MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 (1861-1865) Civil War Battles (Eastern Theater)
Message
Larry Purtell
Little Meadows PA USA
Posts: 1797
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/2/2024 5:30:26 PM
Private John Tracy was discharged 12-23-1862 after the battle of Fredericksburg for disability. He died form his service incurred illness at home. His death is just as sure a casualty of war as those were killed in action. I still tell people the true death count of the ACW was over 1,000,000


Larry.


----------------------------------
"My goal is to live forever. So far, so good.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1974
Joined: 2010
Another non casualty.
1/3/2024 11:46:14 AM
Agree. Men who survived a wild fire fight died in the wilderness "somewhere in Southeast Asia."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/3/2024 3:04:58 PM
Quote:
Private John Tracy was discharged 12-23-1862 after the battle of Fredericksburg for disability. He died form his service incurred illness at home. His death is just as sure a casualty of war as those were killed in action. I still tell people the true death count of the ACW was over 1,000,000


Larry.



In excess of one million : that’s a huge number from a population that was about thirty one million in 1860.

If we attribute all these deaths to men who were of military age during the war, we would be allowing for one in six of the military population. That’s truly traumatic. What it implies for the much smaller population of the South is mind boggling.

One has to wonder how far the same extended remit might be applied to other wars. Should the three quarters of a million military deaths recorded as suffered by the U.K. in 1914-18 be adjusted upwards by another fifty percent to allow for the premature deaths that occurred as a result of wounds and invalidity suffered in the course of a soldier’s service ?

Editing: some reflection….. if we endorse the estimate- and I emphasise that word estimate - of Confederate military deaths in the war totalling 258,000 , we assess that against a total of about 1.1 million white males who were aged 15 to 40 years of age in 1860 in the eleven states that seceded. That is approaching one in four of all those men losing their lives . Now, if we revise the total of deaths in the war upwards from 620,000 to one million, we must adjust that 258,000 figure in accordance. Now the arithmetic implies a total in excess of 400,000. What does that mean in terms of social, economic, cultural and political impacts on a population traumatised by defeat ?

Four out of ten of all the white males either killed or died in the war, or left so badly damaged that they perished in the decade following. Could it really have been that bad ? I have to say that we need circumspection here. The demographic implications are too catastrophic to allow otherwise. What was the fate of white southern womanhood in the era of Reconstruction ?

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/4/2024 4:00:02 PM

Dear Group,

Adj Gens Office 1950 gives 359528 union men died. 67058 kia 43012 Dow. 110070 tot and 224586 of disease and 24872 non-combat deaths(accidents etc.)
Dow about 40% of battle deaths
2.5 experience factor by Fox gives
275175 union wounded total
550534 doubles for U&C estimate.
Need 380000 to get to 1 million died from standard stated 620,000 dead.
That’s 70% of the total wounded for both sides. That’s 7/10 of total wounded DOW?
Lacking any hard data not a very convincing claim.
While its very useful to obtain the best stats available. widely speculative guesses are not really helpful. So please yes let’s have some circumspect care and real data.
Like the claim that 50000 southern civilians died by Union Army atrocities, a number totally speculative for which no data has ever been developed.

respectfully, Mike_C.
mikecmaps
Larry Purtell
Little Meadows PA USA
Posts: 1797
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/4/2024 4:49:16 PM
We both have our opinions. From my research of personal records, newspapers and grave yards I stand by my estimate that nearly 1,000,000 died from battle deaths and wounds and disease 1861-65. As for civilian deaths I pass as I have never looked into that field.

Larry.


