Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[alfred russel]

Probably apocryphally, von Moltke, when asked about whether he was studying the American Civil War, commented, "I have no time to waste in studying the struggles of two armed mobs."

I've been reading a bit about the war recently, and the European perspective seems to regard the large number of stragglers in both armies with some disdain. Both sides seem to have discipline problems and a shortage of quality officers (electing officers doesn't seem prone to the promotion of discipline). At least one Confederate general believed his army numbered only 30k at Antietam because significant numbers declined to make the trek into Maryland. Some sources believe the Confederate army was back to its pre Antietam numbers within a day or two after the battle as stragglers returned.

There also seems to have been curiosity regarding the lack of bayonet charges, and some officers commented men their units declined to charge.

I was reading about a recent revelation that a famous photo of the confederate army long attributed to 1862 was properly identified as 1864 - and what first tipped the investigators off to the false date was the absence of bayonets in the unit--by 1864 many soldiers had decided they didn't want to carry a bayonet anymore and thus didn't have one.

On the other hand plenty of guys were disciplined enough to get themselves killed and wounded.

Please no ACW hijacks in this thread.

[alfred russel]

What also prompted this is I was recently found the service record of an ancestor who was an officer. I was surprised to find two reports indicating he was AWOL (1 in 1863 and 1 in 1865). However, he was never demoted and there is no indication of punishment.

[Razgovory]

One of the more remarkable things about the US civil war is that junior officers were set up to command entire armies.  Grant retired from the army as a captain,  So did Sherman.  Custer went for 2nd LT to Major General in only a few years.  I think the only man in the entire hemisphere who had commanded more than 20,000 men in battle was Winfield Scott.  And he was much too old and too fat to command an army in the field.  It's amazing that anything got done.

[KRonn]

Hmm, I never really thought or read a lot about the discipline in all the books/stories I've read on the ACW. I would have figured discipline was pretty good, given that it would seem punishment of the day was a lot more harsh than a century later or today. Then, as you state in the opening post, to get men to form into lines, making easier targets, and then walk/march into battle would have to require some heavy discipline, I would think. The egregious casualties incurred certainly must have caused many soldiers to desert but still, most remained even under that huge stress.

[jimmy olsen]

I've been reading a bit about the war recently, and the European perspective seems to regard the large number of stragglers in both armies with some disdain. Both sides seem to have discipline problems and a shortage of quality officers (electing officers doesn't seem prone to the promotion of discipline). At least one Confederate general believed his army numbered only 30k at Antietam because significant numbers declined to make the trek into Maryland. Some sources believe the Confederate army was back to its pre Antietam numbers within a day or two after the battle as stragglers returned.

The argument exists that the Confederate army at Antietam was much larger than reported, and that all those reports about stragglers was basically an excuse for why Lee lost the battle.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8360.0.html

[dps]

Lee didn't exactly lose--tactically, the battle was a draw.

Whatever the actual numbers of men present, though, McClellan deserves a lot of criticism for how he conducted the battle.  He basically drew up a battle plan the night before, then stood back and watched his corps commanders try to carry it out.  He didn't do anything to help them coordinate there attacks, or much of anything else, either.  He pretty much just acted as a spectator during the battel, not a commander.

[Razgovory]

Hmm, I never really thought or read a lot about the discipline in all the books/stories I've read on the ACW. I would have figured discipline was pretty good, given that it would seem punishment of the day was a lot more harsh than a century later or today. Then, as you state in the opening post, to get men to form into lines, making easier targets, and then walk/march into battle would have to require some heavy discipline, I would think. The egregious casualties incurred certainly must have caused many soldiers to desert but still, most remained even under that huge stress.

Desertion for wars fought in the 20th century and this century was fairly uncommon.  It was somewhat difficult to desert while on an island in the middle of the Pacific or fighting in a country where you don't know the language.  In the US civil war (and War of 1812 and the Revolutionary war), you could just walk off.

[Valmy]

Lee didn't exactly lose--tactically, the battle was a draw.

Whatever the actual numbers of men present, though, McClellan deserves a lot of criticism for how he conducted the battle.  He basically drew up a battle plan the night before, then stood back and watched his corps commanders try to carry it out.  He didn't do anything to help them coordinate there attacks, or much of anything else, either.  He pretty much just acted as a spectator during the battel, not a commander.

Lee and his army were in a terrible position but Lee decided to fight anyway because he knew McClellan was a loser. Considering how disastrous the Confederate strategic position was, it was a miracle he even got his army back to Virginia.

And what you described was pretty much how he commanded the army generally. He would make bad plans that were poorly thought out and then leave his confused and inexperienced corps commanders to their own devices while he hid in the rear somewhere. It worked great that one time his subordinate was Rosecrans, but not so much the other times.

[Valmy]

As far discipline there are all kinds of anecdotes about terrible discipline among both armies. Stories of drunkeness on duty and going randomly AWOL are pretty common. Wasting gear and equipment was supposedly something that drove commanders insane. During the Civil War soldiers would be issued gear that they would supposedly just get rid of if they decided they didn't need it. There was a story where some Confederate unit received a bunch of winter clothes at some point as winter approached and the story goes that you could trace their marching route the next day by all the winter clothes the soldiers just tossed on the side of the road.

