 |
| Union soldiers in the trenches at Petersburg (Library of Congress) |
Trauma experienced by a father, it turns out, can be
passed along to the next generation -- in a perhaps unexpected way.
A new study has found that postwar sons of many Union POWS
had shorter lives than sons of soldiers who weren’t held captive during the
Civil War. And it suggests an interesting genetic explanation.
Dr. Dora Costa led a team that used military,
pension and other records and determined that by age 45, sons of POWs who
suffered severe privation and trauma at Confederate prisons were 11 percent
more likely to die at any given age than sons of men who were not imprisoned.
The study, published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, showed that these sons were more than twice as
likely to die at the same age than their brothers born before the conflict. The
researchers said the excess mortality of younger sons was largely from cerebral
hemorrhage and cancer. The paper said the deterioration of Rebel prisons after
inmate exchanges ended increased the trauma on captives (after mid-1863).
Because a father’s POW status had no impact on the health of daughters, the
researchers determined something else was at play: the Y chromosome belonging
to males.
“I originally thought the key factor in the children’s longevity would be
socioeconomic status,” Costa said in a news article at UCLA, where she is on the
faculty. “But then I started to notice the effect was only happening in the sons
-- which is in keeping with an epigenetic cause -- and only to the sons
born after the
war.”
Epigenetics is the study of inherited biological triggers that affect genes and
how cells in the body react to genetic information, but that do not alter
underlying DNA sequences. Basically, the study found that fathers’ prison hardships,
including food shortages, altered the function of his genes in ways that could
be passed on to sons.
A Los Angeles Times article on the study had this to say about maternal
nutrition offsetting that paternal stress. “The
life-shortening effect of a father’s POW status was magnified for the sons who
were born in April, May and June, when food supplies tended to be leanest. But
that effect virtually disappeared among sons born during September, October and
November, when harvests are in and food is typically more plentiful.”
The Picket reached out to several Civil War prison experts to comment on
Costa’s findings. Here’s what they had to say:
 |
| Gray |
MICHAEL P. GRAY: Where you were imprisoned matters
“Intergenerational transmission of paternal trauma among
Civil War US Civil War Ex-Prisoners” is an interesting study, but I am not sure
how much this really tells us about entire post war-prisoner narrative, nor
true consequences of Civil War incarceration on generations beyond.
This analysis adds to a conversation started by Dr.
Angela Riotto, historian at the Army University Press, who has addressed such
numbers in her scholarship, particularly with Civil War prisoners and PTSD,
which ultimately led to suicides. “Intergenerational transmission of paternal
trauma among Civil War US Civil War Ex-Prisoners” would be greatly improved
under the lens of a professional historian, like Riotto, so a better historical
framework might be understood.
Although the article lacks historical context on a number
of fronts, it does raise a variety of questions. In its grand scheme, the
sample size is too small. The analysts write “2,342 children of 732 no-exchange
period ex-POWs, 2,416 children of 715 exchange-period ex-POWs, and 15,145
children of 4,920 non-POW veterans, all born after 1866 and surviving to age
45.” However, more than 56,000 prisoners
died during the conflict, and even that number most likely falls short of the
actual amount of deaths. Moreover, the comparative with non-prisoners would be
so large and daunting in tracking down family members generationally, it might
seem impossible to even try. But at the very least, the authors do make an
attempt.
However, their statistics are taken from sanitized
pension records that might not deliver on the true experience of their
captivity. Perhaps more investigation might be taken from other primary
sources? Furthermore, they need to
address what prisons their sample size comes from. They write, “Thirty-five years after the end of the war, camp
survivors faced greater mortality and health risks and had worse socioeconomic
outcomes, if they had been imprisoned when camp conditions were at their worst
compared with non-POW veterans and ex-POWs imprisoned when conditions were
better.”
 |
| Andersonville prisoners in August 1864 (Library of Congress) |
Well, they are assuming they were at
their worst, but this may not be the case at all prisons.
Civil War prisons were very unique and
diverse and socio-economic not only come into play after the war regarding health
concerns, but during the war. For example, the death rate at Richmond’s
Libby Prison would be much lower to that of Georgia’s Andersonville. Or, if we
venture into the North, the death rate at Elmira was 25% and Johnson's Island
less than 2%. The authors might want to
consider the difference between the enlisted men’s prison, like Andersonville
and Elmira, to that of officer-only prisons, like Libby and Johnson's Island -- where
death rates were lower, since “class” mattered.
