Whose troops displayed more discipline?

[nc native]

The question about whose troops displayed more discipline is very broad, leaving aside a general agreement that regulars were more disciplined than volunteers. It might be more appropriate to focus on specific units or armies to find an answer. For example, the troops of the eastern Army of the Potomac were considered to be better disciplined than those of the western Army of the Tennessee. Or Joe Wheeler and Ashby Turner were known to be lax disciplinarians towards their cavalry commands.

The soldiers in the Army of the Tennessee were a lot like their Confederate counterparts as far as lifestyle and discipline. Many of them were farmers and outdoorsmen who lived in small communities with little law and regulation to interfere with the way that they lived their lives. The Army of the Potomac had more soldiers that came from larger cities and were more accustomed to having to obey laws and regulations thus they were more used to following authority than the Confederates or the Army of the Tennessee. I think this has a lot to do with the perceived lack of discipline in the Confederate ranks. The Confederates and the Army of the Tennessee did have advantages over their counterparts, especially in the early years of the war, being more used to life in the outdoors and having to learn how to shoot to provide for themselves and their families.

 

[CavRTO]

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.

Common sense, a strong religious belief in the word of God, or the ability to overcome the innate human instinct of self preservation?

 

[1SGDan]

Common sense, a strong religious belief in the word of God, or the ability to overcome the innate human instinct of self preservation?

Agreed

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I can recall reading somewhere of a local Pennsylvanian civilian's account of dealing with both Union and Confederate soldiers in their home during the Gettysburg Campaign. The citizen asserted that the Southern soldiers were much better behaved than their Northern counterparts.

Of course these isolated experiences are not a basis for forming a wide view or making any sweeping general statement.

 

[Piedone]

It might be that a lot depended on the background of the soldiers. I could imagine that later in the war when there were proportionally more newly immigrated people in the federal army who had no real understanding of the South and felt no bonds of a common history like citizens of the North would feel towards the South things would maybe have been handled a bit diverse sometimes….

 

[GwilymT]

I can recall reading somewhere of a local Pennsylvanian civilian's account of dealing with both Union and Confederate soldiers in their home during the Gettysburg Campaign. The citizen asserted that the Southern soldiers were much better behaved than their Northern counterparts.

Of course these isolated experiences are not a basis for forming a wide view or making any sweeping general statement.

I will offer a guarantee that your un-cited claim, if it exists, is the opinion of a white man and not a free person of color living in the local area of PA at that time.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

It might be that a lot depended on the background of the soldiers. I could imagine that later in the war when there were proportionally more newly immigrated people in the federal army who had no real understanding of the South and felt no bonds of a common history like citizens of the North would feel towards the South things would maybe have been handled a bit diverse sometimes….

Actually the evidence suggests that later in the war there were substantially fewer immigrants in the army than there were in the early years.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I will offer a guarantee that your un-cited claim, if it exists, is the opinion of a white man and not a free person of color living in the local area of PA at that time.

I cannot instantly find the reference for what I vaguely recalled reading.

Your adamantly made point is acknowledged.

There seems to be some variation in the literature as to the degree/amount of restraint generally exercised by Confederate soldiers on Northern soil during the Pennsylvania Campaign. However, any restraint does not appear to have been applied as readily to the kidnapping of hundreds of free blacks and contrabands sent back into slavery during the two weeks Lee's Army was in Pennsylvania prior to Gettysburg.

Think it's plausible, though, that there were experiences (perhaps very few) of dealings between courteous and chivalrous Southern combatants and frightened/apprehensive locals during the course of these events that could have created favorable (albeit fleeting) impressions among eyewitness civilians.

ReplyForward

 

[jackt62]

Many of them were farmers and outdoorsmen who lived in small communities with little law and regulation to interfere with the way that they lived their lives.

Good example is the Texas Brigade. They were known for their unruly ways and took pride in their Texan spirit of independence and flouting authority.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

Confederate sympathizers like to point out that Union troops helped themselves when marching through Georgia, among other places: "They burnt my g-g-grandma's barn and stole her chickens!" Well, they did. No argument there. But the insinuation seems to be that Confederacy troops were better behaved, perhaps more honorable.

I will point out that Confederate troops, for the most part, had less opportunity for such things, being in Union territory as much. But on the rare occasions that Confederate troops found themselves "up north," they did a little barn burning and chicken stealing themselves. See details of Morgan's 1863 raid for some examples of "foraging liberally."

My point? I don't think either side had the market cornered on behaving with honor, or without it, for that matter.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I will point out that Confederate troops, for the most part, had less opportunity for such things, being in Union territory as much. But on the rare occasions that Confederate troops found themselves "up north," they did a little barn burning and chicken stealing themselves. See details of Morgan's 1863 raid for some examples of "foraging liberally."

For sure, I don't think either side can claim bragging rights about maintaining discipline either. Basil Duke, Morgan's brother-in-law, who accompanied Morgan on the 1863 raid had this to say…

"He (Morgan) ordered a number of bridges burned, as well as the town's railroad depot. In the process, his men lost all sense of proportion. Duke thought the ever present danger had rendered the troops more and more reckless, resulting in wholesale plunder of the town's stores. "It seemed to be a mania," said Duke, "senseless and purposeless," as men seized such useless articles as bolts of cloth, birdcages, and ice skates. "They pillaged like boys robbing an orchard," he recalled, adding that he was shocked "that such a passion could have been developed so ludicrously among any body of civilized men." (1)

Captain Theodore F. Allen, who took part in the capture of Morgan, says in his account entitled "In Pursuit of John Morgan" that as the Federal troopers closed in and the Confederates scrambled to escape -

"Immediately after the stampede began each one of Morgan's troopers began to unload the plunder carried on his horse — boots, shoes, stockings, gloves, skates, sleigh bells and bird cages were scattered to the winds. Then the flying horsemen let loose their bolts of muslin and calico; holding one end, each cavalryman let the whole hundred yards stream out behind him. The most gorgeous kaleidoscopic view imaginable would not serve to describe the retreat…" (2)

Sources:
(1) https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/morgans-ohio-raid/
(2) https://archive.org/details/sketcheswarhist00unkngoog/page/223/mode/1up

 

[Old Soldier]

That highlights the problem. There were many 'regiments' formed by individuals and allowed to 'roam the countryside', particularly in the West. The title 'Morgan's Raiders' really sums them up. They were usually mounted and were not drilled as soldiers of the line were. Officers commanded by agreement and were often ignored - or blamed. They may have been given their orders and directions by 'seasoned officers', but carrying out those orders was not controlled in the same way. Their job was not securing a victory on the battlefield but disruption, which they achieved in the Great Raid (1863) Once faced by trained soldiers, they did not stand much chance of holding ground.