Whose troops displayed more discipline?

[thomas aagaard]

Psychological warfare as we know it didn't start until the First World War. I take issue with using modern warfare concepts when it comes to the Civil War. Civil War soldiers had no idea of winning the hearts and minds of anyone.

Psychological warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ceasar knew how to do this. So did Wellington when moving into France in 1814. It is not rocket science.

 

[GwilymT]

I think I'm going to have to agree with the several posters above that discipline was not a static thing in either army and was contingent upon several environmental and situational factors. I think trying to get at who was "more" disciplined is a bit of a fool's errand. A unit on either side could show great discipline in one situation while losing it in another.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Robert E. Lee issued an order prior to the Gettysburg campaign essential prohibiting willful destruction while in the enemy's country, which resulted in some suppressed resentment among his men given the treatment often visited upon their homes by the enemy. But there were sound military reasons for instituting a policy of restraint. Perhaps the most important was that unrestricted pillaging would turn one's own army into little more than an undisciplined mob that could be more readily destroyed. There are many such examples throughout history of that occurring, both ancient (such as when troops abandoned a pursuit to raid an enemy's camp) and very modern (when armored vehicles were destroyed while distracted in shooting up a town in an eastern european country).

 

[Luke Freet]

Since joining the forum and expanding my ACW library it's opened my eyes much beyond the cookie cutter attempts at explaining the ACW we've all experienced. I'm of the opinion that the confederate soldiers displayed better discipline in the ranks than their northern counterparts. More specifically their treatment of the civilians they encountered. There was more emphasis put on winning the hearts and minds.

There are many MANY incidents where Confederate discipline broke down. The Louisiana troops in the AoNV were infamous for desertion and looting, to the point political cartoons of Cajun soldiers needing to be tied to posts were common sights in various newspapers. During Sherman's march to the sea, there were many reports from civilians decrying the "barbarity" displayed by the Confederate Cavalry under Joe Wheeler, apparently ransacking their own people for forage. Don't forget infamous episodes like the burning of Chambersburg by Confederate cavalry, or the multiple instances where Confederate soldiers would brutalize and kill surrendered black soldiers. Often in combat, especially later in the war, Confederate unit cohesion was a rare sight, due in large part to officer casualties. I recall one brigade in the Army of Tennessee that, at the start of the 1864 Tennessee Campaign, fielded 900 effective enlisted men, saw no major combat, yet ended with only 300 effectives.
In regards to Union treatment of Southern civilians, its usually more dependent on the policy of whatever officer was in charge of them. Especially early on in the war, Union officers followed the soft war strategy being favored by those in Washington at the time. You get rare exceptions like Pope, Fremont, Butler & Hunter, though more often than not they'd be reprimanded by the war department for their actions or quietly reassigned. Its not until later in the war, when the hard war advocates are empowered, do you really see stuff like the Burning or the March to the Sea or the Sack of Columbia.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I posted this in a thread about the US Sanitary Commission, but it seems appropriate here as well. In a letter sent to President Lincoln on July 21, 1862, the writers advise the president-

"We have been learning rapidly during the past year. If we have learned anything, it has been that it was a mistake to keep the Regular Army and the Volunteer Army separate. Had the Regulars been from the first intermingled with the Volunteers, they would have leavened the whole lump with their experience of camp-police, discipline, subordination, and the Sanitary conditions of military life. We should have no Bull Run panic to blush for."
Source:

[Letter] to the President of the United States [from the Executive Committee of the Sanitary Commission, July 21st, 1862 : United States Sanitary Commission : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Caption title

archive.org

 

[Luke Freet]

I think I'm going to have to agree with the several posters above that discipline was not a static thing in either army and was contingent upon several environmental and situational factors. I think trying to get at who was "more" disciplined is a bit of a fool's errand. A unit on either side could show great discipline in one situation while losing it in another.

Crux of the matter right here.

 

[GwilymT]

Robert E. Lee issued an order prior to the Gettysburg campaign essential prohibiting willful destruction while in the enemy's country, which resulted in some suppressed resentment among his men given the treatment often visited upon their homes by the enemy. But there were sound military reasons for instituting a policy of restraint. Perhaps the most important was that unrestricted pillaging would turn one's own army into little more than an undisciplined mob that could be more readily destroyed. There are many such examples throughout history of that occurring, both ancient (such as when troops abandoned a pursuit to raid an enemy's camp) and very modern (when armored vehicles were destroyed while distracted in shooting up a town in an eastern european country).

