Hi guys! This is about a statistic which I have heard cited a couple times, usually as a precursor for some sweeping conclusions. I'd like to hear some ACW historians weigh in on the statistic's veracity, and (if it is true) its implications and causes.
The statistic is that, during the American Civil War, "only about 50% of soldiers 'actively participated' in warfare". The anecdote supports itself by saying that 'many' muskets were found unfired in the field, nearby the corpses of men who simply were too afraid to shoot their fellow man. It then goes on to say that the modern army has sought to bring this percentage of non-active participants as close to zero as possible; "to make men turn against their nature" by turning them into unflinching killing machines. Accordingly, more veterans today suffer from mental trauma than they ever have historically. The reasoning goes that, since a greater share of soldiers have actively engaged in the intimate/personal killing of another human being, more soldiers suffer from PTSD.
To me, it seems that this is rather reductionist rendition of a more complicated reality, which is then improperly generalized to form an equally-reductionist conclusion. For example, in the ACW, wasn't open-field artillery a major killer? Wouldn't it have made sense for there to be dozens of unfired weapons, since many of the soldiers cut down by artillery would have never gotten within firing range of their targets? I could easily see this skewing the "unfired gun" statistic. In light of that, the implications (unfired gun => deliberate non-participation in warfare => even those who volunteered for the army, when faced with the shocking reality of modern warfare, refuse to engage => modern soldiers, who are actively trained to ignore this disinclination to engage in intimate modern warfare, suffer from PTSD more acutely) seems shaky. And this is before bringing into the conversation all of the other more plausible factors explaining modern PTSD epidemic (higher injury-survival rates, pre-eminence of guerilla warfare pitting soldiers against civilians, higher likelihood of social isolation as a veteran, the list goes on...)
The above counter-argument satisfies me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you all could comment on the statistic and/or subject matter with sources and firsthand accounts. I hope the topic/questions are clear, and I thank you for your time!!
A few notes:
Of the 27,574 muskets picked up on the battle field of Gettysburgh and turned into the Washington Arsenal at least 24,000 were loaded. About one half of this number contained two charges each, one fourth contained from three to ten charges each, and the balance one charge. The largest number of cartridges found in any one piece was twenty three.
Since then, the figure has appeared in a few books, perhaps most notably On Killing, as evidence of Civil War soldiers' reluctance to kill.
Note, however, that the author of this manual doesn't seem surprised by the figure. He makes no attempt to explain it or understand in terms of soldiers' feelings.
PTSD can occur in many situations that don't involve killing. Returning Civil War soldiers absolutely suffered from it, but the disorder didn't have a name or body of study behind it. There are many accounts that clearly indicate PTSD, and it is probably not a coincidence that Civil War veterans became the most criminal and drug-addicted segment of society after the conflict.
It is untenable, historically, to draw such a broad conclusion from such a tiny shred of evidence. I would need a lot more data before I even began to believe such a claim.
Your points about artillery are good. Also note that the claim is not "unfired" but rather "found loaded," so you also have to consider men who were killed between shots.
Hope this clears a few things up. Once upon a time I was a flaired Civil War guy on this sub. Let me know if anything seems unclear.