Were Civil War drummer-boys targeted during battles?

Question

I was wondering this because if you eliminated the drummer boy during battle you would disrupt the flow on the opposing side, but then again the drummer boys were usually just kids so it would be pretty low to shoot a defenseless kid. so please help me out with this it's bugging the c**p out of me.

Answer 1

Not usually.  The color bearer was a much more important target.  Every regiment, on both sides, had its own flag.  When the regiment went into line, the flag was at the center.  It was considered a great honor as regiments were formed for a volunteer company to become Company E, the "Color Company", positioned behind the colors when the regiment went into line.  The "color guard" was a small group designated to stand with the colors, keep them from falling into enemy hands, pick them up if the color bearer fell, and these men were specially selected for intrepidity and bore the responsibility most seriously.  Each side attached great importance to capturing an enemy "stand of colors" and a large proportion of Medals of Honor awarded to Union troops were for doing so.

There were instances where a regiments line broke, and in attempting to rally the troops the colonel might grab the color bearer and put him where he hoped to rally his troops (there's an old song "Rally Round the Flag, Boys").  If the drummer was handy and got put beside the color bearer to beat the long roll, then he would also become a target.

Many soldiers could not resist shooting at an officer on horseback, but most agreed with Sam Watkins, whose memoirs, "Company Aitch", are a standard in the bibliography of a huge number of civil war books.  Watkins said "I always shot at privates", because they were the ones with guns.  Officers and sergeants were waving swords.  Who would you shoot at, a guy with a rifle, or a boy with drumsticks?

Answer 2

NO - - -- but in the heat of battle they were often a casualty due to their assorted duties, see link and snippet below.  Yes there was some respect for their age, and in spite of their valuable role it was not thought needed to disrupt battle by targeting them.  There was enough chaos on a Civi War battlefield and besides if one went around targeting the enemies drummer boys then one's own drummer boys might be targeted so a status quo was maintained...

http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/...

http://www.wildcatband.com/ropedrums.htm...

"""When most people think of the Civil War, they think of famous generals or battles fought or how politics entered into an Army operation. But when I think of the War Between the States, I think of quite possibly the most important member of either side--that is the drummer.

When the Federal Government needed troops to answer the call, be it North or South, those troops never left home without a drummer as an integral part of the unit. Usually they were boys too young to do the actual fighting but who knew the importance of a good drummer. What a thrill it must have been for a small boy, who had probably never been further than a few miles from his town, to march off to war with a company or regiment of home folk. I think it would be hard for any of us in this day and age to imagine a boy joining a fighting unit and going off to war. But almost every city, town, hamlet or village that sent troops to war, had one or more of these brave young native sons.

Much is written about the weapons and strategies of war but little is said about the importance of the drummer. Its often thought that a drummers' only task was to beat cadence for his unit while marching. That was only a small part of a day in the life of a young drummer.

Without a drummer to establish communications and keep order among the units in the field, many campaigns would have ended in failure. The drummer had many responsibilities, including using one of many drum calls for everything from assembling officers for strategy meetings to sounding retreat in the midst of severe enemy fire. A drummer could always be seen near a high ranking officer because at any time he might be needed to alert the troops of an upcoming movement or operations.

Because of his job as the communicator for the unit, he often did not get enough sleep. At any time he might be needed to play the appropriate drum call. This meant being awakened at any hour and not being able to return to sleep for many hours. Once the men were assembled and deployed to a particular engagement, the drummers would lay down their drums and take up stretchers, act as runners between outposts, or do whatever was necessary to help the unit. Many tales of heroism have been told about these young lads, and many lived to ripe old ages to tell generations of their contributions to the war effort.

The Snare drum pictured above was made by The Increase Blake Co., Farmington Falls, Maine circa. 1861. The inside shell is signed by Ralph E. Reed 1861 with original drumsticks. Private collection.

Bass drum: Mfg. by The H. R. Eisenbrant Co., Baltimore Maryland with original beater circa. 1850. Private collection.""

Peace///////////////////////////////\\...

Answer 3

Not at all, but they tended to stand near the unit flags and some soldiers weren't the best marksmen. Shooting a drummer-boy on purpose would not have been honorable. People had a different perception of war than we do today. Drummer-boys were often orphans. Maybe, if we still sent drummer-boys, politicians might take war more seriously.

Answer 4

Yes because the drummer boy was a very important part of the army he would play the commands the general gave him and the soldiers knew every beat and when the drummer went down there was no more commands to come from the general..... So Yes

Answer 5

.I don't believe that the young lads were targeted. Generally after they had played the troops near the Field, they were ordered to the rear as stretcher bearers. Basically when the firing starts you cant hear a bloody thing anyhow, that's why there are noncoms,to direct the troops in battle. So the answer is no. The flag bearers, well that's a different issue. They were definitely targeted

Answer 6

No. It was not considered honorable to intentionally attack an unarmed man on the battlefield back then.

I should also add, it would be difficult to hit a specific person on the battlefield, as weapons(many of them at least) were not accurate back then.