Discussion Spirituality And Religion

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
Not at that age. Remember, they are cadets. Being given a fully rounded experience in light of what was thought important or of value at that time. They don't get to pick and choose. As adults they may be given that opportunity. But as cadets, not yet.

Some West Point cadets were 18 or younger, but most were older than that. Or was the age of legal adult older back then?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Some West Point cadets were 18 or younger, but most were older than that. Or was the age of legal adult older back then?
Good question! I took it that cadets were generally 'under age' and I would assume 'coming of age' was at least 21 at the time.

Hopefully someone who knows will get back, but if we put it in the context of them being under the authority of those in charge at West Point, and churchgoing considered an important part of their well ordered society, then I suppose it's the same as regards any institution (of learning) at the time. You do as your told. Even if it appears to be 'unconstitutional'.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
I don't find any disdain for the Union in Twain's writing about Abraham Lincoln:
It was no accident that planted Lincoln on a Kentucky farm, half way between the lakes and the Gulf. The association there had substance in it. Lincoln belonged just where he was put. If the Union was to be saved, it had to be a man of such an origin that should save it. No wintry New England Brahmin could have done it, or any torrid cotton planter, regarding the distant Yankee as a species of obnoxious foreigner. It needed a man of the border, where civil war meant the grapple of brother and brother and disunion a raw and gaping wound. It needed one who knew slavery not from books only, but as a living thing, knew the good that was mixed with its evil, and knew the evil not merely as it affected the negroes, but in its hardly less baneful influence upon the poor whites. It needed one who knew how human all the parties to the quarrel were, how much alike they were at bottom, who saw them all reflected in himself, and felt their dissensions like the tearing apart of his own soul. When the war came Georgia sent an army in gray and Massachusetts an army in blue, but Kentucky raised armies for both sides. And this man, sprung from Southern poor whites, born on a Kentucky farm and transplanted to an Illinois village, this man, in whose heart knowledge and charity had left no room for malice, was marked by Providence as the one to "bind up the Nation's wounds."
- quoted in New York Times, January 13, 1907
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Some West Point cadets were 18 or younger, but most were older than that. Or was the age of legal adult older back then?
I've found something to answer that question:

"They came as teenagers from every state in the Union, wearing every mode of dress from country homespun to tailored city surcoats. In their freshman were officially known as plebes (perhaps from plebeian, ‘a commoner’), though upperclassmen called them ‘things, ‘animals,’ ‘reptiles,’ and ‘beasts.’ Despite their differences, these young men were united by a shared distinction: each of them had passed stiff entrance requirements. Each had been appointed by a U.S. congressman, was no younger than 16 and no older than 21, measured at least five feet tall, had no deformities, and was fit for the rigors of military duty. Each one had demonstrated proficiency in fundamental arithmetic. And every one of them was single; even overtly having a girlfriend was grounds for dismissal.

They were the antebellum cadets of the United States Military Academy at West Point. And although these scrawny schoolboys could not foresee it, they would one day face each other in battle, leading rival American armies in a hard-fought civil war."

https://www.historynet.com/life-at-west-point-of-future-professional-american-civil-war-officers.htm

And this:

By the common law the age of majority is fixed at twenty-one years for both sexes, and, in the absence of any statute to the contrary, every person under that age, whether male or female, is an infant.

-- The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Good question! I took it that cadets were generally 'under age' and I would assume 'coming of age' was at least 21 at the time.

Hopefully someone who knows will get back, but if we put it in the context of them being under the authority of those in charge at West Point, and churchgoing considered an important part of their well ordered society, then I suppose it's the same as regards any institution (of learning) at the time. You do as your told. Even if it appears to be 'unconstitutional'.
There is another aspect at play. One that everybody who has ever served in the military is aware of. "Voluntold". :biggrin: I heard multiple times in my experience, "You do NOT have to do this..." in the very next breath... "It is HIGHLY recommended that you do so...."
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
:eek: Or ...

