During the Civil War,
troops were not only fighting against opposing troops-but also fighting for their
lives against disease. In an article written by Rhonda M. Kohl, titled “This
Godforsaken Town:” Death and Disease at Helena, Arkansas, 1862-63, disease is
described as a deathly weapon. Many accounts at Helena, Arkansas, are described
and reviewed to express the impact disease can have on a war.
The
main argument of this article that the author attempts to make is that disease
is one of the primary reasons of why the Army of the Southwest achieved little
toward hindering the Confederate sources in Arkansas in 1862. The article goes
in depth to explain that diseases were often misdiagnosed and mistreated, which
in turn led to death. Disease also proved to be the reason for eighty percent
of the Union hospital deaths. It was reveled in this article that many soldiers
wrote in diaries and letters addressing blame towards their officers for the
unhealthiness of the camps. In this article, a specific account at Helena is
reviewed of one officer by the name of Major General Samuel R. Curtis. He was
described to not care so much about his troop’s welfare, but more for cotton
speculation.
Within
the article it is also expressed that disease is not the only element that
needs to be taken into account when planning an Army’s campaign. The author argues
that the climate and weather also need to be taken into account. A description
of an Army’s campaign is given within the article that exemplifies the lack of
planning. The troops are led to Helena exposed to circumstances favorable to
the spread of diseases and many troops died of these diseases.
This was the case not only at Helena, but also other war locations. Disease was killing as many or more troops as actual battles war. As this
author argued the idea of disease as well as other different environmental
conditions should have been taken into account when planning for the war.
Kohl, Rhonda M. “This
God Forsaken Town:” Death and Disease at Helena, Arkansas, 1862-63. Civil War
History 50, no. 2 (2004): 109-144.
No comments:
Post a Comment