back
100 comments
One thing I don't see mentioned in this is during that time period secondary/high school wasn't really a thing yet, meaning it wasn't that unusual for a 15 year old to be considered both fully educated and part of the workforce. It really wasn't until after WWI that we pushed the working adult age out to 18 for more education.
Family legend is that my grandfather lied about his age to join in the US Army in WW I. He was granted citizenship for joining the effort.
> In April 1862 it adopted a policy of universal conscription, and in February 1864 it lowered the age of mandatory service from eighteen to seventeen. Additionally, some Confederate states enrolled boys as young as sixteen for service in state-controlled units.

In the UK in 2023 it is still possible to join the military when you're 16 years old, and you can start your application when 5 months before that. No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the UK.

You can't actually be deployed until you're 18 though - it's basically a way of front-loading training.
but if the UK was invaded, you'd be expected to pick up arms in the kingdoms defense right?
Canada also allows 17 year olds to be enlisted (16 for the reserves). They cannot be deployed in combat per international convention.

As I understand it, it's basically a legal historical quirk at this point; it almost never happens -- they're not qualified otherwise. Essentially all roles require secondary education and many want a college degree these days.

I joined the reserves at 17 in 1994, and did ql 2/3 (Canadian basic) between my grade 11 and 12 year. They woke us up on the first morning, gave us 15 minutes to shit, shower and shave, but I had never shaved before. It was just wisps of peachfuzz on my face, and my hurried, improvised hack shaving job had the sergeants shaking their heads.
"Child soldiers" is dramatic. I don't see a problem with a 16 year old joining the military, with the support of their parents, esp. if they don't have an interest in college. They could learn some valuable skills, certainly more than you'd learn in public education.
I could see letting them join an academy early, but you can't send them to fight before 18 and you should give them a chance to back out when they actually turn 18.
Damn straight. A structured environment that doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some children at that age need.
Really? I see a problem with people joining the military regardless of their age, but especially if they're too young to be sufficiently critical of whatever they were told by the recruiter.
I believe several nations have similar to Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) like the USA has, which can start at middle school or around 4th 5th grade or 12 to 13 years olds.

(edit: spelling)

> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the UK.

That'll show the French!

> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers

Are these 16 year old actually fighting? Or are they placed in support roles, i.e. it's basically a job, but under the structure of the military?

They can't legally be deployed in combat situations until they are 18, so I guess they do other stuff.

But once they turn 18 they can be ordered into combat based on a decision they made when they were still a child.

Recruits can leave up to the end of their first six months of service. After that they are committed until they are 22.

Pick an age of majority. It should be the same age for joining the military, voting, drinking, owning a gun, driving a car, consent, etc. You don’t get to call a 16 year old a child only when it’s convenient for you.
The age of majority in the UK is 18. People who are younger than 18 are minors/children, not adults.
There is zero reason to demand that drinking age is same as joining army age or voting age or owning gun age. It is absurd to demand same age for all these.
A minor point that may have some relevance here. When I was doing genealogical research on my great grandfather who served in the US Civil War, I read that at the time, your legal age was considered to be the age you would attain by the end of the calendar year, so everyone officially aged up on January 1. By this convention, many 17 year-olds who enlisted would have been legally 18 and did not actually lie about their age.
I'm mentally trying to wrap my head around someone having a great grandfather that served in the Civil War. That's incredible! Thank you.
The North experienced massive social change in the first half of the 19th century when industrial revolution really ramped up. Cities were still trying to figure out the transition from agrarian support to industrial center and the general quality of life in cities during that time was horrible from pollution and overcrowding. City dwellers didn't see much benefit for all their effort until the labor movement got its feet in the late 19th and early 20th century.

It's no surprise that there were lots of older boys in the Union army because the lack of prospects in the cities were obvious even then.

