history vs. archaeology, redux

[john]

Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton,
Old times there are not forgotten, {Alt Original: Cinnamon seed and sandy bottom,]
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land, where I was born in,
early on one frosty mornin',
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land.

I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand
to live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie

Optional Verses

Ole Missus marry "Will the weaver"
Willum was a gay deceiver
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land

But when he put his arm around 'er,
He smiled fierce as a forty pounder,
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land


His face was sharp as a butcher's cleaver
But that did not seem to grieve 'er
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land

Ole Missus acted the foolish part
And died for a man that broke her heart
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land

Now here's a health to the next ole Missus
An' all the gals that want to kiss us;
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land

But if you want to drive 'way sorrow
Come and hear this song tomorrow
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land

There's buckwheat cakes and Injun batter,
Makes you fat or a little fatter;
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land


Then hoe it down and scratch your gravel,
To Dixie's Land I'm bound to travel,
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land




Always best to include both sides of the argument.


j

[john]

now, the casualty count resulting from these songs. and multiply this by the length and breadth of history/archaeology.

j


The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
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 was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:

The Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War.

Some of the great blood baths of the war came as Grant drove on Richmond in the spring of 1864- Confederate casualties are missing for this campaign, but were enormous. The Federal toll:

The Wilderness, May 5-7: 17,666
Spotsylvania, May 10 and 12: 10,920
Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16 4,160
Cold Harbor, June 1-3: 12,000
Petersburg, June 15-30 16,569
These total 61,315, with rolls of the missing incomplete.
The Appomattox campaign, about ten days of running battles ending April 9, 1865, cost the Union about 11,000 casualties, and ended in the surrender of Lee's remnant of 26,765. Confederate dead and wounded in the meantime were about 6,500.
Lesser battles are famous for their casualties. At Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, General Hood's Confederates lost over 6,000 of 21,000 effectives -most of them in about two hours. Six Confederate generals died there.
Hood lost about 8,ooo men in his assault before Atlanta, July 22, 1864; Sherman's Union forces lost about 3,800.
The small battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, August 10, 1861, was typical of the savagery of much of the war's fighting. The Union force Of 5,400 men lost over 1,200; the Confederates, over 11,000 strong, lost about the same number.
The first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, though famous as the first large engagement, was relatively light in cost: 2,708 for the Union, 1,981 for the Confederates.
The casualty rolls struck home to families and regiments.
The Confederate General, John B. Gordon, cited the case of the Christian family, of Christiansburg, Virginia, which suffered eighteen dead in the war.
The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, in a charge at Petersburg, Virginia, 18 June, 1864, sustained a "record" loss of the war-635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes.
Another challenger is the 26th North Carolina, which lost 714, of its 800 men at Gettysburg-in numbers and percentage the war's greatest losses. On the first day this regiment lost 584 dead and wounded, and when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound.
The 24th Michigan, a gallant Federal regiment which was in front of the North Carolinians on the first day, lost 362 of its 496 men.
More than 3,000 horses were killed at Gettysburg, and one artillery battalion, the 9th Massachusetts, lost 80 of its 88 animals in the Trostle farmyard.
A brigade from Vermont lost 1,645 Of its 2,100 men during a week of fighting in the Wilderness.
The Irish Brigade, Union, had a total muster Of 7,000 during the war, and returned to New York in '65 with 1,000. One company was down to seven men. The 69th New York of this brigade lost 16 of 19 officers, and had 75 per cent casualties among enlisted men.
In the Irish Brigade, Confederate, from Louisiana, Company A dwindled from 90 men to 3 men and an officer in March, '65. Company B went from 100 men to 2.
Experts have pointed out that the famed Light Brigade at Balaklava lost only 36.7 per cent of its men, and that at least 63 Union regiments lost as much as 50 per cent in single battles. At Gettysburg 23 Federal regiments suffered losses of more than half their strength, including the well-known Iron Brigade (886 of 1,538 engaged).
Many terrible casualty tolls were incurred in single engagements, like that of the Polish Regiment of Louisiana at Frayser's Farm during the Seven Days, where the outfit was cut to pieces and had to be consolidated with the 20th Louisiana. In this action one company of the Poles lost 33 of 42 men.
One authority reports that Of 3,530 Indians who fought for the Union, 1,018 were killed, a phenomenally high rate. Of 178,975 Negro Union troops, this expert says, over 36,000 died.
Some regimental losses in battle:

