'Walking Wounded' at Gettysburg?

[Bruce Vail]

I'm curious if some of the very knowledgeable folks at CivilWarTalk might comment on the whether a lot of Confederate veterans retreated from Gettysburg with battle wounds that were not recorded in official reports?

My research on family ancestor Lt. George Washington Ward of the 3rd North Carolina State Troops has revealed something odd. An amateur genealogy published in 1945 states the Lt. Ward was wounded at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, but there is no attribution or supporting documents. The service record available on Fold3 provides documentation of the wound at Sharpsburg (and also at two other battles -- Payne's Farm and Spotsylvania Court House) but no report of a wound at Gettysburg. However, there is a "Roll of Honor" on Fold3 that cites Lt. Ward for being wounded at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg.

The 3rd NC took terrible losses at Culp's Hill July 2-3 so it is pretty easy for me to imagine that record keeping took low priority, and a soldier with a minor wound would simply march with the regiment back to camp in Virginia. Would a minor wound, that didn't require hospitalization or medical leave, even be recorded in official army records? Is there any historical documentation that unrecorded wounds were common? Or rare?

 

[rpkennedy]

The Army of Northern Virginia had a bit of a quirk when recording their wounded. They counted every person who was injured at all as wounded, even if they could stay on the field. It's possible that he received a minor injury that didn't require real medical attention and so there is no paperwork on his wound, even though he was considered "wounded".

R

 

[Bruce Vail]

The Army of Northern Virginia had a bit of a quirk when recording their wounded. They counted every person who was injured at all as wounded, even if they could stay on the field. It's possible that he received a minor injury that didn't require real medical attention and so there is no paperwork on his wound, even though he was considered "wounded".

R

Would there be a master list somewhere of soldiers wounded at Gettysburg where Lt. Ward's name might show up?

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I'm no expert on military record keeping, was wondering if something called ' Roll of Honor ' would have been a post war list? He could have marched back with an untreated, unreported wound- with 17 miles of wagons carrying non-ambulatory cases, you just know it must have been chaos, getting them treated on arrival. He may not have gone for treatment then, either? If it was known he'd been wounded at Gettysburg, maybe did not need the military records for this ' Roll of Honor ' designation.

 

[rpkennedy]

Would there be a master list somewhere of soldiers wounded at Gettysburg where Lt. Ward's name might show up?

Honestly, probably not. It's bloody hard to figure out how many Confederates were actually at Gettysburg and their record keeping wasn't exactly pristine.

R

 

[Tom Elmore]

It was common not to record "slight" wounds, which today we might not agree were so slight, for instance a finger that was neatly cut off that was not essential for loading or firing, or being stunned by a shell burst. A certain percentage of wounded in any action quickly recovered and returned to their unit. For instance, 150 men of the 13th North Carolina were knocked out of action on July 1, but 15 (10 percent) of those had returned by July 3 to join in the afternoon charge. Many wounded men who could endure the pain and still function were eager to rejoin their comrades on the firing line, and would remain unless ordered to the rear by a superior in rank.

 

[Miles Krisman]

I'm curious if some of the very knowledgeable folks at CivilWarTalk might comment on the whether a lot of Confederate veterans retreated from Gettysburg with battle wounds that were not recorded in official reports?

My research on family ancestor Lt. George Washington Ward of the 3rd North Carolina Stater Troops has revealed something odd. An amateur genealogy published in 1945 states the Lt. Ward was wounded at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, but there is no attribution or supporting documents. The service record available on Fold3 provides documentation of the wound at Sharpsburg (and also at two other battles -- Payne's Farm and Spotsylvania Court House) but no report of a wound at Gettysburg. However, there is a "Roll of Honor" on Fold3 that cites Lt. Ward for being wounded at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg.

The 3rd NC took terrible losses at Culp's Hill July 2-3 so it is pretty easy for me to imagine that record keeping took low priority, and a soldier with a minor wound would simply march with the regiment back to camp in Virginia. Would a minor wound, that didn't require hospitalization or medical leave, even be recorded in official army records? Is there any historical documentation that unrecorded wounds were common? Or rare?

General Order No. 63 was issued by the Headquarters of the Army of Northern Virginia, on May 14, 1863. It mandated that all officers were forbidden the inclusion in regimental battle reports, "the number of men taken into action". The reason for this was "the impropriety of thus furnishing the enemy with the means of computing" their strength. This same order required "that in future the reports of the wounded shall only those whose injuries, in the opinion of the medical officers, render them unfit for duty," and deprecated "the practice of including cases of slight injuries which do not incapacitate the recipient for duty."[1]



[1] The Century, a popular quarterly, Volume 36, Issue 1, "The Chances of Being Hit" by Colonel William F. Fox, page 100

 

[Bruce Vail]

It was common not to record "slight" wounds, which today we might not agree were so slight, for instance a finger that was neatly cut off that was not essential for loading or firing, or being stunned by a shell burst. A certain percentage of wounded in any action quickly recovered and returned to their unit. For instance, 150 men of the 13th North Carolina were knocked out of action on July 1, but 15 (10 percent) of those had returned by July 3 to join in the afternoon charge. Many wounded men who could endure the pain and still function were eager to rejoin their comrades on the firing line, and would remain unless ordered to the rear by a superior in rank.

I'm still a little unsure how to use this info in describing my own ancestor. Family lore and that one 'Roll of Honor' card say that he was wounded at Gettysburg. That seems like very thin evidence.

It seems especially thin given that the family lore also has Lt. Ward participating in Pickett's Charge. This must be an error, as the 3rd NC spent all day on July 3rd on Culp's Hill. It seems easy enough to understand how Pickett's Charge and the assault on Culp's Hill would become conflated in family storytelling over the years, and it seems equally easy to understand how one of three of Lt. Ward's well-documented war-time wounds would get ascribed to the fighting at Gettysburg, even though that might not be precisely accurate.

In any event, I am continuing my search of the historical record for any other signs of Lt. Ward.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I'm no expert on military record keeping, was wondering if something called ' Roll of Honor ' would have been a post war list? He could have marched back with an untreated, unreported wound- with 17 miles of wagons carrying non-ambulatory cases, you just know it must have been chaos, getting them treated on arrival. He may not have gone for treatment then, either? If it was known he'd been wounded at Gettysburg, maybe did not need the military records for this ' Roll of Honor ' designation.

I'm curious to learn more about this 'Roll of Honor.' On the card, it says that the Roll was established by the NC legislature and that the Adjutant General in Raleigh was the keeper of the Roll. It is apparently preserved today in the NC state archives.