Posted on 09/21/2011 12:54:16 PM PDT by decimon
BINGHAMTON, NY – The Civil War — already considered the deadliest conflict in American history — in fact took a toll far more severe than previously estimated. That's what a new analysis of census data by Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker reveals.
Hacker says the war's dead numbered about 750,000, an estimate that's 20 percent higher than the commonly cited figure of 620,000. His findings will be published in December in the journal Civil War History.
"The traditional estimate has become iconic," Hacker says. "It's been quoted for the last hundred years or more. If you go with that total for a minute — 620,000 — the number of men dying in the Civil War is more than in all other American wars from the American Revolution through the Korean War combined. And consider that the American population in 1860 was about 31 million people, about one-tenth the size it is today. If the war were fought today, the number of deaths would total 6.2 million."
The 620,000 estimate, though widely cited, is also widely understood to be flawed. Neither the Union nor the Confederacy kept standardized personnel records. And the traditional estimate of Confederate war dead —258,000 — was based on incomplete battle reports and a crude guess of deaths from disease and other non-combat causes. Although it is impossible to catalogue the fate of each of the 3 million or more men who fought in the war from 1861-65, some researchers have tried to re-count deaths in selected companies, regiments and areas. But Hacker says these attempts at a direct count will always miss people and therefore always underestimate deaths.
"There are also huge problems estimating mortality with census data," Hacker explains. "You can track the number of people of certain ages from one census to the next, and you can see how many are missing. But the potential problem with that is that each census undercounted people by some unknown amount, and an unknown number of people moved in and out of the country between censuses."
However, new data sets produced in the last 10 years or so, instead of giving the aggregate number of people in certain age groups, identify each person and his or her age, race and birthplace. Hacker realized that civilian deaths were so low relative to soldiers' deaths that he could compare the number of native-born men missing in the 1870 Census relative to the number of native-born women missing and produce an estimate from that.
Hacker looked at the ratio of male survival relative to female survival for each age group. He established a "normal" pattern in survival rates for men and women by looking at the numbers for 1850-1860 and 1870-1880. Then he compared the war decade, 1860-1870, relative to the pattern.
His new estimate of Civil War deaths contains a wide margin: 650,000 to 850,000, with 750,000 as the central figure.
Pulitzer Prize-winner James McPherson, the preeminent living historian of the war, says he finds Hacker's estimate plausible.
"Even if it might not be quite as high as 750,000, I have always been convinced that the consensus figure of 620,000 is too low, and especially that the figure of 260,000 Confederate dead is definitely too low," McPherson says. "My guess is that most of the difference between the estimate of 620,000 and Hacker's higher figure is the result of underreported Confederate deaths."
Like earlier estimates, Hacker's includes men who died in battle as well as soldiers who died as a result of poor conditions in military camps.
"Roughly two out of three men who died in the war died from disease," Hacker says. "The war took men from all over the country and brought them all together into camps that became very filthy very quickly." Deaths resulted from diarrhea, dysentery, measles, typhoid and malaria, among other illnesses.
McPherson says the new figure should gain acceptance among historians of the era.
"An accurate tally — or at least a reasonable estimate — is important in order to gauge the huge impact of the war on American society," he says. "Even if the number of war dead was 'only' 620,000, that still created a huge impact, especially in the South, and a figure of 750,000 makes that impact — and the demographic shadow it threw on the next two generations of Americans — just that much greater."
Uh, why?
Explain please.
“How convenient for them that these rules didn’t apply to “uncivilized” opponents, on whom apparently any atrocities could be committed. Which of course brings up the question of just who was civilized. “
Another issue and I probably agree with you on this one.
“My point is that 17th, 18th and 19th century practice varied widely from theory.”
There is often a gap between the pracise and the theory. But when the government OFFICIALLY advocates a policy, the impact of that policy on practise is often significant.
“Most particularly when a civil war or suppression of a rebellion was involved.”
True. But civil wars were always very nasty affairs. The establishment generally did not consider their opponents legitimate combatants. I was thinking of wars between nation states. But I guess you “got me” there as the U.S. Civil War was not considered the latter by the North.
“I believe my original comment was that our Civil War had fewer atrocities committed against civilians than any other great civil war in history. “
You are right in that regard I admit. What went on in other Civil Wars was far more brutal. I think you could make an argument that the Brits in our Revolution, at least in theory, wanted to limit their violence to the Rebels and not the entire American population as a whole.
“Outside of SC and to some extent GA Sherman burned few homes, though most barns and all public buildings were destroyed.”
They destroyed communication lines and crops and burning a barn could mean starvation for the folks who relied on the stored produce for food. And that was civilian as well as military personnel.
