The Civil War Diet

[yeoman]

Sir and ma'am, while looking for 19th century American foods I came across a theses, "The Civil War Diet" by Matthew Brennan.
What the soldiers had to eat and more important what they did not eat and its effects on the soldiers.
Lots of primary resources...
Here is the link, The Civil War Diet by Matthew Brennan.

[talkToTheHat]

Re: The Civil War Diet

It's good reading. The detailed breakdown on quantities issued is interesting. I fail to eat a day's full ration, and 2/3 ration is both a struggle to eat. How one carries 3 days food internally I'm not sure.

It's lead me to reconsider how much food I carry, particularly for mildly under-supplied confederate impressions.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The Civil War Diet

What a powerful paper! As reenactors, is hunger our most important accoutrement? The article is a data-driven analysis of the diet of common soldiers throughout the war, in multiple theatres. Not only does the author analyze the soldiers’ diet using our current understanding of health and nutrition, but places it in context with the typical mid-Nineteenth Century diet. Indeed, he even compares/contrasts the diet by region and class throughout the early part of the century, up to the conflict.

Placed in this context, I almost view “Si Klegg” as written viewing the war through the rose-colored glasses of hindsight…
…or, perhaps, from the perspective of the toughness of those who survived their service in the war!

“The Man” is one of the most oft-neglected legs of the “Three Legged Stool” of our impression. To more accurately portray a scenario, a better understanding what the men were (and were NOT) eating, and the implications of their diet on their health and state of mind, is critical. Perhaps this moves us beyond wondering about questions of what produce is in-season, to question whether or not we should be carrying anything beyond carbohydrates, starch, and protein (aka: hard bread, rice, and pork).

I consider this a “must read”.

[talkToTheHat]

Re: The Civil War Diet

Consider how much room 3 days full ration made up of salt pork, hardtack and maybe coffee takes up. It makes for a thereabouts full haversack.

I agree that outside of a camp scenario careful consideration needs to be made as to how bulkier items might be acquired or carried.

Conversely, there are descriptions (I'll go find the article if required) of the section of the federal knapsack designed for blankets and shelter halves being used for ten days hardtack, and accompanying advice to use a spare shirt for padding. It should also be noted how the front of a blanket roll can quickly grow to accommodate any opportunity to forage...

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: The Civil War Diet

This is an excellent work, but I question the caloric assessment of the ration (about 4000 calories). Jack Coggins in Arms and Equipment of the Civil War rated it at 2300 calories a day, though without any detailed analysis.

Before the last Sixth Corps march I tried to do my own calculations of the marching ration using the tables on the Food and Nutrition Service site's Nutrient Data Library and immediately came up against the problem of just how you define 12 oz. of pork or a pound of beef. Depending on the cut of meat, the total marching ration gives you, very roughly, from 2500 to 3500 calories, which is simply inadequate.

You can try it yourself at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

According to this chart (http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm), a 140 lb. person backpacking will burn about 450 calories an hour. A 15 mile march taking six hours will itself burn 2700 calories, and another six hours spent walking around will easily burn another thousand.

In addition to the varying quality of the cut of meat, soldiers in the field faced losses from cooking (despite the injunction to boil the meat, which maximizes the use of the fat and connective tissue). This wasn't just an American problem. Sir Garnet Wolseley in The Soldier's Pocket Book For Field Service (p. 168) noted that "Calculating losses for cutting up, bones, cooking, &c., the soldier does not get more than half the weight of his meat ration to eat."

A contemporary civil war analysis of problems with the ration came from Eben Horsford in The Army Ration (1864), which goes into even more detail on the problems of wastage, especially that of beef on the hoof:

http://books.google.com/books?id=il1RBHv577YC&dq=intitle%3Aarmy%20intitle%3Aration%20inauthor%3Ahorsford&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's telling that Billings, who starts his chapter on army rations by saying he always got enough, ends it by saying, "It has always struck me that the government should have increased the size of the marching ration. If the soldier on the march had received one and one-half pounds of hard bread and one and one-half pounds of fresh beef daily with his sugar, coffee, and salt, it would have been no more than marching men require to keep up the requisite strength and resist disease."

I think he was right.

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Civil War Diet

Depending on the cut of meat, the total marching ration gives you, very roughly, from 2500 to 3500 calories, which is simply inadequate.

You can try it yourself at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

According to this chart (http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm), a 140 lb. person backpacking will burn about 450 calories an hour. A 15 mile march taking six hours will itself burn 2700 calories, and another six hours spent walking around will easily burn another thousand.

I can only give an individual anecdote, but it may show that metabolism may not be as mathematically predictable as one might think.

