What Was Biggest Killer of Union and Confederate Troops During the War? (Poll)

What Was Biggest Killer of Union and Confederate Troops During the War? (Poll)

  • Pneumonia

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Diarrhea

    Votes: 64 68.1%
  • Malnutrition

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Battlefield Wounds

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • Tuberculosis

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • None of the Above

    Votes: 9 9.6%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 5 5.3%

  • Total voters
    94
The biggest killer of Civil War soldiers was ignorance. Nobody in the world had ant idea that microscopic creatures caused disease.
Sad. But very true. Imagine the lives that could have been saved if they had just an inkling of knowledge about sanitary conditions. A story that always comes to mind is a soldier watching a surgeon amputate another soldier's arm. After the arm is amputated... the surgeon wipes his saw with a rag, then says "next". At that time, the surgeons had no idea their practices would cost more lives than in battle.
 
Sad. But very true. Imagine the lives that could have been saved if they had just an inkling of knowledge about sanitary conditions. A story that always comes to mind is a soldier watching a surgeon amputate another soldier's arm. After the arm is amputated... the surgeon wipes his saw with a rag, then says "next". At that time, the surgeons had no idea their practices would cost more lives than in battle.
Only too true. My 10 year old granddaughter knows more about sepsis than anyone on the planet in the 1860’s.
 
Only too true. My 10 year old granddaughter knows more about sepsis than anyone on the planet in the 1860’s.
Doubt it; Florence Nightingale was training nurses at this point and they'd caused the death rate in Crimean hospitals to go through the floor, and germ theory did exist (it just wasn't - yet - dominant). Meanwhile the sanitation movement had begun decades ago (1830s and 1840s) in Britain.

Revolutions in ideas sometimes don't come all in one go; they trickle in over time.

After the arm is amputated... the surgeon wipes his saw with a rag, then says "next". At that time, the surgeons had no idea their practices would cost more lives than in battle.
I don't actually think they did. You can't really ascribe all deaths in hospitals to the actions of surgeons, and the numbers that I've looked at thus far have been deaths recorded in hospitals so may exclude anyone who didn't make it to a hospital (like all the battlefield burials).
For example in the Atlantic region in September and October 1862 there are 1,130 gunshot deaths listed (of which 702 are in September), but the Maryland Campaign alone (disregarding the Northern Virginia campaign) saw over 2,700 Union dead in the battles - and of those most would not have made it to hospital in the first place, while those who died in hospital would be down as "wounded" on the reports, or perhaps "mortally wounded".

The figures I've used above represent a minimal number of Union dead by violence, and are certainly lower than the true value.
 
Further to that:

Total number of Union wounded from the Northern Virginia and Maryland campaigns:
~9,000 at 2BR and Chantilly
12,000 in Maryland
Total ~21,000

(Union deaths in same battles ~4,500)

Total deaths in hospitals in September and October (in the Atlantic Region):
2,950
Typical base hospital death rate per month is ~600-1000 depending on the month.


Thus there is strong evidence that the surgeons did not result in more deaths than the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Doubt it; Florence Nightingale was training nurses at this point and they'd caused the death rate in Crimean hospitals to go through the floor, and germ theory did exist (it just wasn't - yet - dominant). Meanwhile the sanitation movement had begun decades ago (1830s and 1840s) in Britain.

Revolutions in ideas sometimes don't come all in one go; they trickle in over time.


I don't actually think they did. You can't really ascribe all deaths in hospitals to the actions of surgeons, and the numbers that I've looked at thus far have been deaths recorded in hospitals so may exclude anyone who didn't make it to a hospital (like all the battlefield burials).
For example in the Atlantic region in September and October 1862 there are 1,130 gunshot deaths listed (of which 702 are in September), but the Maryland Campaign alone (disregarding the Northern Virginia campaign) saw over 2,700 Union dead in the battles - and of those most would not have made it to hospital in the first place, while those who died in hospital would be down as "wounded" on the reports, or perhaps "mortally wounded".

The figures I've used above represent a minimal number of Union dead by violence, and are certainly lower than the true value.
I was indicating that unsanitary conditions was a serious problem, and killed many men. 2/3 of the deaths were caused by infectious diseases. The numbers you listed are minuscule... I was referring to the entire war. I used the story of the surgeon as an example of the conditions stated above. I think @Rhea Cole was using that statement as a metaphor... not an actual statement of fact. You need to look beyond the lines, and although numbers are extremely important... sometimes you need to look at the situation as a whole, and not just fragments.
 
Last edited:
I was indicating that unsanitary conditions was a serious problem, and killed many men. 2/3 of the deaths were caused by infectious diseases. The numbers you listed are minuscule... I was referring to the entire war. I used the story of the surgeon as an example of the conditions stated above. I think @Rhea Cole was using that statement as a metaphor... not an actual statement of fact. Sometimes you need to look beyond the lines and outside the box of just numbers.
But hyperbolic statements like that can end up being taken as fact.

