[HN Gopher] Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Con...
___________________________________________________________________
Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy
Author : samclemens
Score : 40 points
Date : 2023-06-20 04:52 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (commonplace.online)
(TXT) w3m dump (commonplace.online)
| vondur wrote:
| My uncle lied about his age to join the Army during the Korean
| War. He was 16 I believe.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Why did he want to fight in that war so badly?
| vondur wrote:
| He grew up in poverty after my grandfather died; the military
| was a way out. He became a helicopter pilot and rose to the
| rank of Major before being medically discharged.
| Vvector wrote:
| My dad lied and joined the Navy at 16, during the Korean War.
| He said it was safer than waiting to be drafted
| HelloFellowDevs wrote:
| 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.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| 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. :-)
| delecti wrote:
| I can't easily find a nice and comprehensive comparison,
| but it seems like he was right even with Pearl Harbor
| included. From [1]:
|
| > Total U.S. military deaths in battle and from other
| causes were 407,316. The breakout by service is as follows:
| Army 318,274 (234,874 battle, 83,400 nonbattle),[292] Navy
| 62,614,[292] Marine Corps 24,511,[292] and the Coast Guard
| 1,917.[570][320]
|
| I don't know what the denominator looks like for those
| various forces, but 5x as many Army deaths as Navy seems to
| corroborate your grandfather's intuition.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#e
| ndnot...
|
| Edit: From [2] it seems the Army was a bit over 2x the size
| of the Navy, so still about 2x the rate of deaths.
|
| [2] https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/us-involvement-in-
| wwii-how...
| lmm wrote:
| I've read that being a civilian in the Merchant Navy was
| more dangerous than being in the armed forces.
| slackfan wrote:
| >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.
| [deleted]
| moioci wrote:
| 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.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| BrotherBisquick wrote:
| [flagged]
| dukeyukey wrote:
| You can't actually be deployed until you're 18 though - it's
| basically a way of front-loading training.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| but if the UK was invaded, you'd be expected to pick up arms
| in the kingdoms defense right?
| dukeyukey wrote:
| Honestly, probably not. Even in WW2, the closest there got
| to 16-year-olds fighting (at least without lying about it)
| was in the Home Guard (sometimes called the Dad's Army
| because of its use of retired soldiers), and them fighting
| would mean the enemy landed on Great Britain itself. It's
| not impossible, but I imagine something similar would
| happen in almost any other country under active occupation.
| Which doesn't mean I think it's good (or bad), I just think
| the UK doesn't stand out.
| civilitty wrote:
| _> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the
| UK._
|
| That'll show the French!
| retrac wrote:
| 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.
| Fricken wrote:
| 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.
| Eumenes wrote:
| "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.
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| 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)
| koolba wrote:
| Damn straight. A structured environment that doubles as a
| boarding school is exactly what some children at that age
| need.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Could not create a better environment for hazing and sexual
| abuse if you tried.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some
| children at that age need.
|
| Also environment for brainwashing
| Retric wrote:
| There's typically a fair bit of schooling a 16 year old
| goes through before college. Dropping out and joining the
| military may have benefits, but it's hard not to see that
| as a failure by society.
| Tostino wrote:
| Military provides a bunch of benefits until it's actually
| used for its purpose. Then you send a bunch of underage
| kids to die.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| 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.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| 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.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Recruits can leave up to the end of their first six months
| of service - so 161/2. After that they are committed until
| they are 22.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| I don't see how you can get a minor to sign an
| enforceable contract. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| 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.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| The age of majority in the UK is 18. People who are younger
| than 18 are minors/children, not adults.
| JadedBlueEyes wrote:
| It's not quite so simple. Although the age of majority is
| 18 according to the Family Law Reform Act 1969, that is
| primarily relevant to financial contracts (debt), criminal
| sentencing, and tobacco. Drinking, you can drink in private
| from sixteen, although you can only purchase once at
| eighteen. You can start a company at sixteen. You bear
| primary authority over your medical records from sixteen,
| and your caregivers cannot access them without your
| consent. You can vote in some elections from sixteen. But
| you can't adopt until 21.
