[Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, guest-blogging, January 13, 2009 at 1:10am] Trackbacks
The Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel’s Union Army Sample

In our new Princeton University Press book, Heroes and Cowards: The Social Face of War, we examine the war experience for Union Army soldiers during the U.S Civil War. The meat of the book is based on a statistical analysis of a unique data base. In this post, we would like to provide some details about this data base.

Our book would not have been possible without a monumental data collection effort that first began in 1981, led by Robert Fogel, the 1993 Nobel Laureate in Economics. How do you construct a longitudinal dataset from disparate sources and from the free-form letters, affidavits, and other documents that constitute a soldier’s record in the National Archives? The data are publicly available here.

Beginning with one list of white volunteer units and one list of U.S. Colored Infantry Units, both sorted in random order, inputters collected basic descriptive information from the “Regimental Books” in the National Archives on all of the enlisted men in a company until the two samples consisted of roughly 1.6 percent of all whites (almost 6,000 men) and 1.6 percent of all blacks (almost 6,000 men) mustered into the Union Army. The men were then linked to their army records, stored in the National Archives. These records consist of compiled military service records and of cards containing medical records and vital statistics.

For example, John Nelson Cumbash of Company F, First Regiment USCI has a compiled military service record that consists of one company descriptive book card, one company muster-in roll card, fifteen company muster roll cards, one detachment muster-out roll card, and one company muster-out roll card. He has eight medical records cards. These record his enlistment, his promotion to sergeant and then his demotion, his absence on recruiting services, his hospitalizations for fever, exposure to cold, and chronic rheumatism, and his final muster-out. Linkage to the pension records (which constitute one of the most significant sources of health information on past populations) allows us to follow men until their deaths. John Nelson Cumbash’s pension file is roughly three-quarters of an inch thick. Beginning in 1887 he filed four unsuccessful pension applications until he received a pension in 1897 which he collected until his death from pneumonia in 1901. His widow Mary filed for a widow’s pension and much of the pension record details the investigation of her claim. Her claim was denied because she had not divorced her first husband before marrying John. Finally, linkage to pre- and post-war censuses provide snapshots of the soldier’s family and occupation at fixed points in time. From John Cumbash’s 1870 census record we learn that he was a waiter in a hotel, that his wife Sarah (his first wife) took in washing, and that he had two boys.

By randomly selecting Union War Companies and then conducting a 100% sample of all 100 men within each War Company, the Fogel data allows us to recreate each soldier’s 24 hour a day live and work community. Back then, there were no televisions or Internet or cars, your fellow soldiers were your world. Some soldiers fought in homogenous companies while others fought in diverse companies.

ChrisIowa (btw, did we mention that Iowa had few deserters?) asked us, “Why was there diversity in companies?” All regiments were formed locally. We examined Civil War diaries and letters to identify six sources of diversity within companies. The volunteer infantry regiments consisted of 10 companies, each containing roughly 100 men, commanded by a captain and two lieutenants, who were often volunteer officers drawn from state militias, men of political significance, or other prominent men in the community. At the beginning of the war, men would enlist with one or several friends but rarely with fifty. Once companies were full, they would take no more men, and friends would need to find another company or regiment. Men's eagerness to get to the front led them to pick regiments thought to be departing soon. And they quickly left regiments that were late in departing, even enlisting in the regiment of another state. Later in the war, when the new recruits were not so eager, men might enlist in a distant town to receive a large bounty, adding to company diversity.

Although a company was generally not replenished with new men when disease, military casualties, and desertions whittled down its numbers, some states added new recruits to existing regiments and regiments whose members' three year terms were up were reconstituted with veterans and new men. Finally, the need to travel to recruiting stations increased company diversity. Farmers and farmers' sons had to travel to town to enlist. Small towns could not raise an entire company, so their men would enlist elsewhere and do so only with a few friends. Commissioned officers were responsible for finding their own men and often had to scour the entire state to fill their regiments.

Statements in soldiers' diaries and letters indicate that they were thrown together with strangers. Amos Stearns, who enlisted with five of his friends, lamented ``Life in the army was very different from life at home. In one place we could choose our companions and those we wished to associate with, but in the army how different'' (Kent 1976: 214-5). One soldier wrote home, ``We have a remarkable civil and Religious company. . . . i think it is a providencial circumstance that I enlisted in this company for I hear that there is desperate wickedness in very regiments i came so near enlisting in'' (letter of David Close, Nov. 4, 1862, 126th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, Company D.

From today’s vantage point, the Fogel data set is extraordinary. Concern about identity theft and insurance companies using confidential information to cherry-pick healthy and low-risk patients would make it extremely difficult to build a similar dataset today. A researcher attempting to build an analogous data set for Vietnam veterans would need to obtain the consent of each man. But the types of individuals willing to grant permission would probably not be a random sample of the population. And, despite the well-publicized stories of men buying their way out of the draft, the white sample is representative of the Northern population of military age in terms of wealth and literacy rates. Only in World War II were service rates higher.

