AOP casualties under Grant, a fuller context

[samvit]

When you consider that twice as many soldiers died of disease while in camp as did those who died in combat (roughly 400,000 to 200,000) did Grant's aggressiveness while commanding the AOP truly result in a larger loss of life than would have occurred with a less aggressive commander? It's hard to say who would have been the best alternative to Grant, and if that commander would have brought the war to a close using less costly tactics, and in what timespan. For discussion sake, let's say another general has much lower battle casualties than Grant and also keeps the prisoner exchange program going (hence much fewer deaths in POW camps) but requires an additional six months to end the war. Since disease was the bigger killer than combat, would lower combat losses and POW deaths be offset by deaths due to disease? Approximately 250,000 Union Soldiers died of disease over the 4 year span of the civil war. At that rate, about 30,000 would die in six months for all Union Armies (not just AOP). About 8,000 Union Soldiers died during Grant's Overland Campaign, and 56,000 soldiers in total (not sure what % North/South) died in prison camps. Even if you were to cut combat deaths in half, and eliminate POW deaths, I wonder if you wouldn't end up with about the same number of Union dead in either scenario.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I believe Lincoln said something similar to this when criticizing McClellan. The longer the armies were in camp, the higher the losses mounted.

 

[samvit]

I believe Lincoln said something similar to this when criticizing McClellan. The longer the armies were in camp, the higher the losses mounted.

With that in mind, and considering that total losses in the Overland Campaign seem small by comparison, it seems that the only real basis to be critical of Grant would his ending of the prisoner exchange program which resulted in a large loss of life for both sides, over 50,000....not to say that it didn't aid significantly in reducing vital manpower for the South.

 

[ole]

Works for me, samvit. Ending the exchange was a hard-nosed decision I wouldn't put entirely on Grant, but the Confederacy could ill-afford the same rate of attrition that the Union could. Get in a shootin' war and, often, the best thing one can do is deprive the opposition of resources. Hence, Sherman and Sheridan and the Emancipation Proclamation -- Death by small pieces.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Exactly how many thousands of men did Grant need to win the war in the east? With the benefit of hindsight McClellan's predictions aren't so ludicrous.

 

[dvrmte]

According to McPherson, the AOP lost more men than all other Union armies combined. The pasty face eastern boys were more resistant to disease than the western boys. Westerners were 43% more likely to die of disease. Combat mortality was 23% higher among easterners. Of the regiments that suffered the most casualties, 41 of the top 50 were in the AOP.

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

In the original post a time frame of additional 6 months is stated. The idea of a timeline with a little less pressure,opens a can of worms. A standing eight count is not a knockout. I'll give the Tet Offensive as an example. History as the assasination,may still have occured and changed what we know now, to something unrecognizable. The idea sounds to much like applying Marquess of Queensbury rules to war.
The Battle of Okinawa in hindsight is also one where "maybe" less pressure would have saved a lot of marines and Okinawans but wars can be extended indefinately that way. Re; Nam,Afganistan,and is the korean war really over?

 

[trice]

In the original post a time frame of additional 6 months is stated. The idea of a timeline with a little less pressure,opens a can of worms. A standing eight count is not a knockout. I'll give the Tet Offensive as an example. History as the assasination,may still have occured and changed what we know now, to something unrecognizable. The idea sounds to much like applying Marquess of Queensbury rules to war.
The Battle of Okinawa in hindsight is also one where "maybe" less pressure would have saved a lot of marines and Okinawans but wars can be extended indefinately that way. Re; Nam,Afganistan,and is the korean war really over?

By a strange co-incidence, I was discussing Civil War campaigns with my Dad (a veteran of Leyte & Okinawa) late last year. Most early Civil War campaigns come down to: march out, maybe maneuver a bit, fight one big battle, go back to camp. Exceptions 1861-63 always seem to involve Grant(Henry & Donelson-Shiloh, Vicksburg), Lee (Seven Days, 2nd Manassas-Antietam), or Jackson (Valley Campaign, Seven Days, 2nd Manassas-Antietam). I came to 1864 and talked about the Overland Campaign, 40 days of constant marching and fighting followed by a nine month siege with frequent battles. "That's what my war was like", Dad said, "except the Japanese attacked at night, and we attacked in the day."

