But could they carry a gun?

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
This is from the website civilwarhome.com:

Although many of those in both armies were mere youngsters in age at the time of their enlistments, they soon became men.
All but 1.5 per cent of the enlisted men in the Federal Army were between 18 and 46 at the time of their enlistment; and all but 3.3 per cent of the officers fell into that age bracket. The average age was slightly under 26 years (25.8083) at time of enlistment.
There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16; 6425 age 17; 133,475 age 18; 90,215 age 19; 71,058 age 20; 97,136 age 21. From there on it gradually went down to 7012 age 45; 967 age 46; and 2366 age 50 or over.
As to physical characteristics, the average height of the Federal soldier was put at 5 feet, 8¼ inches. The tallest man authentically recorded was said to be Capt. Van Buskirk of the Twenty-seventh Indiana, who stood 6 feet, 10½ inches. The shortest man as far as records go was a member of the 192nd Ohio, and at the age of 24 he measured 3 feet, 4 inches in height.

I'm curious about 13 and 14 year olds: could they even hold a rifle? Any thoughts? They would almost certainly have been given some kind of non-combatant duty... I would guess.

Also: I believe I've read material that indicates that the CSA was more likely to take in younger (under 18) males than the USA. Does anybody know of a good source for the age distribution of Confederate soldiers?

- Alan
 
While im no expert in the matter I do have this to say. When we think of young kids 13 or 14 we think just that...kids. Kids that play, kids that enjoy kid things living in this age. Kids 13 or 14 back then would have no doubt been more mature. Women were getting married and having kids at 15 in some instances.

Sure they can hold a gun. My friend came back from Iraq with pictures of young kids holding AK-47s and RPGs. Said its no fun shooting at kids but those kids are dangerous in that setting. At first he said it was just hard due to our American way of thinking of kids.

I live close to New Orleans and I can tell you; I see all the time on the news young kids being wanted for some of the most horrific murders in New Orleans.

I have read stories about men having problem fighting and shooting kids during the Civil War.
 
I've come across the records of many boys under 18. One about 15, who was discharged at the order of Jeff Davis. In the case of the others, discharged under the Conscript Act of 1862. That act also released men over 35. One boy who was 17 in 1862 was sent home with a friend. He then tried to join Dibrell in Sept 1864 in White County, Tenn. They couldn't find him a horse, so he was left behind. His pension claim was denied. The chowder heads on the pension board thought he should have been able to join up when he turned 18, even though he was stuck behind the lines and spent most of his time hiding from the Feds. Yet he had a good record, including Fishing Creek and Farmington, where he lost his horse, but apparently not good enough.
 
From what I can find out about my grandfather, he was 13 or 14 when he signed up. He was with his brothers who were with Forrest and therefore in any fight after about 1863. Forrest's own son, Willie, was on his staff at about 14 and after Shiloh was shooting at people right beside his pa. He was just 18 when the war ended. There was a 13 year old at Chickamauga who remembered standing in a line waiting for the shooting to start and getting scared - Forrest came by and patted him on the shoulder. He was quite aware this was a boy as he called him 'my little man'.
 
My G-Grand signed up at the age of 12. Based on the age they started
working in those days at the age of 10, I would say they could handle
just about anything that came to them. I have no proof but I wouldn't
be surprised that he worked with horses, and blacksmith work and wagon
repair in a shop close to the family property.

He was wounded at the battle of Bethesda Church in 1864 and was
put in the Chimborazo Hospital. That would put him at 15 years of age then.
 
My several times great uncle was 15 when he enlisted in the fall of '61. He lied about his age and passed as 18. The fact that he stood 6' at the time helped to convince the recruiting officer, I'm sure. He was mortally wounded at Spotsylvania at the age of 17.

R
 
By 1864-65, in what was left of the Southern Confederacy, 15 or 16 was old enough. But earlier, not so much. I think it's in Henry Kyd Douglas's book that he talks of a 13 year-old civilian boy who hung out with the staff and liked to get close to the action and watch the shells explode. They soon feared for his safety and sent him home, over his loud protests.
 
The guy at left ran beat up his principal (long story) and ran away from home to be a cowboy at age 14. He did a man's work and did a man's job. He broke broncs, worked alongside adults.....and I don't want to think what else. Luckily he was a pretty good kid who wanted his mama to be proud of him.

And believe me, in years of being around sports, there are a lot of 13-14 year olds who look 27. :smile: I have no doubt they served and many served well.
 
I am currently reading "The History of Kershaw's Brigade" by D.Augustus Dickert.
It is his experience throughout the war. He was on his way to school in a neighbouring county, at the age of 15. There he encountered tardy volunteers on their way to Charleston to enlist. He took the detour and joined the party. Serving for the duration.
Already a member of the militia, he and his two brothers made their way to Morris Island to join their comrades. He presented himself at the HQ of Gov. Pickens at the Charleston hotel.

He states: "I presented myself, and asked permission to join my company on Morris Island, but was refused. First on account of not having a permit of leave of absence from my captain; secondly on account of my youth (I then being on the rise of 15); and thirdly, having no permission from my parents. What a contrast with later years when boys of that age were pressed into service".

