Could the average soldier read a book?

[Hank Trent]

Over in a music thread, Terre Schill wrote:

I understand that most Americans were literate by the standards of the day, i.e. they could write a letter, but by reading those letters it becomes obvious that they could not have read an ordinary book cover to cover, for example. I think "literate" by 19th cent. standards must have meant "Can write their own names and a few sentences, but not well or accurately or easily."

It's been almost 40 years since I learned to read, and not having children or knowing any schoolteachers, I have zero knowledge about education at the beginning levels. So...

To narrow down the discussion, let's define "average" as that kind of literacy you see all the time in soldier's letters: "Dear Mother I rite to let you no we is marchin to Pensyvany."

Judging by modern experience with writers at that level of skill, and/or period evidence, what would reading be like for that kind of person? Could he read a typical period novel cover to cover well enough to understand and enjoy it? Could he read a typical period newspaper article and get the editor's point, including sarcasm, humor, and similar nuances? Could he slog his way through short passages but miss some of the meaning and find it unenjoyable? Would he read for pleasure, or only as a last resort?

And, as a separate question, do you think that kind of literacy would indeed be average among privates?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Elizabeth Miller]

A quick observation - I frequently work with immigrants who struggle with English, and I have found that there is often a much greater ability to read English than to write it. To look at a word and understand it requires different skills than writing it, which requires coming up with the correct word, then remembering how to spell it.

Just my 2 cents

Joanna Jones

[redleggeddevil]

I cannot speak to the average level of literacy of 19th century Americans (although my gut tells me that it was far higher than the writer Mr. Trent quoted implies), but I can add this: I work with school age children every day. Their level of literacy is no higher than that of the Civil War soldiers' letters I have read. In fact, it is often lower. Many American students have absolutely no concept of punctuation and grammar. Worse yet, they spell phonetically, but they begin with a mispronunciation (as in believing that the word "prolly" exists.)

If the ability to write a coherent sentence is the measure, I would say that 21st century American education is doing an astonishing job of reenacting mid 19th century America. Or perhaps Elizabethan England...

[Charles Heath]

Hank,

The word "average" may be the deal killer here, as it is in so many other instances. A company recruited from a college campus would (I hope) have a relatively high literacy rate, and from time to time certain regiments are mentioned as being relatively well educated. Richard Moe mentions this about the 1st Minn., and at least some of those lads were mail ordering books, and carrying them in their knapsacks. One of the Taylor brothers had a penchant for Virginia geology.

This may be another one of those "it depends" situations.

[LWhite64]

There are a lot of factors to consider into this, geography being a big one, where a soldier was from would play in a great deal, as well as when he enlisted. Soldiers from lowland South Carolina would be more literate than soldiers from Appalachia.

Lee

[DJCasey]

I agree that the ability to write perfectly is not connected to someones ability to read or how oftern they read. I read constantly (as does my 62 year old father), but both of us are horrible spellers. I find myself looking up woods all the time, words I can read and understand perfectly.

[Lee Ragan]

I cannot speak to the average level of literacy of 19th century Americans (although my gut tells me that it was far higher than the writer Mr. Trent quoted implies), but I can add this: I work with school age children every day. Their level of literacy is no higher than that of the Civil War soldiers' letters I have read. In fact, it is often lower. Many American students have absolutely no concept of punctuation and grammar. Worse yet, they spell phonetically, but they begin with a mispronunciation (as in believing that the word "prolly" exists.)

If the ability to write a coherent sentence is the measure, I would say that 21st century American education is doing an astonishing job of reenacting mid 19th century America. Or perhaps Elizabethan England...
I never even heard of the word "prolly", until I started reading militaria related forums on the internet. (Both collectors & reenactors forums.) Andrew, if you think American kids have horrible spelling and punctuation, you ought to try reading postings by some of the guys from Britian & Ireland. Many of them write like they only finished the 2nd grade!

[Hank Trent]

The word "average" may be the deal killer here, as it is in so many other instances. A company recruited from a college campus would (I hope) have a relatively high literacy rate, and from time to time certain regiments are mentioned as being relatively well educated.

I know, and that's why I tried to define "average" arbitrarily, because I didn't want to get into accurate but meaningless facts like the average American today having only one testicle. :)

The original discussion was about "most Americans," but since that includes slaves, six-year-olds, and so forth, I thought I'd at least narrow it down to privates, who would generally be white male adults, and go even further to define the level of writing skill I mean.

