Is the following statement true or false ? . . .

80 percent of all wounds during the american civil war were to the arms and legs.

. . . I don't believe the statement, and I'll give my own reasons later, but I wanted to get other people's opinions first before I give my own comments. So, what do you think? Is that statement true or false and WHY do you think that way.

xhistory, first, hello, and secondly, I can only say that while I'm not by any stretch a Civil War expert, my older brother is really a buff, and we have family members that fought both under the Union flag, and the Confederacy.

One of my hobbies is NC in the Civil War, probably because of the history handed down to us.

I know many, many lives were lost due to infected wounds, and disease. As for the arm and leg wounds, I would say you are right.
I think this because of frankly cannon fire doesn't pick a target, plus the bigger target would have been a man's body.

We all know Stonewall Jackson got shot in the arm, but he had the habbit of holding his arm up--something about circulation, I believe.

It's a great shame my oldest brother never goes near the internet. There's not much he doesn't not know concerning the Civil War.

Again, I am not an expert. My main interest is in journals, like Ellie's Book, and Voices From Cemetery Hill.

And a question for you, what did you think of the book, Cold Mountain, by Charles Frasier, or have you seen it?
Linda

Hi Linda,

No, I haven't read the book you mentioned yet. Who's the publisher and what did you think of it?

Ok, here's my opinion. I can agree with THIS statement...

80 percent of all wounds SEEN BY FIELD SURGEONS during the American civil war were to the arms and legs.

...Stick in those qualifying words and the statement would make sense to me.

It seems to me that the head and torso project at least as much surface area as the arms and legs, and probably more, but it also seems to me that there's a good reason why civil war field surgeons would have seen most arm/leg wounds.

Civil war bullets were around .50 calibre. That's a big slug or lead, and it was usually fired from a relatively close range. If one of those puncture the torso it would have torn up internal organs, and doctors in the 1860's simply didn't have either the knowledge or the modern equipment needed to repair an internal organ. Sure, they could patch up a grazing wound to the torso that tore up only surface flesh made up of skin and fat cells, but a dammaged lung or kidney was out of their league. Besides, they wouldn't have had the time to labor for hours over just one soldier's internal wounds with thousands of other casulties waiting treatment. Also, hours and even days could go by before a casulty saw a physician at a field hospital. Someone with an arm/leg wound might be able to stem the loss of blood long enough to make it to the hospital, but I doubt that someone bleeding internally from a stomach or chest would could wait that long for aid. After all, they didn't have medivacs back then that could get a seriously wounded soldier back to an aid station within an hour of his being wounded.

I think that torso/head wounds were just as common as arm/leg, only soldiers with those wounds simply didn't live long enough to make it to an aid station, or the orderlies that manned ambulances simply didn't bother to bring those casulties back to the field hospitals (because they knew the surgeons couldn't do anything for them, so othey simply made them as comfortable as possible and left them to die).

So, I think the statement probably is correct that 80 percent of wounds during the civil war were to the arms and legs if you qualify it to read 80 percent of wounds seen by field surgeons.

Does anyone else have an opinion? I'd like to hear what YOU think.

xhistory, Cold Mountain is published by Vintage books, and the author is from Asheville, NC. It's about a wounded Confederate soldier who walks off from the hospital one day, and is trying to get back to his home in the remote Western North Carolina mountains. It has been widely acclaimed, and I hear it is being made into a movie with Tom Cruise in the lead. It depends on what your Civil War interest is, I think. Mine is more in the way it effected the lives of family, soldiers, life in general. I would say to borrow it from your library first, and check it out.

I recently picked up an autographed copy of the book, Stonewall Jackson At Gettysburg, by Douglas Lee Gibboney. Xhistory, it is about the Battle of Gettysburg, but supposes What would have happened if Jackson had only been wounded, recovered, and been there to lead stragedy. It's published by Sergeant Kirkland's Museum and Historical Society, Inc. I will PM you the address and particulars.

After thinking about what you said, you make a very good case, that makes excellent sense. I have seen the actual shot, as I'm sure you have, and they were big chunks of lead.

My husband works with a Civil War reenactor. He goes anywhere a battle is being staged. He takes Union and Confederate outfits, and plays whichever is needed. He is a little chubby, so usually he does Union, because he just does not have the look of a Confederate soldier, who were mighty short on rations, and long on walking.

It would really be interesting to find out his answer to your question. My husband says he will ask him this week-end at work.

Hi Linda,

My son would probably be interested in the book about the soldier trying to make his way back home. He's in an honors English class in 7th grade and they just finished reading a book entitled "Escape From Warsaw". Although the setting of his book is WWII I think he might find the book you mentioned interesting as well (same sort of theme, different wars).

I'm interested in the book about what might have been if Jackson had been at Gettysburg. "What If" scenarios fascinate me. For example, I've read a lot of people's opinions on the "What If" topic: What if Operation Sealion (the planned German invasion of the British Isles during WWII had actually taken place, and had succeeded). "What If" discussions can be frustrating, because it is all speculation, but they can also be informative and educational as well. I'm going to have to check out that book--I just might like it.

I've met a couple of people who do civil war re-enactment. Some of them are REALLY INTO IT going as far as adopting the personality and individual history of one particular soldier and even researching that person"s background so they can portray him more accurately> Is your husband into it that deeply too?