Research Confederate Strength 1862

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
As you might have meant History On The Net, not Historynet.com, I found this article:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/civil-war-casualties-lees-battles

Title:

Civil War Casualties In Lee’s Battles and Campaigns​


This article has a large set of tables, and while the formatting is slightly broken the summary at the top of the article is like this:

Summary
The final table in this appendix contains my estimates of the warlong total civil war casualties incurred and imposed by Lee’s armies when they were under his command and control. This summary table reveals that Lee’s army imposed 240,322 civil war casualties on the enemy while incurring 208,922. Thus, Lee’s soldiers imposed 31,400 more casualties on their opponents than they suffered themselves.



And the table (with the formatting corrected) is this:

Table at bottom of article
Campaign/Battle
Total Confederate Casualties
Total Union Casualties
Seven Days’​
20000​
16000​
Cedar Mountain​
1300​
2400​
Second Manassas​
9500​
14400​
Chantilly​
800​
1300​
Harper’s Ferry​
286​
11783​
Crampton’s Gap & South Mountain​
3434​
2346​
Antietam/Sharpsburg​
11500​
12400​
Fredericksburg​
4201​
12653​
Kelly’s Ford​
133​
78​
Chancellorsville​
12764​
17287​
Brandy Station​
523​
866​
Winchester (June 1863)​
269​
4443​
Aldie, Middleburg, Upperville​
510​
613​
Hanover​
150​
200​
Gettysburg​
28000​
23000​
Retreat from Gettysburg​
5000​
1000​
Bristoe Station​
1378​
546​
Kelly’s Ford & Rappahannock Stn​
2000​
400​
Mine Run​
601​
1653​
Wilderness​
11125​
17666​
Spotsylvania Court House​
13421​
18399​
North Anna River, etc.​
3766​
3986​
Cold Harbor​
4595​
12737​
Petersburg Assaults​
4000​
11386​
Petersburg Siege/Campaign​
28000​
42000​
Appomattox Campaign​
41666​
10780​
Totals​
208922​
240322​

Is this the article you meant, @Rhea Cole ?
I gave you the link.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
What's going on here is effectively that I don't really want to pay a pretty substantial amount of money to get a hardcopy of a book to look up the reference required to demonstrate that a specific one of Wheeler's returns was inaccurate, when you had said previously that it was obvious and that all of Wheeler's returns were misleading.

You said the following:

When I pointed out that there were cases where Connelly had used Wheeler's returns at face value (i.e. using numbers taken directly from Wheeler's returns as true statements of Wheeler's strength) you said:

You then went on to specify:


Which means that, rather than all of Wheeler's returns being wrong (as you had previously said, by saying that "as usual" his returns were wildly inaccurate and that "nobody who is at all familiar with Wheeler's returns takes a one of them at face value"), it was one specific set of returns which did not reflect reality.

You also enjoined me to:

So it seems to me that there is a simple solution here, if (as you say) the original documents are online. And that is that you look up and provide the specific OR citations.

I would be delighted to be given those citations, and I would also be delighted for them to turn out to support the argument that you made in the first place. I do not want to somehow prove that Wheeler's returns were accurate - I want to see why we know they were not - and I was fully ready to look through the sections of Autumn of Glory that I can access and find it laid out there, but instead in every case I can see where Connelly discusses Wheeler's strength (which is not the whole book, but Connelly does it on multiple occasions in the sections which are available online) he does so by citing Wheeler's returns as accurate.
Actually what is glaring obvious is that any amount is too much to actually study the Civil War.
 

Saphroneth

Major
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
I gave you the link.
No, you didn't. Here's your post:


<historynet.com>Civil War Battles Resulting From Campaigns & Battles of Robert E. Lee is my idea of a source. it compares the casualty returns as they appear in major books by author. Very informative.
There is no link here, except for the URL of an entire website. That could be a formatting error, but there's no article link.

Did I get the article right? If not, can you provide an actual link?
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Major
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Actually what is glaring obvious is that any amount is too much to actually study the Civil War.
Oh, goodness no, but you told me to "go online" and "read the original documents for (my)self". If the documents are online it should be fairly trivial to provide the references; indeed, at this point I'd settle for the name of the IG who gave the dissenting report.

