Booknotes: Civil War Camps and Soldier Health

New Arrival:

• Civil War Camps and Soldier Health: Sanitation and Military Effectiveness in the Union Army by Earl J. Hess (Kent St UP, 2026).

One of the first things new students of the Civil War learn is that disease killed more soldiers from both sides than did bullets on the battlefield. With the unprecedented mobilization of vast volunteer armies, adherence to army regulations in regard to camp sanitation varied greatly, with mass suffering being the result. Indeed, as Earl Hess explains in his new book Civil War Camps and Soldier Health: Sanitation and Military Effectiveness in the Union Army, the Civil War represented "a watershed in public awareness of the many challenges to soldier health posed by camp life."

Recognizing the scale of the problem and seeking ways to address it, government authorities sought outside expertise and assistance. They found it in the efforts of the U.S. Sanitary Commission. From the description: "The U.S. Sanitary Commission, a non-governmental agency sanctioned by the Federal government, created a massive campaign to study conditions in semi-permanent camps and advise unit commanders how to avoid unnecessary illness and curb soldier deaths by disease. Commission inspectors, mostly civilian physicians, examined camps from 1861 to early 1864 and filed more than 1400 reports of their findings."

In gathering insights on Union Army camp conditions, Hess's study "delves deeply into 280 of those reports, shedding new and startling light on camp conditions. Addressing camp situation, shelter, clothing, personal cleanliness, garbage disposal, latrines, food, cooking, water, alcohol, morale, recruit examination, smallpox vaccination, regimental hospitals, and officer supervision, the camp inspection returns are unique snapshots of what it was like to live in a Union army camp."

Hess's research confirms much of what Civil War readers have been told in the literature. More from the description: "The evidence shows that sanitation varied widely from unit to unit and across time periods. The ability of volunteer regimental officers and surgeons to take sanitary principles seriously often was low. But alcoholic consumption was much lower than we think, while disposing of garbage and human waste often non-existent." Obviously, management of soldier health in camp and in the field was good enough to achieve complete victory in the end against a strong and determined foe, but it is nevertheless the case that Union armies "did not achieve high marks for military effectiveness when it came to preventive health care."