----------------------------------
"My goal is to live forever. So far, so good.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/4/2024 6:01:21 PM
Quote:

Dear Group,

Adj Gens Office 1950 gives 359528 union men died. 67058 kia 43012 Dow. 110070 tot and 224586 of disease and 24872 non-combat deaths(accidents etc.)
Dow about 40% of battle deaths
2.5 experience factor by Fox gives
275175 union wounded total
550534 doubles for U&C estimate.
Need 380000 to get to 1 million died from standard stated 620,000 dead.
That’s 70% of the total wounded for both sides. That’s 7/10 of total wounded DOW?
Lacking any hard data not a very convincing claim.
While its very useful to obtain the best stats available. widely speculative guesses are not really helpful. So please yes let’s have some circumspect care and real data.
Like the claim that 50000 southern civilians died by Union Army atrocities, a number totally speculative for which no data has ever been developed.

respectfully, Mike_C.
mikecmaps


Mike_C,

No : the additional deaths in the post war period that Larry alludes to would have been predicated mainly on illness. The hardships, squalour and exposure that men endured in camp, on the march and, especially, whilst prisoners of war were , I would opine, a bigger cause of diminished lifespan than wounds ; although it’s undoubtedly true that long term effects of wounds did have significant impact, too. In your analysis you attribute the entire notional excess to died of wounds, and you omit the crippling effects of invalidity caused by diseases which damaged more men than wounds.
Note the nearly 25,000 deaths that you cited as non battle deaths: if memory serves me, they were actually from “ causes not stated “ , and might well have included several thousand who were killed in battle or died from wounds. I would guess that a few thousand missing in action were never properly accounted for, and they might account for a portion of those 24,872.

Larry,

Please don’t imagine I’m raining on your parade here. There’s ample support for your suggestion about the million long term deaths.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/5/2024 5:04:06 PM


Larry Phil,

This is about my 5th effort to write a post on this.
Hate to be the Nattering Nabob but . . .
I do know I take this stuff too serious, I guess.
But hate to see another ACW myth generated
Yes, opinion wonderful. But worth the support data, Yes/no??
I honestly don’t know. My concern is no data. If its 1 million great data is important.
Yeah, my opinion.
Neither of your post give any even second-hand data, your opinion fine.
Yes, agree it would be nice to know best number – what ever it is- but hopefully with data, IMHO.
And, sorry, but I note moving goal posts.
1st post “over 1 million”
Next post “nearly 1 million” how near is near?
I truly mean no offense
But sincerely
Mike_C.
Mikecmaps

Note in my post I was counting battle deaths separate from disease, fyi.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/5/2024 5:55:10 PM
Mike_C,

Your comments are entirely fair and your misgivings quite legitimate.

Some rather startling revelations were made by a pension official in the later part of the nineteenth century that indicated a more catastrophic demographic impact than the official figures indicated.

The mortality rate was remarkably high among the veterans and the inference had to be that their long term health had been mortally damaged by the hardships of service.

This has to be backed up by hard data, and I’ll make it my business to try and find sources that might authenticate this startling claim.

I would be circumspect about the one million, but I’m convinced that raised death rates among veterans in the post war decade would materially affect the demographic impact.

Regards, Phil



----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/7/2024 8:58:55 AM
ProfessorJ David Hacker, demographic historian at Binghamton University, SUNY, produced a paper in 2011 which gave a renewed interest into the number of deaths attributable to the ACW.

His rendition suggested that the actual number might have been as high as 850,000, with 752,000 being a plausible minimum .

He was not the first to do this. He cited the research of an official in the Pensions Bureau who had drawn attention to a striking spike in mortality amongst men who had served in the war that became apparent in the decade- maybe longer- after the war’s end. This occurred in the later nineteenth century, but I’ll try and be more specific and provide more details.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1529
Joined: 2005
Another non casualty.
1/8/2024 2:10:47 AM
Quote:
ProfessorJ David Hacker, demographic historian at Binghamton University, SUNY, produced a paper in 2011 which gave a renewed interest into the number of deaths attributable to the ACW.

His rendition suggested that the actual number might have been as high as 850,000, with 752,000 being a plausible minimum .