The numbers I listed aren't "miniscule", they're looking at the wounded for a set of battles including one of the bloodiest in the whole Civil War and comparing casualty rates.

Since it is clear that many men did not make it as far as the hospitals, to derive how many people died of infectious diseases would require the following data:

KIA for every battle (or a summary thereof).
Fraction of deaths attributed to wounded carried off by gunshot wounds in hospital.
Fraction of deaths attributed to infectious diseases.
Fractions of deaths attributed to non-infectious diseases. (For example, at least one man died of "chronic alcoholism", which is not an infectious disease, and one of the significant minor killers was "apoplexy".)
 
Doubt it; Florence Nightingale was training nurses at this point and they'd caused the death rate in Crimean hospitals to go through the floor, and germ theory did exist (it just wasn't - yet - dominant). Meanwhile the sanitation movement had begun decades ago (1830s and 1840s) in Britain.

Revolutions in ideas sometimes don't come all in one go; they trickle in over time.


I don't actually think they did. You can't really ascribe all deaths in hospitals to the actions of surgeons, and the numbers that I've looked at thus far have been deaths recorded in hospitals so may exclude anyone who didn't make it to a hospital (like all the battlefield burials).
For example in the Atlantic region in September and October 1862 there are 1,130 gunshot deaths listed (of which 702 are in September), but the Maryland Campaign alone (disregarding the Northern Virginia campaign) saw over 2,700 Union dead in the battles - and of those most would not have made it to hospital in the first place, while those who died in hospital would be down as "wounded" on the reports, or perhaps "mortally wounded".

The figures I've used above represent a minimal number of Union dead by violence, and are certainly lower than the true value.
The statement about germs being the source of infection is literally true. The medical people of the 1860's were ignorant, not stupid. When Mother Bickerdyke & other female nurses were in charge of a hospital, the survival rate went up. Their secret weapon was soap. They also boiled soiled linens. In Memphis, she ran a hospital, laundry, chicken farm, & vegetable gardens that supported wounded & recovering soldiers. Sanitation, wholesome food & compassionate care had a dramatic effect.
Directly related to the discovery of germs was the absencence of silk for sutures in the Confederacy. The substitute was horse hair, which the Roman's used. Cotton thread acted like a wick & drew infections into a wound. Doctors noticed that with hair sutures, there was dramatically less inflimation than with silk. The reason was that stiff horse hair had to be boiled to soften it. Empirically, it was obvious that something had happened, but no body knew why. In the chain of events that led to the discovery of germs & how to prevent infection, horse hair sutures was a first stepping stones along the path. Louis Pasteur made his initial discoveries in 1863-64. From that point to the end of the 19th Century, Lister & others introduced the anticeptic principle into surgery. It was not until 1877 that the link between insects & diseased transmission was discovered.
It it almost inconceivable to a person alive at this time of pandemic in 2020, but until the empirical evidence of the efficacy of Mrs Bickerdyke's lye soap, the efficacy of basic sanitation was not recognized. One of the most powerful antiseptic things you can do is just was your hands. Izabell is in 4th grade, she can tell you al about it. In the 1970's when I was Peace Corps Volunteer in the Andes Mountains, teaching simple hygiene to Indian midwives was one of our programs. Amoebic dysentery was endemic. Just wasting your hands is essential to avoid ingesting the amoebas. 100 years later & we were fighting just like Mother Bickerdyke.
At Stones River NB we do Sanitary Commission living history programs. The history of the advances in medicine is a big part of that story. Here in Murfreesboro, we have the whole history of the war, not just 3 days of mass murder to represent. It is a living historian's delight.
 
Last edited:
The statement about germs being the source of infection is literally true. The medical people of the 1860's were ignorant, not stupid.
And germ theory was around and had been for decades. John Snow was a proponent and his most famous work was in 1854-5:

Having rejected effluvia and the poisoning of the blood in the first instance, and being led to the conclusion that the disease is something that acts directly on the alimentary canal, the excretions of the sick at once suggest themselves as containing some material which being accidentally swallowed might attach itself to the mucous membrane of the small intestines, and there multiply itself by appropriation of surrounding matter, in virtue of molecular changes going on within it, or capable of going on, as soon as it is placed in congenial circumstances.
— John Snow (1849)

For the morbid matter of cholera having the property of reproducing its own kind, must necessarily have some sort of structure, most likely that of a cell. It is no objection to this view that the structure of the cholera poison cannot be recognized by the microscope, for the matter of smallpox and of chancre can only be recognized by their effects, and not by their physical properties.
— John Snow (1855)
Semmelweis was even earlier; in 1847 he introduced chlorine handwashing at Vienna Maternity Institute:

Monthly_mortality_rates_1841-1849.png



So yes, most people of the time were ignorant. But not everyone.
 
