diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:24 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:01:24 -0700 |
| commit | 54a2b7104c6049df4f65b353ac577921e701c035 (patch) | |
| tree | 187857707f2862a52d6bc7b99911a3770a61848e | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-0.txt | 2070 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-0.zip | bin | 0 -> 37278 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 47916 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-h/34334-h.htm | 2249 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-h/images/i002.jpg | bin | 0 -> 2525 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34334-h/images/i003.jpg | bin | 0 -> 4209 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 4335 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/34334-0.txt b/34334-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9021f9a --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2070 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The numerical strength of the Confederate +army, by Randolph H. McKim + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The numerical strength of the Confederate army + an examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis + Adams and others + +Author: Randolph H. McKim + +Release Date: November 15, 2010 [EBook #34334] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF *** + + + + +Produced by Patrick Hopkins and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + + + + +Transcriber's Note + +- All footnotes have been moved to the end of the book. + +- Illustration captions in {brackets} have been added by the transcriber +for reader convenience. + +- In general, geographical references, spelling, hyphenation, and +capitalization have been retained as in the original publication. + +- Minor typographical errors--usually periods and commas--have been +corrected without note. + +- Significant typographical errors have been corrected. A full list of +these corrections is available in the Transcriber's Corrections section +at the end of the book. + + * * * * * + + + + + THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH + OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY + + + + + [Illustration: {Logo with letter "N"}] + + + + + THE NUMERICAL + STRENGTH OF THE + CONFEDERATE ARMY + + AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT + OF THE HON. CHARLES FRANCIS + ADAMS AND OTHERS + + + BY + RANDOLPH H. McKIM, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L. + _Late 1st Lieut, and A. D. C. 3d Brigade Army of Northern + Virginia. Author of "A Soldier's Recollections."_ + + _Exigui numero sed bello vivida virtus--Virgil_ + + It will be difficult to get the world to understand + the odds against which we fought. + --GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE + + + [Illustration: {Logo}] + + + NEW YORK + THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY + 1912 + + + + +Copyright, 1912, by +THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY + + + + +PREFACE + + +The distinguished soldier and critic whose name appears on the title +page argues, as do various other Northern critics, that the usual +Southern estimate of the strength of the Confederate army is too small +by half. This conclusion is supported, they contend, both by the census +of 1860, according to which there were at the very beginning of the war +between the States nearly a million men in the Southern States of +military age, and by the number of regiments of the several armies, as +shown by the muster rolls of the Confederate army, captured on Lee's +retreat from Richmond, and now stored among the archives in Washington. +This second line of argument has been developed, among others, by two +well-known military critics, Colonel Wm. F. Fox, in his monumental work +entitled "_Regimental Losses in the Civil War_" (who concludes that the +Southern Armies contained the equivalent of 764 regiments, of ten +companies each), and by Thomas L. Livermore, Colonel of the 18th New +Hampshire Volunteers, in his laborious and painstaking monograph, +"Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America," published in 1901. + +Both these authors have had the advantage of studying the Muster Rolls +of the Confederate army just alluded to, but General Marcus J. Wright, +of the Adjutant General's Office, War Department, Washington, writes me +that he knows of no Southern man who has ever examined these Rolls, +although General T. W. Castleman of Louisiana has recently received +permission to copy the Louisiana Rolls. Colonel Walter H. Taylor, of +General Lee's staff was also permitted to examine some of the official +returns of Lee's Army. + +Although the author of the following pages has not had the opportunity +of studying those precious Muster Rolls, he hopes that he has been able +to show that the thesis maintained by the distinguished critics just +mentioned rests on no sufficient foundation and ought to be rejected by +careful thinkers. + +The main points of my counter argument are these: 1. The lack of arms +limiting the enrolment of soldiers the first year of the war. 2. The +loss of one-fourth of our territory by the end of the first year. 3. The +loss of control of the Trans-Mississippi in 1863-4. 4. The enormous +number exempted from enrolment for every sort of State duty, and for +railroads and new manufacturing establishments made necessary by the +blockade of our ports. 5. The opposition of some of the State +governments to the execution of the Conscript law. 6. The comparative +failure of the Conscript law. 7. The disloyalty of a part of our +population. 