He was not the first to do this. He cited the research of an official in the Pensions Bureau who had drawn attention to a striking spike in mortality amongst men who had served in the war that became apparent in the decade- maybe longer- after the war’s end. This occurred in the later nineteenth century, but I’ll try and be more specific and provide more details.

Regards, Phil


That is a large increase from the historically recognized figure of ~620,000. Looking forward Phil to your follow up on this.

Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/8/2024 4:59:52 AM
Dan,

There’s so much data to reflect on here that I find the topic daunting. It does exercise a peculiar fascination over me. There’s the historiographical dimension, for one thing. Are there historians and commentators seeking an “ agenda” here, and, if so, why ?
Statistics are a notoriously dangerous field to venture into. Rely on them excessively and you’re damned. Ignore them at your peril.

Are we forgetting how many people who died in the decade after the Civil War would have died anyway if the war hadn’t happened ? It sounds a trite observation, but it must be pertinent. The standard of health and hygiene was appalling by today’s First World standards, although it wasn’t perceived so at the time. Indeed, we might do well to reflect on how the medical demands of the war induced advances in medical knowledge in its aftermath, and resulted in higher standards that saved lives. This was undoubtedly the case after both the World Wars of the twentieth century.

Some eminent Civil War soldiers suffered frightful wounds but lived for a long time : think of Longstreet and Sickles. Then there was that mutilated warrior John Bell Hood, left with one leg and one useful arm : he did indeed die young, but that was from a yellow fever epidemic in Louisiana that killed his wife and several of his children, too.

The widely accepted estimate of 258,000 confederate military deaths in the war is quite shocking when set against the white male population of the South in 1860. Are we now to countenance raising that total by at least one third ? I’m finding that difficult. But I’m loath to dismiss the research of scholars and bureaucrats who were commenting at the time. And Larry’s conviction carries weight with me.

I know that in WW1, the Italian armed forces initially counted their dead as 570,000, but the number was raised to at least 650,000 after the deaths of invalids in the year and a half after fighting stopped in 1918.
I haven’t checked those numbers, but I’m confident that they’re broadly correct.

If this applies to that war, then, surely, there is a commensurate adjustment to make to the American Civil War.

The thing is, if we’re to accept Hacker’s methodology and attribute 750-850 thousand deaths to the ACW, thereby making that war even more notorious in terms of its mortality, should we not also adjust the toll of other wars accordingly?

The task of investigating this will engage me.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3275
Joined: 2010
Another non casualty.
1/8/2024 5:21:11 AM
I will be following this too.

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/8/2024 1:39:04 PM
Sixty years ago, there was a book in my school library which grabbed my attention as I began to get more and more interested in the American Civil War, which was then in its centennial period of commemoration.

The author was Brigadier James Edmonds, a British staff officer who gained fame and some notoriety as the British Official Historian of the fighting in France and Belgium in the First World War.

This particular history was written by him in partnership with another author in 1905, and its title was , IIRC, The Civil War in the United States, 1861-65.

Even at my tender age, I reflected on the irony of the title, bearing in mind that the States were NOT united at that point.

A brief footnote explained that the Union death total of 360,000 was in need of adjustment to close to half a million if the premature deaths of invalids in the war’s aftermath were taken into account, and that a commensurate addition should also be applied to the Southern loss .

So this statistical controversy had obviously been extant long before Hacker’s research, and I’m hoping to find the sources that Hacker used to authenticate it.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/11/2024 5:26:39 AM
Just try Googling J.David Hacker and you’ll be overwhelmed by the amount of scholarly research and comment available !

I’ve spent a couple of hours trying this, and it’s such a fascinating topic when the demographic method is arrayed and the implications of the “ demographic shadow “ of the war are discussed.

In the last year or two, Mark Flotow, University of Michigan, has contributed his own assessment of what Hacker has done to Civil War historiography . There are other articles that come along, too.

The importance of the census of 1870, when compared with that of 1860, is paramount .

