Re: McClernand as commander
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "hank9174" <clarkc@m...> wrote:
> ...As far as I can tell, McClernand had little to no role in the
> McClernard accomplished much: he recruited and sent south a large
> column of men (12,000? or more).
recruitment of these men. His role was in mustering them in,
organizing them and sending them south. By the 1st of December even
McClernand was noting that these duties could be just as well
performed by a staff officer.
- Thanks Dave.
Good points to ponder.
--- In email@example.com, Dave Gorski <bigg@m...> wrote:
> >Good points. I was thinking that long-term encampments would have
> >better sanitary and shelter arrangements and the men would be
> >rested than encampents of men campaigning.
> Secretary Olmsted of the Sanitary Commission issued a
> "Circular to the Colonels of the Army," in which he stated
> that "It is well known that when a considerable body of men
> have been living together in camp a few weeks a peculiar
> subtle poison is generated..."
> Another factor was that many soldiers were from rural areas
> where they had not had exposure to common illnesses, and had
> not built up any immunities. Groups in garrison were exposed to
> and often died of childhood diseases.
> Often soldiers who were hospitalized for wounds, died of some
> disease that they had been exposed to while in the hospital,
> especially typhoid.
> Yet, another point is that a soldier on the move was likely to
> have had occasion to have fresh fruits and vegetables than the
> soldier stuck in camp for weeks on end. A better diet made
> for a healthier soldier.
> Regards, Dave Gorski