8. The necessity of creating not only an army of fighters, +but also an industrial army, and an army of civil servants out of the +male population liable for military duty. + +The character of the evidence available precludes a precise estimate of +the actual strength of the Confederate army. As Colonel Walter H. +Taylor, Lee's Adjutant General, says in a letter addressed to the +author, "I regret to have to say that I know of no reliable data in +support of any precise number, and have always realized that it must +ever be largely a matter of conjecture on our side." + + R. H. MCK. + + + + +THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY + + +Charles Francis Adams holds a warm place in the hearts of the survivors +of the Army of Northern Virginia, and, indeed, of all the Confederate +Armies, not only because of his splendid tribute to General Robert E. +Lee and to the army he commanded, but also because of his generous +recognition of the high motives of the Southern people in the course +they pursued in 1861. + +It is therefore in the friendliest spirit that I undertake to question +the accuracy of his conclusion as to the numerical strength of the +Southern forces engaged during the four years of the War between the +States. In his recent volume, "Studies Military and Diplomatic," p. 286, +he states "that the actual enrollment of the Confederate Army during the +entire four years of the conflict exceeded 1,100,000, rather than fell +short of that number." + +General Adams is of the opinion that it is a mistake to suppose that the +Confederate States were crushed by overwhelming resources and numbers. +He calls attention to the statement usually given by Southern writers, +that the South had on her muster rolls, from first to last, about +600,000 men, and refers to this as a "legend" (p. 287), "opposed to all +reasonable assumption and unsupported by documentary evidence"; "based +on assertion only" (p. 286). + +His argument is chiefly _a priori_, and proceeds substantially thus: The +census of 1860 shows there were upward of 5,000,000 white people in the +States which subsequently seceded. This represents an arms-bearing +population of 1,000,000 men between eighteen and forty-five years of +age. To this he adds thirty per cent, for those males between sixteen +and eighteen years, and between forty-five and sixty years of age--added +by law, so he states, to the military population--making 300,000 +more.[1] Now, further add twelve per cent.--or 150,000--for youths +reaching, between May, 1861, and May, 1865, the age of sixteen years, +and we have a total aggregate Confederate arms-bearing population of +1,450,000.[2] From this total General Adams deducts twenty per cent, for +exempts of all classes. "There were then remaining a minimum of +1,160,000 effectives, to which we must add men from the Border States +117,000; giving a total Confederate strength of 1,277,000." He says +also: "The whole male arms-bearing population was thus put in arms." + +Now I wish on the very threshold to acknowledge freely that this +conclusion is not, in the opinion of General Adams, discreditable to the +South, but the reverse. He holds that the Southern estimate of a total +strength of only 600,000 with the Confederate colors, is discreditable +to the spirit and the patriotism of our people. In his opinion a just +appreciation of the virtue and self-sacrifice exhibited by the men of +the South should lead us to accept the much higher estimate which he +gives, not reluctantly, but freely and cheerfully. He thinks that we who +contest it place the Southern people on a lower level of devotion than +the Boers of South Africa. + + +THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE BOERS AND THE CONFEDERATES + +He says, at p. 239 of his "Military Studies": "How was it under very +similar circumstances with the South Africans? On Confederate showing, +they are a braver, a more patriotic, and self-sacrificing race!" He +goes on to show that the Boers had in actual service more than 1 in 4 of +their population; while, if it be true that there were only 600,000 +Southern soldiers in the Confederacy, there was only 1 out of 12 at the +front. This, he thinks, would be discreditable to Confederate manhood; +he cannot believe that the Southerners of that period were a race of +such "mean-spirited, stay-at-home skulkers." + +In answer to this I shall undertake to show in the following pages that +Mr. Adams' figures are very wide of the mark, so that the proportion of +fighting men in the Confederate army was enormously greater than he +admits in this passage, not less than 1 in 6 of the population. But the +fact is that the conditions in the cases of the Boers and the +Confederates were about as dissimilar as they well could be. In the one +case there was a small, compact population, for the most part half +civilized, and occupying a territory less than a quarter of that +included in the Confederacy. They had no highly differentiated +civilization to support. In the Confederacy there were eleven States, +each of which was organized as a distinct government and each of which +required a large number of men to fill its offices and to maintain its +civilization. Large numbers of men were also needed, as I shall show, +for purposes of manufacture, and to supply the army with food and +munitions of war. To compare a small community of 323,000 (Boers) with a +nation of 5,000,000 whites, besides 3,000,000 blacks; a perfectly +homogeneous people with one containing divers elements; a semi-civilized +people with one whose civilization was highly differentiated; a people +accustomed to live on the veldt in the saddle, with one dwelling largely +in towns and cities and engaged in diversified occupations--is to make a +comparison illusory in a high degree. + +In confirmation of the preceding statement, I add the following passage +from a letter addressed to me by my friend, Colonel Archer Anderson, of +Richmond, Va.: + +"My argument was that the comparison of the Confederates with the Boers +was not fair, the Boers being at a primitive stage of civilization--a +pastoral and agricultural people with no arts, no culture, and no wants +beyond a bare subsistence. Such a people can call out a large proportion +of its population, and in their case there was the particular advantage +that through their relations to the great mining region operated by +foreigners, they had accumulated a vast treasure and a great stock of +European munitions of war, and for a long period were able to draw what +they further needed from Europe through their railway communication +with the Portuguese port on Delagoa Bay. You have shown that the +Confederates on the other hand were highly civilized, with national, +State, and municipal institutions to maintain, and, being cut off from +supplies from the outside world, obliged to extemporize varied +manufactures of powder, cannon, small arms, clothing, shoes, hats, and +every sort of material needed by their railway systems and their people +at home as well as the armies in the field. The maintenance of civil +government, and such a task of production over and above the yield of +agriculture, required the abstraction of a vast number of men from +military service." + +It is instructive, in considering this argument to recall what a great +historian tells us of the Helvetii, in their contest with Cæsar. He +says, + +"The whole population of the assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, +including women and children: the number that bore arms was 92,000." +(Merivale, History of the Romans, vol. I, pp. 242-3.) + +Here is a real historical parallel between two peoples at a not +dissimilar stage of civilization. Their numbers were very nearly the +same: in one case 323,000, in the other 368,000; and their fighting +strength was about in the same proportion,--one in four of the +population; 89,000 in one case, 92,000 in the other. + +It may be added that if Mr. Adams is right in estimating the Southern +armies at nearly 1,300,000 men, then we face the remarkable fact that a +white population of a little more than 5,000,000 people sent to the +front almost as many men as a population of over 22,000,000. For Colonel +Livermore tells us there were 2,234,000 individuals in the United States +army; but of these, 186,017 were negroes, 494,000 foreigners, and 86,000 +from the Southern states; so that the North only sent into the field +1,467,083. + +Judged then by the numerical standard, the patriotism and devotion of +the Southern people, according to this showing, was to that of the North +as four to one. And this takes no account of the many thousands who +served the South as mechanics, laborers, etc. + + +FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN THE ARGUMENT OF NORTHERN WRITERS + +It seems to be overlooked by General Adams, Colonel Livermore, and other +persons, in their estimates of the population available for military +purposes, that the Confederate States' Government had not only to +organize an army, but also to establish extensive manufacturing plants +for the equipment of the army; for clothing, for harness, for saddles, +for guns, powder, and ordnance; even for mining the ore which had to be +worked up into iron for the Tredegar works and other similar plants +within the limits of the Confederacy. + +Again, a large contingent of men had to be retained as railway servants +and government clerks, and for purposes of agriculture, for it must be +remembered that not one in ten of the soldiers in the Confederate army +was an owner of slaves, and therefore a very large proportion of the +agriculture of the country had to be carried on by white men. It is also +overlooked that the complicated machinery of civilized government had to +be maintained in eleven States with the necessary officers and clerks +pertaining to their administration. (This is one of the particulars in +which the case of the Boer Republic differs so radically from that of +the Southern Confederacy that the comparison between the two is quite +illusory.) If, as General Adams insists, "the whole male arms-bearing +was thus put in arms," one cannot but wonder who did all these things +just enumerated? + +When these things are taken into consideration, and the figures I shall +present are carefully examined, it will be seen that to have put +600,000 men into the armies of the South--men serving with the +colors--instead of being discreditable to the patriotism of the Southern +people was in reality a great achievement. + +One of the most accomplished English military critics of our time, +Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, author of the Life of Stonewall Jackson, +writes on this aspect of the subject as follows: + +"Not only had the South to provide from her seven millions of white +population an army larger than that of Imperial France, but from a +nation of agriculturists she had to provide another army of craftsmen +and mechanics to enable the soldiers to keep the field. For guns and gun +carriages, powder and ammunition, clothing and harness, gunboats and +torpedoes, locomotives and railway plant, she was now dependent on the +hands of her own people and the resources of her own soil. The +organization of these resources scattered over a vast extent of +territory, was not to be accomplished in the course of a few months, nor +was the supply of skilled labor sufficient to fill the ranks of