Rebel Losses at Shiloh – Partial Statement

The Memphis Argus of the 29th ult., gives the losses of forty rebel regiments engaged in the two days’ battle of Shiloh as follows:

Regiment:
Fifty fourth Tennessee: Killed 25; Wounded 169
Fifteenth Tennessee: Killed 30; Wounded 141; Missing 6
Blythe’s (Mississippi): Killed 38; Wounded 178
Breckinridge’s Brigade: Killed 137; Wounded 507; Missing 138
Eleventh Louisiana: Killed 25; Wounded 117; Missing 28
Second Tennessee: Killed 24; Wounded 136; Missing 31
Fourth Tennessee: Killed 31; Wounded 152
Second Tennessee (Con): Wounded 142
Twentieth Alabama: Killed 12; Wounded 144
Twenty fifth Alabama: Killed 15; Wounded 75
Twenty second Alabama: Killed 28; Wounded 137; Missing 6
Forty seventh Tennessee: Killed 5; Wounded 61; Missing 1
First Arkansas: Killed 38; Wounded 201; Missing 22
Sixth Tennessee: Killed 41; Wounded 183
First Tennessee: Killed 2; Wounded 3
Ninth Tennessee: Killed 14; Wounded 113; Missing 3
Seventh Kentucky: Killed 17; Wounded 101
Twenty second Tennessee: Killed 23; Wounded 118
Thirteenth Tennessee: Killed 24; Wounded 148
Sixteenth Alabama: Killed 18; Wounded 104
Eleventh Louisiana: Killed 5; Wounded 121
First Louisiana: Killed 53; Wounded 197
Thirteenth Louisiana: Killed 20; Wounded 28; Missing 49
Fifth Tennessee: Killed 15; Wounded 80
Fourth Louisiana: Killed 9; Wounded 23; Missing 3
Thirteenth Arkansas: Killed 25; Wounded 72
Polk’s, Stanford’s and Bankhead’s Batteries: Killed 9; Wounded 45
Fifteenth Mississippi: Killed 42; Wounded 173; Missing 10
Twentieth Tennessee: Killed 12; Wounded 115; Missing 16
Twenty second Miss: Killed 19; Wounded 123; Missing 9
Nineteenth Tennessee: Killed 16; Wounded 7; Missing 3
Twenty sixth Tennessee: Killed 14; Wounded 40; Missing 8
Forty fifth Tennessee: Killed 14; Wounded 69; Missing 5
First Missouri: Killed 20; Wounded 100; Missing 19
Twelfth Tennessee: Killed 26; Wounded 149; Missing 12
Thirty Third Tennessee: Killed 24; Wounded 103; Missing 17
Forrest’s Cavalry: Killed 5; Wounded 32; Missing 12

Total: Killed 927; Wounded 4,471; Missing 361

These forty regiments embraced not exceeding 20,000 men, or about one fourth part of the rebel forces engaged. But even calculating that there were one third we have upon the above basis a total of 2,781 killed, 13,143 wounded and 1,083 missing. The Cincinnati Commercial says:

There is no reason to suppose that the enemy’s regiments which lost most heavily are those first reported. We have for instance before us the names of the killed of the 55th Tennessee a regiment not included in the report of the Argus copied elsewhere and they number sixty – more than any one named in the Argus lost. The total number of rebels wounded and unwounded who fell into our hands was over a thousand – These with the stragglers from the enemy’s ranks would make up their missing and in that particular verify our estimate. Our correspondent, writing from the battle field three weeks after the engagement after long and earnest search for the truth says “I deem it safe to say that at least three thousand Confederates were gathered up by our burying parties.” If the enemy lost in killed three thousand and the proportion between the killed and wounded was the same is in those regiments whose official returns are printed their loss in wounded was 14,467 and the missing continuing this calculation would number 1,167. Total loss 18,634. Our killed are in proportion to the wounded as one is to four and a half. The rebel killed, according to their official report was one to [four] and two thirds.

We may add further that only one of the rebel Kentucky regiments is in the above list whereas six others were engaged and their mortality lists as published in the Louisville papers give an average of 125 killed and wounded to each. The casualties on both sides at Shiloh will compare about as follows:

Federal (official): Killed 1,735; Wounded 7,882; Missing 3,956
Rebel (estimate): Killed 3,000; Wounded 14,400; Missing 1,200
[Total]: Killed 4,735; Wounded 22,382; Missing 5,156

Total Federal loss 13,573
Total Rebel Loss 18,700

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday May 10, 1862, p. 1

NOTE: Due to formatting limitations in Blogger, the formatting of this article has been changed from the original. The information contained is the same only the formatting has been changed.