Who had to sign the loyalty oath and how effective was it? Were background checks done? What were the consequences if one broke the oath?

I know government employees had to take the oath and some businesses. Then there were those crossing North/South boundaries. There are many notes signed by Lincoln "Let him/ her take the oath".

Mary Lincoln's half-sister Emilie refused to sign the oath in 1864. Why didn't actors such as Booth have to take the oath or those traveling to Canada?

Lastly, was there a legal issue?

I'd appreciate clarification as I find it quite confusing. Thanks.

(01-17-2015 05:24 PM)Anita Wrote:  Who had to sign the loyalty oath and how effective was it? Were background checks done? What were the consequences if one broke the oath?

I know government employees had to take the oath and some businesses. Then there were those crossing North/South boundaries. There are many notes signed by Lincoln "Let him/ her take the oath".

Mary Lincoln's half-sister Emilie refused to sign the oath in 1864. Why didn't actors such as Booth have to take the oath or those traveling to Canada?

Lastly, was there a legal issue?

I'd appreciate clarification as I find it quite confusing. Thanks.

I suspect that this is a Jill Mitchell topic to be answered. Yoohoo, Jill...

I have heard that to a Southerner, it was the worst possible thing to do. I've also heard that right after the war, one (southerners) had to sign the oath in order to draw rations for themselves and their children, if they had no other options for food; i.e. women whose husbands had not yet returned from the war or were dead. I also know that if a white man wanted to vote in the south directly after the war that he had to sign an oath. Lew Powell's father signed such an oath a year after the war. It has also been said that if a soldier signed the Oath, he was exempt from joining any Southern organization; i.e. Confederate Veteran organizations; etc. I do know that today, anyone whose ancestor "signed the oath" cannot join either the SCV or UDC....or so I've been told. Is this true?

   

The lovely and touching Roger's Statue "Taking the Oath and Drawing Rations" depicts a southern matron apparently reluctantly taking the oath so she can feed her child. The Union soldier appears to somewhat pity her.

Hi Anita,

I am not extremely clear on this subject either, but here is my understanding:

During the course of the Civil War, apparently Congress hotly debated whether or not "Rebels" could be considered U.S. citizens again. When Lincoln's Ten Percent Plan came into effect, Confederate states who had at least 10% of the population sign an Oath of Allegiance could again return to the Union as a U.S. State. Thus, "Rebels" who swore loyalty could again become U.S. citizens. As far as consequences if someone did not swear loyalty, I can only assume they lost their right to vote (much like Robert E. Lee lost his right to vote.)

I claim no expertise on the Oath of Future Loyalty or the Ironclad Oath (never bore arms for or assisted the Confederacy in any manner), but here are two books by expert Harold M. Hyman:
Era of the Oath: Northern Loyalty Tests during the Civil War and Reconstruction (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954, reprinted, Hippocrene Books, 1978).
To Try Men's Souls: Loyalty Tests in American History, (University of California Press, 1959, reprinted, Greenwood Press, 1981).

Is the term"galvanized yankee" a reference to a southerner and/or confederate soldier who took the oath? I have a confederate soldier ancestor who took the oath- which resulted in his release from Rock Island POW Camp.

Many CSA POWs took the oath in Union prison camps and then served in 6 regiments of "Yankee" infantry volunteers that were sent to fight Indians along the Oregon Trail and Red River of the North. See Dee Brown, The Galvanized Yankees (Nebraska, 1963)

(01-17-2015 06:35 PM)BettyO Wrote:  I have heard that to a Southerner, it was the worst possible thing to do. I've also heard that right after the war, one (southerners) had to sign the oath in order to draw rations for themselves and their children, if they had no other options for food; i.e. women whose husbands had not yet returned from the war or were dead. I also know that if a white man wanted to vote in the south directly after the war that he had to sign an oath. Lew Powell's father signed such an oath a year after the war. It has also been said that if a soldier signed the Oath, he was exempt from joining any Southern organization; i.e. Confederate Veteran organizations; etc. I do know that today, anyone whose ancestor "signed the oath" cannot join either the SCV or UDC....or so I've been told. Is this true?



The lovely and touching Roger's Statue "Taking the Oath and Drawing Rations" depicts a southern matron apparently reluctantly taking the oath so she can feed her child. The Union soldier appears to somewhat pity her.

According to the UDC site, "No Confederate ancestor who took the Oath of Allegiance before April 9, 1865, shall be eligible to be used for application for membership. If proof of further Confederate service is available, thereby nullifying the Oath of Allegiance, the ancestor shall be considered for approval."

(01-18-2015 10:29 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Many CSA POWs took the oath in Union prison camps and then served in 6 regiments of "Yankee" infantry volunteers that were sent to fight Indians along the Oregon Trail and Red River of the North. See Dee Brown, The Galvanized Yankees (Nebraska, 1963)

Wild Bill:
Your reply is excellent-thanks for the reference. Also, my memory was stirred by what you said-my confederate POW ancestor took the oath- and was supposed to serve out West in Indian campaigns. To my knowledge he did not keep that obligation.

(01-17-2015 05:24 PM)Anita Wrote:  Who had to sign the loyalty oath and how effective was it? Were background checks done? What were the consequences if one broke the oath?

I know government employees had to take the oath and some businesses. Then there were those crossing North/South boundaries. There are many notes signed by Lincoln "Let him/ her take the oath".

Mary Lincoln's half-sister Emilie refused to sign the oath in 1864. Why didn't actors such as Booth have to take the oath or those traveling to Canada?

Lastly, was there a legal issue?

I'd appreciate clarification as I find it quite confusing. Thanks.

Slave owners whose slaves enlisted in the U.S. Colored Troops could receive $300 compensation if they signed a loyalty oath, signed a manumission document freeing their former slave, and passed a background investigation proving their loyalty. Most Southern Maryland slave owners didn’t apply for compensation for enlisted slaves. Many of those who did apply failed the background investigation.

Loyalty tests were also applied for other forms of compensation. Soldiers hunting Booth appropriated 3,000 pounds of Henry Lowe Mudd’s (Dr. Mudd’s father) corn to feed their horses. Henry was denied compensation, but not because the Government investigation found any evidence of disloyalty. His neighbors all spoke well of him. Rather, the Government said it couldn’t find any specific evidence of loyalty.

Dr. Mudd’s wife signed a loyalty oath at the Old Capitol Prison on the first day of the trial, probably in an effort to help her husband. The document noted that she has fair complexion, dark eyes, brown eyes, and is 5 feet tall.

Thanks to all of you who posted here. Great information. And Wild Bill, thanks for the book referrals. Many complex issues to sort through. I had to take a loyalty oath when I was hired by Cal State University in 1988.

My great great grandfather and his brother Mathias enlisted in the 23rd GA Infantry. Chapman, Mathias A. - Private August 31,1861.
Wounded in 1864. Captured at Dallas, Georgia, June 2,1864. Took oath of allegiance to U.S. Government, at Rock Island, Illinois, and was transferred to U.S. Navy July 6,1864. Georgia Table of Contents: http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm

The problem with proving loyalty was whether the enrolling officer, or acting assistant adjutant general as he was usually known, insisted on the oath of future loyalty or ironclad oath of always loyal. It was not unusual for one officer to administer the oath of future loyalty and for his superior to insist on the ironclad oath instead.

Andrew Johnson pulled such antics in Tennessee to void elections of Democrats, vacate the office, and appoint a Republican candidate of his own choice. This stunt was used throughout Reconstruction in all states, or military districts, or occupied territories, or conquered provinces (or whatever title was in vogue as politically correct during military occupation) to vacate public elections. Most Democrats could not in good faith submit the ironclad oath. So the candidate was required to submit the oath of future loyalty and then if elected, resubmit the ironclad oath. Once the office was vacated, the military district commander would appoint his losing Republican opponent to the job. Texas had over 430 such shenanigans effected in one special order in 1867 and again when Reconstruction had come to an end and before the army pulled out of civil affairs.

This could be used in granting contracts, getting paid for work done, or a multitude of contingencies.

When I first posted the question "how effective was the oath?" I was thinking about it mostly in terms of military use re: spies and saboteurs during the war. Wild Bill I now see that it was extremely effective as a political tool and had a huge impact during reconstruction.

I'm also fuzzy on how far Lincoln's vision for reconstruction was actually documented and the key players he counted on to make it possible. I see I will have to fill gaps in my education. I don't enough about the reconstruction era, not just constitutionally but in terms of implementation.

Lincoln's documented plans for Reconstruction and its implementation was one of the early questions that I asked on this forum, I think. If I remember right, I got practically no response - leaving me to believe that Lincoln did not have a clear plan of action.

It is common place to say that Lincoln was reasonable or soft on Reconstruction of the South, depending on one's point of view. I tend to think that we know too little to place Lincoln in a box of ideas. I believe that he was much more willing to compromise with the Radical Republicans in a harsher Reconstruction than, say, Johnson was. Lincoln was a real Republican, former Whig, antislavery, and a civil rights advocate (at least partially) for the blacks, whereas Johnson was a former Democrat, slaveholder, and in the end an uncompromising Southerner on the race issue (keep the ex-slaves in their place) and few if any civil rights.

When I taught this stuff 45 years ago I used to put all the factions of the Republican party and the Democrat party on a line graph and show which groups Lincoln, Seward, Johnson, Sumner, Stevens, etc were appealing to in their Reconstruction program, each one cutting out support from the other to create a postwar voting majority in the country and the congress. No, this would be beyond my computer acumen to do it now, I'm sorry. Suffice that Lincoln's real Reconstruction will remain an enigma because of his abrupt demise, but do not think him a push over for the South as many do.