I guess most people don't want to find out!

:laugh:

Nope. I never.... as in, not once, ever... did I see anything but 100% compliance. Another famous example, falling under the same, "Voluntold" = "I need XX volunteers. *points at* you, you, & you..... come with me" :rofl:

I guarantee Top will confirm my experience. Ain't that right @unionblue ..? :biggrin:
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I don't find any disdain for the Union in Twain's writing about Abraham Lincoln:
It was no accident that planted Lincoln on a Kentucky farm, half way between the lakes and the Gulf. The association there had substance in it. Lincoln belonged just where he was put. If the Union was to be saved, it had to be a man of such an origin that should save it. No wintry New England Brahmin could have done it, or any torrid cotton planter, regarding the distant Yankee as a species of obnoxious foreigner. It needed a man of the border, where civil war meant the grapple of brother and brother and disunion a raw and gaping wound. It needed one who knew slavery not from books only, but as a living thing, knew the good that was mixed with its evil, and knew the evil not merely as it affected the negroes, but in its hardly less baneful influence upon the poor whites. It needed one who knew how human all the parties to the quarrel were, how much alike they were at bottom, who saw them all reflected in himself, and felt their dissensions like the tearing apart of his own soul. When the war came Georgia sent an army in gray and Massachusetts an army in blue, but Kentucky raised armies for both sides. And this man, sprung from Southern poor whites, born on a Kentucky farm and transplanted to an Illinois village, this man, in whose heart knowledge and charity had left no room for malice, was marked by Providence as the one to "bind up the Nation's wounds."
- quoted in New York Times, January 13, 1907
What one feels in 1907 doesn't reflect what one felt 50 years earlier.

Fact is he was told he would have to take a loyality oath in 1861 when he docked in St Louis to continue piloting, he and Absolam Grimes both refused to take the oath, both returned to Hannibal, and both shortly thereafter enlisted in the MSG which was in arms against Lyon.

Edit-added He never alleges he deserted the MSG over ideological reasons at all, instead he merely mocks how unsuited he was for a life in the field, least he was honest.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Nope. I never.... as in, not once, ever... did I see anything but 100% compliance. Another famous example, falling under the same, "Voluntold" = "I need XX volunteers. *points at* you, you, & you..... come with me" :rofl:

I guarantee Top will confirm my experience. Ain't that right @unionblue ..? :biggrin:

@Viper21 ,

Confirmed!

However, I have seen some funny circumstances result from such.

I remember as a young private the time a sergeant called for volunteers in an unusual manner when he said,

"You three men! Half of you come with me!" :O o:
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
And this:
By the common law the age of majority is fixed at twenty-one years for both sexes, and, in the absence of any statute to the contrary, every person under that age, whether male or female, is an infant.
-- The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Garland and McGeehee, 1900
In Denmark the young men was not called up for their mandatory military service until they where 22 years old.
When the army was mobilized in 1864, it was men 22 to 37 that was called up.
A bit later the 21 year olds where called up, but that was it. Men younger had to volunteer.

In Prussia it was 20.

My point is that the age of when you are an adult do look to be more around 20-22 than 18 as it is in many places today.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
What one feels in 1907 doesn't reflect what one felt 50 years earlier.

Fact is he was told he would have to take a loyality oath in 1861 when he docked in St Louis to continue piloting, he and Absolam Grimes both refused to take the oath, both returned to Hannibal, and both shortly thereafter enlisted in the MSG which was in arms against Lyon.

Edit-added He never alleges he deserted the MSG over ideological reasons at all, instead he merely mocks how unsuited he was for a life in the field, least he was honest.

I think it is fair to say that Twain distrusted governments in general, which surely included the Union. His enlistment seems about as free of ideology as his desertion. He had written articles supporting both sides before he joined. At the time he joined and afterward, he said he thought he was protecting his home and family, which he did not need to apologize for. He certainly opposed both war and racism forever after the war.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
@Viper21 ,

Confirmed!

