H-CivWar is H-Net's network on scholarship, teaching, and outreach on the history of the American Civil War.
Thank you, David, for a thoughtful post. The problem you bring before us is part of a difficulty that has long confronted historians. How do we convey a good sense of the past—with its different language, conceptions, culture, and so on—to the present? The particular case you raise is a philological one. In the classroom, I have dealt with this very issue—as I’m sure everybody else has.
Your network editor has reposted this from H-Announce. The byline reflects the original authorship.
Thank you David P., for the offer. If the information comes readily to hand, I would like to hear about Stillman's experience. And David S., thank you for the citation. I'm very interested in reading your article. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised this kind of thing persisted into the 20th century.
Cheers,
Hugh
Thanks for the reply, Hugh. What happened with the Civil War in terms of physical disability sounds remarkably similar to what happened in Britain in the First World War. Men who were essentially blind, had no use of one arm, etc., were routinely let in during the years 1914-1916 (when Britain relied on volunteers rather than conscription), with recruiting sergeants and doctors informally conspiring to pass them.
If you're interested, I put out lots more detail in:
Hello Hugh,
I'm sure someone here is much more expert on the medical examination topic, but for what it's worth, one person I studied from my previous monograph, William Stillman, returned from Europe at the start of the war to enlist for the Union but was denied because of of the quality of his vision (if I remember correctly). That's likely too far afield for your purposes, but I can always look up the reference and email it to you if that helps.
Best,
Dave
