Conference smurf::civil_war

    RE .0:
    
    I'm sure there is data, since the records of each regiment would show
    what was known about each man, but I don't know if it has been
    conveniently compiled anywhere.  It might get a little tricky; if
    someone was shot, then later died of gangrene or pneumonia or something
    brought on by the wound, is that a death from disease or a battle
    casualty?  (Stonewall Jackson is one prominent example.)
    
    I ran across an interesting book a couple of years ago when my daughter
    was doing a research paper on Sally Tompkins ("Captain Sally" - the
    only woman to hold a Confederate officer's commission) titled "Doctors
    in Grey", which was a history of the Confederate medical service.  It
    had some statistics on deaths in various hospitals.
    
    Remember, nobody in 1860 had ever _heard_ of germs; Pasteur's work was
    still in the future.  So it isn't surprising that disease killed a lot
    of soldiers.  And the food didn't help any... :^)
    
    MikeR
    

    Far more died of disease than actual combat wounds.  I'll look around
    tonight and see if I can find a number.  In my study of soldiers
    diaries, etc., It would appear that a lot of men were also literally
    marched to death.  Many letters complain of men dying on the march.

    Alright.....here's the true skinny according to Shelby Foote:
    
    The total butcher's bill was 623,026 dead and 471,427 wounded.
    
    Break down is as follows:
    
                         UNION            CONFED
                         -----            ------
    Killed in action      110K              94K
    Wounded               275K             194K
    Disease*              255K             252K
    
    (*Foote includes accidents, suicides, murders, executions, etc., in the
    diseased figure)
    
    Of interest is that 0ne in twelve Union generals were killed in action.
    
    Given the total population of North and South at that time, this would
    equate to 8.2 million casualties today.  Makes you kinda wonder what
    all the bruhaha about VietNam casualties was all about.

Re: -.1

What a coincidence.  Last night I too dug out Shelby Foote, dutifully noted his
totals and was going to post them....Well you know what they say about great 
minds.

I remember the impression that after reading Foote's 3 volumes coming across 
the fact that more people died from disease than were actually killed in battle 
made upon me.  As I've started to read diaries and first hand accounts, with 
the stories of what they ate, the conditions they fought under, and the demands
they made on their bodies I'm not surprised.

Larry

    RE .3:
    
    The disease numbers are perticularly interesting because while Union
    and Confederate had almost the same _totals_, the _proportion_ of
    Confederate soldiers who died of disease must be a lot higher, since
    they had a smaller total force.  Not surprising, I guess, given the
    shortage of food and medicine in the South.
    
    Out of curiousity, are there any statistics on the percent of disease
    deaths that would have been expected in civilian life?  For instance,
    if in a normal town you would lose 10% of the people over 5 years to
    disease, and if the army lost 10% over five years, then you wouldn't
    have a strong case for army life being more difficult; but if the army
    figure was greater than the civilian percent, it would support poor
    conditions as a cause.
    
    MikeR
    

    The greatest single killer in the war was tetanus.  Being killed
    outright by gunshot was about number 3 on the list.  Pneumonia,
    measles, chickenpox, dysentery, and tuberculosis were very prominent,
    too.  You are right about the conditions they endured being deadly.
    They lived like animals for 4 years, and the conditions they called
    "sumptuous" would just flat kill most of us today.
    
    I have an abstract from the census of 1860 that has a table for causes
    of death in the population in general.  If I can remember it I will
    bring it in tomorrow and put some of that in here.
    
    In the campaign with which I am most familair, the New Mexico campaign,
    at any given time, Sibley had from 5 to 10 percent of his brigade in
    the hospital.  One fellow reported to the hospital at Dona Ana (near
    present day Las Cruces, in the southern part of the territory) with
    three terminal diseases - pneumonia, hepatitis, and [I think] typhoid -
    plus an unclosed, gangrenous gunshot wound in the anus.  He lived a
    week after he got to the hospital.
    
    They were tough.
    
    
    Wess

    
    	According to Burke Davis in his book he reports:
    
    	At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts
    say the toll reached 700,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the
    nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Korea.
    	The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses,
    by the best estimates:
    			Battle deaths: 110,070
    			Disease, etc.: 250,152
    		 	Total:         360,222
    
    	The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing
    records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
    			Battle deaths: 94,000
    			Disease, etc:  164,000
    			Total:	       258,000
    
    	The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L.
    Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases,
    studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
    	Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
    	Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
    	Mortality waas greater among Confederate wounded, because of
    inferior medical service.
    
    	In addition to its dead and wounded from battle and disease,
    the Union listed:
    		Deaths in prison		24,866
    		Drowning			4,944
    		Accidental deaths		4,144
    		Murdered			  520
    		Suicides			  391
    		Sunstroke			  313
    		Military executions		  267
    		Killed after capture		  104
    		Executed by enemy		   64
    		Unclassified		      14, 155
    
    
    						The Alabama Slammer 

    Here's a quote from the Oct. 1991 Scientific American, p. 48 (article
    on iron deficiency):
    
    "Hookworm rarely kills its victims...Because poor whites formed the
    bulk of the Confederate Army during the Civil War, some scholars have
    suggested that hookworm disease was a significant factor in the army's
    defeat by the North."
    
    Ken
    

re .5    
>    Out of curiousity, are there any statistics on the percent of disease
>    deaths that would have been expected in civilian life?  For instance,
>    if in a normal town you would lose 10% of the people over 5 years to
>    disease, and if the army lost 10% over five years, then you wouldn't
>    have a strong case for army life being more difficult; but if the army
>    figure was greater than the civilian percent, it would support poor
>    conditions as a cause.
    
	There is a well-known book "How to Lie With Statistics" by
	Darrell Huff. From Chapter 7:

        "The death rate in the Navy during the Spanish-American War was
	 nine per thousand. For civilians in New York City during the
	 same period, it was sixteen per thousand. Navy recruiters later
	 used these figures to show that it was safer to be in the navy
	 than out of it."

	The author goes on to explain that this is not reasonable because
	the Navy mostly consisted of healthy young men, while New York City 
	includes infants, the elderly, the chronically ill, and others for
	whom you might expect the death rate to be much higher. I would
	suggest that even among men of the same age, you might expect those
	who enlisted to be healthier than those who did not.

	For Northerners, it might be reasonable to look at the death rates
	for young men before the war, but I would expect that in much of 
	the South, civilian deaths due to disease and starvation might have
	been much higher during the war than before the war. The Rebel 
	soldier may have had it tough, but it was no picnic for those at 
	home either.