New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-24
LOSSES IN THE WAR.
MANY MORE DEATHS FROM SICKNESS
THAN FROM BULLETS.
REMARKABLY SMALL LOSS OF LIFE IN THE BAT
TIE AT sANTIAGo-CoMPARIsoN WITH BAT
TIES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY
AND CIVIL WARS.
AND CIVIL WARS.
IRY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNEl

TBY TELEGRAPH THE TRIBUNEI
Washington. Aug. 23-The list Of casualties IN
the Army during the war with Spain mas not yet
been carefully compiled. and. In fact cannot DC
completed for months to come, because Ill II
must be included the deaths from disease III
camp and hospital. which Will far outnumper
those from the bullets Of the enemy. The pro-
portion Of deaths from disease will probably be
larger than in the Civil War.
In 1885 an effort was made to ascertain what
that proportion was It resulted In showing that
the aggregate number Of deaths among the
Union troops was 35952S The number Of off,
GERS and men killed in action was 6I,OoS, and
the number who died from wounds received In
action was 43,012. making total Of 1lO.O'o, or
a fraction over so per cent OF the aggregate II
appeared that 224,5S6 officers and men. or more
than 62 per cent, died of disease. The remainder
Of the deaths were due to various causes. NO
fewer than JOG officers and 4S3S men were
drowned, while 142 officers and 1872 men died
from accidental causes other than drowning.
According to official and sem-oficial reports,
which are still subject to revision and correction
the number OF officers and men OF the Army
killed in action since the outbreak Of hostilities
against Spain has beer 2S2, and the number
wounded .f96. making a total OF LIS. 1t is
OF killed by subsequent reports. OF course. most
Of the casualties occurred in the fighting around
Santiago but even there the number was not
excessively large considering the stubbornness
OF the defence. and the fact that infantry. not
backed by'a sufficient amount Of artillery. was
led against an enemy which was strongly In
trenched Most Of the fighting was with small
arms. and few men. in the American Army at
iad Cd hy sha1la
THEORETICALLY THE LOSSES SMALL
The Spanish troops were generally armed with
the Mauser rifle. a weapon OF long range. They
used smokeless powder. and had the advantages
of position and local knowledge. and made the
most OF them According to all theory. the NOR
tallty among the American troops ought TO have
been much heavier. In fact. one might have
supposed that superiority OF weapons alone as
compared with those used by infantry hun
dred years ago. even thirty five years ago,
would have produced that result
The battle Of Breeds Hill-popuarly called
the battle Of Bunker H-was fought In the
days Of the hintlock musket. and when smoke
less powder unknown. but the casualties
on both sides were relatively much heavier than
in the battles around Santiago. The Americans
did not have more than 1.500 men actually en-
gagged and the British about twice as many.
The American loss was 145 killed and 304
wounded and the British 226 killed and S2S
wounded At the battle OF New-Orieans the
American strength engaged was about $500.
and the loss only killed and 13 wounded. while
the British loss, with about 10000 men engaged.
was 100 killed and twice as many wounded-a
much heavier total loss than that Of Skaters
army before Santiago AT New-Orleans the
British infantry attacked intrenched posi-
ton as II also did at Breeds Hill Al the bat
tie Of Belmont. In 1861. the number OF Union
troops actually engaged was $500 and the num-
Der Of Confederates between 1000 and 5000.
Neither side fought behind ntrenchments. The
Union loss was 4s5 killed. wounded and missing.
and the Confederate loss 6i2 killed.
wounded and missing Smokeless powder had
not yet been invented. and muzzleloadin guns
were used by both sides.
or course at Belmont. as AT Breeds Hill and
New Orleans. the fighting was at short range.
If either side had possessed modern long range
rifles and smokeless powder the other side would
have been annihilated before II could have been
brought H. % action. unless II had possessed the
kind Of weapons and ammunition. But
then as now. IL was the man behind the gun
who settled the fate Of the day. The personal
equation has not yet been eliminated from war
| fare. and II seems TO be no less important fac
| tor now than II was a hundred years ago. In the
| days Of the Queen Anne rnusket and black
powder.