I was indicating that unsanitary conditions was a serious problem, and killed many men. 2/3 of the deaths were caused by infectious diseases. The numbers you listed are minuscule... I was referring to the entire war. I used the story of the surgeon as an example of the conditions stated above. I think @Rhea Cole was using that statement as a metaphor... not an actual statement of fact. You need to look beyond the lines, and although numbers are extremely important... sometimes you need to look at the situation as a whole, and not just fragments.
The timeline of the history of the discovery of antiseptic operating procedures & the implementation of Pasteur's discoveries were post 1865. I will post a short history. My statement about Izabell knowing more about sepsis than anyone on the planet during the Civil War era is literally true. Mrs Bickerdyke & others knew from empirical observation that sanitation prevented infection, unlike Izabell, they had no idea why it worked.
 
Doubt it; Florence Nightingale was training nurses at this point and they'd caused the death rate in Crimean hospitals to go through the floor, and germ theory did exist (it just wasn't - yet - dominant). Meanwhile the sanitation movement had begun decades ago (1830s and 1840s) in Britain.

Revolutions in ideas sometimes don't come all in one go; they trickle in over time.


I don't actually think they did. You can't really ascribe all deaths in hospitals to the actions of surgeons, and the numbers that I've looked at thus far have been deaths recorded in hospitals so may exclude anyone who didn't make it to a hospital (like all the battlefield burials).
For example in the Atlantic region in September and October 1862 there are 1,130 gunshot deaths listed (of which 702 are in September), but the Maryland Campaign alone (disregarding the Northern Virginia campaign) saw over 2,700 Union dead in the battles - and of those most would not have made it to hospital in the first place, while those who died in hospital would be down as "wounded" on the reports, or perhaps "mortally wounded".

The figures I've used above represent a minimal number of Union dead by violence, and are certainly lower than the true value.
Knowledge about malnutrition and uncleanliness came in pieces, starting with James Cook and the rapid diminution in the danger of scurvy.
Ms. Nightingale and then John Snow produced further advances and that information began to circulate in New England and New York.
That produced imitation from Clara Barton and other sanitary commission women. As 1863 began, both Hooker in the east, and Grant in the west began to be aware that diets had to be improved and that camps had to be set up with the same protections used in small towns and cities. Battlefield triage improved in the east, which I think was one of the big advantages of the US forces at Gettysburg. The US Army was much closer to its railroads and its big cities.
@Saphroneth is bringing the facts, as he usually does.
 
I was indicating that unsanitary conditions was a serious problem, and killed many men. 2/3 of the deaths were caused by infectious diseases. The numbers you listed are minuscule... I was referring to the entire war. I used the story of the surgeon as an example of the conditions stated above. I think @Rhea Cole was using that statement as a metaphor... not an actual statement of fact. You need to look beyond the lines, and although numbers are extremely important... sometimes you need to look at the situation as a whole, and not just fragments.
Thanks for the support. This is just another example of Saphorenth's need to post put downs. Because of the 20 hospitals here in Murfreesboro during the CW, we do a number of medical programs at Stones River. The Civil War period witnessed a medical revolution. A Confederate surgeon contributed an innovation that was adobted by Union doctors. He discovered that separating amputees from patients with diseases had a dramatic effect on survival rates. Logically, they separated repseratory patients from those with other infections. The benefits were based on empirical evidence, people still thought that spontaneous generation was the source of infection. Microscopic organisms living in the environment were yet to be discovered.
 
Last edited:
John Snow's insights were spreading. New England took cholera seriously, just like they had taken small pox inoculation seriously. Benjamin Butler claims to have taken the filthy conditions of New Orleans very seriously.
Sap's facts are consistent with the theory that campaigning anywhere the lower Mississippi was very dangerous because there were multiple diseases associated with stagnant water that medicine could not control. Those diseases were probably the main motivation for Grant's two attempts to take Vicksburg by storm, and his determination to out camp the Confederates once the siege began.
 
