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."
I didn’t day it did. But the Geneva Convention made an effort to “civilize” warfare and such actions by Sherman would have clearly been “uncivilized” according to the consensus of most people at the time the convention was signed.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that specifically forbids secession. I believe, therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, the states retain that right.
I guess you and I are at an impasse and must agree we disagree. But it was interesting conversing with you.
There are many many more examples of intentional killing of civilians available, but in point of fact, neither Sherman or Sheraton targeted civilians as the neo-confederate literature claims. They both targeted resources that were being diverted to the confederate army, and it was the right thing to do. It saved a lot of lives in the end.
I will agree that secession is not denied to the states. Accordingly, the right to secession is retained by “the states or to the people” per the 10th Amendment.
I hold that secession is a right of the people of the United States, not a right of any single state, or even several states combined.
Sumner explained the legal issues of that, how the state governments could not unilaterally secede, and further if they attempted insurrection, they could not take their people nor their territory outside of the US, rather they would end the legitimacy of their state government.
Yes, it is an interesting discussion. Glad we can have it without getting too too worked up.
So what do you think “to the people” means in the 10th Amendment?
Clearly it doesn’t mean nothing at all. What does it mean? I suggest it requires a very broad agreement, as one would find necessary to pass an amendment.
What do you think?
I agree that what Sherman did, using prisoners to probe for mines, was uncivilized.
I will also hope you agree that what Wheeler did, planting mines that would resonably and forseeably pose a significant hazard to civilians after the war was over, was also uncivilized.
The difference: Sherman gave his orders to bring Wheeler back to responsible behavior. It worked.
I will also note that when Germans in WWII destroyed their maps of minefields, and in the Falklands when Argentinian commanders destroyed their maps of minefields, prisoners were forced to probe and remove mines.
One way the Geneva Convention works is by reciprocity. If a party violates it, it removes a corresponding protection from the side that violates it.
In like manner, illegal combatants are not granted POW protection by the Geneva Conventions. Rather the US extends POW treatment as a courtesy, as an example, and as a means to gain intelligence information.
In my opinion, the Tenth Amendment’s function was to codify the fact that the powers of the Federal Government were limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained by the several states or the people.
Whether those powers were vested in the people of a state or the government of that state, the state constitution and state laws would determine, not the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was, again, in my opinion, established to be a government of strictly limited powers. Not only the Tenth Amendment, but the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers concept were crafted with that purpose in mind.
Over the years, the Federal COurts, particularly the SCOTUS, has built upon prior half-crocked decisions, the fabric of a false constitution. As these decisions piggy-back on prior misguided decisions, over time they take the government further and further from the ision of the founding fathers and original intent.
The outrageous expansion of the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is an example. Another are the series of decisions by recent courts relating to the First Amendment.
The Founders did not intend to purge religion and God from public life with the establishment of religion clause. CLEARLY, by inserting the statement “nor the free exercise thereof” they INTENDED that the right of public worship was protected.
With the Stare Decisis principle all these errors have been enshrined in the juridical process and later courts are reluctant to change them.
At any rate, that is my opinion, for what its worth.
You might want to read “Men in Black” by Mark Levin, or “Original Intent” - can;t recall the author. Neither of these goes into the Secession Issue.
:I will also hope you agree that what Wheeler did, planting mines that would reasonably and foreseeable pose a significant hazard to civilians after the war was over, was also uncivilized.”
If that is what Wheeler did, I agree.
Well, the Germans in WW2 operated outside the bounds of civilized behavior, in my opinion. So did the Japanese. They deserved pretty much whatever they got, although civilians should have been protected as non-combatants.
I am not familiar with the Falklands situation at all.
I believe the Geneva Convention applies to
1) Forces of a recognized government
2) Forces of a Government which was a party to the Geneva convention
3) Soldiers captured in Uniform.
I don’t believe ANY of the above apply to Muslim terrorists and think they should be handled by military courts martial and hanged if found to be involved in piracy or terrorism,
Geneva convention applies to combatants who keep the Geneva convention.
1. use a uniform recognizable at a distance
2. Have a chain of command
3. treat prisoners according to the Geneva convention.
4. Avoid damage to non-combatants and civil structures
Terrorists fail at least 2 of 4.
Since the Nazi SS didn’t follow Geneva Convention, they would not be protected.
When combatants hide behind women and children, or in schools or hospitals, the combatant does not thereby gain protection, they rather remove protection.
The rules were written that way to be sure that no combatant ever had any incentive to hide behind non-combatants.
Stare Decisis is overused. My favorite SCOTUS justice is Thomas, who would rather ‘get it right this time’ rather than be bound by previous bad decisions.
I like him too. Now they are trying to force him to recuse himself from the Obamacare suit.
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.