He got there by a round about fashion. Laying down his arms as a captain 4 years later at Greensboro, a month after Appomattox.

I can only assume, that regulations got more relaxed as manpower diminished.
 
You know, I can understand a 13 year old being a drummer boy or laborer or the like. But the idea of a using a child for combat, that is, loading a gun, firing at the enemy, possibly getting killed by the enemy - that, to me, is something that seems... inappropriate...

One thing of note: in the above citation, it mentions this: There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16. {Total = 3,998; only 1,230 under 16} (Hopefully, the numbers cited by the source are accurate.)

Officially, only a very very very small number of sub-17 year olds served in the Union (of course we don't know how many kids lied about their age). I would like to think this small number of child enlistees reflects that people did have the belief that children should not be fighting in a war. And I would like to think that only a small number of these child enlistees participated in armed warfare, as opposed to being in a support role.

Interestingly enough, the use of child soldiers in Africa and Asia is getting some bit of press (as being a bad thing), and here in the USA, today, it is unthinkable to enlist children (sub-17 yr olds) into the army. We (the global community) are making progress, I think.

- Alan
 
I would think that boys under 16 served more has couriers and musicians since civil war era rifles and muskets were so long and heavy. Of course I was not there. In the modern era assault rifles are lighter and more compact and yes kids can use them. When I was in El Salvador in 1990 I met a Salvadorean infantry company that used Car-16's and the soldiers were about 15.
Leftyhunter
 
I would think that boys under 16 served more has couriers and musicians since civil war era rifles and muskets were so long and heavy. Of course I was not there. In the modern era assault rifles are lighter and more compact and yes kids can use them. When I was in El Salvador in 1990 I met a Salvadorean infantry company that used Car-16's and the soldiers were about 15.
Leftyhunter
I think so, too. There were big kids who could lie about their age, and there were women who pretended to be men. But I think the vast majority of the boys were buglers, drummers and powder monkeys. And the CS Conscript Act of 1862 exempted those under 18. Those boys were generally sent home, and I've seen CSRs of men over 35 discharged as well.
 
You know, I can understand a 13 year old being a drummer boy or laborer or the like. But the idea of a using a child for combat, that is, loading a gun, firing at the enemy, possibly getting killed by the enemy - that, to me, is something that seems... inappropriate...

One thing of note: in the above citation, it mentions this: There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16. {Total = 3,998; only 1,230 under 16} (Hopefully, the numbers cited by the source are accurate.)

Officially, only a very very very small number of sub-17 year olds served in the Union (of course we don't know how many kids lied about their age). I would like to think this small number of child enlistees reflects that people did have the belief that children should not be fighting in a war. And I would like to think that only a small number of these child enlistees participated in armed warfare, as opposed to being in a support role.

Interestingly enough, the use of child soldiers in Africa and Asia is getting some bit of press (as being a bad thing), and here in the USA, today, it is unthinkable to enlist children (sub-17 yr olds) into the army. We (the global community) are making progress, I think.

- Alan

I agree that boys that young should have been home with their mamas, who probably needed them more than the army did. Jefferson Davis said they were using up their seed corn. But, throughout history, warrior age has been young. The Romans noted that in the Germanic tribes north of the Rhine boys were considered trainable as warriors as soon as they could pick up the old man's sword and swing it. (Those old swords were heavy, too!) Mongols sometimes had boys as young as 9 riding with them. Our tribe, as soon as you could pull a bow string you could fight - and you didn't have to be male, either! The Hudson Bay Company reported surprise at seeing a number of women and girls with the warriors they fought at Table Rock. But, you know, men are generally the ones to go to war because they are more expendable - only takes one rooster in the hen house, after all! (And besides, they aren't as savage as women - you get women in the mood to kill something and you almost can't stop them. The intrepid Brits were scared to death of the women warriors in Dahomey!) But, in today's world, I would agree whole-heartedly that there is no place for child soldiers in anybody's war. I sometimes wonder about those child soldiers of Liberia and Sierra Leone - what happens to a country with a huge number of badly damaged children who are now badly damaged adults?
 
I would think that boys under 16 served more has couriers and musicians since civil war era rifles and muskets were so long and heavy. Of course I was not there. In the modern era assault rifles are lighter and more compact and yes kids can use them. When I was in El Salvador in 1990 I met a Salvadorean infantry company that used Car-16's and the soldiers were about 15.
Leftyhunter

That is exactly what I had in mind when I posed my questions. I've seen faux Civil War-era rifles, and even a couple of real (as in, really old) rifles, and they were heavy and long. I'd imagine the average true 13-14 year old would have been challenged to deal with these weapons. One site on the current use of child soldiers does mention that the evolution of lightweight arms has contributed to the modern-day use of children in the military of some countries.

- Alan
 
Alan,

There is the oft-told story of youngsters desperately wanting to join the army but being underage.

The story goes that an honest, good Christian lad did not want to lie to his government or an adult about his age, so he would write the number "18" on a piece of paper and place it in his shoe before he went to enlist. When the enlistment officer would look the lad in the face and ask, "Are you over 18, son?" the lad could honestly reply, "Yes sir!"

It was a come-as-you-are war and the recruitment folks weren't all that concerned about looks more than bodies to fill up the ranks.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Back
Top