He Served in Place of Abraham Lincoln

[Eva Elisabeth]

(01-16-2016 11:55 AM)Houmes Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 07:19 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  PS: Re.:"Abraham Lincoln had a War enlistment substitute to take his place in the Federal army. Little more than a child really when the War began" - but an adult of 19 when substituting Lincoln.

YIKES.

From E.B. Long's book Civil War Day by Day:

There were 127 Northern soldiers recorded as being age 13; 330 age I4; 773 age 15; 2758 age 16; 6425 age 17; 133,475 age 18; 90,215 age 19; 71,058 age 20; 97,136 age 21. From there on it gradually went down to 7012 age 45; 967 age 46; and 2366 age 50 or over.

Personally I agree on the YIKES - in general, as I would prefer a world without war and military (or as Carl Sandburg worded: "Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come"), as well as in particular as for the underaged.

My sole point was that of legal adulthood that includes all rights like the right to vote as well as responsibilities - at least viewed from the background I grew up with. Legal adulthood here begins at age 18, and until 2011 adult young men at the earliest time possible (i.e. after finishing school) had to make a similar decision between either six months (admittedly half of the time Staples served) of mandatory military or civilian service. Thus until 2011, most young men of typically age 18/19 served in the military. And Staples was aware of his accepting meant serving in wartime. He could have refused, there was no obligation to oblige. The question probably begins rather at whether an 18-year-old is eligible for adulthood and to make such decisions. I realize in Lincoln's youth adulthood in the US began at 21 and this might not have changed since.

So while I personally agree on the YIKES, my sole point was that the YIKES factor in Staples' case was "legally" (admittedly from my perspective) perhaps not that much higher than the just recently abolished conscription young men at the same age had to face here for several decades.