her +industrial army." (Life of Stonewall Jackson, II, 253.) + +Upon this striking passage one or two remarks may be appropriate. The +distinguished critic tells us most truly that the South, by reason of +her isolated situation, had to provide two armies,--an army of fighters +and an army of workers. He might have said she had to provide three +armies; for besides the industrial army and the army of soldiers, she +had to provide an army of civil servants to man the offices necessary to +carry on not only the Confederate States government, but also the +government of eleven separate States, with their highly differentiated +organizations. + +Our author calls attention to the fact that the fighting army of the +South was larger than that of Imperial France. Let me add that, even if +the Southern army numbered no more than 650,000 men, it was nearly +double the army of Imperial Rome in the reign of Augustus. Radiating +from the golden milestone in the forum to every point of the compass, +that vast empire extended from the Pillars of Hercules to the banks of +the Euphrates, and from the coasts of Britain to the borders of the +great African desert. It comprehended among its subjects at least an +hundred divers races, numbering about 85,000,000 people; and yet the +historian tells us that the entire armies of the empire, exclusive of +some battalions maintained in Rome itself, did not exceed 340,000 +men,[3] there being at the time among the _citizens_, exclusive of the +_subjects_, 5,984,072 males of military age. + +I have quoted Colonel Henderson's admiring comment on the size of the +army the South was able to put in the field. In doing so I have not +forgotten that he estimates that army at 900,000. But his judgment upon +that point loses much of its weight when we observe that in two distinct +passages in his Life of Stonewall Jackson he gives seven millions as the +white population of the South, instead of five millions, as it actually +was. This error may serve to show how easy it is for a foreign critic to +be mistaken upon a question of statistics. Apart from the influence upon +his judgment of his error as to the size of the white population, it is +evident, from the passage quoted above, that Henderson included in the +estimate of 900,000 many thousands of men detailed for the various +industries he enumerates.[4] + +I submit then that these preliminary considerations quite do away with +the presumption that an army of only six hundred thousand men serving +with the colors, would have been unworthy of the devotion or the +patriotism of the Southern people, or inadequate to what might have +been expected of a nation of five millions of whites. + +In other words, we enter upon our argument without any reasonable +presumption against the conclusion which it is our purpose to defend. +Whoever will fairly consider that the South had to provide out of her +indigenous male population of military age, a fighting army, an +industrial army, and an army of civil servants, will not be surprised if +it shall appear from the evidence available that she was not able to +muster in battle array more than six hundred thousand men. + + +AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OUR CONCLUSION + +We arrive at the result indicated above by several independent lines of +evidence. + +I.--Our figures are supported by the statements of a number of men who +were in position to know what was the total effective strength of the +Southern armies. Among them were General Cooper, adjutant-general of the +Confederate armies, writing in 1869 (see "Southern Historical Society +Papers," Vol. vii, p. 287); Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, Assistant Secretary of +War; General John Preston, chief of the Conscription Bureau; +Vice-President Alexander H. Stephens ("War Between the States," 1870, +Vol. ii, p. 630); General Jubal A. Early ("Southern Historical Papers," +Vol. ii, p. 20); Dr. Joseph Jones (official report, June, 1890, +"Southern Historical Society Papers," xix, 14), and General Marcus J. +Wright--who now, however, puts the numbers at 700,000 ("Southern +Historical Society Papers," xix, 254). I ask what better authorities on +this subject could be named than the adjutant-general of the army, the +Assistant Secretary of War, and the chief of the Conscription Bureau of +the Confederate States? + +In August, 1869, Dr. Joseph Jones sent to General Cooper a carefully +prepared paper on this subject, asking his opinion as to the accuracy of +the data contained therein. General Cooper replied that after having +"closely examined" the paper he had "come to the conclusion, from his +general recollection," that "it must be regarded as nearly critically +correct." Is it credible that the adjutant-general of the army should +have given as his opinion that this number--600,000,--was "_nearly +critically correct_," if in fact there had been upon the rolls of the +Confederate armies twice that number,--1,277,000 men,--as General Adams +would have us believe? + +II.--By adding together the Confederate prisoners in the hands of the +United States at the close of the war, 98,000;[5] the soldiers who +surrendered in 1865, 174,223; those who were killed or died of wounds, +74,508; died in prison, 26,439; died of disease, 59,277; died from other +causes, 40,000; discharged, 57,411; deserters, 83,372; we get a total of +613,230. + +These figures as to the killed and died of wounds, and of disease, are +taken from Fox's monumental work on regimental losses. He "conjectures" +that nearly 20,000 must be added to the 74,508 given above, making +94,000; but gives no grounds for this. + +III.