I guess the thing that most irritates me about Sherman’s and Sheridan’s actions is that I always think of my fellow Americans as special, even if they were rebels and did not regard themselves as such. I don’t like Americans making war on fellow Americans.
I’m not sure where I would have stood on the Civil War. I certainly think slavery was a great evil and that it should have been stamped out. On the other hand, the states, I beleive, DO have a right to seceed. The Constitution clearly states in the Tenth Amendment that the people and the State retain all powers specifically not delegated to the Federal Government and the Consitution does not clearly forbid seccession. Further, several of the articles of adoption by the individuals states to the Constitution - New York and Virginia among them, retain the right ot seceed if the state should think it in its own best interest. The Constitutional Convention accepted these articles of adoption, thus extending what they contained to all states involved.
Most particularly when a civil war or suppression of a rebellion was involved.
Neither do I. But those who decide to "appeal to the decision of arms" on the notion that they will quickly and easily win have little right to object if it turns out the war is long and hard and they are losing.
In the movie Twins Arnold's character has to keep explaining to the bad guys that one can always move from negotiation to violence, but trying to move back to peaceful negotiation of differences once violence has been initiated is very difficult. And the level of violence reached, once it has been unleashed, is also not always within the control of anybody. Things have a way of getting out of hand.
I suspect we might differ on "who started the war," and in particular who was most responsible for creating the climate of opinion that led up to it, but I hope we can agree that the war, while perhaps in the long run unavoidable, was a very bad idea.
“but I hope we can agree that the war, while perhaps in the long run unavoidable, was a very bad idea. “
Agreed.
I submit that the Cherry Valley massacre in the American Revolution points out that civilians were long involved in military operations. You can also look at the French and Indian war, where Indians with French officers raided colonial settlements, and in response Rangers went north to raid Indian villages.
The problem was the rebels slashed the fire hoses, making it impossible to fight the fire. The rebels burned Atlanta when the withdrew, they burned Richmond when it fell. The Union soldiers had to stop chasing the rebels to fight the fire.
Two of my great-great grandfathers served throughout the war from the ages of sixteen to twenty. One of them, Sebastian Boehler, died real young, in his early fifties, as a result of the exposure he suffered during the war.
Thankfully, he did live long enough to have a family...or I guess I wouldn't be typing this message! :-)
I qualified that with wars with “Civilized” oppponenents. One of the reasons the white indian conflictys were so horrible was the lack of either side following the military conventions of the day.
But it was mutual. Google Gnadenhutten
The War of 1861 was not our first civil war. The war of 1775-1783 was...and it was also regarded as putting down a rebellion by one side to the conflict.
Quite true. It WAS an attempt to put down a rebellion.
It’s just that the attempt failed, so none dare call it rebellion.
There was a certain need to instruct the Indians on what it meant to go to war. That was the purpose of the Ranger raids in the French and Indian war. Also the purpose of the Sullivan expedition in the American Revolution. It worked. The Indians were part of the forces of France and Britain, nominally civilized.
The prison ships used by the British to murder Continental POWs through sickness also indicate less than the usual care for civilized standards. By contrast, Gen Washington impressed on his officers that captured British soldiers should be given every care, to avoid inflaming passions that would prevent an early peace.
There was a certain disappointment in US Army commanders during the War of the Rebellion when so called confederate snipers used exploding bullets, or when Gen. Wheeler put infernal devices on roads. Certainly Gen. Sherman felt freed of the normal practice of keeping rebel prisoners safe, and quite publicly put them to work clearing the roads of mines. That order quickly ended the practice of planting infernal devices, and probably saved many southern civilian lives that would have be killed by Wheeler’s mines.
No doubt the American Revolution was a rebellion. The reasons were laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
In imitation of that, the so called confederates wrote their resolutions of secession and various other documents.
The difference: The confederate cause was less convincing, and so they had more trouble convincing people to help them.
And the Continentals won, while the confederates lost.
I will note that the 10th amendment reserves powers to the states, and to the people.
The people is distinguished from the states. It is the same word used in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, which both describe rights not assigned to the states.
Pretending that a state alone can secede is thus contrary to the 10th Amendment, so obviously so that the southern states did not bother to file a case in federal court to have the SCOTUS rule on secession. As RE Lee said, secession war simply rebellion, and in the event, it failed on its merits.
I DON”T read it THAT way.
If the Tenth Amendment reserves to the People and the States those powers not clearly designated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not clearly FORBID secession, the States have that right.