In our next two posts, we will discuss the key findings and hypotheses we tested using the military data base. Today a historian has reviewed our book in the Wall Street Journal.

Dave N (mail):
I only have one word for the construction of the data set for this study:

WOW!
1.13.2009 2:23am
Donna B. (mail) (www):
As the descendant of veterans who fought on both sides of this war, I'm very interested in this book. One of my ancestors fought first for the Confederacy, was captured and held in a Union prison camp, then released and went home. It was shortly after this that he sired my gggrandmother. When the Confederacy instituted another draft that would call him again, he joined the Union. He was captured and died in Andersonville.

I have other ancestors from Alabama who enlisted as Union soldiers (Google Alabama 1st Calvary) and ancestors in Arkansas who were Confederate soldiers.

Because of this not so unique family history, I have a hard time "taking sides" in the question of the Civil War. I think my Alabama Union ancestors suffered harshly during Reconstruction, where my Arkansas Confederate ancestors actually got off quite mildly.

History and its politics are never simple.
1.13.2009 2:32am
markm (mail):
There has to be a typo in here: "until the two samples consisted of roughly 1.6 percent of all whites (almost 6,000 men) and 1.6 percent of all blacks (almost 6,000 men) mustered into the Union Army." That implies that the numbers of whites and blacks were approximately equal.
1.13.2009 6:39am
Curt Fischer:

ChrisIowa (btw, did we mention that Iowa had few deserters?) asked us, “Why was there diversity in companies?” All regiments were formed locally. [...]


A response to a comment!, and on Tuesday morning no less. Very cool.
1.13.2009 7:45am
FantasiaWHT:

There has to be a typo in here: "until the two samples consisted of roughly 1.6 percent of all whites (almost 6,000 men) and 1.6 percent of all blacks (almost 6,000 men) mustered into the Union Army." That implies that the numbers of whites and blacks were approximately equal.


That caught my attention too. It could be read either as there were an equal number of blacks and whites in the general population, or that an equal number of blacks and whites served in the army. The latter seems more plausible but still questionable.
1.13.2009 9:27am
JohnDoe1 (mail):
I think that is a typo -- the WSJ review that the authors link to at the end of the post uses the numbers 35,000 v 6,000, which seems much more reasonable.
1.13.2009 9:45am
ChrisIowa (mail):

I think that is a typo -- the WSJ review that the authors link to at the end of the post uses the numbers 35,000 v 6,000, which seems much more reasonable.

The dataset refers to 35,747.
Since Company G of the First Iowa isn't included, its leaving a bunch of work for me to do.
1.13.2009 11:37am
Bpbatista (mail):
Do any similar records (at least for enlistment) exist for Confederate soldiers?
1.13.2009 1:00pm
Dave N (mail):
Very positive book review in today's WSJ, available online.

The review made it sound like similar records do not exist for Confederate soldiers.
1.13.2009 5:56pm
RJO (www):
Very interesting indeed. I look forward to reading more here and in the book itself.

The WSJ review concludes with a statement that strikes me as a bit off: "we are less likely to provide for -- and more likely to abandon -- those who are unlike ourselves."

The key word is unlike. Is the farm boy who joins a Middlesex County regiment in Massachusetts "unlike" the farm boy who joins an Essex County regiment 30 miles to the east? They are in fact likely to be nearly identical in age, wealth, ethnicity, religion, and most everything else. But they grew up in different towns and so don't know each other, whereas members of the same regiment, and especially the same company, are likely to import their pre-existing network of civilian social relationships into their military unit. Likeness and unlikeness aren't the operative considerations, but simply familiarity and unfamiliarity.

Because social cohesion has always been understood to be an important factor in military success, armies have always cultivated group-building behaviors such as communal training, communal dining, distinctive signs and symbols, rituals, etc., so that those who arrive "unlike" will quickly become "like."

During rapid mobilization there may not be time to build unit cohesion in this way, and so an army becomes a free rider on pre-existing cohesion, as found among life-long residents of small towns. It isn't that the people within a town are necessarily different from (unlike in any meaningful sense) the people in an adjacent town -- it's just that they have already spent time together and so have a pre-existing social network. You could randomize the individuals and get the same result, provided you again gave them time to naturally establish social networks.

I have an interest in this because I am interested in the development of social cohesion within educational communities, and residential colleges in particular. The consuming problem of retention that university administrators worry over might be better described as a problem of desertion.

Some related posts I have written on the subject:

The regimental college

Social cohesion helps prevent psychological injury

Creeping managerialism vs. cohesive social life
1.14.2009 11:08pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.