Youngsters in Command

[Peace Society]

Fletcher Pratt raises an interesting question in his book Civil War in Pictures (Garden City, NY 1955). I'm wondering if anyone has looked into it?

p. 184 [about the time just before Grant named Lt. Gen.] "..growing tendency toward youth in the upper officer ranks of the Union army... the older men had failed and disappeared. Not that Grant, Sherman, Warren, Thomas, Sedgwick, and Hancock were precisely youngsters; but their age average was perceptibly below that of their Confederate opposite numbers."
(pages of pictures intervene)
p. 187 "How much influence this had on the war might be a subject of some study. At the time there was no sign that anybody thought about the matter. The Union only knew that it was getting some very young officers, including colonels not yet old enough to vote."

 

[Peace Society]

When he says "old enough to vote" is he thinking 21? Was that the voting age then?

Would young officers enhance the rapidity of response in a battle situation? By this time did they have enough experience to respond wisely? How did things balance out on the Confederate side?

 

[James N.]

Voting age was probably still determined by the States but was more likely 21 than younger. I really don't think the statement about age of commanding officers North vs. South holds up; for example, Hood was certainly younger than any of the Federals named. What was certain, however, is that among the high command the fossils left over from the Mexican War and even earlier like Scott, Wool, Dix, Twiggs, and others were indeed retired or relegated to purely administrative duties. And many younger officers did often add a touch of impetuosity and élan to the proceedings: Custer and many of the other cavalry officers certainly come readily to mind!