John Snow's insights were spreading. New England took cholera seriously, just like they had taken small pox inoculation seriously. Benjamin Butler claims to have taken the filthy conditions of New Orleans very seriously.
Sap's facts are consistent with the theory that campaigning anywhere the lower Mississippi was very dangerous because there were multiple diseases associated with stagnant water that medicine could not control. Those diseases were probably the main motivation for Grant's two attempts to take Vicksburg by storm, and his determination to out camp the Confederates once the siege began.
Red Rover.jpg

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph​

Wasuaubob makes a good point. Another empirical observation was made at that time on the hospital ship Red Rover, which was assigned to Vicksburg. The hospital ship had screens on the windows because it was believed that sunlight, of all things, caused infection. The drop in the incidence of infections that we know were carried by flies & mosquitos aboard the Red Rover was immediately obvious. Because she had been built as a luxury packet boat, dumb waiters linked the decks with an ice room. This is a photo of the Rover lashed to an ice barge. Another relic of the luxury packet was a boiler laundry. The combination of window screens, cooling drinks, sanitation & the first female nurses ever to serve in the U.S. military gave the Rover an admirable survival rate.
One of the contrabands nurses who was enlisted as a nurse was from here in Murfreesboro. This is one of the things I love about living history research, I end up finding out the most amazing things that are never in ordinary histories.
Grant put Mary Livermore of the Sanitary Commission in charge of a flotilla of river boats & sent her north to collect potatoes, onions & other fresh foods that contained vitamin C. In short order, she returned & the scourge of scurvy disappeared from Grant's army. He was known to credit her with saving the siege.
(Mary Ashton Rice Livermore, Sanitary Agent & Suffragette is someone you will enjoy reading up on. She was the real deal.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the support. This is just another example of Saphorenth's need to post put downs.
I feel like there's not really a sense in which you can complain about someone correcting factual misstatements, especially when you made it clear that you meant it as factual instead of metaphor or rhetoric. If the information is presented misleadingly, then fine.

The Civil War period witnessed a medical revolution.
Well, the revolution was going on during the war, but it started well before the war began and concluded well after the war ended. It feels like saying the Civil War period witnessed a medical revolution is perhaps a bit overly focused - it's comparable to saying "the Franco-Prussian War period witnessed a medical revolution".

I've no doubt you have a great knowledge of anecdotes, but I feel your main problem is placing them in context. For example:

Microscopic organisms living in the environment were yet to be discovered.
This is incorrect, and had been since the 1670s or so with Leeuwenhoek.


The problem with the acceptance of germ theory was always the ability to provide specific demonstration.
 
I feel like there's not really a sense in which you can complain about someone correcting factual misstatements, especially when you made it clear that you meant it as factual instead of metaphor or rhetoric. If the information is presented misleadingly, then fine.


Well, the revolution was going on during the war, but it started well before the war began and concluded well after the war ended. It feels like saying the Civil War period witnessed a medical revolution is perhaps a bit overly focused - it's comparable to saying "the Franco-Prussian War period witnessed a medical revolution".

I've no doubt you have a great knowledge of anecdotes, but I feel your main problem is placing them in context. For example:


This is incorrect, and had been since the 1670s or so with Leeuwenhoek.


The problem with the acceptance of germ theory was always the ability to provide specific demonstration.
You really can't help yourself, can you? I suppose pedantry is its own reward.
 
This topic rang a bell with me. In a post on this forum, I noted the parallels between the War of the Triple Alliance between Paraguay, the Empire of Brazil, Argentina & Uruguay. During a stalemate, Luis Alves de Lima became president of Brazil. He reorganized his military, reflecting the lessons learned during the American Civil War. He even bought some observation balloons. Perhaps the most profound reform he made was to impose the hygienic regime adopted by the Union army. Previously, as many as 2/3rds of the freed black slaves & gauchos that filled the Empire's ranks were down with disease. The positive effect of the hygienic regime was almost instantaneous. With his healthy army, Pres. de Lima, the newly designated Marquess of Caxias, drove into Paraguayan territory & captured their capital. Unfortunately, another lesson of the U.S. Civil War, a soft peace, was not taken to heart.

What followed was a scorched earth counter insurgency war that, along with war casualties, killed between 60-70% of the population of Paraguay.
 
This is from the May 1862 Preliminary Report of the 1860 census.
1588173873297.png


This is further evidence that John Snow's work had an enormous impact. In 1861 and 1862, when everyone thought it was going to be a short war, disease conditions and inadequate rations were not adequately studied. But by 1863 it became clearer that disease was a very serious problem.
Eastern Virginia, the Atlantic coast all the south to Florida, and the lower Mississippi, were particularly hard hit between 1820 and 1860.
 
This is further evidence that John Snow's work had an enormous impact.
I'm not so sure you can say that - I'd need to look at further decades of data before concluding that. At the moment there's not sufficient information to say that the mortality rate is falling on a systematic basis (for example) rather than because of random variance.


Can you tell my job is data analysis?
 
I'm not so sure you can say that - I'd need to look at further decades of data before concluding that. At the moment there's not sufficient information to say that the mortality rate is falling on a systematic basis (for example) rather than because of random variance.


Can you tell my job is data analysis?
The impact was that people began to think about the geographic distribution of disease. In the US that led to a link between disease, stagnant water and decaying vegetation. That as adequate proxy for mosquitos and polluted water, until the mechanism of infection was identified in a more precise way.
 
Back
Top