Nature's Civil War: Common Soldiers and the Environment in 1862 Virginia

5. Straggling and the Limits of Self-Care

126 5 Straggling and the Limits of Self-Care The regimentation of military life was intended to deny individuality. In doing so, it aimed to fortify mental health by serving as a barrier against inaction, resignation, and reluctance to kill and physical health by regulating camp behavior and hygiene. It compelled soldiers to complete the mundane and unpalatable duties necessary to maintaining an army, typically a source of disgruntlement for volunteers. It also, however, handcuffed soldiers to simplistic procedures in highly complex situations and could, contradictorily, engender passivity, as some men were tempted to forfeit responsibility for their survival up the chain of command. Herein lay the paradox of self-care. Self-care required individuality, reliance on a network of care outside of formal army structures, and, most of all, straggling. In short, self-care ran counter to the tenets of military discipline , but in 1862 it also better served soldier health than did the medical systems.1 While there were many other reasons to straggle, soldiers who self-identified as straggling in pursuit of health did not see themselves as lacking devotion to cause.2 They believed they were exemplary soldiers who did not stray because they were weak or cowardly, but in order to return to the ranks healthier and in better spirits. They identified as seasoned veterans who knew how to extract their best chances for survival. Commanders, on the contrary, did not parse the various motivations behind absenteeism, nor did they recognize self-care as legitimate. They saw instead the typical unwillingness of citizen soldiers to assimilate into military life and bear up under its hardships.3 As the numbers of those present in the ranks dwindled for a variety of reasons, commanders justifiably believed their armies to be dangerously vulnerable to enemy attack. Straggling and the Limits of Self-Care / 127 While they initially recognized that logistical complications contributed to straggling, when conditions began to improve they resolved to terminate what they considered the associated disciplinary problem.4 Thus, generals increasingly reprimanded stragglers, placing limitations on self-care as 1862 wore on. While subordinate officers tended to remain more sympathetic to their soldiers’ plights, and some War Department officials pushed for furloughs as an antidote for straggling, the command interpretation of the problem and solution won the day. After all, solving straggling by constricting punishment—even associating it with desertion and the corresponding death penalty—was simpler than getting to the complex roots of continued sickness and demoralization. By the end of the year, commanders had at least partially succeeded in forcing soldiers back into the paternalistic medical system, which served military goals and not necessarily the individual’s will to survive. Straggling is defined as being absent from camp or roll call without leave, as every enlisted man who wished to leave the ranks was required to obtain a pass from his commander. One of the most common disciplinary infractions of the war, straggling was distinct from desertion—a permanent withdrawal from the ranks without permission—in that it was the soldier’s intent to return to his unit after a temporary hiatus, be it several hours or several weeks.5 Soldiers straggled for many reasons , some of which overlapped with reasons for desertion, but only two reasons are relevant to self-care: first, straggling for relief from environmental strain (which soldiers feared might lead to sickness and diminished spirits), and second, straggling to pursue self-care techniques, such as locating clean water or berries, or seeking civilian home care.6 This is not to suggest that no stragglers were feigning illness but rather to reframe certain types of absenteeism as what might be termed strategic straggling. Historians have often conflated straggling and desertion in their studies, because of some overlapping soldier motivations and because , as historian Mark Weitz explains, “Straggling and desertion were essentially the same in that they depleted the army of manpower.”7 While Weitz is unquestionably correct that in the immediate sense stragglers were not available for roll call (which was also command’s main objection ), strategic straggling counteracts this argument. Some men who fell back in pursuit of self-care could recover sufficiently to resume duty as effective soldiers, whereas if they had remained in the ranks they might have deteriorated or even died. Another reason that exploring straggling as distinct from desertion has been so difficult for scholars is that soldiers were justifiably reticent about 128...