Relationship NCOs - Privates

[Benedict]

Dear ACers,

I have been thinking about the relationship between the different enlisted men--privates, corporals, sergeants.

In Germany, there is a long tradition of the "Unteroffizierskorps," which means that noncoms were a kind of distinct class of career soldiers with a certain esprit de corps. They were (and still are) the ones who trained privates, and there always was a kind of "gap" between privates and noncoms (and another with regards to officers)--the noncoms were somehow "something better," or at least that is what many of them thought.

Most Civil War soldiers were volunteers and not regulars. But what were their attitudes? It seems that in the American military, they were officially "one" group: the enlisted men. But did corporals and especially sergeants feel distinct from privates and even felt a need to distinguish themselves as a group? Would they separate themselves from privates? Or was it rather the other way around, that they also were in mess groups with privates, had a friendly relationship with each other, all while the hirarchy of giving and obeying orders was still in effect?

Maybe this is a question about "military etiquette." Maybe this question could also encompass the "lower" officer grades like lieutenants. I understand that there is no definitive answer--I suppose that training, garrision duty, and on campaign are all settings which might play into this--but maybe some of those who have studied primary documents can shed light on the more prevailing attitudes.

Thanks a lot!

[Tom Craig]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

Hi,

I think your question is nearly impossible to answer with any sort of general statement. A small bit of reading period accounts reveals an amazingly broad range of perspectives and experience. Some outfits where extremely disciplined and relationships between NCO's and privates were rigid and professional, while other units resembled more of a travelling circus.

Being impossible to generalize, if you were crafting an impression of a unit for an event you'd have to look at the record for that regiment for your guide.

Take care,
Tom Craig

[PetePaolillo]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

Here is a good book that might expand on your question a little. Read page 220 and on. It speaks of how even though NCO's expierenced the same hardships for the most part as Privates, they were indeed seperate from them. A good read...Check out the poem on 221. Of course this source is only one and I am sure there are so many first hand accounts that describe the relationships as being both positive and negative...It is human nature after all that we are speaking of here.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ahqtg54TXyEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Warriors Into Workers: The Civil War and the Formation of Urban-Industrial Society in a Northern City
by Johnson, Russell L.
Publisher: Fordham University Press
Issue: Spring 2004
ISBN: 0823222691

[Johan Steele]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

As has been mentioned it is a question almost impossible to answer in any general kind of way.

Some western regiments were tardy in getting NCO's stripes to their NCO's. Hence why many a group CDV doesn't show men w/ stripes but there are clearly men in the formation in the position of 2nd, 3rd Sgt or Corporal but sans stripes. Yet obviously the officers & privates knew who their NCO's were.

Such a thing came from a variety of situations, whether newly appointed NCO's or a later war realization by some that stripes got a man singled out by the enemy.

It's about far more than just wearing stripes, it's the attitude of the men in the ranks and it would seem to have been very theatre, unit & time frame specific. There has always been the regulation way things are to be done and then there is the way things get done in the field. As true today as 1861-65.

As an example comparing the 3rd MN VI & the 3rd IA VI in 1862/63 you will find two dramaticly different attitudes toward discipline, uniform standards and NCO/Officer interactions. Add the difference between garrison troops and men on campaign & the differences only highlight themselves.

In short you have to look at the unit and the period of the war you are portraying.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

Hallo!

As shared, "Americans" can be spread out across the board.

I would add another historical "dynamic" in paraphrasing what Baron von Steuben said about American soldiers- that in Europe one gave an order and the men followed it. In American one had to first explain the "why's" of the order, and then the men followed it.

I believe von Steuben was half complaining and half joking. But, the fear of a large standing army and its effect on democracy was a factor in early U.S. history, as well as the observation that the ACW was largely fought with "volunteers."
(And early war, sometimes with elected officers.)