The census superintendent in 1870, Francis Amasa Walker, identified a catastrophic spike in the shortage of males that was obviously attributable to the impact of the war. He opined that there were 850,000 “ missing males” from the age cohort that passed through the fire of the war. He attributed half a million of these to the North and implied 350,000 to the South. The commonly accepted figure of 360,000 dead Union soldiers and 258,000 dead Confederates conforms with that ratio when we consider the oft cited toll of 618,000. The trouble is that the 1870 census was controversial and there was a claim that it was undercounted. All the same, it does seem that the number of veterans who died from illness and wounds suffered in the war did increase the war’s toll in the five years after the fighting ended.

My statistical skills do not match my interest, and while I’m sharp at simple arithmetic , I’m out of my depth when it comes to the more complex mathematical formulae that such experts deploy in their demographic surveys. Let me save this and return before I’m timed out .

Continuing….how many wounded soldiers succumbed to their injuries after the war by the time of the 1870 census ?
Fox reckoned that 275,000 wounded yankees survived their wounds, but this remit only extended to the period of the war itself. As for the rebels, Livermore suggested 235,000 as a plausible number.
We might settle for a figure of half a million in all for both sides. How could we even guess how many of those half million were dead by 1870 ?

My only suggestion is to extrapolate from the one example that I can find which allows for a plausible estimate.

The tragic fate of the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery regiment, deployed as infantry in a deadly frontal assault at Petersburg on 18 June 1864, entailed catastrophic casualties. Of the eight hundred men who charged the rebel works, 604 were cut down in twenty minutes. Of these, 114 were killed and 96 died of wounds, with Fox citing a total of 210 killed or mortally wounded for the action. The regiment’s association, however, recorded the names of additional soldiers who died from their wounds in the several years following, and raised the final toll to 241. If my arithmetic is correct, this implies that 490 of the Maine men were posted as wounded, of whom 96 died shortly thereafter , and the remaining 394 survived by the official count. But there were an additional thirty one who perished in those immediate post war years , which is just shy of eight per cent. Apply that to the half million I alluded to above, and we get a notional forty thousand veterans who died of wounds in the immediate postwar years to add on to the estimated 618,000 deaths.

But that’s just for the wounded. The sick were significantly more numerous than the victims of enemy fire. I would think that more veterans died from illness than wounds, although the two were conflated.
All in all, I would hazard a bet on an additional one hundred thousand deaths by 1870 for the veterans of both sides, raising the total to in excess of 700,000.
Bearing in mind that anything over two thirds of something can be described as the “ best part “, we can argue that the American Civil War cost “ the best part of one million “ lives.

Haphazard and suppositional on my part, but a heartfelt effort.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/11/2024 1:25:53 PM

Phil, Larry, Group,

After my last post I also spent some time on the google machine and yes found a few sources on Hacker’s study.
His main finding that it appears that the best ESTIMATE is about 752k men died in ACW.
And he finds a range 620-850k died.

His major assumption that excesses losses in his census study are due to the civil war.
Its an assumption and probably reasonable but leaves out any other potential factor.

No I don’t know what they may be.

His study is a mathematical treatment from the census information.
Its not an enumeration of actual men and actual deaths.
He finds no actual number of actual men who died based on records.

He says we will never actually know that number.
And says another pass at the census numbers is unlikely to generate additional estimated deaths.
So what we can say is that the best estimate of ACW deaths is about 752k. Hacker.

The 620 is reliable based on enumeration from records.
The 850 is the upper range of the estimate and not quite as reliable as is the low end number.
IMHO the 620k is the best based on actual enumeration and the 752k a reasonable estimate from the census study.

Please ‘splain me the attraction of the “Holy Grail” 1 m number.
Moving goal posts – “over 1 million”; “nearly 1 Million”; “best part of 1 million”
Only the last goal post is any part of correct and that nothing new, 620k always the best part of 1 million.
More accurate is well under 1 million – 752k.