And yet we do know that despite this order, the ANV did engage in looting, destruction, and kidnapping during the campaign.

 

[Piedone]

Since joining the forum and expanding my ACW library it's opened my eyes much beyond the cookie cutter attempts at explaining the ACW we've all experienced. I'm of the opinion that the confederate soldiers displayed better discipline in the ranks than their northern counterparts. More specifically their treatment of the civilians they encountered. There was more emphasis put on winning the hearts and minds.

I can't help but I somehow gained the same impression…

 

[Piedone]

And yet we do know that despite this order, the ANV did engage in looting, destruction, and kidnapping during the campaign.

I don't know really much about it but always got the impression that this was rather on a low scale….

 

[Old Soldier]

My understanding is recruit training in the ACW mostly pertaining to marching and was the responsibility regimental commanders. It looked nothing like 20th century basic training.

West Pointers did have a reputation for stricter discipline when commanding regiments.

The small regular army also meant both armies sorely lacked the experienced NCOs who could whip greenhorns recruits into shape and steer greenhorn officers.

It was drilling. Ensuring they followed the Tactical Drills and Musketry Drills, not just marching. It may have been the RESPONSIBILITY of the Commanding Officer - just as it is now - but it was the regular or ex-regular sergeants who conducted the training, just like FMJ, but with less in-your-face and Fs. You taught them the drills, then you did it over and over again until they got it right, then again and again until it was automatic. THREE rounds per minute, a load and ready in 20 SECONDS. No more.

A Major or Colonel would not conduct any training, just walk around to ensure it was being done. Nor would he allow any of his officers to do it! Far too much shouting and cussing! In any case, they needed training too!

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I don't know really much about it but always got the impression that his was rather on a low scale….

After the war, a soldier made a statement in The National Tribune that the tendency of soldiers, north or south, to help themselves to whatever they felt they needed or wanted would rise in direct proportion to the distance their unit was from the headquarters of the officer who has decreed there would be no looting.

I thought this sounded about like how human nature works. No doubt Confederate troops in the vicinity of Lee would not dare to flaunt his orders, and those troops could perhaps swear an oath later with absolute certainty in their hearts that there was no looting. But Jubal Early and his men, for example, seem to have had no such qualms in their travels through northern territory.

 

[Old Soldier]

After the war, a soldier made a statement in The National Tribune that the tendency of soldiers, north or south, to help themselves to whatever they felt they needed or wanted would rise in direct proportion to the distance their unit was from the headquarters of the officer who has decreed there would be no looting.

I thought this sounded about like how human nature works. No doubt Confederate troops in the vicinity of Lee would not dare to flaunt his orders, and those troops could perhaps swear an oath later with absolute certainty in their hearts that there was no looting. But Jubal Early and his men, for example, seem to have had no such qualms in their travels through northern territory.

There is looting and .. looting. One is taking anything of value and one is a method of survival. A handful of gold coin is no use if you are hungry and thirsty and nowhere and nobody to buy anything from. If your boots are broken and lifting, you grab another pair that fits as quick as you can. It is no use taking that fine rifle because it will not fire the ammo you have - and you will not dump your issue rifle - it's not worth the punishment - but that small can of gun oil ...

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I can't help but I somehow gained the same impression…

Something I long had the same impression of as well, but then I considered that there were XX,XXX battles during the war and only XX of them took place in states loyal to the Union.**

Which makes me consider that opportunity and motivation might have as much to do with the number of Southern civilians suffering losses as did the discipline of Southern troops in not looting from their own side as it were.

**I can't find two sources that agree on what those numbers should be, but all agree they were heavily skewed.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Some years ago I came across (in the ORs?) an extremely irritated sounding order from General Thomas who had sent a New York regiment out to destroy military targets. Word had filtered back that this officer and his troops were freely looting from civilians, burning towns and not focusing on railroads or supply depots. This was not "winning hearts and minds to say the least and Thomas was accepting no part of it. He therefore had to send out yet another unit to track down this "rogue" group, round them up, and bring the officer back for court martial.