And last, America has had perhaps a strange relationship with its military over time to where "we" did not have or develop a true "social class" created around a professional military to the point that say Great Britain or Germany had. Particularly, in society, when company, field, and general officers were connected to the upper class, landed, gentry (and in GB and Germany the primogeniture laws saw many non-first born sons having commissions purchased for them to establish them in Life).

IMHO, we have Period accounts that reflect the range of a few professional regulars, a handful of professional officers, and a range of political officers,
company officers made generals, and volunteers doing as well or as poorly as they skills, knowledge, experience, and desire allowed across a spectrum of styles and competencies.

Curt
Untergefreiter

[LWhite64]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

As has been stated it would depend, although with CS regiments, you could get an idea from when they were brought into service, in general the lower numbered regiments would have had more professional attitude, so say your 1st South Carolinas, 5th Georgias, etc. The regiments in the 20s thru 40s would be a different story, and then you have the largely conscript regiments in the higher numbers, 60s, etc. So in the 10th South Carolina, a regiment I know a lot about, you would have strict discipline and adherence to regulations, then in the same brigade you have the 24th Alabama, where there is a more familiar attitude. As with almost everything you have to really study the regiment and company you are portraying for a particular event.

Lee

[nick19thind]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

Depends on the regiment. NCOs in the regular army would have seen themselves as a distinct class. But in volunteer regiments where soldiers had known each other before the war there would be less distinction. In these regiments the officers and NCOs were elected.

[Iron Brigade Ed]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

I'm afraid Curt beat me to the comment about Von Steuben's view that Continental troops would need to be encouraged as to 'why' something was important!
Might the ethnic makeup of the unit also have some impact on the 'familiarity' of the unit? During the Revolutionary war it has been argued that Highland units had a great deal more familiarity between NCOs/Officers/Enlisted, even to the point that a Private soldier might (gasp) address his own commanding officer! 80 years later do those of ethnically Scots origin share the same opinion of social structure? Do the social norms of civilian life continue into the Volunteer army of the time? Do the realities of Campaign life and shared hardship break these down over time? I think most contemporary accounts seem to point out that Western Theatre troops were a little less likely than their Eastern counterparts to stand if their Company commander happened along.
In short . . . could be either, though i heard that the 10th IND were less than eager to form a dress parade for a passing senior officer . . . (it was nearly midnight after a whole day's march . .who could blame them!)

[Silas]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

Lee, I've been doing some extensive research on the 42d Alabama which was raised in May, 1862. Three companies were composed entirely of members from the recently disbanded 2d Alabama. Their first year's service was primarily in garrison at forts Morgan and Pillow. Seems that Alabama had several one year's regiments. The second regiment of infantry being an example. From what I've seen, many of these veterans of a year's service collected bounties and reenlisted into the new units being formed. The regimental number of these new units formed in 1862 was in the neighborhood of forty.

I have not looked, but would not surprised to learn that the ratio of veterans becoming nco's in the new units was higher than for nonveterans.

Lee, the 42d Alabama was one of the Vicksburg regiments (J.C. Moore's Brigade) which arrived outside Chattanooga with newly issued, third rate arms and just in time to starve with the gray beseigers before getting swallowed at Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. The newly opened camp at Rock Island became the next destination for these recently exchanged parolees from Vicksburg.

[Monte5364]

Re: Relationship NCOs - Privates

I believe that an answer can be put into perspective by my experience with being a patrol leader in the Boy Scouts of America. NCO's were elected by the enlisted men, at least in volunteer units. Same goes in boy scouts for leadership positions such as patrol leader. I am still a boy scout and I'am friends with the guys Im supposed to lead. If some one gets out of line however or doesnt listen I have to pull my rank into the picture. Only that will get them to listen. These guys who elected the NCO's had known each other for a while, and even come from the same towns. I'm sure they mingled and only seperated themselves when put into a position that made them do so. I will admit this is not substantial evidence however it is sensibly. Anyone who has ever been elected to a leadership position can atest to it.



Thomas Montefinise
119th NYSV Company H