The U.S. Army discouraged marriage among enlisted men in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by creating rules that made family life costly and inconvenient. Policies included barracks-only housing, strict luggage limits, and refusal of free travel for camp followers; by World War I, wives were generally barred from overseas postings. Financial and logistical concerns drove these measures, and although peacetime marriages were allowed with permission after World War I, family support policies evolved only gradually.
Why the U.S. Army Discouraged Enlisted Men from Marrying in the 1800s
The U.S. Army discouraged marriage among enlisted men in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by creating rules that made family life costly and inconvenient. Policies included barracks-only housing, strict luggage limits, and refusal of free travel for camp followers; by World War I, wives were generally barred from overseas postings. Financial and logistical concerns drove these measures, and although peacetime marriages were allowed with permission after World War I, family support policies evolved only gradually.
01:05 AM, 11/16/2025Society
Why the U.S. Army Discouraged Enlisted Men from Marrying in the 1800s
Marriage among enlisted service members is common today — often at a young age — but for much of American history the military actively discouraged matrimony. In the decades after the Civil War, federal policy shifted from accommodating so-called camp followers to making family life inconvenient for soldiers. The government could not outlaw marriage outright, but it could adopt rules that nudged troops away from family life.
Policies That Made Family Life Difficult
Beginning in 1883, the Army implemented policies that limited opportunities for married life. One formal regulation denied the right to separate housing, forcing many enlisted men to live in barracks apart from any spouse. Commanders also restricted luggage allowances and refused free travel for camp followers; families who wanted to remain with a serving relative often had to pay their own way as units moved.
Earlier in American military history, wives and children sometimes accompanied armies during campaigns. George Washington and other leaders criticized the practice because it strained rations, complicated logistics, and occasionally caused disorder when supplies ran short.
Financial and Logistical Motives
Money and logistics were the primary drivers. When families traveled with troops, they consumed Army rations, required extra transport and storage for personal belongings, and increased the administrative burden on commanders. Removing camp followers reduced food consumption, lessened baggage handling, and freed time for training and operations.
To put pay in perspective: during World War I a private earned roughly $30 a month, an amount commonly cited as equivalent to about $643.66 in today’s dollars, while an incoming private in 2025 earns just over $2,000 per month. Such low pay made supporting a household difficult, which reinforced the military’s incentive to limit family presence.
Rules and Their Consequences
In 1901 the War Department began explicitly discouraging married men from re-enlisting. During World War I the restrictions hardened: women were generally not permitted to travel overseas to live alongside their soldier husbands, creating long separations and placing the burden of home and child care on those left behind. Over time, pension and benefit rules changed so that widows and dependents could receive support in some cases, but early policies often reduced the government’s obligations and costs.
"If the Army wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one."
— A popular soldier’s refrain that captured the institutional attitude
Slow Reform
Reform arrived gradually. After World War I, peacetime marriages were permitted in 1925, but enlisted men still needed written permission from a superior officer — reflecting continued administrative control over marriage decisions. Over the 20th century, the military shifted toward a model that recognizes families more fully, with regulated housing, travel allowances, and standardized benefits. Nevertheless, the fiscal and logistical considerations that once drove strict anti-family policies still shape how the armed services manage housing, travel and family support today.
Note: This article preserves the historical facts while clarifying timelines and removing unrelated editorial fragments. It focuses on federal policy trends rather than isolated incidents.