Wall Street Journal article/Civil War deaths

[jda3rd]

Seems the figures are being reviewed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202823930087328.html?m od=WSJ_hps_editorsPicks_3

Frank

[billwatson2]

I like that article, well done. I especially like this quote from Greg Mast, "one of us:"

"The more you study the war, the less true the received wisdom about the war seems to be," he says.

That idea seems to be taking hold, along with the idea that the 150ths are as good a time as any to see if any of it can be redeemed.

It doesn't need to be upsetting to people. I figured out a long time ago that the truth is almost always more amazing and interesting than fiction. :)

[Artyman]

I met a guy several years who was preparing an essay for the Smithsonian that the casualty figures for WWII were under counted deliberately by the govt. in order to keep moral up at home and in the ranks. He figured this out when a survey was done of home town rosters of the dead which showed that the local numbers (not easily left unrecorded) were about 25% above the published national grand totals. He believed that D Day alone was under reported by about 2000 dead. Now, taken in the reverse, could it not be that ACW figures could be exaggerated to help create a noble notion of a greater sacrifice to the cause? Of course, that would only help the Rebs, since the Union losses were already higher, and perhaps even under counted for the same reasons the WWII counts is supposedly short? Just a thought, I don't really support either notion.

Nice article by the way. Good to see someone really cares that much about it to risk stirring up the bees nest!

Harry