There are also tons of stories about deserters from both armies terrorizing the countryside.

And there is that story about how after the Battle of Fredericksburg many Southern soldiers just went home for Christmas without leave.

But those are anecdotes. I have no idea how endemic those problems were.

One thing to consider is that these were armies of amateurs and the officers who were expected to enforce discipline were often local politicians or prominent citizens in the same communities their soldiers came from. They couldn't very well enforce draconian discipline and then go home to their communities after the war. But I am sure it varied from unit to unit.

[The Brain]

What about discipline in antebellum finishing schools?

[Threviel]

I just finished a basic book in the ACW. The author claimed that there were failed harvests in 1862, 63 and 64 in the south. So the previously self-sustained food economy collapsed. The troops got fed, although not really enough, but the families were not so lucky. Heartbreaking letters from the wife and kids caused many confederate desertions. No such bad luck for the Union.

One other interesting tidbit was that at the time of publishing a few years ago there was still one, and only one, child of a union veteran receiving "pension" because of the fathers service in the army. And that guy was a deserter from the confederacy.

[derspiess]

With the war being fought almost entirely by what were essentially state militia units, discipline problems don't seem too surprising.  I still can't get over how so many men willingly marched to their deaths in all those moronic frontal assaults against troops in prepared positions and armed with rifled muskets.

Speaking of which, I dug up some more info on my direct paternal ancestor that fought in the 126th OVI.  Apparently he just missed all the fun at Cold Harbor, but got to his regiment in time to take part in one of the first assaults at Petersburg, which was semi-successful. 

[alfred russel]

The argument exists that the Confederate army at Antietam was much larger than reported, and that all those reports about stragglers was basically an excuse for why Lee lost the battle.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8360.0.html

Not to distract from the point I want to make below, but stragglers plaguing the Army of Northern Virginia is hardly an excuse for Lee -- he was in charge of the army and ultimately responsible for its discipline.

I've thought the battle of Antietam is too often looked at in isolated terms rather than the broader Maryland campaign - which was launched just 5 days after 2nd bull run and lasted only 2 weeks. Lee divided his army with one part attacking Harper's Ferry and the other engaged in Maryland. The half attacking Harper's Ferry had dramatic success, while the half attacked at Antietam survived (in part because Harper's Ferry fell quickly enough to allow reinforcements from Harper's Ferry). The result of the 2 actions was significantly higher losses to the Union--maybe around 2:1, even with Antietam probably being closer to 1:1, and the South got significant supplies and munitions from Harper's Ferry.

I don't know if even getting 2:1 in terms of losses was a good trade for the South considering their numerical inferiority, but it was probably a net success.

Antietam did end the Maryland Campaign resulting in the campaign not accomplishing what it hoped (relieving pressure on Virginia, threatening Northern cities) --but the Maryland Campaign wasn't the well planned offensive that the Gettysburg campaign was 9 months later--it was more of an opportunistic incursion.

The point being: if you gave him a crystal ball with the results, i'm not sure that Lee would have not launched the Maryland campaign and taken the results.

The major political effect of the campaign was the Emancipation Proclamation which was a disaster for the Confederate cause but was going to come at some point.

[Valmy]

Lee's decision to fight at Antietam was almost suicidally reckless, even for him. I wonder if his ego got in the way after what was a shocking defeat at South Mountain. Even with McClellan's disorganization and ineptitude it took a miracle, or at least a very timely coincidence, for his army to survive.

I don't know if even getting 2:1 in terms of losses was a good trade for the South considering their numerical inferiority, but it was probably a net success.

That would be very advantageous. The Confederacy rarely had that kind of trade for losses in its campaigns. Though how many of those were prisoners from Harper's Ferry? Prisoners were still often paroled pretty often that early in the war.

Edit: Yeah they were all paroled, 12,000 of them. Many of those garrison troops from Harper's Ferry would have eventually returned to service.

[alfred russel]

Hmm, I never really thought or read a lot about the discipline in all the books/stories I've read on the ACW. I would have figured discipline was pretty good, given that it would seem punishment of the day was a lot more harsh than a century later or today. Then, as you state in the opening post, to get men to form into lines, making easier targets, and then walk/march into battle would have to require some heavy discipline, I would think. The egregious casualties incurred certainly must have caused many soldiers to desert but still, most remained even under that huge stress.

But discipline on the battlefield is just a small component of discipline.

Valmy's described a unit that threw away its winter clothes to avoid carrying them on a march. I wouldn't be surprised to read they were freezing that winter. It isn't a stretch to extend a lack of discipline there to latrines and any number of camp issues that would result in disease--and a lot more soldiers died from disease than combat.

Apparently throwing away bayonets became so common that you can date photographs based on whether they are present (by late war apparently they were mostly gone). I know care for rifles was a problem to an extent that they wouldn't work.

An undisciplined unit of brave guys probably wouldn't be that effective if they didn't have functioning weapons and were hobbled by disease.