So let's ignore the words "average" and "most," and just focus on the kind of letters we've all seen time and again. For example, the Vermont letters transcribed here: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13493 "Night before last we kecht 17 bushwackhers they say that Jackson will be heare with in 3 days"

How well could a person like that read? Could he read a typical period novel cover to cover for pleasure? Could he easily comprehend any article in a newspaper, or any transcription of a typical speech?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[LindaTrent]

I find myself looking up woods all the time, words I can read and understand perfectly.ROTFLOL, me too! Of course, my mother is the ultimate bad speller in the family.

I have a collection of letters written between 1862 and 1864 by my gg grandfather to his son who was serving in the Union army. Reading them, you'd think the man was pretty much illiterate, consistantly he can't even spell the county seat correctly -- granted Gallipolis isn't the easiest thing to spell. :eek: Here are a few examples of his writing:

"we received your letter of the 15nth and was glad to hear again from you..."
"we got your letter and money by Mr. Walters all wright (30 dollars)..."
"it is a very nice dress in deed Martha McCarrol pict it..."
"the weather here now is ruff it has been very mudy time and still is so but we had a hard hail storme on thursday night..."
we no nothing about John Fierbaugh here except what his parents noes and they wont tell but I think he has gone up north to se Rob.

The above is just the first two paragraphs of one letter. The rest of that letter and his others would leave one wondering what his education level must have been. This is all I knew of him for a long time. However, I learnt a lot more. He was a justice of the peace, a regular reader of the Gallipolis Journal, who sent the Journal to his son as long as his son was able to receive it (according to his letters).

As JP he settled cases ranging from small and large debts ($1 up to $150), to disturbing church worship, assault, assault with intent to kill, and married several couples including two grandchildren.

According to the Gallipolis Journal, they were sending large numbers of the newspaper to the soldiers in the field who wanted to keep up with what was going on back at home.

Dunno if this proves anything or not, but he was a subscriber of the Gallipolis Journal and I would assume that that means he read it. :D And we also know, based upon my grandfather's letters and an editorial in the paper, that the Journal was being sent to the boys in the field.

Linda.

[Rob Weaver]

I'm a pretty smart person, and with a better education than the average bear, but every time I read Melville, I end up looking up words in the dictionary. He knew more big words than any other American author I can recall.
There are two groups whose thoughts and motivations about the war are greatly under-represented: 1) the black troops and 2) foreign draftees because of the same reason. Literacy was low in those two people groups. Americans were remarkably literate, but the percentage goes way down if you factor in those two large blocks.

[Rev]

I've talked to my father who was an English professor and a linguist about this many times. One thing that he has mentioned regarding all the 'alternate' spelling found among letters was that spelling at that time in the English language had not been standardised across the board. In many instances if you read the writing of the soldiers, even officers and look beyond the variant spelling they are merely writing in their regional vernacular.

[Silvana Siddali]

About 19th century literacy statistics: According to instructions given to US census takers in the mid-19th century, "literacy" was usually defined as "ability to sign one's name." In many cases, the census taker only asked the head of the household whether he could read and write; that may mean that people reported a greater degree of literacy than they actually possessed. So, that means that we have to take the following statistics with a grain of salt. More than 90 percent of white people living in the North reported literacy by 1860. A high, but debatable percentage of free black people were literate as well. In the South, about 80 percent of white people possessed at least the ability to sign their names (this means, in ink on a legal document.)

Hank's question refers to the practical end uses of literacy, though, rather than basic statistics. There's a lot of helpful anecdotal evidence in Frank Luther Mott's work. (See his Golden Multitudes, for example.) Now, Mott's books are a little outdated now, and they're not fully cited, so I'm not positive how reliable the evidence is. But Mott indicates that reading matter was in constant demand in the camps, bivouacs, and military prisons of both sides. Also, check out Andy Coopersmith's excellent Fighting Words for a discussion of soldiers & newspapers. There are also dozens of soldiers' newspapers in various historical societies -- sure, that's not exactly a stunning statistical sample, but it does indicate a desire for the printed word.

By the way, I don't believe that a lack of proper spelling or grammar is any indication of illiteracy. 19th century education focused on memorization and recitation. I've always thought that accounted for the beauty & poetry in some of the soldiers' letters -- i.e., because they were memorizing the KJ Bible, Shakespeare, the Columbian Orator & Bunyan -- but they didn't get a great deal of training in spelling. There are hundreds of thousands of schoolbooks out there in collections, but most of them are readers, histories, and basic arithmetic books. Spellers and other subjects are much rarer. A good source for information on antebellum & CW era school books can be found at the online Nietz collection -- this is a really fantastic resource for just this kind of question: http://digital.library.pitt.edu/n/nietz/

[Dreamer42]

Just recently I have returned to the pages of Coffee and Hardtack, as well as doing some comparisons from The Life of Johnny Reb. In Johnny Reb I came across some VERY interesting letters, many of which we have all heard read on Ken Burn's Civil War. Hearing them spoken they make perfect sense, but to read (decifer???) the passages opens up other insights into the soldier's world. Such as..."...I have seen the monkey show at last and can tell you I don't want to see it no more..." (my own spelling). To read it is altogether different - but very understandable. So, I guess my .02 is "average" by one can read it and comprehend the meaning, or it is gramatically correct in all respects?

