Sorry, but I have spent years in detailed study of two Pennsylvania regiments and do not find those statistics to be valid. First, you have to specify when the enlistments took place. In the early stages of the war, they tended to be younger. But you should know that the amount of lying about ages was enormous, both older - as you might believe of those under age - AND older, the latter of which happened much more than I would have thought. 40 - 50% lying is not an exaggeration, not to mention the fact that many men did not know when they were born. Two regiments do not a broad study make, but I see no reason why they were atypical. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunkist" <sunkist@home.com> To: <COOLEY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:49 PM Subject: [Cooley] Geneology Tidbit > I found this on another list. Check your ancestors and see if you think it > is true. In checking my ancestors it is not true. Is it is true or not true > for your ancestors? > > From: http://www.genealogybulletin.com/archives/HTML/etc70.html > > According to a tidbit from genealogical society bulletins, 78 percent of the > Union Army in the Civil War was comprised of lads 15 to 18 years old. Data > gleaned from government records reveals figures that may surprise you. Here > are the statistics from the total enlistment of Northern soldiers during the > Civil War: > > Age Number of Personnel > > 10 ............ 25 > 11 ............ 34 > 12 ............225 > 13 ............380 > 14 ...........1602 > 15 ........104,987 (3.5%) > 16 ........231,051 (8.0%) > 17 ........884,981 (28.0%) > 18 ......1,158,434 (38.5%) > 19-22 .....617,511 (20.5%) > 22-44 ......52,696 > 45+ .....Not given > > -- > Warning! - Sunkist will no longer accept attachments of any kind without prior > notification. Thank you for your understanding! Please visit me at: > www.teleport.com/~sunkist > > ______________________________