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 ...
Grant was also a drunk.
My Great X 3 grandfather fought at Bloody Lane with the 4th North Carolina under DH Hill there. Almost had a near disaster when the sunken lane got flanked and the Confederates were mercilessly cut down in droves.
I bet its great to say to your friends that you had a relative who fought in the Civil War.
When Lincoln was told about the problem, Lincoln said, I can't spare him, he fights'.
Grant was a great general.
Abraham Lincoln
Not as great as Lee. Lee was the best military tactician in Western history.
IIRC around 20% of Americans are direct descendants of royalty.
Possibly. But he was also extremely lucky in his opponents up to Meade and Grant.
Just ask yourself what would have happened at Chancellorsville or Antietam had he faced Grant.
At Chancellorsville Grant would have counter-attacked, as he did at Shiloh after a similar initial clobbering.
At Antietam he would never have fed his men in a little at a time and he would have got them all into the battle. He would also never have let Lee get away without another battle.
Yet if Lee was the one attacking Grant at Shiloh, do you think Grant would have been given the oppurtunity to counter-attack?
You are aware that casualties are different from deaths?
Total dead at Antietam was about 3500. I have no idea if this is the most in a single day for American troops, but it’s not a whole lot more than died on 9/11. Pearl Harbor was 2500.
Most troops dead during the war died from disease, 2x to 3x those who died as a result of combat. Most troops were farmboys. Bring them all together in unsanitary conditions and they all swapped diseases and a whole bunch died. Many regiments lost over 50% before they saw combat.
Which means we consistently under-estimate the violence of recent US wars. To a very considerable extent the lower death rate recently measures not the intensity of combat but better medical care.
Same is true of the murder rate. Recent declines are at least as much due to better emergency care as to less violence.
FWIW, about the same time the nation of Paraguay lost 60% to 70% of its total population in a six year war. Around 85% of adult males.
The correct date of the article is Sep. 21, 2011.
Grant may have gotten drunk a time or two but his bosses/Generals over him were far greater liars and back stabbers then Grant ever was a drunk. Most of the rumors about grant being a drunk were lies. Eventually those back stabbing political Generals over Grant were fired or knock down the ladder a few rings.
In the end, it actually seems to have come down to starvation. Lee was “smarter” as a General than Grant,
Smarter... really??? That whole Pickett’s Charge idea was a real stroke of genius/sarc
The guy was a traitor.
In the end, it actually seems to have come down to starvation. Lee was “smarter” as a General than Grant,
Smarter... really??? That whole Pickett’s Charge idea was a real stroke of genius/sarc
The guy was a traitor.
Lee had Pickett’s Charge but Grant had The Crater and Cold Harbor.
Is it unusual elsewhere? I don’t think I knew anybody well who didn’t while growing up. All said, I’ve got over 120. One 2nd great uncle refused the oath, became an outlaw and disappeared out west.
“Lee was “smarter” as a General than Grant, but Grant was able to cut off supplies so that Lee literally couldn’t feed his men.”
Grant could also replace his losses with immigration, while the South couldn’t; when the Union realized this, they stopped prisoner exchanges.
“Grant was a great general.”
I like Grant, but the fact is that he sacrificed huge numbers of troops in ways the Confederacy could never afford to (and he knew it) to win the war. McClellan was replaced because he didn’t have the heart to do that.
Just think, if not for the Civil War we would’t be rich in diversity with the likes of the Black Caucus, Black Panthers, Al Sharpton...
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.