Posted on 04/03/2012 11:07:36 PM PDT by U-238
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Regarding Grant, in a new book titled, 'Ulysses S. Grant a Victor, not a butcher' by Edward H. Bonekemper 111,
'....In Ulysses S. Grant an Victor, historian Edward H. Bonekemper111 proves that Grants casualty rates actually compared favorably with those of other Civil War generals. His perservance, decisiveness, moral courage, and political acumen place him among the greatest generals of the Civil War-indeed of all military history. Bonekemper proves that it was no historical accident that Grant accepted the surrender of three entire Confederate armies and won the Civil War. Bonekemper ably silences Grant's critics and restores Grant to the heroic reputation he so richly deserves'
I think the one exception was Cold Harbor, which he always regreted.
As I said, I like Grant. If his numbers are favorable I’d attribute that to Southern weariness and the incompetence of other Union generals more than anything else (my town is named for a Union general who was scouting along the lines at night, got lost, and was shot & killed in 1862), since Grant’s command started later in the war.
Maybe in his prime, maybe when Jackson and Stuart and his other lieutenants were at their best.
But by 1864 Lee was getting worn down. Possibly his health was starting to fail by then: he would be dead in 1870.
At his best, Lee performed well in the established ways of early 19th century warfare, but it's not clear that he was able to "think outside the box" and develop new strategies suited to the resources he did have.
Ok, lets see a reference for your creative history.
Wish I knew, but Wikipedia says it was Old Crow. It was also the choice of Henry Clay, Mark Twain, and Hunter Thompson.
Actually, the Civil War general with the highest casualty rate among his men was ... Robert E. Lee.
The claims about Grant being a butcher are based on his “fighting on this line if it takes all summer” of 1864. When you are facing an enemy, you can go around his right, around his left, or attack head-on.
Getting around the enemy’s flank usually requires you outsmart him. Outsmarting Lee was pretty difficult, but Grant tried repeatedly to get around Lee’s right flank. (He didn’t try the left flank because that would take him away from his base on the sea.)
He succeeded at Petersburg but was done in by overly cautious subordinates who didn’t follow up their successes.
Grant was the opposite of the Union generals who got hit hard then retreated back to base for a few months. When Grant got hit, he just shifted a little and tried again.
Think about what might have happened in the Seven Days had Grant been in command. He would have counter-attacked not just retreated. Quite possibly Richmond would have fallen.
Same for Chancellorsville. He got hit just about as hard as Hooker did in about the same location. (The Wilderness.)
Grant didn’t retreat, he just shifted left and tried again.
Total deaths in Kansas and environs before the War, on both sides, over three years - less than 100.
The Lawrence Massacre by Quantrill was well into the War, with Order 11 a reaction to it.
The Marais de Cygne massacre was committed by pro-slavery men on free soilers in 1858. Five dead. John Brown had killed five pro-slavery men a couple of years earlier.
The Sack of Osceola was three years later, well into the war, and was led by Senator (not Governor) Jim Lane. It was in the nature of an unauthorized raid by paramilitary types into enemy territory. Nine local men were executed after a mock trial
IOW, most of what you mention took place during the war. For all the huffing and puffing and shouting, not many died in Bleeding Kansas before the war.
The numbers of all the men who died in fighting before the War were matched in less than a minute in many battles of the actual war.
While perhaps apocryphal and mutated from what was made then, I shall do my best and buy a bottle.
It's the best-produced news/commentary show on TV. O'Reilly is a genius at pacing. He keeps the banter snappy, he doesn't let guests or himself monologue on endlessly, he covers a wide variety of topics, he has a sense of humor, etc. It's one of the only shows I try to watch all the way through every time. And there's a pretty big difference when there's a guest host even though they stick to the same format. O'Reilly knows how to do this kind of show better than anybody. And making news and serious topics entertaining is extremely important to getting young people away from the purely "bread and circuses" distractions. It helps enormously that he comes across as a normal guy you'd meet on the street and not a stuffy, overeducated type, an agenda-driven ideologue, or a policy wonk.
I usually do not worry about dates. People are very understanding about a very small mistake.
You mean it’s an error?
Damn, I thought you’d got hold of the September, 2012 issue.
I was going to ask you if you could get me a newspaper with the next winning Lotto numbers in it.
He is an idiot.
I couldn't agree more. Lee was a brilliant star 15 years before the Civil War in the Mexican-American War (1846) with innovation, competence and personal bravery. Grant was in the thick of things but didn't rise up to the star level. Another notable battle field leader in the first half of the war was Jefferson Davis.
Good lord are you helpless? I stumbled across that item a good thirty to thirty five years back. I am assuming you are in Alabama, go to your library and ask for a book about the first Alabama cavalry and go from there. with a little luck it will turn up.
Did you ever read that east TN tried to secede from TN and join the union the way West VA did? How about this, every time the confederates tried to enter Cades Cove in what is now a national park, they where chased out by the locals at gun point.
Right, because it's so easy for any "idiot" to have the number one news show in cable for several years running and to have recently been polled as the #1 most trusted TV news source. O'Reilly is a brilliant broadcaster and an incredibly valuable ally to have in the fight against liberal media bias.
“Perhaps, but he is also remembered as forcing the frontal assault,(Pickett’s Charge) on the third day of Gettysburg.
Jackson wanted to flank..Lee said no.”
Not sure what general you are thinking of, but Jackson had been killed at Chancellorsville two months before Gettysburg.
He’s thinking of Longstreet. Lee turned down his suggestions for flanking the Yankees, which is not to say that they might have worked any better.
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.