All this puts me in mind of the Young Overland confederate numbers study.
Young enumerated addition confederate losses from several sources.
His study added about 12% more confederate losses in the overland campaign.
620k + 12 % is about 700k. so it appears that Hackers census study may be very reasonable to me.

Thanks, Mike_C
mikecmaps

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/11/2024 3:15:02 PM
Mike,

There’s an elephant in the room here.

The confederate figure of 258,000 is Livermore’s legacy.

Fox, who did the heavy lifting on the battlefield casualties, opined that 94,000 rebel soldiers were killed or mortally wounded in battle. He stipulated that as a minimum.

He maintained silence as to non battle deaths from disease, accidents etc.

Livermore had an agenda : a determination to demonstrate that the numbers who actually fought in the war were not so disparate as the Lost Causers would have us believe.

Instead of three million yankees confronting six hundred thousand brave boys in gray and butternut, Livermore advocated one and a half million bluebellies versus one million graybacks. I oversimplify, but that’s the thrust of his work, IMHO.

To a degree, I think he was making legitimate observations, but I feel he goes a bit too far.

He uses the total number of union non battle deaths of roughly 250,000 and assesses them against his reckoning of 1.5 million long term enlistments, and calculates a figure of , say, sixteen percent of all those soldiers succumbing to illness and non battle accidents.

He then applies that ratio to his insistence that in excess of one million confederate soldiers served , and conjures up a figure of 164,000 rebels dying from disease etc, adding it to the 94,000 that Fox estimated, producing the iconic 258,000 confederate dead.

I’m troubled by that. My conviction is that fewer than nine hundred thousand confederates faced about two million union soldiers, and I would advocate adjusting the non battle deaths accordingly.

The 258,000 might be reduced to 210- 220 thousand.

That’s a quarter of the total who served in the southern army, without allowing for those extra post war deaths.

Editing: when I “ get into the weeds” of Livermore’s estimate of 258,000 confederate dead, I’m taken back at how fragile it is. His citation and endorsement of the 94,000 battle dead that Fox suggested as a minimum is certainly solid and I’ve no problem with that. Looking at how Livermore estimated the non battle dead by predicating the total on his assessments of how the numbers who served stacked up, the thing looks dubious. I’ll cite some more details when I get home.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/14/2024 6:18:01 AM
Livermore’s conclusion, using the criteria which are applicable to long term enlistment, is that 1,556, 578 served in the Union army, against 1,082,119 who served for the Confederacy.

Since census records are germinal to the study of the demographic impact of the war, we ought to cite the census of 1890, which revealed that 1,034,073 Union veterans were still alive, compared with 432,020 Confederate counterparts.

How that can be reconciled with Livermore’s calculations is beyond me.

Remember, Livermore insisted that Lee commanded in excess of fifty thousand men at Antietam, against Carman’s meticulous estimate of thirty seven thousand.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/14/2024 4:31:40 PM

01142024
Phil

unfortunately were getting complicated now
and starting to mix apples and oranges some

Hacker uses the census as his sole calc source data

Mix 1890 census and Livermore enumerated data and his 3yr Calc need great care
Livermore’s 1556678 union number is a calc to equate between union and Confed numbers.

Most rebels served longer terms than union men – so 3yr reduction tends to inflate rebels and reduce union numbers,
we have to read Livermore carefully.

Talking individual living men 2.9m, round number, Union served, individuals who could state on the 1890 census (yes that is survivors) they were veterans at that time.
that’s not at all what the 1556k number is saying. Likewise, some 1070401 rebels could say the same.
Making nearly 4m total veterans of whom some 1.4 m survived to 1890.

Yeah, getting complicated. But to not mis-state and cause more confusion much care and detail should be had.
I understood the discussion to be total died of all causes in the war of men who served.
Again 1,082,119 for rebels is not men who served but a 3yr equivalent

“How that can be reconciled with Livermore’s calculations is beyond me.”

Yeah, it cannot because they are two different measures
one the 1890 census and the other Livermore’s 3yr equivalent reduction.

