Annie De Pue, 11 Year Old Tennessee Drummer Er, Boy

There were documented women who served, and were pensioned. Not all were discovered. There’s a really nice book called, “I’ll pass for your Comrade” it’s in my library, and I own a copy. I tell ya what, some of those gals made mighty handsome dudes.

imho the point is, compared to the number of troops overall, the number of women who mustered in and managed to stay in for any significant length of time was miniscule, statistically a blip. Women who mustered in for any time at all represent a bigger percentage, but still statistically negligible.

We attempt to counter that by explaining that "many women mustered in and stayed without being discovered, so of course we don't have a record indicating the full number of women that accomplished it" But I think in this we kid ourselves. We actually only know of a dozen or so who famously fessed up after the war, becoming celebrities. Properly skeptical to our inner selves, we actually realize that those women were celebrities specifically because they were a rare occurrence. Yet we can't help wanting to make more of it, that "surely those dozen or so were representative of hundreds more."

Let's be properly skeptical and just admit that we want it to have been that "many" women mustered in as soldiers. Why? Because we want to acknowledge and promote that the study and interest in the CW is inclusive of girls and women. Perhaps it seems a bit exclusionary to promote only those roles that we know for sure thousands of women and girls participated in: nursing, home front, manufacturing, farming, sewing and fairs.

Bottom line: the "women as soldiers" thing is far overplayed. To attend reenactments and living histories today, even visit a high school history classroom, you'd think women as soldiers was common. I reject that.

It should be enough to promote that thousands of women and girls bravely and faithfully fulfilled their service in the CW in other ways; that being of military rank is not the ultimate badge of war service.
 
Last edited:
A tiny fraction of women successfully lasted the war with the rank of soldier. Most all of them were discovered and removed within days or weeks


Not at all being argumentative and have no clue how many women choose ' female soldier ' as an identity in reenacting- the thing is, have a feeling there really were more than a handful. They just stopped coming forward post war. Between disbelief, ridicule and down right scandal it wasn't smart to do so. Goodness, to this day the family of one very well documented female soldier disallows her photo from being circulated. She fought through quite a few major battles. Followed her husband into the cavalry ( from her account he was not happy to see her- she just refused to leave ).

Agreed a lot were caught within weeks. Accounts in papers use the headline ' another female soldier ' with exasperation. If she wasn't thrown in jail, she was given a dress and sent home.

And well, heck, how many men ( at least in the Union army ) did not serve all the way from 1861 through to 1865? 3 and 6 month enlistments, 1 and 3 year enlistments, and mustered out. Remember Hartranft's story? Took his men to Bull Run, enlistments ran out the day previous to the battle and they went home. He stayed, fighting with another unit. Little mad though, you can't blame him.
 
"Many" is relative. To some it may mean '50', to others, '1000'. It really doesn't matter. Threads like this are dedicated to them and their stories, whatever their number.

Their statistical insignificance to the total number of soldiers is not at question
 
...the thing is, have a feeling there really were more than a handful. They just stopped coming forward post war. Between disbelief, ridicule and down right scandal it wasn't smart to do so. ...Agreed a lot were caught within weeks.

If we want something to have been, we tend to enlist or even create historical scenarios to support it, but isn't that a yellow light that we're entering the "motivation zone?" I've just seen that there's way too much of that going on regarding women soldiers. At the same time I understand the motivation: inclusion. It's just not the most serious way to approach history.

If we can answer the question "why do I want this to have been that way?" and are comfortable with our answer, then alrighty. You can't fool yourself, right? (Well except Lost Causers, whose entire personal identity is cast from enlisted or created historical scenarios. It's a desperate matter for them).

And well, heck, how many men ( at least in the Union army ) did not serve all the way from 1861 through to 1865?

Whatever the answer to that, it in no way strengthens (or weakens) the likelihood (or not) that many women soldiers served a long time in the CW.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top