Recounting the dead

So, after two days of being unable to get on my computer, I finally jumped on and headed over the the Civil War Gaming site: MadMinute Games BBS and I saw there was a new post in the Civil War section. So, I went over there and there was a new topic called Recounting the Dead. The initial post from the author said this:

Interesting article on the possibility that the accepted number of deaths in the Civil War may be underestimated.

Listed was a link to an article written J. David Hacker associated professor of history at Binghamton University. In it he argues, with a strong argument, that the deal toll of the Civil War or directly related to it was actually between 750,000 to 850,000. High number right? Well, actually, he states that even when the 1870 census was created, it wasn't by no means accurate. Most of the Confederate records had been destroyed, and unlike the Union widows and orphans, southern women got no benefits from their loved ones pensions and didn't report the loss of family members. Also, the US population had increased 34-36% every decade. But, in 1870, the increase was only 21%, or three million less then it should have been.

Well, to make a long story short, I agree with the article. I think as a society we have accepted too low a number. Heck, most people are under the impression that the 620,000 was all losses, dismissing the 400,000 wounded that lived out their natural lives. Also, rebel troops were very ill-fed and ill-clothed. The mortality rate had to be higher. Makes logical sense.

Several months ago I read an article that claimed civilian losses were 80,000. Too high a number in my opinion. That probably included all deaths, natural or otherwise. But, many civilians were killed, and we know of 400 women in the South who disappeared when they were kidnapped by Union soldiers under Sherman's command. Also, hundreds, even thousands died during the guerrilla warfare wagged in the Border States. I myself estimate the total losses in deaths closer to 730,000 at least.

But, a link to the article is here, just click the name: Recounting the Dead.

Would Jackson have won at Gettysburg?

No. Absolutely not.

These are reasons why Jackson would not have won:

1. The Confederates were worn out. To have continued the attack would have taxed thier strength to the point that it would have snapped. Even Jackson would have given his men a few minutes rest, and by then, the Union defense on the hills would have been solidified.

2. Terrain was not in his favor. The Yanks were on a hill, and had good fields of fire that would have killed many troops before even getting within rifle range.

3. The Confederates had taken massive casualties. July 1 was the bloodiest of the 3 days, because entire units were destroyed and the casualties were high.

4. Yanks were pouring in every minute. The build up of forces would have slowed Jackson down sugnificantly, allowing the Union time to press thier advantage of troops.

5. True, the 2nd Corps would not have been broken into two corps, allowing Jackson more men on the field under his personal command. At most, he would have only had 30,000 men at the start of the battle, and he would have been facing several Union Corps (at least 2, if not more) numbering about 15,000 if there was only 2 Union Corps. Even a succesful attack would have cost the Confederates so dearly, that they would have needed a day to rest, more then enough time for Meade to form good defenses at Philidelphia and Baltimore.

Most people consider Jackson would have succedded where Ewell failed. Would he have? He would have done a better performance. But, if he had failed to carry the heights, then, think of how less men there would have been to attack the following days.

Was the South or North Right

That is probably the biggest of all contreversies when it comes to the Civil War. What most people don't realize is that both sides had excellant points. Let me point out a few I have thought of over the past while (meaning 3 points each side). Let us start with the South.

South:

1. The Founding Fathers had been for the right that man has to speak up against things they feel threatening from the government. Whether they meant rebillion when the North had not yet really taken away rights is questionable.

2. The Constitution did not condemn seccesion.

3. There had not been a true definition given over the power the state level governments had compared to the central government.

North:

1. The nation had been made centralized for the purpose of perserving democracy and defnding the common man from tyrany. Had the South succedded in breaking away, democracy would have failed and the common man would lose his rights, especially since power hungry nations would have gobbled up the remnants of the United States.

2. The Constitution did not support seccesion.

3. Many in the South were leaving to keep thier slaves. That was not a legit reason to leave the Union, and the North had the right to treat the South as traitors, since they were techinically that.

Conclusion: I think overall the North was right, but, the South sticking up for themselves allowed the Nation to define what was what and what would become of the new Union created.

Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville

Now, it is common knowledge that Joseph Hooker was a drinker. But, new information is of the opinion that Hooker was not drunk at Chancellorsville. Unearthed in recent years is some things that point to Hooker not being drunk.

1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!

2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.

3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.

4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.

4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.

5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.

6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.

7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."

8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!

As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.

Which Side Washington Would Have Been On

There has been some debate on which side our friend Mr. Washington would have been on if he was alive at the time of the Civil War. It was and is the opinion of many that Washington would have been with ths South, seeing as he owned slaves.

He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!

He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.

Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.

According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.

Sherman: Hero or Monster

Was Sherman a hero or monster? That has haunted the Civil War historian for nearly 2 centries. Let us look at the facts:

1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.

2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.

3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.

4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.

5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.

Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One

This is probably the greatest contreversy of them all. Who was better, Lee or Grant. I've decided to do it an intresting way. I will compare the results throughtout the entire war.

Battles Won
Grant: 18 battles
Lee: 8 Battles

Captured (Cities, Forts, Armies)
Grant:2 Forts, 5 major cities, 3 Confederate Armies
Lee: Nothing

Time as Overall Commander
Grant: 1 year and 5 months
Lee: 3 months; lost

Men Lost
Grant: 136,000 men.
Lee: 168,000 men.

Overall, Grant proved superior in every aspect of the war. He captured more, won more and did everything more.

Now, I am not saying Lee was a bad general. Lee was a superb general. He outwitted army after army. But, in the end, Grant won.

As was once said: Lee was the best tatician in the war (even in his battles with Grant, Grant rarely broke the Confederate lines), but Grant was the best stratigist. Taticians win battles, strategists win wars.

Civil War Controversies

I was originally going to do a few more books, but, it has become more and more obvious to me that we need to go in a new direction now, and look more into the Contrevrsities of the Civil War. I plan to do the following:

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One
Sherman: Hero or Monster
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Was the South or North Right
and a couple more.