I'm in no way suggesting that northern armies had higher standards, and I can't buy (any longer) that southern armies somehow had higher standards. Men individually have standards they live by, and those get tested. Some men fail the test.

The issue of discipline in either army still seems to me to be very fluid over the course of the war and not lending itself to generalization, although at any given time or place a lot can be said about it, and how it influenced a particular outcome.

 

[CavRTO]

Some years ago I came across (in the ORs?) an extremely irritated sounding order from General Thomas who had sent a New York regiment out to destroy military targets. Word had filtered back that this officer and his troops were freely looting from civilians, burning towns and not focusing on railroads or supply depots. This was not "winning hearts and minds to say the least and Thomas was accepting no part of it. He therefore had to send out yet another unit to track down this "rogue" group, round them up, and bring the officer back for court martial.

I'm in no way suggesting that northern armies had higher standards, and I can't buy (any longer) that southern armies somehow had higher standards. Men individually have standards they live by, and those get tested. Some men fail the test.

The issue of discipline in either army still seems to me to be very fluid over the course of the war and not lending itself to generalization, although at any given time or place a lot can be said about it, and how it influenced a particular outcome.

Even today, breakdowns of military discipline are a problem and so long as there are wars there will be problems. My Lai in VN is a prime example. The fact that so many troops took part in the killing is sad. One of reasons I read was that the U.S. troops were venting their frustration with dealing on a daily basis that particular villages support of the local VC who planted mines and booby traps killing and wounding so many of their buddies. The Middle East abounds with them mainly because of differing religious beliefs. As old as the problem is it all boils down to leadership. As has already been pointed out several times in this thread.

 

[Present Arms]

The degree of discipline of a unit is dynamic, depending on the current membership (which changed almost daily), morale which is subject to many stresses, living conditions and the influence of group (mob) behavior. Notice how often when an entire army surrendered that the officers were permitted to keep their side arms. The intention was to maintain discipline because unemployed soldiers so often turn into marauders.

 

[TallTallMan]

Since joining the forum and expanding my ACW library it's opened my eyes much beyond the cookie cutter attempts at explaining the ACW we've all experienced. I'm of the opinion that the confederate soldiers displayed better discipline in the ranks than their northern counterparts. More specifically their treatment of the civilians they encountered. There was more emphasis put on winning the hearts and minds.

I thank you for posting something against the *Edited* Confederate stereotype, but honestly I think discipline was bad on both sides. Even Lee's fabled army foraged and slave-catched.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

It was drilling. Ensuring they followed the Tactical Drills and Musketry Drills, not just marching. It may have been the RESPONSIBILITY of the Commanding Officer - just as it is now - but it was the regular or ex-regular sergeants who conducted the training, just like FMJ, but with less in-your-face and Fs. You taught them the drills, then you did it over and over again until they got it right, then again and again until it was automatic. THREE rounds per minute, a load and ready in 20 SECONDS. No more.

A Major or Colonel would not conduct any training, just walk around to ensure it was being done. Nor would he allow any of his officers to do it! Far too much shouting and cussing! In any case, they needed training too!

I think this is more of a modernist way of looking at things. Suggest you consult Prokopowicz "All for the Regiment", Paddy Griffith, Earl Hess, and others regarding the pervasiveness of drill, or rather lack thereof. And "regular and ex-regular sergeants" were extremely scarce in that era.

 

[Old Soldier]

I think this is more of a modernist way of looking at things. Suggest you consult Prokopowicz "All for the Regiment", Paddy Griffith, Earl Hess, and others regarding the pervasiveness of drill, or rather lack thereof. And "regular and ex-regular sergeants" were extremely scarce in that era.

And that is why the units differed so greatly in their conduct on the battlefield. If all you have is 'The Manual', that is what happens. At least that is what happens initially. Experience in action pretty much gets the changes noted. It happens in every war. You start with well-drilled but inexperienced soldiers as well as poorly-trained soldiers and end up with veterans - but not many of either survive. Read the account of the 5th New York Volunteer Infantry (Zouaves) at 2nd Manassas https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/destruction-5th-new-york-zouaves They were one of the better ones!

 

[1SGDan]

I'll aver that any soldier that stood in line while the enemy shot at them with artillery and small arms displayed more courage and discipline than common sense.