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

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#31

Post by giraffe_lady »

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.

Could not create a better environment for hazing and sexual abuse if you tried.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#32

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #25
ars wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#33

Post by IIAOPSW »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #25
ars wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#35

Post by dmichulke »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #7
dmichulke wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#36

Post by dmichulke »

denton-scratch wrote: post #9
dmichulke wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Europe != The EU

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#37

Post by WaitWaitWha »

Eumenes wrote: post #10
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…

"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 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)

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#38

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

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?

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#39

Post by retrac »

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…

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.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#40

Post by kayodelycaon »

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?

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.

Post reply on HN