When I went on the first long walk with Charles Heath, we carried all our food with us from the start, so I figured an exact calorie count for mine, and as I recall, it was approximately 1700 calories a day. We averaged over 15 miles a day (I think it was around 18 miles) for about six days.

So, in theory, I should have been at a deficit of at least 1,300 calories per day, maybe as much as 2,000, and in six days, that should have totalled a deficit of 7,800 to 12,000 calories, or 2 to 3 pounds of body weight, enough to show up on the scale.

At the end, I weighed exactly what I did at the start. It also felt, subjectively, like I was getting enough to eat, though the nutrition was probably balanced better than average rations.

So I don't know what that means, other than it shouldn't have been possible in theory to maintain weight walking 18 miles and eating 1700 calories a day, but it was in practice.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The Civil War Diet

Speaking purely from the context of the article...
If I recall correctly, hunger (insufficient quantity of food/calories) was a generally a greater issue among Confederates. The author's observations among Federals seemed to vary from "could use more food" (perhaps while on campaign) to an abundance of rations (perhaps while in camp). Among Confederates in Northern Virginia, the situation went from abundance in 1861 to starvation relatively quickly because of the effects of so many soldiers foraging in such a concentrated area for so long. By comparison, in the west, the war was not concentrated in one area for the duration, but took place over a broad area.

Billings and others seem to corroborate this observation. The problem shared by both armies was malnutrition, specifically a lack of vitamins, minerals, and folic acid. The effects of which were scurvy and other diseases, as well as a diminished ability to recover from injury and fight infection.

I don't think it takes a lot to keep a healthy, well-fed reenactor with a 21st Century imune system going. I think we'd have to go on a serious diet and then catch the flu or something before a distance march to really have a "proper" experience. To that, add in scant rations, poor sleep, and a couple rainstorms, and I think any of us would be all used up.

[talkToTheHat]

Re: The Civil War Diet

If we're going to talk science, an estimated weight loss of 2 to 3 pounds over 6 days is indistinguishable from the noise caused by daily fluctuations in weight due to hydration levels and bowel movements. To get any kind of statistically significant result one would either need to extend the length of the study, or attempt to control for the noise by taking measurements at a high enough frequency to demonstrate a change in mean weight over the course of a few days.

One needs to pay careful attention to the different causes of malnutrition, particularly the difference between insufficient calorific intake and insufficient micronutrients. An ear or two of fresh corn a day verses an ample supply of hardtack and salt pork and/or beef. Both are inadequate in different ways.

It should be noted that provisions such as dried fruit (apples and peaches issued, raisins sometimes bought with company funds), dessicated vegetables and molasses were all aimed at providing some kind of suitable micro-nutrient supply, although certain pairings such as rice and molasses may have been deliberately chosen to minimise disruption to metabolic rhythms.

Also note that if consuming very calorificly dense food, it's entirely possible to overeat and still feel hungry. Consider a metaphorical binge on icecream and coca cola, count the calories. The converse is true of say a cabbage soup. Feeling hungry does not necessarily imply too few calories.

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Civil War Diet

If we're going to talk science, an estimated weight loss of 2 to 3 pounds over 6 days is indistinguishable from the noise caused by daily fluctuations in weight due to hydration levels and bowel movements.

For what it's worth, the measurements were taken at the same time of day, when I usually take my weight (first thing in the morning after using the bathroom and before eating or drinking), and my weight usually doesn't fluctuate more than 1/4 pound on a day-to-day basis when taken like that. I doubt I was better-hydrated overall at the end of six days in the field than at the start, so if anything, I'd expect to have lost weight from water loss alone. It obviously has all the limitations of an anecdotal sample of one, and especially is affected by the fact that most soldiers were younger and therefore may have had higher metabolisms, but I really do think I would have noticed a loss of 2-3 pounds under those conditions.

One needs to pay careful attention to the different causes of malnutrition, particularly the difference between insufficient calorific intake and insufficient micronutrients. An ear or two of fresh corn a day verses an ample supply of hardtack and salt pork and/or beef. Both are inadequate in different ways.

As John Wickett mentioned above, I do think that's a relevant point. The problem was that without an understanding of the specifics, they didn't really know what components of food they needed. While trial and error provided lots of useful foods with Vitamin C to prevent or cure scurvy, for example, other deficiencies didn't seem to be as easily recognized, nor did they always figure out why some foods seemed to be helpful. For example, I've suspected the tomato's brief fad as an amazing cure-all in the 1830ish era may have been in part due to it providing potassium in the hot summer, and people who were low on that electrolyte felt a boost.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com