|
| The TLDR is that in the UK, age limits are quite case-by-
| case, and tend to range from 16 to 21, although in more
| niche cases can range from 11 (the age you can open a bank
| account) to 30 (the age of suffrage for women in the 1918
| Representation of the people act).
| throwaway462910 wrote:
| Wanted to mention that 16 year olds could buy cigarettes
| until 2007, went to check the year, found that more
| interestingly:
|
| You can smoke cigarettes at any age, but you are not
| allowed to buy them until you are 18.
|
| If you are caught smoking by a uniformed police officer
| or park keeper in a public place when under 16, he or she
| can take away your tobacco and cigarette papers.
|
| s.7 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
|
| https://lawstuff.org.uk/at-what-age-can-i/buy-and-
| consume/
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| NtochkaNzvanova wrote:
| Agreed. In fact I would take it even further -- it is also
| absurd to say that everyone who reaches age X is equally
| qualified to receive privilege Y. Clearly there are some
| people who at age 18 are capable of making reasoned
| decisions in a certain area, and others who aren't. Like
| driving, you should have to pass a test and demonstrate
| competence and responsibility in order to join the army,
| buy a gun, vote, drink, fornicate, etc.
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| No it isn't. You don't get to cherry pick the scenarios
| that someone will be considered an adult for. Either you're
| an adult or you aren't, and "you're an adult when it's
| politically favourable to me" is not an acceptable
| compromise. I get the impression that you'd be the same
| type of person to defend the patriot act if it was made
| about tax evasion instead of terrorism.
| watwut wrote:
| > You don't get to cherry pick the scenarios that someone
| will be considered an adult for.
|
| That is absurd claim. We in fact do get to chery pick
| scenarios in which someone is mature enough for X and not
| yet mature enough for Y. That isbjust simple logic, it is
| irrational to demand that different situations are
| treated the same.
|
| Patriot act, taxes and terroris have literally zero to do
| with anything.
| consilient wrote:
| > You don't get to cherry pick the scenarios that someone
| will be considered an adult for.
|
| But we do get to pick and choose which privileges we
| extend to minors, and when. A 16 year old has no legal
| right to consume alcohol, but that only means that we
| _can_ ban them from doing so, not that we have to.
| watwut wrote:
| And in fact, in Germany they have that legal right.
| Reality is that these lines are not universal.
| ars wrote:
| > 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?
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| 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.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > But once they turn 18 they can be ordered into combat
| roles based on a decision they made when they were still a
| child.
|
| That is an uncomfortable situation, but it's not worse than
| countries that conscript 18-year-olds, who don't even get
| to make a decision at all.
| Abekkus wrote:
| Systemically, conscription can be "better" if it is
| randomized and includes everyone. "Volunteer" Armies just
| means that rich parents can decide to start wars without
| worrying that their kids might be sent to fight.
| gretch wrote:
| It's definitely more equitable.
|
| It also gives everyone the same incentive to not start
| shit (even though few ppl are in position to instigate a
| war) because it could be you and your family that's sent
| to fight it.
|
| However, when you're actually fighting, you want to trust
| the person fighting next to you. And if that person was
| conscripted and didn't want to ever be there, that'd
| cause a lot of issues.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Meh. Lets not pretend like a 16 year old signing papers to
| join the army was too dumb to understand it meant they were
| joining the army. 16 is hardly fingers-in-the-wall-socket
| level of understanding the world.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Seriously? Why do you think we recruit teenagers and not
| 25 to 30 year old men, who are stronger, tougher and more
| mature?
|
| Because teenagers are easy to manipulate and control,
| don't value their life, and think with their dick.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more
| capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this
| assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any
| information about demographics and fighting effectiveness
| before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally
| anything other than the small window on the world of your
| immediate general area and personal life experience / gut
| feeling?
|
| I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say by sheer
| coincidence you're in that 25-30 year old male
| demographic, and in about 5 years you'll be of the
| opinion that actually its 30-35 year olds who are clearly
| the strongest, toughest, most mature and capable fighting
| force and all them 25-30s are a bunch of idiots that
| don't value life and think with their dick.
| watwut wrote:
| No. Pretty obviously they are not as mature as 18 years
| old which is why they should not make these decisions.
