Historian revises estimate of Civil War dead

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.”

Historian revises estimate of Civil War dead

 

[ginscpy]

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.”

Not a surprise. Sloppy casualty counts.

Non-existent medical help for the wounded. 95% would have been saved even in WW1.

Plus throw in disease etc....
Historian revises estimate of Civil War

 

[ginscpy]

he Civil War was less deadly than WW2 for America - 90% f the wounded in the Civil War should have een saved

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.”

Remarkable.

 

[ginscpy]

Civil War wounded were left out to die

 

[editec]

Stands to reason that the SCA estimates could easily be low.

As the government disintigrated slowly it ought not surprise us to discover that their record keeping got increasingly sloppy.

 

[smalltime]

Civil War wounded were left out to die

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. In many battles there were wounded that couldn't/wouldn't be rescued because of ongoing fighting (Fredricksburg). but for the most part, darkness brought a lull or even a truce for the strecher bearers to do their job.

We need to remember that this was before penecilin, and almost all modern meds. The only pain medication was morphine, and this turned many a veteran into junkies. This is why Heroin was imported into the US. It was to treat morphine addiction circa 1890s.

 

[zzzz]

The casualty figures for the battle of the Wilderness (May5-7, 1864) could very well have been off since the forest caught fire and burned many bodies of dead and wounded. Through out the war, especially in the southern cities that were besieged, casualty lists of civilians could have been off by the hundreds. No one will ever know the true numbers and to make a new estimate some 150 years later is absurd.

 

[whitehall]

You have to assume that Civil War casualties were much higher than estimated at the time just because there was little effort to identify the dead. Southern families assumed that their solder was dead and went on with their lives without becoming a federal statistic. Southern families who were wiped out by Union raids and left to die were buried and forgotton. Irish immigrants literally off the boat who ended up in the Union ranks were buried where they died or shoveled into mass graves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The casualty figures for the battle of the Wilderness (May5-7, 1864) could very well have been off since the forest caught fire and burned many bodies of dead and wounded. Through out the war, especially in the southern cities that were besieged, casualty lists of civilians could have been off by the hundreds. No one will ever know the true numbers and to make a new estimate some 150 years later is absurd.

This estimate does not include civilians at all, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Interesting methodology, but it still amounts to a wild ass guess.

It is worth noting that the official statistics for the south are seriously messed up because General Lee stopped making casualty returns at the start of the Wilderness campaign and never resumed. It went from 82,000 down to 25,000.
Also lots of civilians would get caught up, but not be counted in any army numbers.

It must have made for a huge cultural shift where 2% of the population was killed off and there was such a huge immigration around the same time.

 

[smalltime]

The casualty figures for the battle of the Wilderness (May5-7, 1864) could very well have been off since the forest caught fire and burned many bodies of dead and wounded. Through out the war, especially in the southern cities that were besieged, casualty lists of civilians could have been off by the hundreds. No one will ever know the true numbers and to make a new estimate some 150 years later is absurd.

I a previous life I hunted for relics with my father. He is VERY learned regarding the particilars of the civil war.

We visted the wilderness twice. Once was as a tourist family and we did all the other tourist stuff down there, Spotsylvania Courthouse and Fredricsburg and the like.
The other was as hunters for relics on private land. There were three of us, and we ALL had the same thing happen at the same time.
Warm night (75 degrees) light breeze, sun going down, but still enough light to see what you're doing. Suddenly you feel a cold sensation on your back and shoulders and then all the hair stands up on your neck.

Things are still there, and they always will be.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. No one will ever know the true numbers and to make a new estimate some 150 years later is absurd.

I fucking hate it when historians search through recorded history to try and establish historical fact. Fucking morons. Why can't they just say "hey, some parts of history sucked, and some were good " and just leave it at that?

I mean, here I am at my house, looking on a message board - and some historian has the gall to research history and write about it in a journal? What a fucking DICKHEAD.

