--- In email@example.com
, "slippymississippi" <
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> > > I doubt that proximity to the river had any effect on morbidity
> > > and mortality.
> > Actually, Slippy, it may well have. Swampy low lying areas are
> > perfect for diseases spread by insect vectors,
> But you just described the entire state.
That's what I thought but I figured there must be some dry areas? ;-)
> If Grant is in Grenada, he
> is tromping through the Yazoo Delta swamps. If he's outside
> Vicksburg, he's tromping through the Yazoo Delta swamps. Wherever
> you go in Mississippi, you're in *some* kinda river delta:
> Mississippi, Yazoo, Pearl, Big Black, Pascagoula, Tennessee...
Hence my point about the entire campaign being waged in that type of
terrain; even had he gone over"land", I gather.
> Actually, the floods probably *reduced* the number of casualties
> nearer to the river. Cholera-type diseases would be reduced because
> you have a continuous introduction of fresh water to your supply.
That's a good point about the flooding. It definitely could have
reduced the casualties during the flooded season, but not as the waters
started to recede. The flushing effect of the floods would be lost and
the drying formerly flooded regions would become stagnant pools. Can't
say I know when that was in 1863 though.
> Malaria would be reduced because mosquito larvae require standing
> water to mature.
True. But as the floods receded and there was more standing water,
there would have been an increase in the number of larvae and mature
insects. So the casualities from disease may have gotten worse as the
campaign wore on. You may be correct about earlier in the yr. however.