High-Bounty Men in the Army of the Potomac: Reclaiming Their Honor

For more than a century, historians have disparaged the men who joined the Union army in the later days of the Civil War--when higher bounty payments and the conditional draft were in effect--as unpatriotic mercenaries who made poor soldiers and contributed little to the Union victory. However, as Edwin P. Rutan II explains, historians have relied on the accounts of 1861 and 1862 veterans who resented these new recruits who had not yet suffered the hardships of war, and they were jealous of the higher bounties those recruits received. The result, he argues, is a long-standing mischaracterization of the service of 750,000 Union soldiers. High-Bounty Men in the Army of the Potomac offers a much-needed correction to the historical record, providing a more balanced assessment of the "high-bounty" replacements in the Army of the Potomac. Rutan argues, using combat-effectiveness methodology, that they were generally competent soldiers and indispensable in defeating the Army of Northern Virginia. He also examines the issue of financial motivation, concluding that the volunteers of 1862 may have been more driven by economic incentives than once thought, and 1864 recruits were less driven by this than typically described. Thus, Rutan concludes that the Union "high-bounty" men do not deserve the scorn heaped on them by early volunteers and subsequent generations of historians.

Publication Details

Journal
Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University)
Published
2024-08-04
Primary Topic
Historical Economic and Social Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

High-Bounty Men in the Army of the Potomac: Reclaiming Their Honor

Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University)
Historical Economic and Social Studies
article

High-Bounty Men in the Army of the Potomac: Reclaiming Their Honor

article en

Abstract

No abstract available for this paper.

Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Historical Economic and Social Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.