Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

commonplace.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#61

Post by ranger207 »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #30

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

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#62

Post by scatters »

dmichulke wrote: post #35
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm British. I was referring to the continent of Europe, not the EU.

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.

No. You go to the mainland, or, colloquially, the continent.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#63

Post by watwut »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #33
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#64

Post by watwut »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #14
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #5

> 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…

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.

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#65

Post by watwut »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #34
denton-scratch wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe != The EU

[flagged]

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#66

Post by ClumsyPilot »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #33
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#67

Post by watwut »

marcusverus wrote: post #49
UncleOxidant wrote: post #30

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?

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 i…

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#68

Post by ClumsyPilot »

koolba wrote: post #12
Eumenes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Damn straight. A structured environment that doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some children at that age need.

> doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some children at that age need.

Also environment for brainwashing

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#69

Post by gretch »

Abekkus wrote: post #41
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#70

Post by alphanullmeric »

watwut wrote: post #64
alphanullmeric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN