Plight of the common soldier in the American Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The plight of the common soldier in the American Civil War addresses the hardships and dangers to which soldiers of the Union and Confederate were exposed during the American Civil War. The soldier was a victim of the new form of warfare started in America. The use of the balloon, rifled musket, Spencer repeating rifle, Henry rifle, barbed wire, and fortified entrenchments contributed to the deaths of many men.
Contents |
[edit] Disease and infection
More men, however, died from disease, specifically communicable diseases started in the camps of both Union and Confederate armies. The Civil War soldier was at a disadvantage because he lived in a period when medical treatment was not well known. Doctors were just beginning to make breakthroughs in the curing of diseases. Most soldiers who were wounded in the arm or leg had to have the wounded limb amputated. Men died of simple wounds because of infection. Doctors did not know much about bacteria or how it can spread when the wound is not properly sterilized. The camps the Civil War soldier lived in, by today's standards, were filthy. In most cases, men drank water from the same source they used for their latrines and wash areas. In several cases, dysentery occurred from this, and most of the men who contracted this illness died from it.
[edit] Battle tactics and weapons
The tactics used by the leaders during the war were the main cause for the high casualty lists. Generals did not understand the importance and power of the new weapons introduced during the war, such as the 1861 Springfield musket. This weapon was deadly compared to the standards of today's weapons. It was longer and more powerful than the weapons used by some of today's armies. Its barrel contained several rifled grooves that provided increased accuracy, and it fired a .58 caliber minie ball (a small conical-shaped ball). This rifle had a deadly effect up to 600 yards and was capable of seriously wounding a man beyond 1000 yards, unlike the previous muskets used during the American Revolutionary War and Napoleonic Wars. But, the generals of the Civil War still used Napoleon's tactics. Most of them based their battle plans on those of the Napoleonic Wars. They marched their men out in tightly closed formations, soldiers elbow-to-elbow, usually in brigade (2,500-3,000 men) or division (6,000-10,000) strength. This large mass presented an easy target for the entrenched defender, who could easily fire several volleys before his enemy would be close enough for hand-to-hand combat. This tactic is one of the reasons why so many men were killed. Later in the war, soldiers began to use their own common sense. The individual soldier did not march against the enemy in this tight formation but instead spread out, leaving more space between himself and the next man. He learned not to attack heavily armed and fortified positions as quickly as during the first two years of the war and learned to dig in when in areas of open combat.
[edit] Hardships
The Civil War soldier had many burdens put upon him. Most of the time, he marched where he was ordered to go, because trains were rarely used. He often marched up to twenty miles (30 km) per day with a backpack weighing fifty to sixty pounds (20-30 kg). Lt. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's foot cavalry often marched up to thirty-five miles (56 km) per day and went to sleep on an empty stomach. He faced great hardships and was paid little for it—first $11 and later $18 dollars per month.
[edit] Confederate soldier
The Confederate soldier was more poorly equipped than his enemy. In battle, he faced greater odds against him, usually two or three to one.[citation needed] He was not well fed and usually did not even have a pair of shoes to wear, except for those taken from dead comrades or the enemy. He rarely had the luxuries of the Union soldier, such as the sutler who supplied the soldiers with items the armies would not. Despite all of these circumstances, he had one advantage. In most battles he had the benefit of better leadership. He was rarely discouraged after losing a battle but more often became more determined to win future battles.
[edit] Mutual respect
Both Union and Confederate soldiers were strongly determined to defeat each other, but they did possess some affection for each other as fellow Americans. They called informal truces to trade; brothers often traveled beyond their armies' lines to see each other; and the wounded of both armies left on the battlefield often helped each other when possible.
The Civil War soldier was devoted to his cause and preferred not to humiliate his enemy. He did have a deep sense of respect for him. One example may be seen in Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's generous surrender terms to Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, in April 1865. Lee's officers were permitted to keep their swords and side arms (revolvers). Lee's men were allowed to return home and keep their own horses to assist them on their farms. Grant supplied 25,000 food rations to Lee's starving men, many of whom had not eaten in days, upon Lee's surrender. Grant ordered an end to a 100-gun salute begun by Union Artillery within the Army of the Potomac to celebrate Lee's surrender. Grant saw no need for such celebration. He believed Lee's men were once again their countrymen and saw no reason to humiliate them.
One of the most striking examples, however, was provided by Union Brig. Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, the hero of Little Round Top at the July 1863 Battle of Gettysburg. Chamberlain received from Grant the honor of receiving the formal surrender of General Lee's veterans at Appomattox Court House on April 12, 1865. Out of deep respect for Lee's men, Chamberlain ordered his men to attention and saluted Lee's men as they marched before the Union forces and stacked their arms.
[edit] References
- Boatner, Mark M. The Civil War Dictionary: Revised Edition. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1987.
- Porter, Horace. Campaigning With Grant. New York: Mallard Press, 1991.