- Jay Reid
Dreamer42

[styler]

Just to build on what Silvana wrote, does anyone have the numbers for free schools in the US in the '50s to, say, '63? I have a period quote on the subject I've used before from "History of the Sixtieth New York." The quote comes from a letter to the author written Sept. 1, 1863, regarding the Gettysburg campaign:

"Soon after crossing "Mason & Dixon's line," we came to a snug little brick house, standing at the corner of the road, with woods near, and a play-ground in front, and as we passed it, we all took off our hats, going by uncovered, and gave three hearty cheers for the Free Common Schools of America![italics original] A friend of mine, of Frederick, Captain W., being in our company was at first inclined to take the demonstration as a reflection on his State, the one we had jut left, but, on consideration, seeing that nothing of the kind was intended, he paid a high tribute to popular education, and the necessity ofr its support and encouragement. He had formerly been a teacher."

[Charles Heath]

Or perhaps Elizabethan England...

Andrew,

That can also apply to Ocracoke or Tangier Islands well into the late 20th Century. I remember a young lady from Tidewater trying to explain "krugers" to an English teacher from Kentucky, and she only compounded the matter by innocently mentioning "taggers." It took a well known Wizard of Oz feline reference to bring these two people separated by a common language together. This was circa 1974.

[redleggeddevil]

Andrew,

That can also apply to Ocracoke or Tangier Islands well into the late 20th Century. I remember a young lady from Tidewater trying to explain "krugers" to an English teacher from Kentucky, and she only compounded the matter by innocently mentioning "taggers." It took a well known Wizard of Oz feline reference to bring these two people separated by a common language together. This was circa 1974.

Charles,

My place of birth (Long Island, New York) also boasts a few odd little linguistic pockets. Most people think of the Hamptons as a playground for the super-rich, but the locals have been there so long that they refer to anything west of the Shinnecock Canal as "the mainland".

The inhabitants speak with certain cadences and patterns that, linguists say, date back to 17th century Dorset speech.

Now if they would just allow me to set up a bear-baiting ring...

[rbruno]

I think most of America at that time was "functionally literate." Think about the ways people had at the time to gain information. They had to read or hear information. They did not have TV, internet, sound bits, and especially visuals or other modern ways that allows us today to get information without reading. And, if reading and speaking were the main ways of communcation for the masses, I would imagine that writing would have been the least practiced. Would a functionally literate person injoy a novel from cover to cover or understand many of the allusion or figurative details, prbably not. As far as understanding Melville, Emerson, Longfellow, etc language or word choice, our language has evovled and continues to evolve over time as words appear and disappear from everyday usages. Again, I am not sure that the functionally literate would appreciate their writing, but I don't think the more educated people would have as much problem with the language as we do today. So, I think the people of the time were more literate then we give them credit for.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav

[Becky Morgan]

Also consider when and where they were writing. Not only could they likely read more than they wrote, but they were also in a less than wonderful situation while they were writing. To give a later example, Dad was nothing if not literate. He read literally anything he could find (including reading himself to sleep with a road map one night because he'd forgotten a book) and once sent my whole dorm floor into hysterics with a letter about getting stuck in the outhouse sans paper and the subsequent debate over which magazine to sacrifice. However, his WWII letters from Great Lakes are full of awkward sentences, crossed-out words and annotations of (sp?) Later letters from aboard ship are even less polished. He wrote when he had time and dashed off all he could.

Incidentally, I'm careful about judging someone's education by their level of writing because of another Dad-related incident. One of our professors claimed the ability to make such judgments and invited us to submit samples of friends' writing. Several of the grad school types I turned in were supposed to be dropouts. Dad, on the other hand, rated a "probably in law or graduate school". He dropped out of his junior year in high school to work in the coal mine. As any homeschooler would tell you, not all learning takes place inside a brick box.

[VMI88]

One thing that he has mentioned regarding all the 'alternate' spelling found among letters was that spelling at that time in the English language had not been standardised across the board.