--Again the official report of General S. Cooper, Adjutant General, +dated March 1, 1862 (127 W. R. 963), states the aggregate of the +Confederate armies, including armed and organized militia, officers +and men, as 340,250 + General Preston, Superintendent of Conscription, + C. S. A., reports from February, + 1862, to February, 1865 (W. R., + series iv, Vol. iii, p. 1101): + Conscriptions (exclusive of Arkansas and + Texas) 81,993 + Enlistments east of the Mississippi River. 76,206 + ------- + 498,449 + Estimated conscriptions and enlistments + west of the river and elsewhere 120,000 + ------- + Total 618,449 + +IV.--Now compare with these reports the following statement from the +_New York Tribune_ of June 26, 1867: + +"Among the documents which fell into our hands at the downfall of the +Confederacy are the returns, very nearly complete, of the Confederate +armies from their organization in the summer of 1861 down to the spring +of 1865. These returns have been carefully analyzed, and I am enabled to +furnish the returns in every department and for almost every month from +these official sources. We judge in all 600,000 different men were in +the Confederate ranks during the war." + +This was accompanied by a detailed tabular statement. + +Is not this good secondary evidence as to the numbers of men in the +Confederate Army, especially when we remember the statement of General +Cooper, late adjutant-general of the Confederate armies? He says: + +"The files of this office which could best afford this information [as +to numbers] were carefully boxed up and taken on our retreat from +Richmond to Charlotte, North Carolina, where they were, unfortunately, +captured and, as I learn, are now in Washington." These files, be it +remembered, have never been examined by any Southern writer. + +Observe also that the "American Encyclopædia" (1875), of which Mr. +Charles A. Dana, late Assistant Secretary of War, U. S., was editor, +quotes General Cooper's statement as to numbers, without comment, thus +tacitly admitting the truth of that statement. Can it be justly said, in +the light of these facts, that the estimate usually given by Southern +writers is based on assertion only?[6] + +V.--There is a fifth line upon which we are led to a very similar +conclusion. + +In the work of Lieutenant Colonel Wm. F. Fox, "Regimental Losses in the +Civil War," we find the strength of the Confederate armies furnished by +the seceded States and by the border States as well, reckoned as +follows: 529 regiments and 85 battalions of infantry; 127 regiments and +47 battalions of cavalry; 8 regiments and 1 battalion of partisan +rangers; 5 regiments and 6 battalions of heavy artillery, and 261 +batteries of light artillery--in all equivalent to 764 regiments of 10 +companies. In making this statement Colonel Fox assures his readers that +"no statistics are given that are not warranted by the official +records." + +As to the size of the regiments we got some light from the following +reports: The Confederate adjutant-general reports in March, 1862, an +average strength of 823 men in 369 regiments and 89 battalions (127 W. +R. 963). Beauregard's Corps (32 regiments) is reported Aug. 31, 1861, as +numbering 1037 men to the regiment (5 W. R. 824). Longstreet's Virginia +troops, June 23, 1862, averaged 754 men to the regiment. (14 W. R. 614, +615.) But more important is the legislation of the Congress. The +Confederate Act of March 6, 1861, prescribed for infantry companies the +number of 104, and for cavalry 72, which gives, for an infantry regiment +(10 companies) 1040 men, and for a cavalry regiment 720 men--provided +the ranks were full, which was by no means the rule but rather the +exception. Observe now that in November, 1861, the War Department +prescribed that no infantry company should be accepted with less than 64 +men and no cavalry company with less than 60 and no artillery company +with less than 70. On this basis infantry regiments might number only +640 men and cavalry regiments only 600. + +This marked change in the standard of the size of companies and +regiments prescribed by the War Department in November, 1861, as +compared with the Act of March, 1861, lowering the requisite number of +men in an infantry regiment from 1040 to 640, and in a cavalry regiment +from 720 to 600, is suggestive of the fact that it was not found easy to +raise regiments of the size originally prescribed. + +Now in calculating the strength of the Confederate army from the number +of regiments, we shall probably approximate closely a correct result by +taking the mean between the larger and smaller number just referred to. +But the mean between 1040 and 640 is 840, and that between 720 and 600 +is 660. + +Applying this standard to Colonel Fox's statement of the troops in the +entire Confederate army, we get the following result: + + Men + 529 regiments of infantry, 840 each 444,360 + 85 battalions infantry, 400 each 34,000 + 127 regiments cavalry, 600 each 76,200 + 47 battalions cavalry, 400 each 18,800 + 261 batteries light artillery, 70 each 16,270 + 5 regiments heavy artillery, 800 each 4,000 + 6 battalions heavy artillery, 400 each 2,400 + 8 regiments partisan rangers, 700 each 5,600 + 1 battalion partisan rangers 350 + ------- + 601,980 + +The size of infantry and cavalry battalions and of regiments and +battalions of heavy artillery in this calculation, as well as of the +regiments of partisan rangers, is in each case suggested by that +accomplished and experienced officer, Colonel Walter H. Taylor, +adjutant-general on the staff of General Robert E. Lee. His figures may +be rather high--certainly they are not too low. Of course such a +calculation is necessarily only approximate, but the basis on which it +is made appears reasonably reliable. To one who, like myself, had +personal observation of the armies in Virginia from the first battle of +Manassas to Appomattox, the standard of strength in regiments and +battalions in the field above adopted, seems in conformity with the +facts. + + +THE ARGUMENT OF GENERAL ADAMS + +Turn we now to examine the estimate made by General Adams and quoted at +the beginning of this paper. + +But first let me say that I quite agree with him when he says that if +the South had as many as 600,000 men in arms she ought to have been +unconquerable, and probably would have been so, but for the United +States Navy. + +That opinion was expressed by a distinguished Southern writer, Dr. +Bledsoe, Assistant Secretary of War, in an article written about forty +years ago. He said: "The decisive circumstance which robbed the South of +the defensive advantage of its wide territory was the superiority of its +enemy upon the water." All the water front of the Confederate States was +"an exposed frontier," both ocean coasts and navigable rivers. The best +authorities in the South have maintained the same view with practically +unanimity; hence, in differing from Mr. Adams I am not influenced by a +desire to account for our defeat by the overwhelming force of numbers +opposed to us, but by the desire to establish the truth of history. + + +WEAK POINTS IN GENERAL ADAMS' ARGUMENT + +Now in making the calculation previously alluded to, it appears to me +that our gallant and generous friend has overlooked some important +considerations bearing on the problem discussed. + +1.--During the first year of the war the Confederate Government could +not have availed itself of even half a million of men for its armies, +inasmuch as it was utterly unable to arm and equip them. The supply of +arms and of artillery was utterly inadequate for even half that +number.[7] As the war progressed the muskets, the sabers, the cannon, +used in the Confederate army, if examined, would have been found to have +been in larger part captured on the field of battle. Pompey the Great is +reported to have said, "I have only to stamp with my foot to raise +legions from the soil of Italy." Had Jefferson Davis been able by a +stamp of his foot to summon a million men to the Confederate colors in +the spring of 1861, what advantage would it have been? He could not have +armed them, even if he could have fed and clothed and transported them. +As General Adams himself has said: "The strength of an army is measured +and limited not by the census number of men available, but by the means +at hand of arming, equipping, clothing, feeding, and transporting those +men." + +2.--General Adams appears to have overlooked the fact that by May, 1862, +the Northern armies were in permanent occupation of middle and west +Tennessee, nearly the whole of Louisiana, part of Florida, the coasts of +North and South Carolina, southeastern Virginia, much of northern +Virginia, and practically the whole of that part of Virginia known as +Western Virginia. The population thus excluded from the support of the +Confederacy may be estimated conservatively at 1,200,000, leaving +3,800,000 to bear the burden of the war. Hence the estimate of the +arms-bearing population in 1862, when the real tug began, would be not +1,000,000, but 760,000. Of this number, one-fifth, as General Adams +admits, would be regularly exempt, i.e., 152,000; and many thousands +more were detailed for various branches of industry. Doubtless during +the first year thousands entered the Confederate army from this +territory--a fair proportion of the 340,000 on the muster rolls in +March, 1862; but the conscript law could not operate--never did +operate--in this fourth of the Southern territory. + +3.--The seceded States (including West Va.) furnished the Northern +armies, according to the returns of the War Department, 86,000 men. I do +not remember any mention of this by Mr. Adams, though he alludes to the +statement that 316,000 men were furnished by Southern States to the +Union armies, including the Border States, which did not secede. (The +records of the War Department show a total of white soldiers from all +Southern States, including Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, +Delaware and District of Columbia, of 295,481.) + +4.--It must be remembered that while the unanimity with which the +Southern people supported the war has perhaps never been surpassed in so +large a revolution, yet there was a large element of disloyalty, +especially in the mountainous regions of the South. For instance, in the +Valley of Virginia there were large numbers of Quakers and Dunkards, all +opposed to war. There were also in that region the numerous descendants +of the Hessian prisoners, who were not in sympathy with us. The number +of Union men in the South who did not take up arms has been estimated at +80,000. + +5.--It must also be remembered, as Dr. Bledsoe said in his article in +the _Southern Review_, that "there was also a large element of baser +metal,--men who begrudged the sacrifice for liberty and shirked danger." + +6.