Again, Livermore’s numbers give 2.6 m (both sides) 3yr equivalent
but actually about 4m living breathing men actually could claim veteran status overall. (no not in 1890)

Picking on one case like Antietam vs Livermore is beside the point and out of context to TOTAL losses from all causes in the ACW.

Yes Livermore disputes the numbers of lees stragglers and gives 50k round numbers vs
less than 40k as said by lee but he gives his full calc and discussion so we can make our own judgement.

Yes its also true that his axe to grind was union courage vs rebels based on fighting losses.
He is very sensitive that his fellow veterans are shown to be every bit as courageous as the rebels.
So he is highly sensitive when it may appear the rebel numbers are under reported.

So yes we can dispute Livermore numbers, his base problem is he starts with the 22 sept ANV
report and tries to back calc from there.
But by that time Lee was south of the Potomac and had
got many Reinforcements and return stragglers.
As with other cases ANV numbers are not well reported.

Also pitting Fox vs Livermore is hardly useful since again different approaches
Fox is mainly concerned with regimental numbers and Livermore mainly looks at battle losses.
Fox also points out that Lee told his commanders not to report numbers present at battles to make it harder for union to calc rebel forces.
Livermore makes his business to fill these numbers which is difficult and leads to various technics to get there.

To understand battlefield effects and outcomes we need a base line data source. Livermore with all his problems is the best available.
So, yes my understanding is not better than anyone elses and I run on too long.
But I am looking for clarity and minimum confusion.

respectfully, Mike_C
mikecmaps

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/14/2024 4:59:03 PM
Your points all taken on board, Mike_C.

Livermore gets very complex.

I take refuge in the simplistic approach.

Fox gives a very good rendition of the battlefield fatalities and doesn’t attempt the quasi algorithmic approach that Livermore deploys.

Fox is the genesis of the 94,000 confederate battle death figure, and comments that this equated to nearly ten percent of those who served in the southern armies. The 110,000 union battle deaths he assesses as 5.1 percent. Implicit in those claims are roughly one million rebels and 2.2 million yankees. That ratio conforms nicely with the 1890 census revelation.

I think you’re right on the money in your comments about Livermore’s determination to extol the fighting prowess of Union soldiers.

The available white military manpower of the eleven seceding states was barely in excess of one million.

Do you feel it’s plausible that virtually all of them enlisted? Feasible, yes …. but plausible? I’m more comfortable with the 850,00 to 900,000 range, with one in four of all those men losing their lives. But I admit that I’m firing from the hip here.

Editing: taking into account the significant disaffection in certain regions of the Confederacy - think Kingdom ( Free State ? )of Jones etc- and the substantial numbers of men from Tennessee and Virginia ( breakaway Western Virginia) who joined the Union, and the inevitable dodgers and physically unfit, even my lower suggestion of 850,000 is remarkable from a pool of just over one million white males of military age. The maximum number of males of military age that a nation could mobilise in its armed forces in WW1 was one fifth of the entire population: 13.25 million Germans from a population of 66 million in 1914-18, 7.9 million Frenchmen from 39 million in Metropolitan France, and 6.3 million British from a population of 45 million. The Confederate states had 5.4 million white people, and if they put 900,000 into their army that would equate to one in six, significantly more proportionately than the U.K. 1914-18.
Livermore’s figure of just short of 1.1 million doesn’t pass my sniff test, but I’m anxious to keep an open mind, and will be amenable to persuasion otherwise.

Regards, Phil



----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/15/2024 1:28:19 PM

Phil & Group,

Sniff test wow. Firing from hip?

Livermore covers the question in about 50 pgs. and from 3 sources. His military age calc gives total of 1269000 of total men of military age including younger and older who became liable to service in revised Confed draft law. As you suggest he deducts 127863 for exempts. His 1082119 p63 is 9% reduction for those not serving.
1070401 the number actual men, not 3yr eqv, is a 15% reduction. Also remember union conscription was weak and only acted as an incentive to join up because drafted men were regarded as cowards both north and south. While Confederate conscription was very aggressive especially as the war wore on.