This is an excellent point. Many of the documents written by our Founding Fathers are full of what today would be considered misspellings and poor grammar, yet these men were geniuses by any standard.

[Rev]

As any homeschooler would tell you, not all learning takes place inside a brick box.

As a homeschooling father I say, 'AMEN!'

[JustRob]

I imagine the high level of trade in newspapers between soldiers casts some light on this situation.

[ElizabethClark]

Also consider that not all published materials of the time were "great literature." Dime novels and other "pulp fiction" and "boilerplate" were not written to the same audience as "Great Literature". (And, keep in mind that Dickens was a boilerplate author, writing melodrama for the masses, though it does touch on relevant social themes...) Even a less-than-stellar personal writing style would not keep an "average guy" from enjoying mass market fiction or non-fiction (though it can be hard to tell the difference in some cases, given the hyperbole of some mid-century journalism.)

(And while I prize the wide variety of modern educational choices, let's do keep to mid-century commentary, please. :) )

[MarkTK36thIL]

I imagine the high level of trade in newspapers between soldiers casts some light on this situation.

The 36th Ill Inf. Regt. had 10 trunks of books, one for each company, that went around with the regiment from 1862 onward. From that alone, I'd gather that at least the regiment as a whole was educated. I'm sure there were pockets of recruits where literacy was higher than others.

[YoungCampaigner]

There is an interesting little passage in The Life of Johnny Reb about the reading and writing skills of soldiers. Judging from that, I would say that you would probably have been more likely to be able to read than you would to write a letter to your sweetheart. It does depend on your impression though. If you are the kind of person who would have grown up on a plantation, chances are you would have had a tutor and you could read and write in three languages. However, if you were some hick from the mountains, you probably would not have been able to read or write.

Sincerely,
William Chapman
40th Va. Infantry, Co. B
and
Signal Corps of the James
http://www.theyoungcampaigner.com

[Matthew Semple]

There is an interesting little passage in The Life of Johnny Reb about the reading and writing skills of soldiers.

Can you provide it with quotation marks and with the appropriate citation? I am very interested in what the original source says.

[RJSamp]

A little bit of help?

The 1860 US Census records if the person could read or speak English.

The 1870 US Census records if the person could not write or could not read English.

[NoahBriggs]

Has anybody checked the article written by Virginia Mescher on this very topic? She has even taken the time to break the stats down by state/territory, and free/slave population and age bracket. You may find it on raggedsoldier.com, under "Virginia's Verenda Archive". I have even posted the title to help you find it even faster:

"Pick Up a Good Book: Literacy and Popular Literature of the Civil War" which does a state-by-state examination of literacy rates mentioned in the 1860 census, and identifies some of the popular books of the time period. Posted February 2005.

The "simple, illiterate American" is a mythology that needs to be shattered full-force with a sledgehammer.

[Hank Trent]

One thing that may not have come across when I started this new thread, was the previous conversation, where I mentioned that the majority of Americans could read and write based on the US census and other sources.

Terre made the point that there was a difference between being able to read and write simple things, which seemed to be the basis of the census question, and being able to do something like sit down and read an entire book for pleasure. She said that based on the actual surviving writing, it appeared most Americans couldn't do that, although they would be classed as literate in the census.

So that's why the thrust of the question is based on actual writing samples and what reading skills they would imply, rather than census data.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Gary of CA]

The literacy rate was certainly higher than during the American Revolution or the French & Indian War. Setting as the greater numbers of soldiers who served during the Civil War, the sheer volume of material by them alone (and excluding those published later by their descendants) easily outweighs those of the former.

[Robert A Mosher]

One point that I have not seen made in this thread is that NCOs were required to be literate - able to read and write - though I would not be surprised to see or hear about a wide variation in their abilities to do so. I believe that it has been pointed out that there is also the issue of being literate in languages other than English given the number of foreign officers and enlisted men. If you know the occupation or trade of a soldier before the war you can also make an informed judgment. In the records of the regiment I usually portray, the 28th Massachusetts, some 70 percent of the men were listed as laborers - which suggests that they were for the most part not literate, though there were also printers and other trades represented that clearly required literacy. (It was also by now a well-established American custom for one individual to read the newspaper outloud for the benefit of a group - thus saving time in sharing out the latest news and avoiding the singling out of anyone who could not read.)


Robert A. Mosher

[GermanDraftee]

From Robert Miller's "Both Prayed to the Same God" (2007, Lexington Books):
(In discussing the role of various soldier support agencies, North and South)

" Rev. B.B. Ross found hospital patients 'greedy, yea ravenous, in their appetite for something to read....they take the tracts with delight."

