Were Confederate troops used as cannon fodder

Joined
Oct 3, 2005
On the thread "Which government was more intrusive" one of the posters stated that United States Colored Troops were "used as cannon fodder." While of course, the Confederate government didn't have black soldiers, so they couldn't use black soldiers in battle in any way.
 
That statement prompted this reply(from me):

Were the Confederate infantry at Malvern Hill, cannon fodder?

Were the Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg, cannon fodder?

Were the Virginians, North Carolinians, Floridians and the others who took part in the attack on July 3, 1863, cannon fodder?

I haven't received a reply yet.
 
That statement prompted this reply(from me):

Were the Confederate infantry at Malvern Hill, cannon fodder?

Were the Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg, cannon fodder?

Were the Virginians, North Carolinians, Floridians and the others who took part in the attack on July 3, 1863, cannon fodder?

I haven't received a reply yet.

My answer is of course they weren't. Same for the USCT.
 
There are probably a few engagements in the west, later in the war, when United States regiments had repeating rifles, when the outcome of an assault by the Confederates resulted in very high casualties. But the impact of repeating rifles in the hands of veterans was a new event. Fortunately for the Confederates the weapons were not generally available.
 
Like @wausaubob I'm not comfortable with "cannon fodder" but I often do think the July 3rd attack at Gettysburg was a mistake and certainly feel that the continued assault at Fredericksburg was as were Hood's attacks at Franklin, TN. I'm not as familiar with Malvern Hill so won't offer an opinion. It's too easy to second guess commanders from our vantage point but I think Fredericksburg and Franklin come pretty close to true waste of human life.
 
Yes they were, Very rarely did they have the 3 to 1 ratio in manpower considered necessary for a successful attack.
 
Personally, to describe the citizen soldiers of the CW as "cannon fodder," north or south, black or white, is a gross libel. Troops were certainly committed to unwise attacks on many occasions. That doesn't change my conviction on this matter.
 
Personally, to describe the citizen soldiers of the CW as "cannon fodder," north or south, black or white, is a gross libel. Troops were certainly committed to unwise attacks on many occasions. That doesn't change my conviction on this matter.

Might you share that with us ? Not sure from what you've posted here. Just curious as you asked the question.
 
Might take a look at the definition.

Cannon fodder - Wikipedia

Cannon fodder is an informal, derogatory term for combatants who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where combatants are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal; an example is the trench warfare of World War I. The term may also be used (somewhat pejoratively) to differentiate infantry from other forces (such as artillery, air force or the navy), or to distinguish expendable low-grade or inexperienced combatants from supposedly more valuable veterans.

The term derives from fodder, as food for livestock. Soldiers are the metaphorical food for enemy cannon fire.[1]

...
he supposedly first attested use of the expression "cannon fodder" belongs to a French writer, François-René de Chateaubriand. In his anti-Napoleonic pamphlet "De Bonaparte et des Bourbons", published in 1814, he criticized the cynical attitude towards recruits that prevailed in the end of Napoleon's reign: "On en était venu à ce point de mépris pour la vie des hommes et pour la France, d'appeler les conscrits la matière première et la chair à canon" — "the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts 'the raw material' and 'the cannon fodder'."[2] The English term dates back at least to 1893[3] and was popularized during World War I.[4]T​
 
The definition of cannon fodder is disturbing in itself, but to consider that someone could discount human life to such a degree is heartrending. Sadly there are instances in the Civil War where I have questioned the human sacrifice commanded to obtain (or try to obtain) a military objective. Do you think the soldiers (north or south) ever saw themselves as cannon fodder? I agree with @matthew mckeon and others who have said they could never refer to these soldiers in this manner. I think that reference wreaks havoc on their memory and their sacrifice.
 
The definition of cannon fodder is disturbing in itself, but to consider that someone could discount human life to such a degree is heartrending. Sadly there are instances in the Civil War where I have questioned the human sacrifice commanded to obtain (or try to obtain) a military objective. Do you think the soldiers (north or south) ever saw themselves as cannon fodder? I agree with @matthew mckeon and others who have said they could never refer to these soldiers in this manner. I think that reference wreaks havoc on their memory and their sacrifice.
One way of looking at an army essential to the survival of a nation is to use it or lose it in defeat anyway. Using a army even in a low odds of probability is not cannon fodder.
 
One way of looking at an army essential to the survival of a nation is to use it or lose it in defeat anyway. Using a army even in a low odds of probability is not cannon fodder.

Quite true. I never see those serving as cannon fodder and I hope my previous post didn't imply otherwise. I "get" that risking human life is often required even in low odds of probability. I just don't want to see those lives denigrated by a casual term or reference.
 
The closest thing to the term being used in the ACW were the attacks made by Burnside and others at Fredericksburg, and Hood at Franklin. One other battle comes to mind is the battle for Fort Davidson at Pilot Knob in Missouri in 1864. It was a senseless attack, gaining nothing. One of the few battles were Federal troops used hand grenades to help repel the attack. The term really can be used to describe the attacks made by the British in WWI, where the big gain was often in yards, costing thousands of lives for nothing.
 
Last edited:
The definition of cannon fodder is disturbing in itself, but to consider that someone could discount human life to such a degree is heartrending. Sadly there are instances in the Civil War where I have questioned the human sacrifice commanded to obtain (or try to obtain) a military objective. Do you think the soldiers (north or south) ever saw themselves as cannon fodder? I agree with @matthew mckeon and others who have said they could never refer to these soldiers in this manner. I think that reference wreaks havoc on their memory and their sacrifice.
Many deserters apparently thought that they indeed were canon foder.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top