However, I have seen some funny circumstances result from such.

I remember as a young private the time a sergeant called for volunteers in an unusual manner when he said,

"You three men! Half of you come with me!" :O o:
That sounds like something a company commander would have said in Navy boot camp. My all-time favorite, though, was "all you high school graduates fall out for a work detail, all you high school dropouts stand by and watch you might learn something."
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Actually he was asked to take loyality oath, and he refused. And he admits to firing a shot in anger in his own writings............

And serving in the MSG had nothing to do with the Confederacy at all, as it was a legal state militia called up by a lawfully elected and sitting state legislature, why the Union quickly offered amnesty to those who would return home, because it never was a crime to begin with.

And to the OP he helped raise money to start a Presbyterian Church in Nevada in 1864, so as far as the time period of the ACW, see nothing to suggest he didn't still consider himself Presbyterian
Not true that the MSG had nothing to do with the Confederacy as they fought on behalf of the Confederacy. Union authorities decided wrongly that they could catch flies with honey but the learned the hard way during Price's invasion that so called former members of the MSG especially in the Paw Paw Militia turned on the Union.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Not true that the MSG had nothing to do with the Confederacy as they fought on behalf of the Confederacy. Union authorities decided wrongly that they could catch flies with honey but the learned the hard way during Price's invasion that so called former members of the MSG especially in the Paw Paw Militia turned on the Union.
Leftyhunter
No it is true the MSG was an entirely separate entity from the Confederacy until 1862, to keep referring to it as part of the Confederacy is as inaccurate as referring to the Texas Army at the Alamo as US Army........Twain never had any affiliation to the CSA at all
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
No it is true the MSG was an entirely separate entity from the Confederacy until 1862, to keep referring to it as part of the Confederacy is as inaccurate as referring to the Texas Army at the Alamo as US Army........Twain never had any affiliation to the CSA at all
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and fights alongside of a duck by golly it's a duck.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and fights alongside of a duck by golly it's a duck.
Leftyhunter
I agree, that's indeed why a state militia is indeed a state militia. A militia called by a sitting government of a US State, that has made no pretention of seccesion, is indeed a duck that looks entirely like the duck it is, which is simply a Missouri militia. Even the US recognized it was a separate entity
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I agree, that's indeed why a state militia is indeed a state militia. A militia called by a sitting government of a US State, that has made no pretention of seccesion, is indeed a duck that looks entirely like the duck it is, which is simply a Missouri militia. Even the US recognized it was a separate entity
It's not that complicated. The MSG fired on Union troops and fought with the Confederate Army. Later some men MSG joined the Paw Paw Militia and betrayed their oath to the Union.
Therefore the MSG is just another term for a Confederate Militia.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's not that complicated. The MSG fired on Union troops and fought with the Confederate Army. Later some men MSG joined the Paw Paw Militia and betrayed their oath to the Union.
Therefore the MSG is just another term for a Confederate Militia.
Leftyhunter
Actually no it isn't, either in reality or legally, if you wish to say falsehoods go ahead, but it doesn't change the reality at all
 

Peace Society

Corporal
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Location
Ark Mo line
I just brought this up in a thread yesterday to do with U.S. Grant. I will add it here:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ulysses-s-grant-an-independent-mind.169424/#post-2204351


Looks like his objection didn't pay off :laugh:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


It is true. Compulsory religion is not faith. Compulsory attendance at church is a little different to the concept of compulsory religion.

I took my children to church when they were younger. As a parent that was my responsibility. Perhaps you are referencing adults.

Either way, faith is a gift, and to be freely received. So, where Grant and others may have been made to go to church, they weren't required to receive the gift freely given. No one can force faith on you. It was, though, part of the routine of their well ordered society.
Parents are to train up their children in the way they should go. Yet even a child is known by his doings. Still, I believe the parent is responsible until the child reaches the age of accountability. Once that age is reached, coerced religion is of no spiritual value.
 
Top