Besides socio-economics in captivity, the authors generalize a bit, writing “Most POWs were
exchanged immediately until mid-1863…”
This is not the case, as prisoners might be held for some time before
being officially exchanged. The authors conclude, “There is growing concern that health can be
transmitted across generations, leading to the persistence of poor health and
socioeconomic status within families.” This might be very true, but what about
the common Civil War solder campaigning in Virginia during 1864? And how would
you track their sample size from a generational standpoint? Did Civil War
captivity mean that your children were going to be in poor health?
This reader
is not convinced as there are too many limitations and variables in their
findings. But they have added to the conversation, and one only hopes their
work will continue to add to the Civil War incarceration narrative.
Gray is professor of history at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania. He has extensively studied Civil War prisons and is the author of a new book, “Crossing the Deadlines: Civil War Prisons Reconsidered.”
 |
| Greene |
LANCE
GREENE: Epigenetic effects getting more attention
The recent
study looks at Union veterans of the Civil War who were held in POW camps late
in the war and who suffered horrible conditions during their captivity. It also
looks at their children and compares them with the children of Union veterans
who served in the war but were not POWs. The study focuses on the effect of
paternal POW trauma and attempts to identify the impact of negative effects on
their children and identify the cause of these impacts.
The study
focuses on possible epigenetic effects. Epigenetics is a study that has grown
dramatically in the past decade. It studies how changes to a person’s genetic
expression occur without changes to the DNA. For example, exposure to
carcinogens may alter genetic expression by inhibiting the release of an
enzyme. There are also natural occurrences in the body that can cause similar
changes. Although these kinds of events do not change a person’s genetic
make-up (DNA) they are potentially inheritable traits. Therefore, these changes
that occur in a person’s life can be passed on to their children.
For their
research, the authors collected data on almost 5,000 adult children of 1,400
Union POWs and data on 15,000 children of 5,000 non-POW veterans. Most of the
data came from military, pension, and census records. The authors performed
statistical analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model, which looks at a
variety of traits (e.g. paternal POW status, sex of the child, socioeconomic
status, birth order, maternal and paternal lifespan, etc.), and calculates the
impact on survival of these different traits.
 |
| Lawton exhibits at Magnolia Springs State Park in Georgia |
The results
show a significant difference in mortality rates for the children of Civil War
veterans. Boys born after the war to men who had been POWs were 1.10 times more
likely to die than the offspring in the other categories, including children
born to POWs before the war, girls whose fathers had been POWs, and boys whose
fathers were Civil War veterans but who had not suffered the conditions of
prisoners.
Because they
looked at so many factors, the study suggests that having a POW father did not
have a negative impact on your financial status but had a delayed negative
impact on health. Excess death of sons was largely due to cerebral hemorrhage
and to a lesser extent cancer, in the states where cause of death was recorded.
The study
also makes a strong argument that the effects on sons were not driven by the
behaviors of their father; those negative impacts did not affect the daughters
of POWs or their sons born before the war. It strongly suggests an epigenetic
effect, one that was passed on through the Y chromosome and therefore to sons
only.
The study is
important in many respects. Dr. Costa’s previous research has shown
conclusively that the trauma suffered by these POWs had significant negative
impacts on their health after the war. This research goes one step further and
shows the continued intergenerational impact. It also supports a growing body
of literature on the significance of epigenetic effects.
Greene is an historical archaeologist with Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. He was the first director of the Camp Lawton research project, based out of Georgia Southern University. Camp Lawton held Federal prisoners for six weeks in late 1864, but did little to ease the suffering of POWs moved from Andersonville.
 |
| McNutt |
RYAN McNUTT: Socioeconomic, other factors should be considered
I'm not necessarily surprised by the findings
that the POW experience of harsh physical and psychological trauma could have
an effect on descendants; previous research suggests this possibility for Native Americans and Holocaust survivors.
However, there are problems with how some of these relate to epigenetics, as
well as issues like small sample size, and some papers not addressing
sociocultural factors, like the transmission of trauma via family stories and
accounts, rather than through genetics.
