Over 45 and still a private?

[Drygoods]

Good Day All,

For those who are getting on in years and worry that they might not be able to continue being a soldier, I found an interesting comment from This Hallowed Ground by Bruce Catton, page 206....

"In Iowa an unusual job of recruiting had just been completed. Early in January this state sent to St. Louise, to go marching like all others except for one thing -- everyone from colonel to drummer boy was safely past the upper military age limit of forty-five years. (Many of the men were over sixty, some were in their seventies, and one sprightly private confessed to the age of eighty.)
This was Iowa's famous "Graybeard Regiment," recruited by special arrangement with the War Department as a means of showing that there were plenty of draft-proof citizens who were perfectly willing to go to war. There was a tacit understanding that regiment would be given guard and garrison duty as much as possible, but there was nothing binding about this. The 37th was in no sense a home-guard outfit; it had enlisted for the full three years and eventually it was to campaign in Missouri, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hiking in the rain and sleeping in the mud like anybody else. During its three years only scattered detachments got into actual fighting -- the total casualty list was only seven -- but 145 men died of disease, and 364 had to be mustered out of service for physical disability, and when the regiment at last was paid off, in May of 1865, it was revealed that more than thirteen hundred sons and grandsons of members of the regiment were in Federal military service. So old were these men, and so young their state, that not a man in the regiment could claim Iowa as his birthplace. There had been no Iowa when these Iowans were born."

I confess that I've not gone online to check the official roles, but this sure would silence those who say "you're too old soldier." Aren't books just great, we all should read more often.

[RudyN]

Very nice. Only 45, why they were still youngsters

[histcloth@aol.com]

Madam:

This is indeed an excellent piece of information; I have found several references myself. Clearly the army didn't turn away anyone who could shoulder a musket. The deciding factor was whether they could physically endure the rigors of campaign.

The records clearly show a number of 40+ year old soldiers, but several that I had encountered, were given early disability discharges.

[Dan Munson]

Being 57 myself, I am sort of "goring my own ox" here, but I would take a bit of exception to anyone using the example of the "Greybeard Regiment" as "proof" that Civil War units typically contained lots of older men. Mr. Sekela is quite correct that the Army would not turn down any warm body that could pass the sometimes very rudimentary "physical." As a consequence, yes, at the start of the war many regimental rosters contained a significant percentage of 40+ year olds. But as Mr. Sekela also noted, these patriotic fellows were disproportionately represented in the wave of medical discharges that hit most regiments not long after entering active service. Certainly, some older men managed to slog it out through the duration of their enlistment. But they were not the norm, and both armies were, overall, quite "young."

Which is to say that in most reenactment units, the "soldiers" are significantly older than their historical counterparts. Mind you, I don't say all of us geezers should abandon the hobby because our presence is "unauthentic." I am just saying we could use a LOT more young blood in the ranks to get the average closer to where it ought to be.