开小差的预测因素:美国内战中密歇根州第一有色人种步兵团的分析

0 ANTHROPOLOGY Sociology Lens Pub Date : 2024-10-19 DOI:10.1111/johs.12476
Steven Stack, Barbara Bowman
{"title":"开小差的预测因素:美国内战中密歇根州第一有色人种步兵团的分析","authors":"Steven Stack,&nbsp;Barbara Bowman","doi":"10.1111/johs.12476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Over 180,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army in the American Civil War. They endured horrific deprivation and disease, and also substantial institutional discrimination in such areas as wage and promotion. Nevertheless, most never deserted their duties as soldiers. However, it is not clear what distinguished those who did desert from their counterparts. The present case-control study fills this gap. It applies social bonds theory to explain desertion among blacks. The general hypothesis is the greater the bonds or stakes to the military unit, the lower the risk of desertion. Data refer to the First Michigan Colored Infantry (First Michigan) and are from the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. They refer to the population of all 189 deserters in the First Michigan and a comparison group of non-deserters. Available measures of social bonds include substitute status (substitutes received a bounty upon completion of service), receiving a wound (having “skin in the game”), and noncommissioned officer status. In addition, loyalty to family is framed as a risk factor. The dependent variable is desertion, a dichotomy (0,1). Results are adjusted for other measurable variables. A multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that measures of military social bonds were protective factors against desertion. Substitutes were 73% less apt, wounded soldiers 93% less apt, and noncommissioned officers were 79% less apt to desert than their counterparts. However, family bonds were a risk factor. The model correctly classified 77.95% of the cases. The results largely support a social bonds theory of deviance, but also may support views of the conflicting bonds between family and state as increasing desertion. The investigation is the first quantitative study of desertion among blacks in the Civil War.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":101168,"journal":{"name":"Sociology Lens","volume":"37 4","pages":"556-572"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictors of Desertion: Analysis of the First Michigan Colored Infantry in the American Civil War\",\"authors\":\"Steven Stack,&nbsp;Barbara Bowman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/johs.12476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>Over 180,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army in the American Civil War. They endured horrific deprivation and disease, and also substantial institutional discrimination in such areas as wage and promotion. Nevertheless, most never deserted their duties as soldiers. However, it is not clear what distinguished those who did desert from their counterparts. The present case-control study fills this gap. It applies social bonds theory to explain desertion among blacks. The general hypothesis is the greater the bonds or stakes to the military unit, the lower the risk of desertion. Data refer to the First Michigan Colored Infantry (First Michigan) and are from the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. They refer to the population of all 189 deserters in the First Michigan and a comparison group of non-deserters. Available measures of social bonds include substitute status (substitutes received a bounty upon completion of service), receiving a wound (having “skin in the game”), and noncommissioned officer status. In addition, loyalty to family is framed as a risk factor. The dependent variable is desertion, a dichotomy (0,1). Results are adjusted for other measurable variables. A multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that measures of military social bonds were protective factors against desertion. Substitutes were 73% less apt, wounded soldiers 93% less apt, and noncommissioned officers were 79% less apt to desert than their counterparts. However, family bonds were a risk factor. The model correctly classified 77.95% of the cases. The results largely support a social bonds theory of deviance, but also may support views of the conflicting bonds between family and state as increasing desertion. The investigation is the first quantitative study of desertion among blacks in the Civil War.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology Lens\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"556-572\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology Lens\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/johs.12476\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology Lens","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/johs.12476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictors of Desertion: Analysis of the First Michigan Colored Infantry in the American Civil War

Over 180,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army in the American Civil War. They endured horrific deprivation and disease, and also substantial institutional discrimination in such areas as wage and promotion. Nevertheless, most never deserted their duties as soldiers. However, it is not clear what distinguished those who did desert from their counterparts. The present case-control study fills this gap. It applies social bonds theory to explain desertion among blacks. The general hypothesis is the greater the bonds or stakes to the military unit, the lower the risk of desertion. Data refer to the First Michigan Colored Infantry (First Michigan) and are from the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. They refer to the population of all 189 deserters in the First Michigan and a comparison group of non-deserters. Available measures of social bonds include substitute status (substitutes received a bounty upon completion of service), receiving a wound (having “skin in the game”), and noncommissioned officer status. In addition, loyalty to family is framed as a risk factor. The dependent variable is desertion, a dichotomy (0,1). Results are adjusted for other measurable variables. A multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that measures of military social bonds were protective factors against desertion. Substitutes were 73% less apt, wounded soldiers 93% less apt, and noncommissioned officers were 79% less apt to desert than their counterparts. However, family bonds were a risk factor. The model correctly classified 77.95% of the cases. The results largely support a social bonds theory of deviance, but also may support views of the conflicting bonds between family and state as increasing desertion. The investigation is the first quantitative study of desertion among blacks in the Civil War.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Ritual of Homebuying in Desert Cities: A Visual Ethnography Autism Speaks for Whom? Neoliberalism, Nonprofit Infrastructure, and the Economics of Autism Advocacy In the Footsteps of Krste P. Misirkov: Tracing the Roots of Macedonian Sociological Discourse Ode to a Blackbird
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1