I'd be quite willing to buy Autumn of Glory if it were available in a digital format, but it's not...
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Oh, goodness no, but you told me to "go online" and "read the original documents for (my)self". If the documents are online it should be fairly trivial to provide the references; indeed, at this point I'd settle for the name of the IG who gave the dissenting report.

I'd be quite willing to buy Autumn of Glory if it were available in a digital format, but it's not...
I am utterly baffled. I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Buy the book, don’t buy the book VM
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
As you might have meant History On The Net, not Historynet.com, I found this article:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/civil-war-casualties-lees-battles

Aye, ca. 240,000 casualties is the number Lee inflicted. I had been wondering whether Rhea had switched the figures.

Here I should note that the Gettysburg numbers use the battle only for the Federal casualties, and the whole campaign plus double-counting the captured of the wounded train at Monterey Pass and the wounded left behind at Falling Waters for the rebels (they were casualties being moved from wounded to wounded&captured, not new casualties).

Using Busey & Busey, Union campaign losses (from Brandy Station through Falling Waters, but not including 2nd Winchester etc.)= 26,983 of which 3,370 at other engagements and 23,594 at Gettysburg proper (19 lost from rolls unknown whether Gettysburg or other action). For Gettysburg proper this breaks down as:

Killed: 3,184
Wounded: 15,169 (of whom 2,141 died of wounds)
Wounded and Captured/Missing: 478
Captured (unwounded): 2,358
Missing: 2,405
=23,594

Confederate Casualties at Gettysburg (including captured nurses etc. left behind) were:

Killed: 3,446
Mortally Wounded: 534
Mortally Wounded and Captured: 1,461
Wounded: 7,531
Wounded and Captured: 6,120
Wounded and Missing: 6
(Total wounded = 15,652)
Captured (unwounded): 4,882
Missing: 116
= 24,093
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
In the old army, "effective" was a synonym for "not sick", and hence the term embraced some men who were not for duty (such as those under arrest). The eastern army under Johnston dropped this mean really early, but it persisted in the western army until late January 1863, when Bragg changed the definition. The new definition was essentially "combat effectives".

In late April, huge chunks of Johnston's cavalry had been dispersed from his army to sort out their horses and recruit new ones. This was typical of this period every year. The horses needed to be built up so they could withstand the rigours of a campaign season. The cavalry would disperse and "feed up" their mounts. On the 30th April, only a small part of Wheeler's cavalry was with him. As he notes, most was dispersed to administer their horses and two brigades were en route, having entered the department but not having yet reported for duty with the army. What Wheeler reported was the men who were available for duty with the army on said date.
 

Saphroneth

Major
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
That's interesting. I wonder what that means for CS strength at, say, Shiloh?

1622644488192.png

Based on this the Reserve Corps infantry has "effective total" equal to the sum of "for duty" enlisted, "extra duty" enlisted and "in arrest" enlisted. This also applies to First Corps, but not Second or Third Corps.
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
That's interesting. I wonder what that means for CS strength at, say, Shiloh?

Based on this the Reserve Corps infantry has "effective total" equal to the sum of "for duty" enlisted, "extra duty" enlisted and "in arrest" enlisted. This also applies to First Corps, but not Second or Third Corps.

Aye, the returns were not consistent. Hence Bragg directing the use of the method he used for his command at Shiloh.

These of course were the strengths before the approach march. There was much straggling, and ISTR Beauregard estimated they had many fewer men actually on the field.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
I am struck by the fact that on May 3 1864 Grant wrote to Halleck: “ I will have to leave affairs west entirely with you.”
And yet what's odd is that Grant continued to be in direct contact with Sherman about what Sherman was doing and continued to correspond to Halleck about operations elsewhere. The correspondence is readily accessible and makes it clear that Halleck was looking for direction from Grant. That fits with the fact that the last guy on the planet who wanted responsibility for actually making military decisions was Halleck. The notion that either Halleck or Sherman was "running the war" is a "reach", to put it nicely. This makes sense because Johnson's career and publishing regarding the Civil War was more focused on political and economic issues than on military issues. His study of the Red River Campaign was an exception, and even then there was a strong connection to his area of focus.
 
Top