 

[tinydancer]

The casualty figures for the battle of the Wilderness (May5-7, 1864) could very well have been off since the forest caught fire and burned many bodies of dead and wounded. Through out the war, especially in the southern cities that were besieged, casualty lists of civilians could have been off by the hundreds. No one will ever know the true numbers and to make a new estimate some 150 years later is absurd.

I a previous life I hunted for relics with my father. He is VERY learned regarding the particilars of the civil war.

We visted the wilderness twice. Once was as a tourist family and we did all the other tourist stuff down there, Spotsylvania Courthouse and Fredricsburg and the like.
The other was as hunters for relics on private land. There were three of us, and we ALL had the same thing happen at the same time.
Warm night (75 degrees) light breeze, sun going down, but still enough light to see what you're doing. Suddenly you feel a cold sensation on your back and shoulders and then all the hair stands up on your neck.

Things are still there, and they always will be.

I spent a lot of years in Tennessee. And I ran the woods all the time. Ginseng hunting or prepping for deer, you would always find pockets of ghosts.

If anyone knows Hickman County, you'll know what I am talking about.

 

[tinydancer]

Back to you and on the civil war. My dad was an avid enthusiast. Gettysburg every spring. It finally came down to "no, daddy no" ....hehehe I humour myself, it came down to my Mom finally going "if you ever want to get laid again" we are not going back to Gettysburg.

Cripes the battles are amazing enough. I finally get the absolute fascination with the battle plans. But come on I still say the south lost because some moron said "follow the Harpeth".

 

[editec]

Back to you and on the civil war. My dad was an avid enthusiast. Gettysburg every spring. It finally came down to "no, daddy no" ....hehehe I humour myself, it came down to my Mom finally going "if you ever want to get laid again" we are not going back to Gettysburg.

Cripes the battles are amazing enough. I finally get the absolute fascination with the battle plans. But come on I still say the south lost because some moron said "follow the Harpeth".

When I was a kid I used to talk to a woman (my GGM) who was a child and living in Gettyburg during that battle.

My great grandmother Blitz was a living breathing history lesson for me.

She couldn't remember my name, but she could remember listening to the Lincoln Gettysburg address or taking a two day journey on a coach from the Poconos to Easton PA, and then on to CANAL BOAT that took her down to Philadelphia. (total distance? less than 100 miles).

Consider this, folks.

All of USA history can be viewed through family histories that only have to go back about 7 or 8 generations to get all the way to the American Revolutionary era.













.

 

[Douger]

I wonder how many will die in the upcoming one ?

 

[editec]

I wonder how many will die in the upcoming one ?

I do not think we're going to have a civil war, Doug.

Cvil anarchy maybe, and that will be closely followed up by some authoritarian regime that will basically declare war on anybody that its leaders think isn't on completely board with that regime.

Conditions just aren't right for that kind of civil war between the states that happened in 1861.

Now the division within the Amercian people is NOT regionalist.

If anything America is experiencing a division by class and by social philosophy.

And that kind of division within a people leads to a period of civil anarchy more like Yugoslavia experienced.

 

[The Gadfly]

I wonder how many will die in the upcoming one ?

I do not think we're going to have a civil war, Doug.

Cvil anarchy maybe, and that will be closely followed up by some authoritarian regime that will basically declare war on anybody that its leaders think isn't on completely board with that regime.

Conditions just aren't right for that kind of civil war between the states that happened in 1861.

Now the division within the Amercian people is NOT regionalist.

If anything America is experiencing a division by class and by social philosophy.

And that kind of division within a people leads to a period of civil anarchy more like Yugoslavia experienced.

Right on the money (unfortunately). That is exactly where we are, and if it continues, that is the likely result-well, either that, or something like what happened in Northern Ireland. This has the potential to be nastier than the Late Unpleasantness between North and South, because it's a lot closer to a true civil war, without rules, organization, or much restraint. The closet comparable experience we have in America would be the American Revolution as it played out in the Carolina backcountry. Study that, if you want to know how bad that kind of war can get.