Regiment Battle Strength Per Cent
1st Texas, CSA Antietam 226 82.3
1st Minnesota, US Gettysburg 262 82
21st Georgia, CSA Manassas 242 76
141st Pennsylvania, US Gettysburg 198 75.7
101st New York, US Manassas 168 73.8
6th Mississippi, CSA Shiloh 425 70.5
25th Massachusetts, US Cold Harbor 310 70
36th Wisconsin, US Bethesda Church 240 69
20th Massachusetts, US Fredericksburg 238 68.4
8th Tennessee, CSA Stone's River 444 68.7
10th Tennessee, CSA Chickamauga 328 68
8th Vermont, US Cedar Creek 156 67.9
Palmetto Sharpshooters, CSA Frayser's Farm 215 67.7
81st Pennsylvania, US Fredericksburg 261 67.4
Scores of other regiments on both sides registered losses in single engagements of above 50 per cent.
Confederate losses by states, in dead and wounded only, and with many records missing (especially those of Alabama):

North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724
(Statisticians recognize these as fragmentary, from a report of 1866; they serve as a rough guide to relative losses by states).

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
Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts," by Burke Davis

This Page last updated 11/01/04

RETURN TO CIVIL WAR POTPOURRI PAGE

[ReneDescartes]

Perhaps another question needs to be added regarding the motives that led to the Civil War.What is the cheaper alternative ,buying labor force or renting it .If you buy a human being you have to provide shelter,food,clothing and a few other things .Whereas when you rent him,you just pay for his energy ,if in the process of labouring the working conditions are so bad that he dies on the workfloor,you just replace him with another one,no capital invested is lost .The working conditions that existed in the industry at the second part of the nineteenth century certainly indicate no ethical reasons to back up the abolitionist camp .

[john]

Perhaps another question needs to be added regarding the motives that led to the Civil War.What is the cheaper alternative ,buying labor force or renting it .If you buy a human being you have to provide shelter,food,clothing and a few other things .Whereas when you rent him,you just pay for his energy ,if in the process of labouring the working conditions are so bad that he dies on the workfloor,you just replace him with another one,no capital invested is lost .The working conditions that existed in the industry at the second part of the nineteenth century certainly indicate no ethical reasons to back up the abolitionist camp .

pull this argument back to the neolithic - say for example the egyptians - and now you're thinkin'.

economic justification for the slavery of the israelites by said egyptians?

that would have been one hell of a capital investment.

best to let them live where they will - putting a blind eye to the border - and pay minimum wage.

now where have i seen this recently?


j

[ReneDescartes]

Not really John,the Egyptians wouldn't have to sail to Africa to collect them,just crossing the border would be enough .Allways look for the economically most lucrative solution,that is correct now and probably has allways been so .

[Minimalist]

the missouri compromise gave hope that the two philosophies could co-exist.

It only gave hope to people who thought the problem could be managed, Arch.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps another question needs to be added regarding the motives that led to the Civil War.What is the cheaper alternative ,buying labor force or renting it .If you buy a human being you have to provide shelter,food,clothing and a few other things .Whereas when you rent him,you just pay for his energy ,if in the process of labouring the working conditions are so bad that he dies on the workfloor,you just replace him with another one,no capital invested is lost .The working conditions that existed in the industry at the second part of the nineteenth century certainly indicate no ethical reasons to back up the abolitionist camp .

Thomas Jefferson observed of slavery: "That it was like holding a wolf by the ears. You didn't like it, but you didn't dare let go."

Your point about the relative value of a factory worker v a slave is quite valid. In 1860, except for the elite, life pretty much sucked. It should be noted that the casualties which John lists above were tolerated because death in battle was regarded as simply one more way to die in an age when ways to die were still everywhere.

[Guest]

It should be noted that the casualties which John lists above were tolerated because death in battle was regarded as simply one more way to die in an age when ways to die were still everywhere.

wasn't it really that to die in battle meant honor? it was considered the highest act of courage.

[Minimalist]

They weren't Vikings heading to Valhalla, Arch.

[Guest]

that wasn't an attitude limited to the vikings. wasn't there something about being carried home on your shield? it has been too many years since i studied death on the battlefield.

there was also the pressure not to have wounds entering your back.

the civil war wasn't that far removed from old fashioned ideas about battle and dying.