Respectfully, Sniff test wow. Firing from hip?
Just can’t cut it if we are really looking to some good information as this long but scratch the surface discussion demonstrates.
So again, Livermore is a good data source yes given some issues but say again show the better source?
Fox’s Battles are the standard numbers and are close to Livermore except where
Livermore tries to fill in for under reported confederate numbers and losses.
There is no reason to pit one vs the other.
Livermore is still cited often as a reliable source in many accounts.
We see from Youngs experience that an honest effort needs years of
detailed research.
Lacking that Livermore is one of the best available data sources.

repectfully, Mike_C.
mikecmaps
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/15/2024 2:36:55 PM
Mike ( May I ? )

The sniff test and firing from hip isn’t doing justice here, I grant you.

Forgive my rather complacent approach to something which can trap us in a veritable labyrinth of statistics . I seek the simple generalised orders of magnitude.

It’s an interest I have : assessing the wars of modernity in terms of their casualty statistics , and the reputation they gain accordingly. Indeed, you dealt well with this very theme in your refutation of the American Civil War’s supposed modernity.

There are many commentators who like to attribute to the Civil War a transcendental bloodiness. As you demonstrate, the Napoleonic Wars more than rivalled it in terms of casualties, both proportionally and absolutely.

I would argue that the ACW did take a step towards modernity in its ratio of battle deaths to non battle deaths. At least one third of the Civil War’s fatalities were caused by enemy fire : I would suggest that this was a much higher proportion than that of warfare a half century earlier : the British army lost six men to disease for every one killed in battle in the Napoleonic Wars, although battle- when it did occur- was extremely bloody, more so than it was to be in America fifty years later.

Go forward fifty years to the warfare of 1914-18, and the trend is amplified. Of all British deaths in France and Flanders in WW1, ninety five percent were killed in battle or died from wounds. An astonishing record, given the notorious squalour of the trenches. Medical care had improved exponentially, although the killing power of weapons had increased likewise.

It’s the very high attribution of non battle deaths to the confederate armies by Livermore that I take issue with.

If you’re willing to indulge me in this argument, I’ll elaborate. But I mustn’t try your patience by flogging a dead horse.

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/15/2024 5:34:16 PM

Phil,

Each post seem to change the subject so we go round and round.

“modernity in terms of their casualty statistics”

“ACW did take a step towards modernity in its ratio of battle deaths to non battle deaths.”

These two seem like moving goal posts and akin to McPherson “became Modern”
which is simply equivocation that really concedes that the war was not modern.

So what are you after? ACW more non battle deaths = more modern?? How?
Fewer non battle deaths? More modern how?

As said medical practice ACW vs WW1 way different & better and really says much more
about medical progress than battlefield fighting so how Modern vs less modern.
Numbers of men much different

For much of the war WW1 both sides maintain front line rifle strength at about 1M EACH. (France- French vs Germans)
Union strength ave about 400-500k and rebels 200-250k. yes round number ave.

Also Napoleon invaded Russia with an army of 500k. show me the like example in ACW suggesting ACW more modern than Napoleonic wars.
remember overall trend was for bigger armies. Largest Union armies rarely exceeded 100k

Napoleonic wars over 20 years and long periods of inactivity which would likely reduce disease vs battle losses.
Non battle military losses from conditions of maintaining large numbers of men in fighting fronts and concentered in camps and trenches etc.

“I would suggest that this was a much higher proportion than that of warfare a half century earlier”

That’s a good idea and I have no idea but we need lots of good data to make that very useful.

