws entirely screening ‘those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms’ from that service, or paying any equivalent therefor.”79 The debate over the commutation fee in the General Assembly raged for months in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863. Ironically, it would be eclipsed by the passage of the Federal Enrollment Act of 1863 that set commutation rates at $300.00 for the 1863 draft. Those exempted from the 1862 draft never paid any commutation fee since the General Assembly was unable to agree to a 75 James Boyd to Eli Slifer, 20 September 1862. 76 James Boyd to Governor Curtin, 29 October 1862. 77 “Instructions to Commissioners (1862?)”; and Office of the Adjutant General, “Notice,” Blank form letter dated September 1862 notifying objectors of their commutation obligation, Conscientious Objector Depositions, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 78 Office of the Adjutant General, “Notice.” 79 William Dorsey to the Governor . . . , 13 February 1863. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 25 specific amount.80 The issue of commutation did not simply vanish, but reappeared in later Federal drafts and would be the center of court actions by conscientious objectors in the future. This research area has yet to be thoroughly explored. James Boyd’s perspective on republicanism is what led him initially to reject all claims of exemption during the enrollment period of the draft. His perspective on republicanism was fundamentally different than that of the religious minorities in Montgomery County. This difference in how each group defined republicanism illustrates a microcosm of the larger issue of how the government handled those with conscientious scruples against bearing arms during the Civil War. James Boyd’s own legal experience and Protestant background influenced his interpretation of republicanism within the context of the draft. This ultimately conflicted with the alternative view of republicanism expressed by the religious communities of Montgomery County who were interested in protecting their religious rights. James Boyd’s ultimate acceptance of the impracticality of compelling conscientious objectors into military service reveals how the government dealt with religious objectors during the Civil War. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY Ainsworth, Brig. Gen. Fred C., and Kirkley, Joseph W., eds. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series III, Vols. 2—3. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899. Ainsworth, Brig. Gen. Fred C., and Kirkley, Joseph W., eds. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series III, Vols. 4—5. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900. Ambler Gazette (20 October 1904). “Obituary of James Boyd.” News clipping in scrapbook C-7 46, p. 97, Historical Society of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania. Barber, W. E. “Directions to Borough and Township Enrolling Officers from W. E. Barber, West Chester, August 23, 1862.” General Correspondence, Box 15, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Bergner, George. The Legislative Record: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Legislature for the Session of 1863. Harrisburg: “Telegraph” Steam Book and Job Office, 1868. Boyd, James. “Official Document for Oath of Office,” 4 September 1862. Box 2, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Boyd, James to Eli Slifer, 20 September, 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 80 George Bergner, The Legislative Record: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Legislature for the Session of 1863 (Harrisburg: “Telegraph” Steam Book and Job Office, 1868). Final copy 31 January, 2010 26 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 Boyd, James. “Copy of the questions propounded.” Assumed to be attached with the letter to Eli Slifer dated 20 September, 1862 (?). General Correspondence. Box 18, Folder 1, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Boyd, James to Governor Curtin, 29 October 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, Folder 7, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Briggs, J. to Governor Curtin, 8 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 16, Folder 8, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Clemmer, William, Norristown to Governor Andrew Curtin, Harrisburg, 22 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, Folder 8, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Dorsey, William. Letter “To the Governor, Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Pennsylvania” dated 13 February 1863. Records of the General Assembly. Home File, 87th Session-1, 1863. Box 18, Folder 3. Evans, Thomas to William Meredith, 16 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 16, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Fry, Jacob to Eli Slifer, 20 October 1862. Slifer-Dill Collection, Box 6, Dickinson College. Grittinger, Adam to Eli Slifer, 23 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, Folder 9, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Historical Society of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania. “Colonel Boyd’s service in making the State Constitution.” News clipping in Scrapbook B-7 #10a, 229; available on microfilm. “The Dunkards.” News clipping from the Phoenixville Republican in Scrapbook D-7, p. 80; available on microfilm. House of Representatives, Pennsylvania. Journal of the House of Representatives. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Library, 1863. “Instructions to Commissioners (1862?).” Society Miscellaneous Collection, Box 14B, Folder 46 titled “Civil War–Conscription,” Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Jones, Evan to Governor Curtin, 26 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Kulp, Isaac and John Berge to Governor Curtin, 24 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 17, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Mirror, C. S. to Eli Slifer, 6 September 1862. General Correspondence. Box 16, Folder 5, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. Norristown Herald & Free Press (July—December 1862). Microfilm available at the Historical Society of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania. “Important War Order” and “War Gazette” (12 August 1862), 3. “Regulations for the Enrollment and Draft of the Militia” (19 August 1862), 3. “Drafting and Non-Combatants” (9 September 1862), 3. “Appeal Days for the Draft” (9 September 1862), 3. “Township Quotas and the Draft” (23 September 1862), 3. “Official Army Vote of October 1861” (14 October 1862), 3. “The Draft in Montgomery County” (21 October 1862), 3. Final copy 31 January, 2010 2001] The Civil War Conscientious Objector 27 “Exemptions on the Draft” (28 October 1862), 3. “Trying to Avoid the Draft” (11 November 1862), 1. Office of the Adjutant General of Pennsylvania. “A list of the number of men, by Counties, so far as has been occurred at this Department, who are exempted from military services on the ground of conscientious scruples.” Civil War Series: Conscientious Objector Depositions, Folder 1, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Commissioner’s Report of the Draft of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (1862).” Microfilm available from the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Notice.” Blank form letter dated September 1862 notifying objectors of their commutation obligation. Conscientious Objector Depositions, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Drafted Men and Substitutes, 1862; microfilm available from the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Conscientious Objector Depositions.” Records of the Department of Military Affairs, Subgroup: Records of the Office of the Adjutant General, RG 19, Folder 1; available on microfilm at Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Official Document for Oath of Office,” 4 September 1862, Box 2, RG 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. “Register of Aliens and Persons Having Conscientious Scruples against Bearing Arms, 1862.” National Archives and Records Administration, RG 110: Pennsylvania Western Division #3168. (MG 262) Microfilm available at the Pennsylvania State Archives at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. United States Congress, Senate. Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session (17 July 1865), 414. SECONDARY Bernstein, Iver. 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. Comfort, William W. The Quaker Persuasion Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow: A Handbook for Friends and Friends of Friends. Philadelphia: Frederick H. Gloeckner, 1956, 43—61. Cornell, William A. and Altland, Millard. Our Pennsylvania Heritage, 12th ed., Lansdale Pennsylvania: Penns Valley Publishers, 1997, 81—106. Curran, Thomas F. “Resist Not Evil: The Ideological Roots of Civil War Pacifism.” Civil War History (September 1990). Geary, James. “Civil War Conscription in the North: A Historiographical Review,” Civil War History (March 1986): 208—228. Geary, James. We Need Men: The Union Draft in the Civil War. DeKalb: North Illinois University Press, 1991. Hesseltine, William B. Lincoln and the War Governors. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948. Lehman, James O. “Conscientious Objectors During the Civil War.” In Nonviolent America: History Through the Eyes of Peace, eds. Louise Hawkley and James Juhnke. North Newton: Bethel College Press, 1993. Final copy 31 January, 2010 28 Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine [Vol. 42 Murdock, Eugene C. One Million Men: The Civil War Draft in the North. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1971. Reprint Westport: Greenwood Press, 1990. Osher, David. “Soldier Citizens for a Disciplined Nation: Union Conscription and the Construction of the Modern American Army.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1992. Roberts, Ellwood, ed., “Col. James Boyd,” Biographical Annals of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. New York: T. S. Benham & Co. and the Lewis Publishing Co., 1904, 1: 1—3. Shankman, Arnold M. The Pennsylvania Antiwar Movement, 1861—1865. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1980. Shannon, Fred Albert. The Organization and Administration of the Union Army 1861—1865, Vol. 1—2. Gloucester: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1928. Reprint Gloucester: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1965. Stayer, Jonathan R. “Researching Pennsylvania’s Civil War Conscientious Objectors: A Genealogical Perspective.” Bucks County Genealogical Society Newsletter. Vol. 10 (no. 2, 1991). Stayer, Jonathan R. Unpublished Lecture delivered to the Buck’s County Genealogy Conference, 28 April 1990. Unknown. “Civil War Draft Resistance in Illinois.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 64 (no. 3, 1971). Wenger, John C. History of the Mennonites of the Franconia Conference. Telford, Penn.: Franconia Mennonite Historical Society, 1937, 57—84. Wilentz, Sean. “Society, Politics, and the Market Revolution, 1815—1848.” In The New American History, ed. Eric Foner, 61—81. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997. Final copy 31 January, 2010