--General Adams says that the Confederate States passed the most +drastic conscript law on record--which may be true; but he is mistaken +in supposing that this law was successfully executed. Thus, General Cobb +writes, December, 1864, from Macon, Georgia, to the Secretary of War: +"I say to you that you will never get the men into the service who ought +to be there, through the conscript camp. It would require the whole army +to enforce the conscript law if the same state of things exist +throughout the Confederacy which I know to be the case in Georgia and +Alabama, and I may add Tennessee." (W. R., series iv, vol. iii, p. 964.) + +Again, H. W. Walters, writing from Oxford, Mississippi, to the +Department, December, 1864, says: "I regard the conscript department in +Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi as almost worthless." Yet again +General T. H. Holmes reports to Adjutant-General Cooper as to North +Carolina, April 29, 1864: "After a full and complete conference with +Colonel Mallett, commandant of conscription, ... I am pained to report +that there is much disaffection in many of the counties, which, +emboldened by the absence of troops, are being organized in some places +to resist enrolling officers." And General Kemper reports, December 4, +1864, that in his belief there were 40,000 men in Virginia out of the +army between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. (W. R., series iv, +vol. iii, p. 855.) + +In support of his thesis that the whole military population was enrolled +in the Confederate armies Colonel Livermore quotes a letter of General +Lee, urging the necessity of "getting out our entire arms-bearing +population in Virginia and North Carolina." But this letter, written +October 4, 1864, six months before the surrender, is strong evidence +that _up to that time_ the stringent conscript laws had failed to get +out even in Virginia and North Carolina, "the entire arms-bearing +population." (Livermore, "Numbers and Losses," p. 17.) + +Colonel Livermore quotes another letter of General Lee, dated September +26, 1864, in confirmation of his opinion that the conscription laws were +thoroughly enforced, in which General Lee speaks of the "imperious +necessity of getting all our men subject to military duty in the field," +and adds, "_I get no additions._" (Id. p. 17.) Is that statement +consistent with the rigid and successful enforcement of the conscript +law? Is it not rather the most conclusive evidence that it was not +successfully enforced? Or is my BÅ“otian wit so dull that I cannot see +the point? If so, I pray to be enlightened![8] + +The statement is often made that the Confederate Conscription embraced +all white males between 16 and 60 years of age. This is an error. The +first Act, April 16, 1862, embraced men between 18 and 35 years; the +second, of Sept. 27, 1862, men between 18 and 45 years; the third and +last, of February 17, 1864, men between 17 and 50. Both General Adams +and Colonel Livermore acknowledge this. Yet the latter rests his +argument on the supposition that the Conscription gathered in all males +between 16 and 60 years. + +In further illustration of this subject, I may point out that one of the +difficulties confronting the conscript officers was the opposition of +the governors of some of the States, notably the Governor of +Mississippi, the Governor of North Carolina, and the Governor of +Georgia. Thus the doctrine of States' Rights, which was the bedrock of +the Southern Confederacy, became a barrier to the effectiveness of the +Confederate government! South Carolina passed an exemption law which +nullified to a certain extent the conscript laws of the Confederacy, and +Governor Vance of North Carolina proposed "to try title with the +Confederate Government in resisting the claims of the conscript officers +to such citizens of North Carolina as he made claim to for the proper +administration of the State." + +"The laws of North Carolina," General Preston complains (W. R., iv, iii, +p. 867), "have created large numbers of officers, and the Governor of +that State has not only claimed exemption for those officers, but for +all persons employed in any form by the State of North Carolina, such as +workers in factories, salt-makers, etc." + +"This bureau has no power to enforce the Confederate law in opposition +to the ... claims of the State." + +Governor Brown of Georgia forbade the enrollment of "large bodies of the +citizens of Georgia." The number is supposed to have reached eight +thousand men liable to Confederate service. General Preston complains in +like strain of the action of the Governor of Mississippi. + + +EXEMPTS AND DETAILS + +There is an important report by General Preston in February, 1865 (W. +R., iv, iii, pp. 1099-1011). In this he gives the number of exempts +allowed by the Conscript Bureau in seven States, and parts of two +States, east of the Mississippi as 66,586. + +He then gives the agricultural details, details for public necessity, +and for government service, contractors and artisans, a total of +21,414--the whole aggregating 87,990 men. + +In another report, already referred to, November, 1864, he gives the +number of State officers exempted on the certificates of governors in +nine States as 18,843. This, with the preceding, makes a grand total of +106,833. + +These are exemptions under the Confederate States' law in seven States, +and in parts of two States. They do not include the States west of the +Mississippi. But in addition to these there were many thousand +exemptions under purely State laws. We have no complete record of these +last; but in the State of Georgia alone we have a record of 11,031 such +exemptions. + +7.