Tim

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

By a strange co-incidence, I was discussing Civil War campaigns with my Dad (a veteran of Leyte & Okinawa) late last year. Most early Civil War campaigns come down to: march out, maybe maneuver a bit, fight one big battle, go back to camp. Exceptions 1861-63 always seem to involve Grant(Henry & Donelson-Shiloh, Vicksburg), Lee (Seven Days, 2nd Manassas-Antietam), or Jackson (Valley Campaign, Seven Days, 2nd Manassas-Antietam). I came to 1864 and talked about the Overland Campaign, 40 days of constant marching and fighting followed by a nine month siege with frequent battles. "That's what my war was like", Dad said, "except the Japanese attacked at night, and we attacked in the day."

Tim

Were both blessed to have our members of the "Greatest Generation" still with us. Dad served with the 22nd Marine Regiment,6th Division-Guam,Okinawa. Semper Fi

 

[trice]

Were both blessed to have our members of the "Greatest Generation" still with us. Dad served with the 22nd Marine Regiment,6th Division-Guam,Okinawa. Semper Fi

My Dad was a 1st Sgt in the 96th Infantry Division. Something else our Dads have in common: the 6th Marines Division and the 96th Infantry Division each received a Presidential Unit Citation for their actions in the Okinawa Campaign.

Tim

 

[Old Hickory]

Something to considder also is wound infection. The land in the East was much more "worked" (read farm land with a reguler dose of manure) than that in the West contributing to a higher death rate due to infection received by wounded men. Not all inclusive to Grant's campaign, but a higher risk of infection existed in the Eastern theater over-all. I can't imagine the hellish hospital conditions that must have existed in Fredricksburg in 1864.

 

[TerryB]

By contrast, read Larry J. Daniel's Soldiering in the Army of Tennessee. In the parts where he deals with medical issues, for the corresponding time in Georgia, while as much as one third of Joe Johnson's army may have been on sick call at any given time, the percentage of death by wounds was incredibly low.

An awkward way to put it--what I mean is that once wounded and gotten to a hospital, the death rate was extremely low.

 

[samvit]

According to McPherson, the AOP lost more men than all other Union armies combined. The pasty face eastern boys were more resistant to disease than the western boys. Westerners were 43% more likely to die of disease. Combat mortality was 23% higher among easterners. Of the regiments that suffered the most casualties, 41 of the top 50 were in the AOP.

That's a good point, but even so, if the war is extended with a less aggressive commander, you'll still have more loss of life because of disease because all armies are in the field longer, not just the AOP.

<< Something to considder also is wound infection. The land in the East was much more "worked" (read farm land with a reguler dose of manure) than that in the West contributing to a higher death rate due to infection received by wounded men. >>

So in the case where a soldier dies of infection after having an otherwise non-life threatening wound (no vital organs involved, shot in legs, arms, etc.), would that be considered death due to combat or death due to disease? My interpretation of death due to disease was that there was no combat involved whatsoever, and it was due to stuff like like dysentery, TB, exposure, various viruses, etc.

 

[ole]

I suspect that death from disease was greatest in the new recruits and POWs -- that the guys who had been in for two years were relatively immune. Fatal infections, however, were like the EverReady Bunny -- they kept on going.

 

[dvrmte]

My understanding is that disease was less of a problem campaigning than in winter camps. Stonewall Jackson received much criticism for his Romney Campaign in the dead of winter. I wonder how many would have died of disease in winter camps opposed to freezing to death?

Jackson didn't want to bring his men to the malarious swamps around Richmond after the Valley Campaign. He preferred to maneuver McClellan away from Richmond and fight the battle in the north.

 

[Old Hickory]

That's a good point, but even so, if the war is extended with a less aggressive commander, you'll still have more loss of life because of disease because all armies are in the field longer, not just the AOP.

<< Something to considder also is wound infection. The land in the East was much more "worked" (read farm land with a reguler dose of manure) than that in the West contributing to a higher death rate due to infection received by wounded men. >>

So in the case where a soldier dies of infection after having an otherwise non-life threatening wound (no vital organs involved, shot in legs, arms, etc.), would that be considered death due to combat or death due to disease? My interpretation of death due to disease was that there was no combat involved whatsoever, and it was due to stuff like like dysentery, TB, exposure, various viruses, etc.

I would call a death from a wound infection a mortal wound due to battle, if the wound was the result of battle no matter how slight, or how long the infection took to kill the soldier. Men were dying from infections and other complications from wounds 3-4 months after the Gettysburg Battle.