Acw was not modern vs WW1 nor more modern than other 19th wars with the
exception that it had some first-generation devises that in reality played small parts in major fighting,
strategy, campaigns.
Railroads, Steamships, Ironclads, telegraphs yes, but even these not nearly at the level of WW1.
A modern society and economy fights a modern war and in those areas 1914-1918 was way ahead of ACW.
USA ACW was not a 20th century country so not a modern war, as numerous data point show.

I am really sorry this whole topic ever came up, Modern war that is.
Like lost cause myth 1880-1900, about , modern war
myth was generated 1950-1970 and after but equally unfounded.
Sounds nice but is wrong.
And yeah, I know I take it too seriously
but have spent much time making the point and
showing the evidence but not seen an honest effort on the other side.
Yes, we can google many sources that name drop “modern civil war” but virtually none give any data,
just glittering generalities that incestuously perpetuate the myth.

So, we’ve spun off from ACW deaths from all causes original topic,
sorry, but that’s part of why we need to take care with our data, once bad data is out there it’s hard to unwind.

yours respectfully,
Mike_C.
mikecmaps
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/16/2024 4:32:41 AM
Mike_C,

Rather strong reproach coming from you here.

Let me escape your censure by confining my comments to a more specific remit, specifically the way that Fox and Livermore differ in their presentation of statistics for loss of life in the ACW.

Fox, page 527, tabulates total Union army deaths at 359,528 from a total of 2,143,855 troops furnished for three years standard . Of these, 110,070 are confirmed killed in action or died from wounds, representing 5.1 percent of all the soldiers , with 249,458 deaths from all other causes, representing 11.6 percent of the total who served. Aggregate mortality is calculated at 16.7 percent. I suspect that several thousand of the “ all other causes “ had been killed in action but had been posted as missing.

Livermore applies the same death numbers to a total of only 1,556,678 men who served in the Union army, thereby raising the deaths from other causes to 152 for every thousand serving for three years. That’s an enormous difference. He then applies that rate to his notional 1,082,119 confederates who served for the equivalent term, thereby producing his 164,000 deaths from other causes and producing his 258,000 confederate death total. I’d never thought to challenge that in the sixty years of interest that this war exerted on me, but now I’m reluctant to endorse it. Using Fox’s 11.6 percent for the confederates would reduce the “other causes” total to about 125,000, and that, it should be noted, is accepting Livermore’s figures for confederate long term enlistment, which I feel are too high.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO CA USA
Posts: 230
Joined: 2020
Another non casualty.
1/16/2024 12:19:27 PM

Phil, Respectfully,

Numbers and Losses Thomas Livermore 1900
https://archive.org/details/numberslosses00liverich/page/n11/mode/2up

Regimental Losses William Fox 1898
https://archive.org/details/reglossescivilwar00foxwrich/page/474/mode/2up

Pitting one vs the other is hardly useful, different approaches and Livermore actually often
references Fox and other sources especially the Official Records which is very difficult some times.
You clearly have an axe to grind vs Livermore ok that’s your right.
Note this thread has 22 posts but 414 views. That’s my worry and major point.
Data, data , data. I and you both have offered snippets cherry picked from both.

There is a responsibility, ok I am too butt serious yes I am, To some level of good info IMHO.
And yes I note this thread started with “over 1 million” ACW deaths from all causes.
Then “nearly 1 million” then “best part of 1 million” changing story moving goalposts IMHO.
My big butt hurt worry is we start a new myth based on cherrypicked bad data.

Yes, go ahead say your opinion and cite information you can, but data data and responsibly.
For the record I accept the Hacker estimate of 752K as a closer expression of
total ACW deaths from all causes as a reasonable calculated effort.
That was the original question in this thread.

Personally I would really like to drop this thread don’t see it as
very productive of good information, sorry IMHO.
Phil, respectfully and best to you and truly mean no offense, sorry if I do.

thanks, Mike_C.
mikecmaps
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6513
Joined: 2004
Another non casualty.
1/16/2024 2:27:52 PM
Mike_C,

Consider the thread dropped.

And thanks for your gracious words.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC