They Thought About It

[larry_cockerham]

Imagine N.B. Forrest serving on the move from 1861 to May 1865. Physical condition, getting nutrition and simply being used to the enviroment must have had a lot to do with it.

 

[Elennsar]

I don't know if they could have continued at that pace or not if they survived (I think you're right but I'm not a vet either).

I say "if they survived" because - well, take 2nd Corps (Army of the Potomac).

It was gutted during the Overland Campaign. So many of the men who had somehow survived the previous fighting did not make it through this.

"At the beginning of the Overland Campaign, the II
Corps was arguably the best corps in the Army of the Potomac.
Grant's spring battles, however, had subtracted from its ranks
nearly 17,000 officers and men, including more than twenty
brigade commanders and nearly one hundred regimental commanders.
Now the outfit was near collapse, its soldiers discouraged
and their combat efficiency poor. The monthly returns
for the end of July 1864 (above) reveal how badly attrition had
depleted the II Corps regiments." (74.5 regiments in nine brigades with a total of 13,175 men. Average of 177 men per regiment.)

From an article on the second battle of Deep Bottom, which is only in the middle of August. Bolding is mine.

If you continued that over three years, you'd leave the corps filled with ghosts and rookies. There wouldn't be any of the 1861 or 1862 enlistees left.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

I haven't heard of that, I would think that by two years surviving vets would be hardy enough and at their physical peak to survive anything else thrown at them...The Union men, such as the VI Corps who marched almost 29 miles then got ready to enter the battle were men of such caliber, newer green troops wouldn't have been able to match that.. Also, their combat experience would also be nearing their peak at this point..Just my opinion, if you have any studies on this it would be very interesting reading..

Off the cuff for now, I believe i'll find that research dating to the Korean War. My memory tells me, maximum effectiveness for a front line troop was between 8months through 2 yrs. Waning depending on the amount of intense combat from that point.

 

[unionblue]

From the book, The Army of the Potomac: A Stillness At Appomattox, by Bruce Catton, chapter 1, Glory Is Out Of Date, pg. 35-36:

"...Altogether, there are few facts in American history more remarkable than the fact that so many of these veterans did finally re-enlist--propably slightly more than half of the total number whose terms were expiring. The proffered bounty seems to have had little influence on them. The furlough was much better bait. To men who had not seen their homes form more than two and one half years, a solid month of freedom seemed like an age. A member of the 5th Maine said that it actually seemed as if the war might somehow end before the furloughs would expire, and he wrote of the men who re-enlisted: "What tempted these men? Bounty? No. The opportunity to go home."

It was not hardship that held men back. The 100th Pennsylvania had been marooned in eastern Tennessee for months, cut off from supplies and subsisting on two ears of corn per day per man, but when the question of re-enlistment came up only 27 out of the 393 present for duty refused to sign. In the 6th Wisconsin, which had done as much costly fighting as any regiment in the army, it was noted that the combat men were re-enlisting almost to a man; it was the cooks, hostlers, clerks, teamsters, and others on non-combat duty who were holding back. And the dominant motive, finally, seems to have been a simple desire to see the job through. The government in its wisdom might be doing everything possible to show the men that patriotism was for fools; in the end, the veterans simply refused to believe it. A solid nucleus did sign the papers, pledging that the army would go on, and by the end of March Meade was able to tell the War Department that 26,767 veterans had re-enlisted.

The men signed up withou illusions. A company in the 19th Massachusetts was called together to talk things over. The regiment had left most of its men on various battlefields, in hospitals, and in Southern prison camps, and this company now mustered just thirteen men and one wounded officer. These considered the matter, and one man finally said: "They use a man here just the same as they do a turkey at a shooting match, fire at it all day and if they don't kill it raffle it off in the evening; so with us, if they can't kill you in three years they want your for three more--but I will stay." And a comrade spoke up: "Well, if new men won't finish the job, old men must, and as long as Uncle Sam wants a man, here is Ben Falls."

The regiment's historian, recording this remark, pointed out that Ben Falls was killed two months later at Spotsylvania Court House."

They thought about it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Elennsar]

That takes some spirit. A grim sort of spirit, but the sort of spirit that you can't buy and you can't (artificially) make.

 

[wilber6150]

From the book, The Army of the Potomac: A Stillness At Appomattox, by Bruce Catton, chapter 1, Glory Is Out Of Date, pg. 35-36:

"...Altogether, there are few facts in American history more remarkable than the fact that so many of these veterans did finally re-enlist--propably slightly more than half of the total number whose terms were expiring. The proffered bounty seems to have had little influence on them. The furlough was much better bait. To men who had not seen their homes form more than two and one half years, a solid month of freedom seemed like an age. A member of the 5th Maine said that it actually seemed as if the war might somehow end before the furloughs would expire, and he wrote of the men who re-enlisted: "What tempted these men? Bounty? No. The opportunity to go home."

It was not hardship that held men back. The 100th Pennsylvania had been marooned in eastern Tennessee for months, cut off from supplies and subsisting on two ears of corn per day per man, but when the question of re-enlistment came up only 27 out of the 393 present for duty refused to sign. In the 6th Wisconsin, which had done as much costly fighting as any regiment in the army, it was noted that the combat men were re-enlisting almost to a man; it was the cooks, hostlers, clerks, teamsters, and others on non-combat duty who were holding back. And the dominant motive, finally, seems to have been a simple desire to see the job through. The government in its wisdom might be doing everything possible to show the men that patriotism was for fools; in the end, the veterans simply refused to believe it. A solid nucleus did sign the papers, pledging that the army would go on, and by the end of March Meade was able to tell the War Department that 26,767 veterans had re-enlisted.

The men signed up withou illusions. A company in the 19th Massachusetts was called together to talk things over. The regiment had left most of its men on various battlefields, in hospitals, and in Southern prison camps, and this company now mustered just thirteen men and one wounded officer. These considered the matter, and one man finally said: "They use a man here just the same as they do a turkey at a shooting match, fire at it all day and if they don't kill it raffle it off in the evening; so with us, if they can't kill you in three years they want your for three more--but I will stay." And a comrade spoke up: "Well, if new men won't finish the job, old men must, and as long as Uncle Sam wants a man, here is Ben Falls."

The regiment's historian, recording this remark, pointed out that Ben Falls was killed two months later at Spotsylvania Court House."

They thought about it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

They had true grit and a love of country that could not be matched....

 

[larry_cockerham]

Pierson's says that first of all, not everybody went into the war. Lots of men stayed out for the first year, to join later or be drafted. So the idea of "rage militaire" or peer pressure is overstated. There is no evidence that the men who joined were any worse off than the ones who didn't, that is, more "longing to escape" rural stagnation and see the world. Next, a lot of guys had several opportunities to leave the army or extend their stay, and tens of thousands extended, long after any glamor of military life had faded away. Next, they reelected a war president Lincoln.

Finally, the debate over the use of force continued, at least among the Democrats, for weeks after Sumter. And these arguments outlined pretty accurately the duration and cost in blood and treasure, of the Civil War. The men knew it would be bad, and signed up anyway. When it was demostrated how bad, and how long it would be, they re-enlisted. Pierson says, in his study of a Vermont regiment, largely of prewar Democrats, they were there to save the Union.

When many of us discuss "peer pressure", we're referring to the time when the men are already in service and perhaps in battle. Take the battle of Franklin for example, many of those men stayed in the attack on the federal line because of the guys on either side who were not going to let a comrade down. "If he ain't afraid, then neither am I" sort of thing. And yes, there was probably some of that kind of thought process during the enlistment period....

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

Ben Falls is a name I will now not forget. Thank you Union Blue. Those that leave before us, are not gone if we continue to remember them.

 

[Elennsar]

When many of us discuss "peer pressure", we're referring to the time when the men are already in service and perhaps in battle. Take the battle of Franklin for example, many of those men stayed in the attack on the federal line because of the guys on either side who were not going to let a comrade down. "If he ain't afraid, then neither am I" sort of thing. And yes, there was probably some of that kind of thought process during the enlistment period....

I wonder if its peer pressure when everyone is thinking it together.

Not arguing, just musing on how that was mutually supportive - Joe knew Jack had his back and Jack knew Joe had his back and both knew that Bob had their back.

 

[lwhite64]

Also just to add to this, it was deeper than meer comrades, these kids had grown up together, many cases were related, went to school together, went to the same churches, etc. Their company was their home community, reflecting its mores, ideals, views, etc. So you fought on because they were extensions of your home, your everything.

 

[Elennsar]

Also just to add to this, it was deeper than meer comrades, these kids had grown up together, many cases were related, went to school together, went to the same churches, etc. Their company was their home community, reflecting its mores, ideals, views, etc. So you fought on because they were extensions of your home, your everything.

And sometimes literally "they are family".

I wonder how much that factor (what you just mentioned) was behind grumbling about the volunteers of '64 or '63 - they weren't part of the tight circle.

 

[wilber6150]

Ben Falls is a name I will now not forget. Thank you Union Blue. Those that leave before us, are not gone if we continue to remember them.

Nicely said.....

 

[lwhite64]

And sometimes literally "they are family".

I wonder how much that factor (what you just mentioned) was behind grumbling about the volunteers of '64 or '63 - they weren't part of the tight circle.

Or if they were they were of the same mindset, you see a lot of mass desertions in 64 and 65 from groups like this, in the Atlanta Campaign there are several examples of entire companies deserting and going back to their mountain homes.

 

[ole]

Not something anyone likes to talk about, lwhite. Most all were tired and just wanted to go home. It shows up a little stonger in the Confederate side, because Sherman had just run through there, but there were a good many Yankees who just went home as well. There was four full years of fighting and some of them had just had enough. And went home.

No. I don't know what the figures are. Many, if not most of them, just wanted to go home. Grant was fortunate in having several thousand men who would see it through. And Lee and Johnston had some pretty nasty fellers, too. But Grant and Sherman had more and managed to feed them. End of story.

 

[Rob9641]

Some 84% of soldiers voted for Lincoln in the 1864 elections, per McPherson in Tried by War. He theorizes they just couldn't bear the thought of the war ending and they hadn't won it. Testosterone theory of war - see fight, jump in, don't stop till you win it.

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not sure its just testosterone. To have put in so much sacrifice and to have victory in sight only to have it yanked away by a gutless coward...

Okay, so maybe that is sort of what you meant. But to me there's a difference between just being too stubborn to quit and not wanting your sacrifices to reach this point to be thrown away when you can win it.

Not sure we can tell which was the case, though.

 

[brass napoleon]

But to me there's a difference between just being too stubborn to quit and not wanting your sacrifices to reach this point to be thrown away when you can win it.

Not sure we can tell which was the case, though.

Therein lies the age-old question. When is it courageous determination, and when is it futile stubbornness? Even harder to know when you're in the thick of it.

 

[Rob9641]

I'm not sure its just testosterone. To have put in so much sacrifice and to have victory in sight only to have it yanked away by a gutless coward...

Okay, so maybe that is sort of what you meant. But to me there's a difference between just being too stubborn to quit and not wanting your sacrifices to reach this point to be thrown away when you can win it.

Not sure we can tell which was the case, though.

I suspect it was a bit of both, with testosterone mixing it all together. I know my gggrandfather re-upped even after being captured and spending months in a Confederate prison camp (exchanged in late 1863). Knowing that side of the family, I'm pretty sure it was the mix that drove him on.

 

[Elennsar]

Therein lies the age-old question. When is it courageous determination, and when is it futile stubbornness? Even harder to know when you're in the thick of it.

I can think of a few times I can draw the line with something like confidence, but even speaking with hindsight and a view of things no one at the time had, its difficult.

 

[Rob9641]

I can think of a few times I can draw the line with something like confidence, but even speaking with hindsight and a view of things no one at the time had, its difficult.

Surely it was a complex set of reasons, each man having his own mix. And Robert E. Lee mentioned one - "It is well war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it." He and many others LIKED being soldiers and fighting together. It was the greatest adventure of their lives. The desire to be there waned for many and they left, but many stayed anyway, and many didn't lose the desire at all.

In modern times, remember how "together" we all were after 9/11? Remember singing "God Bless America" together at large events and feeling so united it almost hurt? It was great, it was a high that didn't rely on drugs or booze and it stayed for months. Now it's gone. Is it surprising that a lot of people in the 1860s might put up with a war to keep this feeling? (Not that I'm advocating we need another terrorist attack in the US or another war anywhere to draw us back together - it's just too bad that a visible threat is what it seems to take.)