[john]

"home they brought her warrior dead

but she could neither weep nor pray.

for the same bomb which had killed him dead

had killed her ninety miles away."


from Edward Gorey's "Quake, Quake Quake"

(by memory from too long ago, so the quote may not be exact)


my point being, the civil war was an astonishing demonstration of early "industrial" warfare.

can't think of any particular honor in being mowed down by the hundreds in minutes by massed musket and cannonfire.

again, read von clausewitz


j

[Minimalist]

That's a good point, John.

Another way to look at the problem is: How many of the wounded ever returned to the ranks?

[Guest]

in the civil war, i hear the mortality rate was high and amputations ruined many a life. doctors didn't try that hard or took the easy route or were overworked thus care was not of great quality.

but that is only what i hear.

[Minimalist]

Medical teams were frequently overwhelmed by the numbers after a major battle but as John hints the big problem was the weaponry.

I have both Napoleonic muskets and Civil War rifled muskets and the difference is night and day.

The Napoleonic musket fired a big lead ball (.680 caliber for the French and .715 for the British.) Even when loaded with 100 grains of black powder the maximum effective range would be about 200 yards but because the accuracy of smoothbore weapons at that range was virtually nil, they were never commanded to fire at that range. The weapons were designed to be loaded and fired quickly. Accuracy was was afterthought.
The French Charleville musket at least had a front sight. The British Brown Bess had no sights. All that was expected was that a soldier would load quickly and discharge in the general direction of the enemy when the officer gave the command. To facilitate loading, the soldiers were given paper cartridges which were torn open and poured down the muzzle. The musket ball was smaller than the bore of the weapon so make loading easier. Thus, a large round ball came out of an unrifled barrel and quickly lost power because of the windage (the difference between bullet size and the bore). Hence, unless the shot was taken at point blank range a musket ball would crack, but probably not smash a large bone. The injured man might still die of an infection but a cracked bone could be splinted and, if the soldier lived he had a chance to regain the use of the limb.

The next generation of weapons fired a .577 caliber lead slug with a hollow base which expanded upon firing. The rifled-musket imparted a ballistic spin to the bullet and the expanding base gave it a tight seal so no gas escaped but it is still easy to load. The resulting greater range and muzzle velocity allowed the bullet to hit with a lot more punch. Such a bullet would pulverize bone. The best medical care availabe in 1863 could not have saved the limb in those circumstances.

Even more to the point was the improvement in artillery. In 1815 most field guns fired solid shot at anything over 100 yards and could use grape shot at close range. Solid shot, hitting a column of men would go right through but, Hollywood aside, they did not explode. There were howitzers which did fire an explosive shell but they were a minimal part of any army's artillery component.

Improvements in metallurgy led to more guns which fired explosive shells by the Civil War...most notably the Parrot gun which came in varying sizes up to a 30 pound shell. With a range of over a mile, these could start inflicting loss on an approaching force twice as far out and with much more devastating effect that the guns of Napoleon's era. For example see Pickett's charge at Gettysburg or Burnside's repeated assaults at Fredricksburg.

Again, the tactics used were primitive and the slaughter was immense. Of course, World War One used the same tactics against machine guns and breach loading artillery so, who can say who was dumber?

[Guest]

I have both Napoleonic muskets and Civil War rifled muskets and the difference is night and day.

thank you for that speech. i understand that the technology has changed and the numbers of people killed or wounded have increased drastically over time.

quality of weapons improved faster than the strategy employed for defeating opposing armies

Again, the tactics used were primitive and the slaughter was immense. Of course, World War One used the same tactics against machine guns and breach loading artillery so, who can say who was dumber

i think in both wars the goal out weighed the cost and sacrifice, men were cheap and weaponry was not.

i do have a hard time with the concept of the civil war being an industrial war. i think that reasoning came in much later and was not really a part of the thinking of that time. of course it has taken us a generation or two to dispell the notion that the civil war was about slavery. at best, it was a minor purpose, used to motivate those fence sitters who would not participate because war is just wrong or bad.

yes industrialization played a larger role, since it was progressing at a rate that it could provide weapons faster than any other time in history but people like stonewall jackson proved that brains could still out-manuever improved guns.

yet after WW I, industrialization caught up to brains and finally showed it was theh country with the biggest and most bombs not the most intelligent grey matter, who would win a war.

being smart (and not insane) helped but in the end, it was the bomb that swayed the momenteum and swung the tide.