A bit of an aside, but it seems like the South would've had a lot fewer able-bodied, young men to fight the war especially since they weren't inclined to arm black soldiers. Given that the south was primarily agrarian with fewer urban areas to draw from - the population was more sparse. How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference?
* They planned to fight a defensive war

* They had more military experience and a stronger military tradition

* They were more motivated

* There were a not-insignificant number of Northerners who weren't particularly in favor of fighting a war against slavery (which, despite the "states' rights" commentators, was the real cause of the war)

* They expected recognition from the British government due to their supposed dependence of southern cotton

I just finished the book _Battle Cry of Freedom_ a couple of weeks ago. It's a fantastic and very readable single-volume history of the war and the ~20 years leading up to it, and I think every American should read it for a clear understanding of why exactly the US Civil War happened

AFAIK after pro-union candidates swept elections the Confederacy invaded the officially neutral state of Kentucky. They even admitted Kentucky under a shadow government.
Most importantly, they thought they needed to fight. Winning was somewhat secondary, but the following factors where involved in that calculation:

1. The Confederates planned to fight on the defensive. They weren't invading the Union.

2. They were more prepared for military service and had better leadership. Which wasn't wrong at the start.

3. They would win simply because of the strength of their belief. If they never surrendered, they would win because the Union didn't the same resolve.

4. Cotton exports would cause European countries to side with them against the Union.

5. They didn't really expect the Union to wage total war.

At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, but that wasn't the case. The ready availability of slave labor enabled free men, who would have otherwise been required at home to work the fields or bring in the crops, to go off and fight instead. IIRC, around 80% of able-bodied free men in the South fought in the war.

> How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference?

When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun.

Slave owners did not had to join army, because they were thought to be needed to keep control over slaves.

The slaves were seen as a threat that could start the rebellion of some kind.

> When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun.

The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.

I don't know if they truly thought they could win as much as they had to fight. With the Westward expansion of the U.S., more and more states would be admitted to the union that would never be as slave dependent as the South. In that scenario, the political power of the slavers gets diluted and chattel slavery ends with the stroke of a pen. They simply couldn't stick around for that situation to take place.
Also, the economic and industrial might of the North, and the lack of industrialization in the South (slavery didn't help) meant that the disparities between military and economic might between the North and South were bound to get larger, much larger, so many in the South must have felt that 1861 was the last time they might be able to secede successfully.
The will to fight is also a finite resource in war. There was also no material way that North Vietnam or the Taliban could prevail in a straight up fight; the strategy in all these cases was to inflict enough death and destruction that the United States would give up and sue for peace.
Isn't that fairly contemporary theory though? Is there any historical record of confederate leadership using that language or applying those concepts? I'm sure someone over there had read clausewitz but I've never heard of this stuff being applied by any american military before like maaaybe ww1, a little bit.
Sam Houston didn't think it was possible and counseled the Texas legislature to not secede. For his troubles he was removed as governor.
They had help from (and were egged on by) Britain and they didn't count on the help the Union was going to get from Russia. Also, war on home turf gives a "home field advantage." Also, in the end, the war lasted over 4 years -- they were hardly a pushover.
My grandfather supposedly did the "Yes, I am over 18" (stepping a piece of paper with 18 on it) trick after Pearl Harbor. I guess it was probably pretty common for kids who were borderline old enough to serve.
My grandpa did the same; joined at 13 years old. From his story it sounded like there wasn't a single person who thought it was even questionable - on the contrary - it was highly encouraged by everyone
I've read so many biographical sketches of various individuals that begin the description of their stint in the WWI or WWII military with statements like, "when he was 16/17 he signed up for the war, lying about his age…" It seems pretty commonplace.
The explanation I got was my grandfather did the same. In his service records it seems he stops getting older for a few years at some point, probably because after WWII they were trying to get all the remaining enlisted men's records correct.
My uncle lied about his age to join the Army during the Korean War. He was 16 I believe.
My dad lied and joined the Navy at 16, during the Korean War. He said it was safer than waiting to be drafted
One of my grandfathers joined the Navy before Pearl Harbor (Wikipedia says the draft started in 1940, so in '40 or '41) to avoid getting drafted into the Army. Not sure why he thought boats were safer, but I guess he lived, so he was right. :-)
Yeah most of the time it is. They made is so you get the opportunity to select what occupational specialty instead of getting tossed into infantry or whatever the needs of the time were.
Why did he want to fight in that war so badly?
>Historians have not only underestimated the sheer number of underage soldiers who fought for the Union. As a historian by trade myself, that just makes me sad for the profession. The whole underage volunteerism to fight has been a long-standing tradition, (heck, my grandfather was 16 when he enlisted to fight in WWII). Whole article reeks of "think of the childrens" modern sensebilities recontextualizing of historical facts. But I suppose the US historians have their own issues grappling with the aftermath of their civil war.