10 ms·
Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vondur 3y agoMy uncle lied about his age to join the Army during the Korean War. He was 16 I believe.
- Vvector 3y agoMy dad lied and joined the Navy at 16, during the Korean War. He said it was safer than waiting to be drafted
- earthboundkid 3y agoOne of my grandfathers joined the Navy before Pearl Harbor (Wikipedia says the draft started in 1940, so in '40 or '41) to avoid getting drafted into the Army. Not sure why he thought boats were safer, but I guess he lived, so he was right. :-)
- delecti 3y agoI can't easily find a nice and comprehensive comparison, but it seems like he was right even with Pearl Harbor included. From [1]: > Total U.S. military deaths in battle and from other causes were 407,316. The breakout by service is as follows: Army 318,274 (234,874 battle, 83,400 nonbattle),[292] Navy 62,614,[292] Marine Corps 24,511,[292] and the Coast Guard 1,917.[570][320] I don't know what the denominator looks like for those various forces, but 5x as many Army deaths as Navy seems to corroborate your grandfather's intuition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnot... Edit: From [2] it seems the Army was a bit over 2x the size of the Navy, so still about 2x the rate of deaths. [2] https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/us-involvement-in-wwii-how-the-military-grew/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/us-involvement-in-wwii-how...
- itairall 3y agoMy grandfather joined the Navy at 17 in 1943 and never spoke about it. I assumed when he was alive he didn't do much in the war but in researching his ship it was the complete opposite. The Battle of Leyte Gulf was the biggest naval battle in history. If he was in the pacific I am sure he seen some crazy things.
- earthboundkid 3y agoMy grandfather was also the Battle of Leyte Gulf. He was on the Kitkun Bay. He didn't start talking about it until maybe 2000 or so, then he opened up a little. He got sort of obsessed with reading history books about his own battles. There's still a lot we'll never know though.
- HelloFellowDevs 3y agoYeah most of the time it is. They made is so you get the opportunity to select what occupational specialty instead of getting tossed into infantry or whatever the needs of the time were.
- avgcorrection 3y agoWhy did he want to fight in that war so badly?
- vondur 3y agoHe grew up in poverty after my grandfather died; the military was a way out. He became a helicopter pilot and rose to the rank of Major before being medically discharged.
- slackfan 3y ago>Historians have not only underestimated the sheer number of underage soldiers who fought for the Union. As a historian by trade myself, that just makes me sad for the profession. The whole underage volunteerism to fight has been a long-standing tradition, (heck, my grandfather was 16 when he enlisted to fight in WWII). Whole article reeks of "think of the childrens" modern sensebilities recontextualizing of historical facts. But I suppose the US historians have their own issues grappling with the aftermath of their civil war.
- andyjohnson0 3y ago> In April 1862 it adopted a policy of universal conscription, and in February 1864 it lowered the age of mandatory service from eighteen to seventeen. Additionally, some Confederate states enrolled boys as young as sixteen for service in state-controlled units. In the UK in 2023 it is still possible to join the military when you're 16 years old, and you can start your application when 5 months before that. No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the UK.
- dmichulke 3y ago[flagged]
- andyjohnson0 3y agoI'm British. I was referring to the continent of Europe, not the EU.
- denton-scratch 3y agoEurope != The EU
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago[flagged]
- 3y ago
- civilitty 3y agoThe North experienced massive social change in the first half of the 19th century when industrial revolution really ramped up. Cities were still trying to figure out the transition from agrarian support to industrial center and the general quality of life in cities during that time was horrible from pollution and overcrowding. City dwellers didn't see much benefit for all their effort until the labor movement got its feet in the late 19th and early 20th century. It's no surprise that there were lots of older boys in the Union army because the lack of prospects in the cities were obvious even then.
- earthboundkid 3y agoMy grandfather supposedly did the "Yes, I am over 18" (stepping a piece of paper with 18 on it) trick after Pearl Harbor. I guess it was probably pretty common for kids who were borderline old enough to serve.
- slimsag 3y agoMy grandpa did the same; joined at 13 years old. From his story it sounded like there wasn't a single person who thought it was even questionable - on the contrary - it was highly encouraged by everyone
- sidewndr46 3y agoThe explanation I got was my grandfather did the same. In his service records it seems he stops getting older for a few years at some point, probably because after WWII they were trying to get all the remaining enlisted men's records correct.
- chrisbrandow 3y agoI've read so many biographical sketches of various individuals that begin the description of their stint in the WWI or WWII military with statements like, "when he was 16/17 he signed up for the war, lying about his age…" It seems pretty commonplace.
- tomatotomato37 3y agoOne thing I don't see mentioned in this is during that time period secondary/high school wasn't really a thing yet, meaning it wasn't that unusual for a 15 year old to be considered both fully educated and part of the workforce. It really wasn't until after WWI that we pushed the working adult age out to 18 for more education.
- detourdog 3y agoFamily legend is that my grandfather lied about his age to join in the US Army in WW I. He was granted citizenship for joining the effort.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoA bit of an aside, but it seems like the South would've had a lot fewer able-bodied, young men to fight the war especially since they weren't inclined to arm black soldiers. Given that the south was primarily agrarian with fewer urban areas to draw from - the population was more sparse. How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference?
- x86_64Ubuntu 3y agoI don't know if they truly thought they could win as much as they had to fight. With the Westward expansion of the U.S., more and more states would be admitted to the union that would never be as slave dependent as the South. In that scenario, the political power of the slavers gets diluted and chattel slavery ends with the stroke of a pen. They simply couldn't stick around for that situation to take place.
- cryptonector 3y agoAlso, the economic and industrial might of the North, and the lack of industrialization in the South (slavery didn't help) meant that the disparities between military and economic might between the North and South were bound to get larger, much larger, so many in the South must have felt that 1861 was the last time they might be able to secede successfully.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoMost importantly, they thought they needed to fight. Winning was somewhat secondary, but the following factors where involved in that calculation: 1. The Confederates planned to fight on the defensive. They weren't invading the Union. 2. They were more prepared for military service and had better leadership. Which wasn't wrong at the start. 3. They would win simply because of the strength of their belief. If they never surrendered, they would win because the Union didn't the same resolve. 4. Cotton exports would cause European countries to side with them against the Union. 5. They didn't really expect the Union to wage total war.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- moioci 3y agoA minor point that may have some relevance here. When I was doing genealogical research on my great grandfather who served in the US Civil War, I read that at the time, your legal age was considered to be the age you would attain by the end of the calendar year, so everyone officially aged up on January 1. By this convention, many 17 year-olds who enlisted would have been legally 18 and did not actually lie about their age.
- redkinght99 3y agoI'm mentally trying to wrap my head around someone having a great grandfather that served in the Civil War. That's incredible! Thank you.