As I POINTED OUT, several of the articles of incorporation by individual states of the Constitution, particularly Virginia’s and New York’s CLEARLY specify that the state reserves the right to withdraw from the Constitution should it feel its rights are infringed.
The fact that the Federal Government WHEN IT HAD JEFFERSON DAVIS in its power, REFUSED to try him for Treason indicates that there was serious fear that the Courts WOULD NOT consider him a Traitor as he was involved in exercising rights the Constitution clearly did not forbid.
See:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
Read the FIRST PARAGRAPH CAREFULLY.
Since this ratification document was accepted, its terms were, by its acceptance, extended to all the other states which so ratified the Constitution.
New York State had a similar provision in its document of ratification and so did at least one other state.
There is no reason why a state cannot legally secede from the Union.
“There was a certain need to instruct the Indians on what it meant to go to war. That was the purpose of the Ranger raids in the French and Indian war. “
???????????????
“It worked. “
?????????
There were widespread attacks against colonists AFTER the Sullivan attack in RETALIATION for that attack. If its purpose was to stop them, it failed.
“The prison ships used by the British to murder Continental POWs through sickness also indicate less than the usual care for civilized standards.”
The Brits regarded the Americans as traitors. Not to excuse it, but they felt the treatment CUSTOMARILY afforded to POWs needn’t be extended to traitors.
“There was a certain disappointment in US Army commanders during the War of the Rebellion when so called confederate snipers used exploding bullets, “
This is an unproven canard leveled at both sides by their opponents. In fact there is no proof to indicate either side ever used exploding bullets. It would seem that the .58 caliber minie ball, a soft lead projectile of about 500 grains, which could tumble if improperly cast, caused horrific wounds when it hit a bone. I have fired them at a shooting range and retrieved them from the backstop for remelting. They often mushroom out to over 1” across and I use a powder charge of about 45 grains of black powder when the service charge was about 70 grains. You do the math.
Viewing wounds caused by these weapons could clearly lead a surgeon or soldier to think the enemy was using “exploding” bullets.
“Certainly Gen. Sherman felt freed of the normal practice of keeping rebel prisoners safe, and quite publicly put them to work clearing the roads of mines.”
In the modern world this is considered a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Argue as you wish, but the deliberate actions of Sherman and Sheridan in the Civil War against the civilian population of a “civilized” nation was widely regarded as something novel in the theory of warfare of that time and place.
You claim that “the states” have rights that were reserved in the tenth amendment to “the states, and the people”.
That is, as best, error. I refer you to Texas v. White, which explains that “the people” is not just the people of one state, but rather, the people of the whole US.
The territory of the US is the sovereign possession of the whole people. No state (say, SC) can unilaterally remove rights of a person of the US (say a person of NY), as stated in the constitution by the Privileges and Immunities clause. Devolving a part of the US, as the rebels pretended to do is not not something within their authority. Rather, by pretending to have that authority, and by raising armies in time of peace, they violated the constitution and started an insurrection which ended their legitimate authority, but did not end the US claim to the land and people formerly of their state.
Secession is possible, but not unilateral action by a state, rather only by federal action: perhaps by federal legislation, by federal treaty, and certainly by constitutional amendment.
The Geneva conventions were signed after the Civil war, and of course didn’t apply. Condemning Sherman for violations of that is rather like condemning Lee for violating the 13th Amendment in his possession of slaves.
Considering that rebellion was treason, I am amazed how many rebels survived. How merciful the victorious north was!
Keep in mind that Atlanta was burned by Hood as he withdrew, and the US forces saved much of it by putting out the fires. Atlanta was occupied by the US, and the buildings claimed by the rebel government were burned by Sherman as he withdrew headed east.
No difference in principle. Sherman was a bit more discriminate than Hood.
In your document, the rights are referred to being those of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, and certainly not to the State of Virginia. The reservations to ratification in said document do not claim a unilateral right for states to secede.
Pointing to that as justification of unilateral state succession as was pretended by states in 1860 is either simple error, or deliberate intention by you to mislead. Which is it?
“In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.[2]
I disagree with the Court. It was a Reconstruction SCOTUS and this is hardly surprising. That Texas REMAINED a state under military government after rebelling against the Federal Government, with a decision like this rendered, defies logic.
Their decision is not grounded in either fact or history. SCOTUS has issued an entire series of decisions, from School Prayer to Eminent Domain to Abortion, that many on this forum disagree with.
I refer you to the EXACT wording of the Tenth Amendment.
“Secession is possible, but not unilateral action by a state, rather only by federal action: perhaps by federal legislation, by federal treaty, and certainly by constitutional amendment.”
???????????????
According to the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit secession, the Tenth Amendment guarantees that right to the States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.