Enlistment/GMRS/assignment to regiments

[Jenny]

Did green enlistees get evaluated immediately for their ability to ride, and then get shipped to sent to the General Mounted Recruiting Service, where they were later assigned? Or could an enlistee request to, say, be assigned to the 7th Reg. of Cavalry? How did the 7th decide who to pick, and was the training done in the GMRS location or did the regiment do it based on potential, ability to learn, and (probably) how a men looked on a horse? I assume, based on very general information that I could find, that GMRS was an administrative entity that kept a pool of recruits available.

Thanks for any discussion on GMRS and whether the 7th assumed the men were "trained up" if they came out of this pool.


Jenny

[noggy]

Feb 22, 2023 14:16:33 GMT -6 Jenny said:

Did green enlistees get evaluated immediately for their ability to ride, and then get shipped to sent to the General Mounted Recruiting Service, where they were later assigned? Or could an enlistee request to, say, be assigned to the 7th Reg. of Cavalry? How did the 7th decide who to pick, and was the training done in the GMRS location or did the regiment do it based on potential, ability to learn, and (probably) how a men looked on a horse? 

The entire US Army post the ACW strikes me a little "beggars can't be choosers"-esqeu. People on the run from the law, people with handicaps etc joined up. Morale was apparently not great, with enormous desertion rates in the cavalry especially (just ask GAC about the late 1860s). I know some recruits in the 60s actually deliberately joined the cavalry so they could go west, and then desert since their plan was to make it to the gold mines etc. Nice way to hitch a ride, I guess. I think the 7th had to take what they could get as far as personell goes.

I think many ended up in the cavalry regardless of their experience or skill with riding. We have fairly detailed info on the background of the 7th's members. Was it something like 1/3 who came from/was born outside the US? Germans, Norwegians etc would not necessarily be used to riding in their daily lives. So they, like their fellow soldiers from the big cities in the East he East, may not have ridden at all. I have read that some never had been on a horse before, just prior to signing up, the 75 Campaign started. Boys from the rural areas would more likely be competent riders, even though the difference in riding from point A to B and actually fighting mounted is enormous. 


I think Sgt Ryan mentioned how lackluster the training of recruits where, if I'm not mistaken, t did improve a little in the 7th when Reno acted as commanding officer but can't remember the specifics.
All the best,
Noggy

[Jenny]

For sure the 7th in 1875-76-ish was not the cream of the crop of American soldiers. It's funny to me that a man in that era could say he had never been astride a horse. I guess they were wagon guys. If the enlistment officer didn't ask any questions of recruits other than name, place of birth and age/date of birth then how/when would that evaluation happen? I guess that's my questions. Maybe the answer is...it didn't (mostly)!

[montrose]

There was no, repeat no, required training. If you enlisted at or near a post, you went straight to your company. If you enlisted far from the West, you went to the depot. The training there was not standard, or required. It kept the soldier busy until he could be assigned and sent to his unit. The depot training was very simple: how to wear a uniform, ranks, basic drill and ceremony. It is similar to the 2 week training doctors get when they join the Army today.

New recruit training was a company responsibility. The movie Fort Apache shows this, in a humorous way.

Actual new entry training started by fits and starts in the late 1880s, by Emory Upton. It was not standard until reforms after the Spanish American war.

[Jenny]

Thank you Montrose. I think that's amazing and ridiculous in equal measure. It's what I keep reading, but no one puts it exactly like you did. So each unit in the 7th could have had very unequal training?

thanks,

Jenny

[noggy]

Donovan writes this is ATG, I have not included references and stuff he does offer sources for the things here, so I guess it is mostly on pint:

"(…) The long, severe Dakota winter of 1875-76 had afforded few opportunities for cavalry training. Reno had ordered four to six weeks’ worth of steady drill earlier that spring, but that instruction had been elementary, mostly company and battalion drill, with very little squad drill and little if any drill in horsemanship or marksmanship.

It certainly did not help matters that recruits received only the most basic instruction during their short time at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, the cavalry’s depot. Training in marksmanship, horsemanship, skirmishing – any practical lessons that Indian fighting might actually involve – was virtually nonexistent. Formal military training of recruits consisted mostly of elementary drill aimed at making a grand appearance at dress parade. After a week or two at most of close order drill and fatigue duty, they were sent directly to their units, presumably to learn the finer points of soldiering from company officers and noncommissioned officers.

“(Quote) recruits are sent to the cavalry companies with practically no knowledge whatever of their duties”, complained Major Lewis Merrill. ”And with only fifteen rounds a month per soldier allotted for target practice (just increased from ten the previous September), which was highly irregular at best, few of the many recruits from the big cities in the East gained any kind of proficiency with a rifle or pistol.

[Jenny]

Thanks, Noggy. I find that incredible. Sounds like Maj. Merrill felt the same. Reforms later might well have been based on disastrous battles. Maybe. It takes a lot for the Army to make a big change, so there had to be big impetus.

Thanks,

J