The publication's editors wrote that his scholarship was "among the most consequential pieces ever to appear in this journal's pages". Prof Hacker began by taking digitised samples from the decennial census counts taken Using statistics software SPSS, he counted the number of native-born white men of military age in and determined how many of that group were still alive in He compared that survival rate with the survival rates of the men of the same ages from , and from - the year census periods before and after the Civil War.
He controlled for other demographic assumptions, including mortality rates of foreign-born soldiers, added the relatively small number of black soldiers killed, and compared the numbers with the rates of female survival over the same periods.
The calculations yielded the number of "excess" deaths of military-age men between - the number who died in the war or in the five subsequent years from causes related to the war. Prof Hacker acknowledges the method must account for a large margin of error, and he declines to make bold claims about its accuracy. He acknowledges further it cannot distinguish between Union and Confederate dead, between deaths on the battlefield or from illness, nor tally postwar deaths from wounds incurred in battle.
US Civil War deaths therefore could range from , to ,, and he settles on an estimate of , dead. It's good to remember that. Prof Hacker's figure of , would translate into about 7. In proportion to Britain's population of He established the Indiana Military Agency to identify and provide for various needs of Hoosier soldiers. This state agency was supported by the Indiana Sanitary Commission, a private organization. Indiana was the only state which had its own sanitary commission to provide aid to its soldiers, rather than depend on the United States Sanitary Commission.
They also provided extra medical personnel for wounded Hoosiers, additional transportation to evacuate the badly wounded to hospitals far from the front, and other services.
Since Hoosier Civil War recruits did not receive the training and psychological conditioning believed necessary today for a man to function in combat, how did they perform so effectively when confronted by the chaos and horror of battle? The answer to this question is to be found in the values and motivations that led Hoosier men to join the Union Army.
To understand combat performance, one must begin with an examination of who joined the Army. In the past, scholars have suggested, first, that many of those who joined the Army were young men looking for adventure, and, second, that both Democrats and Republicans must have joined in large numbers given the size of the enlistments and the fact that the state was roughly evenly divided between the political parties.
Supporting evidence for the second point can be the disproportionately large numbers of men who enlisted from the heavily Democratic southern part of the state. In reality, however, the large numbers of enlisted men from the southern areas of the state is evidence for the first rather than the second point.
Southern Indiana—especially the southeast—was settled decades before many northern parts of the state; parts of northwest Indiana were still frontier areas as late as the s.
The longest settled areas had the most mature populations, and, in fact, were spinning off excess people. It was these areas that had the largest number of young men who could be spared from their economies. Hence, overall volunteer rates in various regions of the state tended to reflect the availability of young men looking for adventure more than other factors.
Common sense might dictate that such large numbers of volunteers as Indiana produced must have been the result of both Democrats and Republicans joining in substantial numbers; this view is reinforced by the presence of high visibility Democrats, such as Lew Wallace, in prominent positions in the Army.
Nevertheless, a close examination of those who actually served demonstrates that the common sense view is incorrect. Take, for example, Jefferson Township, Sullivan County, where voters were about Common sense would hold that in so heavily a Democratic area a substantial number of its volunteers must be Democrats.
However, a study of Jefferson Township volunteers for the pre-draft year of identified approximately 75 percent of recruits as Republicans; no recruit was definitely identified as a Democrat. Similar findings have been reported in studies of other townships and in the biographies of Civil War era Hoosiers in county histories.
One study of biographies in nine county histories determined that These biographies do not provide a random sample, but they do represent long-time, often prominent residents. They are also based on the entire war and, therefore, include volunteers and those drafted or stimulated by the draft to volunteer. Anecdotal evidence is also consistent with these findings.
Anyone who has been through a number of Indiana Civil War letter collections, diaries, and memoirs knows that the documents containing political expressions were overwhelmingly written by Republicans. It is relatively rare to find one written by an active Democratic voter who had not become a War Democrat. Similarly, numerous instances of Republican families sending multiple sons to the war can be cited, while similar findings for Democratic families are unusual.
For example, Samuel R. Letsinger, had six sons and three sons-in-law in the service; and Republican William Harrison of Putnam County had all four of his sons and his younger brother in the Army. Obviously, Republicans were highly motivated. What was it that so inspired them? Many historians today contend that the Civil War was first and foremost about slavery.
Certainly, there is evidence that some Hoosier Republicans were so motivated. George Squires of Allen County filled his letters with passionate denunciations of slavery and Democrats that left little doubt that opposition to slavery was a powerful motivation for him. Similarly, historian Jacquelyn S. Nelson has shown that some Hoosier Quakers so strongly opposed slavery that they were inspired to take up arms despite their pacifist beliefs.
