From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Date: 3 Sep 1992 13:09:30 GMT
Organization: Houston Civil War Roundtable

In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L.
Cowan) writes:
>I want to thank everybody for all of the informative postings to my question
>regarding the accuracy of ACW riflemen. It's good to see that at least a
subset
>of the newsgroup is still interested in swapping facts rather than insults
8^).
>
>It was pointed out that often one body was hit many times. I have read various
>accounts to this effect, a soldier or officer would draw attention to himself
>in some way and get blasted. It seems to indicate they could aim pretty well
>sometimes 8^).
>
>This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
>flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
>often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
>given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
>was being played. Was there really enough military significace to a regimental
>flags (i.e. "Ralley 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
>were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
>COWAN@ANL.GOV   (I'm posting this from a friend's account)
>
>     "I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall 
>adopt new views so fast as they appear to be true views." 
>  -  A. Lincoln, Letter to the Editor, New York Tribune, August 22, 1862
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
	For as far back a we can trace, military standards have been
objects of adoration of one sort or another. People of every stripe
are known to have carried items of religious import into battle. 
Roman standards were believed to carry spiritual power and "the
honor of Rome". There is a story of a legion in Dalmatia that was
ready to mutiny and take up the standard in their own cause. When the
legionnaires went to remove the standard from where it was planted
they discovered that it was stuck in the ground and wouldn't budge.
The legionnaires took it as a sign that their mutinous talk was
displeasing to the gods of Rome and gave it up. Supposedly the legion's
CO had taken the precaution of setting the standard in cement before
retiring for the night.

	Regimental standards were an obsession in the ACW (but my point
is that this was nothing new). Recovery of a rebel standard was 
sufficient to be awarded a CMH (which were admittedly distributed
a bit freely). "The honor of the Regiment" depended in part on
retaining the standard, and also on having a "better" standard than
other regiments. 

	As to military signifigance/morale: Morale is of paramount 
military signifigance! Without adequate morale, soldiers will not
put their lives on the line no matter who says to. So the collective
answer to your last two questions is "yes". 



Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586