"The Civil War Death Toll, Reconsidered" Topic

"What did the Civil War's death toll mean to those who lived through it? We are now told that wartime deaths were unprecedented and overwhelming, and constituted one of the fundamental experiences for the wartime generation. But is this really true?

In recent years, statistical descriptions have been used by historians — including renowned scholars such as James McPherson, Eric Foner and Drew Gilpin Faust, but also celebrated filmmakers Ken and Ric Burns, among many – to drive home a characterization of the war based on the scale of death. They may be found across the range of media regarding the war, in films, museums, popular histories, scholarly treatises and lectures.

One such statistic is that the number of soldiers' deaths in the Civil War – approximately 750,000 – was greater than the total number suffered in all other American wars combined. A second point makes use of the first figure: If one calculates the proportion of the total population who died while in military service during the war, and applies this percentage to present-day population figures, the equivalent number of deaths in the 21st century would reach above 7 million. This is a staggering figure that suggests that the Civil War generation made almost inconceivable sacrifices…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

what an excellent and thought-provoking article!

thank you for the link!

Well thought out, and presented paper. Thanks Armand!

Interesting article, thanks for the link

Well to be honest if you also want to include those that died within 5 years as a result of wounds, disease, etc acquired during the war then it easily reaches close to a million..

Happy you enjoyed it my friends!. (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Excellent post, and a fascinating article. It also makes one think about how the ability to prevent or cure previously fatal illnesses, as it arose in the mid 20th century, may have significantly altered the public perception of death and even wartime death, as the instance of death among younger first world citizens began to fall. Might this have added to the public resistance to military deaths, as the anti-war movement of the '60s and '70s? Certainly those who had lived through WWI and WWII might have been more ready to accept large casualty numbers, whereas those who grew up in times of mass vaccinations and antibiotics would have been far more shocked by the possibility of young death. I don't put that forth as a certainty, but as a speculation on the subject.

Very interesting to think about…

Thanks, Tango!

Happy you enjoyed it my good friend! (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

"The additional battlefield deaths in the war would thus represent an increase of between 7 and 10 percent over the normal rates. Significant, but hardly catastrophic."

I would argue that a 7 to 10 Percent increase in the death rate is certainly catastrophic, even disastrous. I take issue with the premise of the artilce. In one breath he claims he does not try to get inside the minds of the participants and their families, and in another he makes a statement like the one above. Hundreds of historians over the last century and a half have reached the opposite conclusion. I think Professor Marshall treads shaky ground at best.

Great post Tango. While I take issue with the content, it is certainly provocative and interesting. This type of article is needed to advance the historical debate.

B

Thanks you my friend.

Amicalement
Armand