"Dead VS Killed?" Topic

I just watched Gangs of New York and they were showing newspapers covers that was showing war casualties and they were showing

Both dead and killed.

So what is the difference? Is dead ones that were wounded and later died of wounds?

I'm only guessing, but perhaps killed is 'killed by the enemy', while dead would include casualties from disease and other non-combat related causes.

Its a movie…

Bob

How about the scene with the limitless flag drapped caskets! Does that mean the Water Street pier was the Civil War equivalent of Dover AFB?

"Its a movie"

In this context it sound to me like:

Dead = our people who are no longer alive.

Killed = enemy combatants who are no longer alive.

reasoning: It sounds strange to say "we morn our killed"
But natural to say "we morn our dead".

But in general dead means not alive for any reason and killed means not alive because of someone's action.

Since there were far more deaths from disease and accidents than KIA and DOW "Died of wounds ?" , then maybe that is what it means. But it is a movie so who knows for sure?

I wasn't sure if it was just movie fun or something specific to the era in how they reported casualties.

Thanks all!
DZT

Surprisingly few were Killed, though a lot Died.

If you looks at Casualty numbers split between Killed and Wounded taken after a lot of Napoleonic and ACW battles its hard to credit the number killed out right when looking at the total (much larger) numbers.

You shouldn't exclude the fact that a good number of the wounded didn't survive!

A lot of those reported killed were actually just missing (captured, ran off etc).

Hence the post-civil war stories (now kind of a hollywood cliche) of those who thought there loved ones were dead but came back thereafter (due to exchange or the end of the war).

Unfortunately for researchers, for such a literate army (one of the most literate at the time at any rate), they sure kept lousy records ! :D

Anyone who depends on the Gangs of New York for an accurate depiction of the Civil War is leaning on a slender reed indeed. If you watch it as an over-the-top romp by folks is old time clothes it is a guilty pleasure.

for such a literate army (one of the most literate at the time at any rate), they sure kept lousy records

The records of the Union are amazingly accurate and complete given the fact that everything had to be filled out by hand in triplicate and shipped thousands of miles to Washington City. The Rebels' records are less complete, but still pretty good given the conditions they labored under.

For all the fun romp, I do find Gangs of New York enlightened in that it saw that the vast majority of Americans and "new" Americans were not the prime and prissy Victorian ideal pushed by the elite after the war. It covered extremely well much overlooked topics like the true cost of the war, northern racism, political and gang violence, the reason for paid city fire departments, the anti-war movement, prostitution and crime, faith or lack of, the birth of professional medical schools, the existence of Homosexuality in the period, class struggle, the social upheaval caused by modern urbanism, etc. I would take 20 "Gangs of New York" type movies over 1 more "Gods and Generals" trash.

On a similar vein to the movie a new book is available on the similar violence and corruption that plagued (or some could say still plagues) Baltimore, "Hanging Henry Gambrill" by Tracy Melton. The book could use a better editor, but it is full of interesting factoids gleaned from period court records and newspaper articles. For example, New York wasn't the only city that had a a great battle between Natives and immigrants. Baltimore had the battle of Lexington Market in 1858 in which the Natives, Plug Uglies and Mount Vernon Fire Department attacked the Rip Raps (Irish dock workers) and Democrats. I also found it interesting to see that many of the participants of this violence and crimes are directly linked to the officer and NCO pool of civil war regiments.

Because it controlled the only rail access to the capitol, and had southern sympathies, Baltimore was a military occupied city during the entire war. Therefore many of the participants in the violence would of necessity be military.

Gangs of New York is trash in exactly the same vein as Gods and Generals, without the quotes. It is just in keeping with the attitude of our day. I walked out on it because of its over dramatization and false portrayal of events.

Never rely on court records to be the standard of the day. Only the bad are in court. Maintaining a courthouse is difficult because there is always intentional damage being done outside the courtroom (for some reason though, never in front of the judges). It is worse than in prisons.

Gangs of New York is one of those movies.

You know the kind; one that you can't be jiggered to buy but they play over and over on TV and always start it so darn late and its so bloody long you can't be arsed to stay up and see it all.

I don't much care to know how it turns out but just one time I'd like to see it to the finish!

"Because it controlled the only rail access to the capitol, and had southern sympathies, Baltimore was a military occupied city during the entire war. Therefore many of the participants in the violence would of necessity be military."

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The gang and political violence in Baltimore covered in the book was before the war. Many of the leaders in the violence became noted leaders in Maryland units, either side. For example, Nathan Dushane was a leader of the Mount Vernon Hook and Ladder which was basically a front for Nativist criminal activity. During the war we was an officer in the 1st MD US.

"false portrayal of events". I'm not that familiar with New York history. What was false about the movie? I know individuals were made up characters. I understood there was a draft riot that was put down by the army as well as gang and fire department violence.

"Baltimore was a military occupied city during the entire war." Not completely true. By early 64 the population had for the most part turned pro-union. By mid 64 the occupation troops had mostly been removed. They did have defensive garrisons, but they were increasingly made up of local men as the war went on. Most of this change centered on a few events. 1st, Col (later Gen) Kenly, the most famous Maryland hero of the Mexican war remained staunchly Unionist. 2nd, The capture of the 1st Maryland US, which was mostly Baltimore residents, at Front Royal and their horrible treatment in captivity at Belle Isle turned allot of people. 3rd, Anna Carroll, the wealthiest and arguably the most politically powerful Marylander sided with Lincoln. 4th, the arrest and removal of pro-southern politicians and agitators (no voice to the opposition). Then, the deprivations of the 3 Confederate Maryland campaigns angered allot of people. My family was from the Frederick Maryland area and had mixed loyalties at the start of the war. By the end, most of the prominent Rebel supporters had been forced into exile. Many were not allowed to return after the war.