618, 222: A number to which we are all accustomed. It is one that is iconic, assumed, and standardly accepted. 618, 222 represents the number of men who, for 110 years, were believed to have died in the American Civil War. This number, in almost every U.S. History text book across the world, is taught to students who willingly accept the quantity as just another fact.
However, recent research shows that this well-perceived estimate is far under the mark of accuracy.
Dr. J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University, has recalculated the death toll through analysis of newly digitized census data. He has drastically increased the previous estimate of just under 620,000 deaths to a range of 650,000 to 850,000 deaths, 750,000 deaths being most likely.
A large contributing factor to this new estimate is the previously low number of Confederate deaths, which was based on incomplete battle reports and inaccurate guesses of deaths from disease. Neither army felt obliged to count and name the dead or to recognize the survivors. Consequently, about half of the men killed were buried with no form of identification.
Dr. Hacker insists that attempts at direct counts will always miss some people, leading to underestimation. In the past, there have been problems estimating mortality with census data, for one would only be able to find the number of people of specific ages from one census to another. This method was known as the two-census method. It compared the number of 20 to 30-year-olds in one census to the number of 30 to 40-year-olds in the next census, and it assumed that the difference between the two figures was the number of people who died in that age group. The problem lies in the fact that each census had indefinitely under-counted people because of factors like migration.
However, new census data from the past 10 years identifies each person separately, along with his or her age, race, and place of birth. Dr. Hacker “realized that civilian deaths were so low relative to soldiers’ deaths that he could compare the number of native-born men missing in the 1870 census relative to the number of native-born women missing and produce an estimate from that.”
From this, he analyzed the ratio of male survivors to female survivors for every age group and formed a consistent pattern of survival rates. He applied this to the censuses of 1850-1860 and 1870-1880 and then compared those to that of 1860-1870, during which the Civil War took place. This method of comparing men to women rather than place to place or age to age allowed Hacker to get around the discrepancy of census counts. For example, the 1870 census was very poor in the South, but that doesn’t matter in this context because if conditions are bad for men, they are bad for women as well.
The new figure includes deaths of men who were wounded or who contracted diseases in camp but who died at home. It also includes a conventional estimate of black soldiers’ deaths, the deaths of whom were not included in the censuses of the time.
What does this mean for a U.S. History class like that of Hewitt in the tenth grade? Well, history has changed. Classes will probably have to learn the new number of casualties when it is confirmed. Ms. Gallin, who currently teachers the honors section of U.S. History in the tenth grade, said that she tends to focus more on the surrounding political situations of the war but that the war’s effects, like the death toll, are always emphasized.
The Civil War, always having been known as a catastrophe, will now just be even more catastrophic. Eliana Stamos ’14, currently in Honors U.S. History, believes the big new estimate will be cause for talk and will cause students to think more analytically. She stated, “I think there is a high possibility that because the death toll was already such a horrific number, it’s something that might be discussed more in classes, as students might be interested to know more about what lead to the deaths and if they were really necessary.”
Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, said of the situation, “It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War and makes a dramatic statement about how the war is a central moment in American history. It helps you understand, particularly in the South with a much smaller population, what a devastating experience this was.”
New technology is constantly changing the world, and now, it has transformed a war from deadly to deadlier.
Watch the video below to look further into Dr. David Hacker’s findings.