Using official numbers from the Congressional Research Service and the Department of Defense, we’ve charted U.S. military deaths and wounded per major conflict from the Revolutionary War onward. It’s interesting to see the contrasts between nominal numbers and those as a percentage of the total population — WWII and the Civil War had comparable killed/wounded numbers, for example, but deaths in the Civil War constituted a much higher percent of the total population.

Also interesting are the similarities between the Mexican-American War and the Iraq War; about the same percentage of Americans have been killed in both wars, though the number of Americans killed in Iraq is much higher than those killed in the Mexican-American War. (Data for Iraq & Afghanistan is accurate through March 6, 2010, and is according to official DoD tallies.)

There’s an argument for using either statistic, and it’s an issue we’ve been discussing as we worked out the numbers. I think the numbers as a percentage of population are more interesting than nominal numbers because it can serve as an assessment of the relative impact of a conflict on society at the time; but Nathaniel makes the point that, in essence, every death is a death, and has an equal impact on the community no matter what the national population happens to be.

The chart is posted below. Forgive me for the poor labeling: there are no labels on the top chart’s x-axis, but I did label the furthest-reaching bar to give you a semblance of relativity. (I also know there are lots of problems with this bar chart — for example, the Civil War is such an outstanding plot point that it skews the rest of the data — but it was just a quick mockup, so bear with me).

Click to enlarge:

We work hard to make sure every data set in one of our visualizations tells a compelling story. In these last few months, we’ve been collecting data and finalizing design for our next print, A Visual History of the American Presidency. Liz, one of our hardworking and fabulous research assistants, recently collected a data set relating to presidential vetoes. The research quickly became much more complicated (and interesting!) than we predicted; Liz’s thoughts on the subject are below.

As I began to conduct in-depth research regarding the political and social context of high-profile presidential vetoes, it struck me how similar the past debates are to current controversies over policies like bank bailouts, economic stimulus plans, and the role of government in the free-market economy. In looking at the data and its context, it’s possible to clearly trace the progress of arguments for and against government intervention in economic affairs—arguments that are now at the forefront of our political culture.

Struggles between Congress and the executive have often centered on fiscal policy: President Monroe was the first to veto spending on infrastructure; Andrew Jackson used the veto to dismantle the federal bank established by his rival, Alexander Hamilton; Grover Cleveland, citing corruption in the request system, actually vetoed more than 200 (!) congressional requests for pensions for veterans.

Perhaps the most revealing vote, at least for those following the current economic debate, is Ulysses S. Grant’s veto of the 1874 Inflation Bill. In 1873, the banking and financial system collapsed after speculators in railroad schemes caused several major banks to fail. Grant, a believer in limited government, expected the economy to right itself without government intervention. With unemployment at 25 percent, Congress disagreed; it introduced the Inflation Bill to stimulate the economy and ease the frozen credit market by releasing nearly $44 million in paper money from the treasury.

Grant did not take the decision to veto lightly, wavering before finally sending the bill back to Congress (which was unable to override the veto). The 1873-1896 era following the veto featured high unemployment and a series of financial panics leading to severe, long-lasting recessions. The nation’s significant corporate and technological expansion during this time, however, is a reminder of the strength of America’s entrepreneurs and innovators—even during trying economic times.

Congressman Benjamin Butler is pictured here as an evil genie threatening "The cradle of liberty" with the Inflation Bill.

As always, leave any comments below!