Civil War Pension Question

[rbortega]

Would a soldier who lied about their age and birth location when they enlisted in the Union army still be able to receive a pension?

 

[lupaglupa]

I've seen multiple successful pensions where the soldier had lied when he enlisted. Many involved men who served under an alias, which is duly noted in the pension records. As long as the soldier could prove he actually served the pensions seemed to go through.

But @Bob Velke has looked at a lot more pension records than I have so I'm curious what he thinks.

 

[John Winn]

Yes. I, in fact, have three pension files for veterans who lied about their age and their names (i.e. used aliases). The only requirements were to have served honorably for at least 90 days between 1861 and 1865 (forget the exact dates just now). The only exceptions I know of were a few questionable Missouri militia units that weren't allowed pensions (there was a committee that reviewed Missouri militia units after the war to determine which were actually valid for pension purposes). Members of Oregon units that didn't fight in the war at all - i.e. fought Indians at most - were eligible and could join the GAR.

 

[Bob Velke]

Would a soldier who lied about their age and birth location when they enlisted in the Union army still be able to receive a pension?

Yes.

 

[rbortega]

Thank you for the information. I was curious to find out because I recently discovered a distant cousin named James K. Robinson who enlisted in the 100 day 132nd Illinois Infantry. He gave his age as 18, but was actually 16.

 

[Drew]

I'm pretty sure you could lie about serving in the Union Army, period, and still get a pension.

There was no small controversy about what the pensions were costing in the late 19th century.