"Numerous agencies were formed to meet these 'spiritual nouishment' needs, with the Evangelical Tract Society of Petersburg, Virginia being the largest and most prolific. During the war, it issued more than one hundred different tracts, with a total print run estimated at some 50 million copies!" (p.90)

(On the role of Chaplains)

"Chaplains played a wide variety of roles in both armies, and the best chaplains were those who became 'jacks of all trades' for their men - comforting the homesick, counselling the sorrowful, teaching reading and writing,, writing letters for the hospitalized, maintaining libraries, becoming postmaster, carrying men and equipment on marches,, foraging, digging wells, and rifle pits and more." (p.98)

It would appear that many could read, and did. Not all, to be certain, but more than we might commonly assume.

[YoungCampaigner]

Hello all. As an answer to Mr. Matthew Semple's request that I quote the book that I mentioned in my last post, I will as soon as I can. You see, I don't own the book myself so I will post a quote from the passage as soon as I can check it out. The name of the book is The Life of Johnny Reb by Bell Irvin Wiley and it is a great read.

I do have an interesting little bit of information, though. In my area, (specifically Lancaster County, VA, the home county of the 40th Va. Infantry) the census for 1850 states that 156 whites (out of 1,803) in the county total could not read or write. Lancaster county was a fairly average farming community in the tidewater area of Virginia, so it could fairly be said that it is fairly representational of the rest of the region. It always is a good idea to check the census records for your area to get a specific idea of wether you would have been literate or not.

Sincerely,
William Chapman
40th Va. Infantry, Co. B
and
Signal Corps of the James
http://www.theyoungcampaigner.com

[YoungCampaigner]

Hello all. In The Life of Johnny Reb, by Bell Irvin Wiley, there is a short passage in chapter XI that states It is a significant fact that during the Confederacy a large portion of the middle and lower strata of society became articulate for the first time.
Well, if they were writing letters, they could probably read the responses that they got too!

In chapter IX, p. 161, Mr. Wiley says:
Reading provided a source of recreation for many soldiers, though army routine was not conductive to a great deal of it......
Better educated and more fortunate soldiers were procured and read books in considerable numbers.

Once again, it really is a great book. If you want to read more, I highly recommend getting this book.

[Pvt Peck]

Interesting post here... I still cannot spell to save my life but I was reading 4th year college books in 3'd grade. Funny thing about the poor, inconsistent spelling in some (a lot!) of 19th century letters, I think it was much more acceptable back then as compared to now. Ever read Artimus Ward? He, along with other American writers & humorists used wacky spelling a lot, and were very popular in their day. My thought here is that poor spelling & composition is not a reflection of reading comprehension.

Edward Parrott
"Humbug"

[YoungCampaigner]

Hello Pvt. Peck. You are probably right. That is a good point. I know from personal experience that reading comprehension and writing are very seperate things (I too was reading 4th year college level books in 3rd grade). Thanks.

Oh, by the way, please remember to sign your full name with your posts.

[Pvt Peck]

William thanks for the heads up on the signature, now fixed. Nice site you have there too!

Edward Parrott
"Humbug"

[cap tassel]

I've talked to my father who was an English professor and a linguist about this many times. One thing that he has mentioned regarding all the 'alternate' spelling found among letters was that spelling at that time in the English language had not been standardised across the board. In many instances if you read the writing of the soldiers, even officers and look beyond the variant spelling they are merely writing in their regional vernacular.

I agree with your father. Even in my own family history the last name is from time to time spelled differently by the same person. Other members of the family did the same thing. Ideas of proper spelling is just one more modernism that keeps us from understanding the past. It's a classic example of reeling something from then to now then holding it up to the light of modern culture.

[Pvt Peck]

Larry:

Good point about family spelling and names, my great,great grandfather who served in the 1st Georgia Inf was named Childress and we have family folks who spelled it: Childres, Childers, etc... makes tracing your ancestors a bit tricky at times!

Ted Parrott
"Humbug"

[Salt Pork]

Are we just referring strictly to English literacy or are we including fluency in ones immigrant tongue. In some boughs or small rural town the langue of the old country was the only one spoken by the Regiment, these groups could write or read in their own language fine but would have trouble with English.

However I feel that someone who could read or write in any language, would have easier time learning to read or write then someone who was truly illiterate. Because 95% of the soldiers already used the Latin alphabet, so it made transition to English easier compared to someone who had to learn the Alphabet then learn to read or write.

Salt Pork

William Summe