dlavin
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Location
- North Balt Co., MD
Based on my understanding, I would think it so, but I have no solid evidence to point to.
I have 2 ancestors who served in the 18th Texas Infantry. From late 1862 to mid 1863 they had a similar history. Long marches and late arrivals.BUT...this was hardly the case in the Trans-Mississippi, where transportation infrastructure was virtually nil. I've read the memoirs of a guy who was in one of my ancestors' units (27th Arkansas) and his account is filled with long marches from one point to another only to arrive after they were needed.
I know the veteran regiments continued to recruit throughout the war....I'm sure those recruits stood a better chance at surviving it all with the vets by their side.....but the new greenie regiments, were they trained by veteran officers and NCO's? That would at least give them some inkling of what to expect.
Thanks for this. It makes more sense to keep established regiments up to strength and use the experience of the old hands however young they were. It seems that political/nepotistic appointments were the scourge of all armies in the 19th Century from whatever country.
Been cruising all the threads comparing Southern soldiers/armies to Northern soldiers/armies in terms of military training, fighting spirit, comparative casualty numbers, desertions, etc.
There really doesn't seem to be a lot of clear difference in actuality.
However, Northern Armies were more numerous (more armies and more soldiers in them), had more turnover (Southerners weren't allowed to go home when their enlistments were up), and portions of Northern armies seemingly were not committed to battles for various reasons.
When I follow the battle history of many Southern regiments I am struck by how many important battles a Southern soldier could claim to have participated in.
It occurs to me that the Southern soldier might have fought on average in more battles than an average Yank soldier did.
Has any research been done in this area?
IIRC, in Confederate regiments officers would be sent back to recruit in their home county to raise men for their particular company. Though this would probably bring rather few replacements, especially as the war went on. Confederate regiments who's home towns were later Union re-gained territory or west of the Mississippi meant that they couldn't always muster new recruits from home by 1863-'64 either. This was especially true for the AoT; by 1864 there were many regiments and companies consolidated, and it wasn't too uncommon for a regiment to be down to company strength by the end of the Atlanta Campaign.I've read accounts of NCO's or officers being sent back to Texas on 'recruiting' drives. While doing my research on my second great uncle, captured at Arkansas Post, there was a notation that those that weren't captured were either out on foraging detail, on furlough, or assigned in TX on temporary provost marshal duty or 'recruiting'....Everyone else was captured.
Good info Frederick. One of my union ancestors had I believe a 30 or 90 day enlistment. Gotta go back and recheck.
cool, what unit's that? LOL, I could only bear to be a yankee for no more than 90 days...! LOL joke
It would depend I guess on which regiment the individual was in and when his enlistment began. I have been reading accounts of the 150th and 156th NY, along with Union regiments from Kansas and Iowa. They fought in a lot of battles.
I seriously doubt there is a fool proof way of proving the point.
Yes. Definitely. The failure of the Confederacy to honor the original terms of enlistment meant that soldiers who enlisted in 1861 were much more likely to serve until 1865, assuming they were not killed or disabled. It was a tough and long road for most of these men.
Still, it surprises me to see a card or story that tells of a CS soldier making it through the whole war . Desertion, disease and combat took a heavy toll, so I'm not sure the OP is correct. You had a very high percentage of teenagers in the CS armies at the end of the war, many as young as 16. Sam Watkins may be atypical, in that he fought through at least until Nashville. After that, we're not sure if he actually returned to the AoT.
I dont think the Confederates honored terms of parole, as much as the Union. Want that one of the reasons it was on again, off again? I know there were other reasons. Tit for tat retaliations. But, at the end of the day, I think Grant thought they were violating parole terms and need men desperately.
I think the question is one of turnover in the CA army.So the question becomes one of how much turnover there was in the Confederate army - how many were knocked out by disease, bullets (KIA or permanently disabled), or desertion vs how many remained. What were the chances of a Confederate soldier who went in the recruitment surge in 1862 of making it to the end?
I like to search old cemeteries in my area and am surprised how many Confederates I find that died as old men - but figure that those (privates) who died in the war itself were a lot less likely to get buried back at home.