However, anyone who has read extensively in the manuscripts left behind by Hoosier Civil War soldiers knows that slavery was not frequently mentioned, and that men like Squires were more the exception than the rule among soldiers from Indiana. If slavery was not the primary inspiration, suggestions for alternative motivations can be located in historian James M.
McPherson determined that soldiers on both sides most often wrote that their motivations were republicanism and their personal liberty. Both republicanism and liberty meant different things to different people.
America was founded as an experiment in democratic-republican government. In the Civil War era, people used the term republicanism to convey their interpretation of how the Founding Fathers defined this experiment.
Republicans believed their political ideology embodied the beliefs of the Founders. Secession and the attack on Fort Sumter were seen as extensions of the prewar subversion efforts of the planters.
Since liberty, as Republicans defined it, was only possible within the experiment, the liberty of each soldier, and of their children, and of generations yet unborn were at stake. Since the American experiment was seen as determining if humanity was capable of freedom, not only the freedom of Americans but that of all mankind was in the balance. The Founders had fought to establish liberty through the great experiment, and anyone who wanted to be a true son of the Founding Fathers must be ready to fight for liberty—to put their bodies on the altar of the nation.
Hoosiers articulated their republicanism and their liberty concerns in a number of ways. McPherson also found that men in both the South and the North spoke often of honor and duty, but that Southerners most often mentioned honor, and Northerners most often mentioned duty.
Indeed, the word duty appears often in the writings of Hoosier soldiers and was an important part of the lives of many Indiana men. People helped each other and expected help in return. This included soldiers who assumed kith and kin would help the wives and children they left behind. Duties and responsibilities to neighbors were just the beginning of the obligations of males. White men were privileged in this period in Indiana.
In , only white men could vote, serve on juries, serve in office, and fight in state military units. With these privileges came an obligation—a duty—to vote and to serve in office, on juries, and in militias. To be a man in Indiana was to accept both duties and privileges. Republicans saw and understood the world around them in terms of their political ideology.
In , they saw a vital threat to their liberty and to the democratic-republican experiment of the Founders, and they felt a duty to act against this threat. This is what motivated so many Republicans to join the Army and to fight with such determination and ferocity.
Democrats also believed deeply in liberty and the experiment in democratic-republican government of the Founders, but they defined these concepts differently. In the Democratic perception of the world, secession was wrong, but an even greater threat to liberty was posed by the policies of the Republicans. Democrats believed that the way to save the republic was to defeat the Republicans at the polls, assume office, and find a negotiated rather than a military solution to secession.
Hoosier Republicans tended to misinterpret the Democratic version of republicanism as pro-Confederate sympathy and disloyalty. Their commitment and sense of duty was crucial to allowing the poorly trained troops to perform in combat.
Many of the youth who joined for adventure early in the war and the men who were later drafted, pressured into joining by the draft, or joined for money bounties or paid as a substitute were not so highly motivated or as committed to moral deportment as the Republicans. Indeed, official records indicate that some 10, Indiana soldiers were so poorly committed to the cause that they deserted during the war. Hoosier soldiers thus displayed a wide range of levels of patriotism, courage, and morals, even as the overall impression left by most Hoosier regiments was one of great commitment to cause and country.
The young, single men who joined for adventure were at a malleable point in their lives, and were thus capable of becoming more committed to the cause like their Republican comrades.
In the Confederate field armies, extensive missionizing efforts were able to create spectacular revivals and tens of thousands of religious conversions among the impressionable young men of those armies. It makes sense to assume that the pliable young men of Hoosier companies were similarly susceptible to political missionizing by zealous Republicans.
The numerous straw polls of Hoosier soldiers that usually displayed huge majorities for Lincoln can be explained as the result of large numbers of Republicans joining the Army and the political conversions these Republicans made among the malleable young men in their ranks. Indiana units fought in the first substantial battle of the war at Philippi, Virginia, on June 3, , and in the last significant engagement at Palmetto Ranche, Texas, on May 13, Indiana soldiers were involved in battles in sixteen states and one territory.
Indiana regiments fought in all major theaters of action, but more were involved in the fighting west of the Appalachians than east of them. For example, just six Indiana regiments were involved in the Battle of Gettysburg and six regiments and artillery batteries in the fighting at Antietam, while some fifty-five Hoosier regiments and artillery batteries fought at Atlanta, fifty-five at Kenesaw Mountain, and fifty at Resaca.
Typically, men fought in two-deep line formations. Instead of company and regimental officers remaining in command posts off the battlefield, as was common in World War II, officers often led their men into battle. With their distinctive dress, swords, and sometimes mounted on horseback, officers became prime targets for the enemy. The bravery the officers displayed in battle earned them the respect of their men, and, conversely, if they failed to show courage, the disdain of their men.