| They are more naive easier to manipulate and more of kids
| the adults.
|
| 10 years old understand joining army means joining army.
| And still don't get to make those decisions.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Some kids should probably have been allowed to vote since
| they were 12. Some adults probably shouldn't be trusted
| with glue. Yet for some reason its taboo to say, some
| kids really do know what they're doing when they signed
| up for the army and should be allowed to do it, and some
| adults really have no damn clue what they're doing when
| they vote and should maybe not be allowed to.
|
| Age cutoffs are an arbitrary and shitty substitute for a
| test of competency, prone to both high false negative and
| high false positive rates.
| dmichulke wrote:
| >> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the
| UK.
|
| I don't think they think they're part of Europe, so your
| argument is invalid for them.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I'm British. I was referring to the continent of Europe, not
| the EU.
| dmichulke wrote:
| And you never told anyone you go to "Europe" nor did they?
|
| That's what I was alluding to but thanks for the lecture I
| suppose.
| scatters wrote:
| No. You go to the mainland, or, colloquially, the
| continent.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Europe != The EU
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| The EU tyrants disagree.
|
| For those who are confused by that; people think that the
| EU is some kind of Democratic system, but reality is that
| it was founded undemocratically, it operates
| undemocratically and it dictates, because it is
| undemocratic by nature due to the poison fruit that
| produced it.
|
| And I say that as someone that had hopes that the EU could
| have become a real bastion of freedom by adopting the pre
| civil war American Constitutional governmental structure of
| sovereign states in a union. The EU is none of that, it is
| just as much an illegitimate fraud as the fake and
| illegitimate American government.
| cafard wrote:
| Umm, what is Switzerland, and what do the EU tyrants (has
| Gessler been replaced?) say about that?
| watwut wrote:
| Why should EU adopt slavery and genocide facilitating
| constitution?
|
| I mean, not that European or whatever history was nicer.
| But still ... current EU is not practicing either which
| says something good about it comparatively.
| dmichulke wrote:
| FYI: The British often say "we go to Europe" when they go
| to continental Europe.
|
| Also, it's kind of condescending to point out the obvious.
| shkkmo wrote:
| More condescending than the original nitpicking?
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| 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.
| detourdog wrote:
| 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.
| earthboundkid wrote:
| 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.
| slimsag wrote:
| 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
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| 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.
| chrisbrandow wrote:
| 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.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| 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?
| philwelch wrote:
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Sam Houston didn't think it was possible and counseled the
| Texas legislature to not secede. For his troubles he was
| removed as governor.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| ranger207 wrote:
| * 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
| xenadu02 wrote:
| AFAIK after pro-union candidates swept elections the
| Confederacy invaded the officially neutral state of Kentucky.
| They even admitted Kentucky under a shadow government.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| marcusverus wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > 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.
| Clubber wrote:
| _On the night of December 26, Major Anderson 's men were
| ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military
| buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for
| the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter
| and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter
| one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in
| war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With
| the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot
| fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set
| fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later
| considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of
| war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War
| at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major
| Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order
| for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action._
|
| ...
|
| _Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note
| to his secretary of war: "I desire than an expedition, to
| move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of
| April next." Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter
| apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden
| by Southern authorities after months of patient and
| unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the
| fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the
| reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter
| Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort
| Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired
| upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a
| passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor,
| and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with
| troops._
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/
| shkkmo wrote:
| Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including
| the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food
| shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still
| nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.
| Clubber wrote:
| >your extremely selective quoting
|
| If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort
| on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire
| article in here or something? What's extremely selective
| about it? I linked the article.
|
| >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required
|
| Got any references or anything to explain what you mean?
|
| >food shortage that necessitated resupply
|
| Anderson took the fort and held it for three months. I'm
| certain he needed resupply. Did you think the CSA was
| gonna give him food after he took their fort?
| [deleted]
| marcusverus wrote:
| > The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to
| start the war.
|
| Marching into a country and killing hundreds of thousands
| of men isn't an invasion? What do you call it where you're
| from?
| civilitty wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-20 23:01 UTC)