Up by 20% over previous accepted estimates. From the NYT:
By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000.
The new figure is already winning acceptance from scholars. Civil War History, the journal that published Dr. Hacker’s paper, called it “among the most consequential pieces ever to appear” in its pages. And a pre-eminent authority on the era, Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, said:
“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.”
The old figure dates back well over a century, the work of two Union Army veterans who were passionate amateur historians: William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore.
[…]
With all the uncertainties, Dr. Hacker said, the data suggested that 650,000 to 850,000 men died as a result of the war; he chose the midpoint as his estimate.
He emphasized that his methodology was far from perfect. “Part of me thinks it is just a curiosity,” he said of the new estimate.
“But wars have profound economic, demographic and social costs,” he went on. “We’re seeing at least 37,000 more widows here, and 90,000 more orphans. That’s a profound social impact, and it’s our duty to get it right.”
(h/t Mark Levin)
Its true, almost everything is worse when you look at it now. Climate, anthropology, historic human interaction…well except for Marxism, communism and the shit that Che did.
When I read the headline my first thought was, “The last one, or the one coming up?”
Battlespace prep, Lamont.
How you feeling, Red? Are you still making your family wait on you?
Dr. Hacker said, the data suggested that 650,000 to 850,000 men died as a result of the war
chump change you can believe in. – billy ayers
Nah, rode that horse as far as I could. Funny story, though. Went to my local Retailer of Death (TM) on Saturday, bought something. They asked if I should lifting anything heavy; I said, “No. ” Asked if I should be buying anything. I laughed and repeated, “No.” Then went to the range and checked my stiches against recoil. They held. Good day.
That’s pretty funny. I’m glad you’re feeling better. My mom had that gallbladder surgery when I was a little girl and it was really invasive then, not the laproscopy stuff they do now.
Civil war dead? What difference does it make, 100% of them are dead now…..
I denounce myself.
My doc reminded me that he stabbed me three times, blew me up full of air, then chopped up and removed parts of my body with mechanical arms. Laparoscopy is still major surgery, evidently. No wonder I’m still sore.
In that case, take to the couch!
Civil war dead? What difference does it make, 100% of them are dead now…..
But if the “effects of slavery” are still causing black kids to shoot up funerals in Miami and beat up tourists in Minneapolis, so obviously the people who died in that war still matter, right?
Crap.
Is there nothing that Obama can’t make worse?
Next up: Black Death fatalities unexpectedly 30% more than thought.
If they can’t even get a real bodycount for Iraqis, what makes them think this body count is accurate?
100,000 plus or minus?
Scientific Wild Ass Guess is what this is.
With all the uncertainties, Dr. Hacker said, the data suggested that 650,000 to 850,000 men died as a result of the war; he chose the midpoint as his estimate.
He emphasized that his methodology was far from perfect. “Part of me thinks it is just a curiosity,” he said of the new estimate.
“But wars have profound economic, demographic and social costs,” he went on. “We’re seeing at least 37,000 more widows here, and 90,000 more orphans. That’s a profound social impact, and it’s our duty to get it right.”
200,000 dead men is “a curiosity”.
But the widows and children who still are amongst the living? Thats a “profound impact with a duty to get it right”.
Ted, are you criticizing the researcher who thought the research was important enough to pursue for not being sufficiently supportive of the importance of the research that he thought was important enough to do even when nobody else did?
That seems unfair.
Ezra Klein just wants to note that as those deaths happened over 100 years ago they are unimportant.
“It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War”
Kind of difficult to do, IMO. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that it makes more people pay attention to it (maybe). As a (very) amateur student of the war, one of the major handicaps in figuring out exactly what happened and why is the incomplete records on both sides, but especially the Confederacy (many of their records were destroyed). But, as Paddy Griffith once noted, after cutting one’s teeth on studying Napoleonic wars, the staggering amount of primary source material from the ACW came as a severe shock to his system. That is why the compilation of the Official Records (of the ACW) was so important and remains the first stop is researching the war. It’s only something like 140,000 pages.