Replies

rockrr to csmusaret: "Well at least now I have an answer to 'Where do you people get that crap?!' "

I checked out csmusaret's link, and most of it is the usual ridiculous nonsense, reviewed at great length on these threads many times.
But the last one on that list is something close to what Wikipedia now says, with no supporting evidence:

from csmusaret's link: "#16 Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians."

from Wikipedia: "The war produced at least 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians."

But when you look for data on just who & where were these alleged 50,000 civilians, there is none, zero, except for statistical extrapolations based on different census results -- one of which, 1870, is fully acknowledged to have been quite inaccurate.

Here is one actual report:

"It is a common, an e very-day sight in Randolph County, to see women and children, most of whom were formerly in good circumstances, begging for bread from door to door.
They must have immediate help, or perish.
Fifteen hundred families, embracing five thousand persons, are in need of immediate aid.
“This was in January, 1866."

So at least three points to make here:

First & foremost, note this is post-war.
There are very few reports, and certainly no large numbers, of actual civilian deaths in the Civil War.
This particular report is from a "Randolph County".
Well, there are Randolph Counties in Alabama, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana and Illinois.
So who was suffering more?

Bottom line: even though Wikipedia is now promoting the number "50,000 civilian deaths" there is no actual data, none, to support it only statistical analyses, and there's no reason to assume that all of these alleged civilian statistics were Southern.