The battlefield was a terrifying, disorienting place. What one saw could be terrifying: solid shot from cannon could split men or even horses in twain. The noise from thousands of small arms and explosive cannon shells could be deafening and bewildering. Men might react to these terrors in varying ways; especially men who were not battle tested.
It is generally thought that in a fight one veteran soldier was worth two soldiers who had not yet been in battle. An outstanding veteran unit, such as the famous Iron Brigade that included the 19 th Indiana, tended to perform well in battle.
At the Battle of South Mountain, on September 14, , Iron Brigade men fired their weapons until they literally became too hot to handle. On the other hand, among the 24, loaded muskets collected after the Battle of Gettysburg, about three-fourths had multiple loads.
In other words, in the noise and confusion of battle thousands of men were loading without having fired the previous load.
It was widely believed that having men stand in a line, shoulder to shoulder, reinforced the bravery of each soldier, but some men would be rattled nevertheless and make mistakes such as multiple loadings and firing in the air with their eyes closed. As the war progressed, both sides used field fortifications more and more. As Sherman advanced toward Atlanta and Grant toward Richmond in , troops repeatedly dug trenches and often reinforced them with logs. The trenches created during the nine-month stalemate before Petersburg from June to early April were several miles in extent, and adumbrated the trench warfare of World War I.
Since neither side used smokeless powder, the entire battlefield would be enveloped in smoke once the firing began. Men could become lost in the smoke, and even fire by mistake at their own comrades. A key person on the battlefield was the regimental flag bearer. Men typically considered it an honor to carry the flag, despite the fact that the flag bearer was a prime target for the enemy. The importance Civil War soldiers gave to defending their flag and capturing that of the enemy was remarkable.
Stories of flag bearers holding the flag aloft despite multiple wounds until others could take their place sound like romanticized fiction, but such actions were commonplace realities among men of both armies.
Amory K. Whether battles were fought from line formations or from trenches, most of the fighting was done by infantry. Cavalry units were used primarily for reconnaissance and raiding. Cavalry also might be stationed near the rear of a battlefield to prevent individuals from making unauthorized exits from the battle. Another function that was especially important west of the Appalachians was guarding lines of communication.
The rapid advance of the Union armies in the West created long supply lines that were vulnerable to the attacks of Confederate cavalry. Union commanders used both cavalry and infantry to protect bridges and other vital points and to pursue rebel attackers. A number of Hoosier units, mounted and unmounted, were detailed to protect lines of communication.
One of the most celebrated of the Confederate raiders, John Hunt Morgan, led a foray into Indiana in The rebels never made a sustained invasion of the Hoosier state, but they did make occasional raids, such as at Newburgh in The Indiana Legion was given the task of protecting the Ohio River border, which could be easily crossed because of freezing in winter and low water in summer.
The Legion met Morgan in battle at Corydon. Morgan had cannon and was able to win the battle against the outnumbered Legion soldiers. Morgan hit a few other towns, but made a quick exit into Ohio as some 65, Hoosier men volunteered to fight against him in just forty-eight hours.
This remarkable response suggests two things. Another is that the Confederates found little support among Democrats in southern Indiana and, given the number of Republicans already serving in the Army, many of the volunteers to fight against Morgan must have been Democrats. This suggests that Democrats were not disloyal and would fight to defend the state when it was invaded. There was more to Army life than battles and guarding supply lines. For most troops most of the time there were long lulls between battles.
If the army was stationary, it could usually be easily supplied; and there would often also be private entrepreneurs called sutlers, who followed the armies, to sell the men food, paper, and other items. Small groups within a company would form a mess whose members would eat together.
Typically, each member of the mess would take turns doing the cooking for the group. A Hoosier soldier usually had his closest associations with his messmates. Hoosiers were involved in every major battle of the war, including the bloody Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. Hoosiers who served in Civil War regiments confronted brutal conditions in many ways. Consider a group organized soon after the outbreak of the war that was called the 14th Indiana Volunteers.
During a bitterly cold winter, the 14th Indiana soldiers camped in the mountains of West Virginia. Amid howling winds, pelting snow and plunging temperatures, many of the Hoosiers almost froze because their tattered uniforms were falling apart. Most did not even have overcoats. Morton, requested that President Abraham Lincoln supply the shivering Hoosier soldiers with coats and better uniforms.
A major supporter of the Union cause from the beginning, Gov. Morton stands in front of the State Capitol. Other Hoosiers achieved fame during the Civil War or after it including Col. Eli Lilly, who founded a business that makes medicine; Gen.
0コメント