And in fact, this was one of my concerns with
the article. I don't disagree with the premise that there is likely an
epigenetic transfer of trauma -- but I'm not convinced the mortality
correlation in sons of POWS from the non-exchange period can be satisfactorily
linked to this, because it doesn't address some pretty big socioeconomic
factors.
The non-exchange period in the article for example (between July 1863
and July 1864), corresponds almost exactly with the Enrollment Act, or Civil
War Military Draft Act, enacted in March 1863. Every male citizen, and
immigrants who had applied for citizenship, between the ages of 20 and 45, were
required to enroll. Substitutes and commutations by those who could afford it
meant, arguably, that the burden of military service fell on immigrants and
lower classes to a great degree. The perception of this unfairness of the act
led to the New York City draft riots in July 1863. And, indeed, it's likely
that the first batches of draftees would have begun entering into the POW
system in July of 1863, just at the period that exchanges stopped.
My suspicion is that the high mortality rate
of offspring of non-exchange period POWs is tied to this lower socioeconomic
status of their fathers, rather than any causative link to experience trauma.
Furthermore, cerebral hemorrhage is a catch-all term for cause of death in the
early 20th century, so it is difficult to parse how this may be connected to
the father's poor health.
 |
| Students conduct Camp Lawton field work during 2015 field school (GSU) |
Finally, while the fact that sons of
ex-POWs were 1.11 times likely to die (I'm not sure where the 11 percent is
coming from -- I couldn't find it anywhere in the article) than the sons of
non-POWs is statistically significant, it's still not to my mind high enough to
prove a causative link for higher mortality rates outside of socioeconomic and
psychological factors.
It's very clear from the postwar career of ex-POWS that
many of them struggled with ongoing health issues, almost certainly PTSD, and
various other psychological issues as a result of their confinement.
This impacted their ability to keep
employment, as did the massively high levels of substance abuse among veterans,
including POW., all of which would have a down-the-line effect on the quality
of life for their children, particularly the sons who may have had to shoulder
more a of a burden of caring for the family both through adolescence, and into
adulthood. And the lack of a similar mortality rate among daughters is par
for the course: by the 1900s, the death rate for men was twice as high as for
women. So the lack of a similar mortality rate for daughters of POWS is in line
with other demographic trends of the day, as opposed to being a comparative marker
for their male siblings’ epigenetic shortened life spans.
It's a very interesting article, and I
certainly think epigenetic transmission of historical trauma is a worthwhile
avenue of research, but I'm not convinced that epigenetic transfer of trauma is
sole direct causative reason for higher mortality rates among the children of
ex-POWs.
I think that there are a host of
socioeconomic, cultural, and historical factors that were not considered with
due weight in the interpretation and conclusion -- which to be fair, the
authors acknowledge as potential issues in their discussion.
McNutt is assistant professor of anthropology at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro and director of the university’s Camp Lawton project. His research in conflict archaeology have included sites in the United Kingdom, France and Poland.
 |
| Wallsmith |
DEBBIE WALLSMITH: Trauma seeps down to new generation
The article
by Costa, Yetter and DeSomer is very interesting and provides the foundation
for future research on POWs from other wars.
It is not surprising that being a POW would result in long-lasting effects. However, it was not expected that these
effects would impact the health of their sons. In some cases, the former POWs
had difficulty returning to civilian life but there were some who became very
successful.
A common
factor among most of them was that they had health issues related to the
malnutrition and diseases they experienced while imprisoned that plagued them
the rest of their lives.
It is not surprising that both physical and mental
health issues would have affected family life. Although many died while
relatively young, some POWs lived into their 80s and 90s.
Wallsmith is environmental review archaeologist with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Historic Preservation Division. She has researched prisoners held at Camp Lawton and has maintained a database about them.
The Camp
Lawton POW database contains the names of 3,750 men. Age at death information
is available for 680 former POWs. Age at enlistment ranges from 13 to 53. The
youngest to die was 16, the oldest was 98. The table below indicates the age
ranges at which those men died:
Age @ death
|
# dead
|
20
or younger
|
19
|
21
- 30
|
152
|
31
- 40
|
55
|
41
- 50
|
33
|
51
- 60
|
42
|
61
- 70
|
102
|
71
- 80
|
129
|
81
- 90
|
119
|
91
- 100
|
29
|
Total
|
680
|