--We must also consider the large numbers of men employed on the +railroads, in the government departments, in State offices, and in the +various branches of manufacture necessary for the support of the army +and of the people; and in directing the agricultural labor of the +slaves. Factories were started for making swords, bayonets, muskets, +percussion caps, powder, cartridges, cartridge boxes, belts, and other +equipment; for clothing, for caps and shoes, for harness and saddles, +for artillery-caissons and carriages; for guns, cannon and powder. + +I have already referred to the statement of General Kemper that in +December, 1864, "the returns of the bureau, obviously imperfect and +partial, show 28,035 men in the State of Virginia between eighteen and +forty-five, exempt and _detailed_ for all causes." The South having an +agricultural population, it was necessary, as just said, when war came, +to organize manufactories of every kind of equipment for the army. + +After all, the most important question to determine is the number of men +actually serving with the colors in the armies of the Confederate +States. And even if we admit an enrollment in the Confederate army of +700,000, and reduce our estimates of exemptions and details for special +work from 125,000 to 100,000, there remain apparently for _service in +the field_ only about 600,000 men; and that, I suppose, is what General +Cooper and other Southern authorities had in mind. + +We know approximately the respective numbers in the great battles of the +war, and I submit that these numbers are far more consistent with the +maximum of 600,000 serving with the colors than with the maximum of +1,200,000.[9] If, indeed, the Confederacy had been able to muster in +arms a million two hundred thousand men, it is greatly to the discredit +of their able generals that never in any one battle were they able to +confront the enemy with more than 80,000 men. + + * * * * * + +But our gallant and generous friend taxes us, as we have seen, with +casting discredit upon the patriotism of the South by our claim that we +had no more than six or seven hundred thousand men in the field. Is he +justified in this opinion? Let us see how the matter stands. + + +THE MILITARY POPULATION OF THE CONFEDERACY + +In the month of May, 1862, as we have shown above, at least one-fourth +of the Southern territory had been wrenched from the control of the +Confederate Government. In the territory remaining there was in round +numbers a population of about 3,800,000 souls. The military population +then should have been 760,000. + +To this must be added, by the extension of the military age down to +seventeen, and up to fifty, ten per cent.--that is, in all, six +additional years, 76,000. + +[In this calculation I adopt Mr. Adams' ratio of three-tenths by a +supposed extension down to sixteen and up to sixty,--which gives in the +light of the census returns about one-tenth for the _actual_ extension +provided by the law of February 17, 1864, viz. down to seventeen and up +to fifty years.] + +Then we must make a further addition (again adopting Mr. Adams' ratio), +for youths reaching military age in four years, of twelve per cent. of +the military population, or 91,200 men. This, with the age-extension +addition--76,000--makes a total of 167,200, which, added to the original +estimated population of 760,000, makes a grand total of 927,200. + +To this number Mr. Adams would add the men furnished by the Border +States to the Confederate army, viz. (as is alleged), 117,000, a grand +available total of 1,044,200. + +But this estimate of 117,000 men furnished the Confederate army by the +Border States (Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) cannot be +relied upon as even approximately accurate. For example, it includes +20,000 men alleged to have been furnished by the State of Maryland. But +a careful examination of all the Maryland organizations, including +several companies in Virginia regiments, gives a total of only 4,580 +from the State of Maryland; and this number must be largely reduced by +names duplicated through re-enlistments. Applying the ratio adopted by +the War Department of the United States, we must deduct at least 920 +men, which leaves a total of only about 3,500. Even this I believe to be +too large. This item alone reduces the estimate of 117,000 to about +100,000. I will discuss this subject at length a little further on in +this paper, and will only say here that there is good reason to believe +100,000 an excessive estimate of the number actually furnished to the +Confederate colors by the Border States. Let us place the figure at +75,000 as a compromise. Then we should have: + + Grand total of men available in the + Southern States 927,200 + Furnished by the Border States 75,000 + --------- + Total 1,002,200 + + +NECESSARY DEDUCTIONS + +Let us turn now to the deductions that have to be made from this number. + +1.--On the ground of disloyalty we have no facts on which to base an +estimate, hence the number must be left indeterminate, but it was +certainly considerable. The chief of the Bureau of Education estimates +the Appalachian mountaineers in the Southern States at present at +3,000,000. They must therefore have been very numerous in 1861, and it +is conceded that most of them were loyal to the Union. Some Southern +writers estimate 80,000 as the number of Union men who refused and +evaded service in the Confederate army. If there were only one million +of these mountaineers, they would represent 160,000 men of military age +and fitness. + +2.--We must also deduct a large number for men _exempted_ for various +causes, besides the accepted exemption of twenty per cent. for physical +and mental disability. Of this we have no complete statistics, but there +are preserved in the War Department Records several documents which +enable us to arrive at an approximate estimate. + +Under the head of "Public Necessity" we find _exemptions_ for railroad +companies, telegraph companies, navigation companies, cotton and wool +factories, paper mills, iron manufactories, foundries, printing +establishments, fire department, police department, gas-works, salt +manufactories, shoemakers, tanners, blacksmiths, millers, millwrights, +ferrymen, wheelwrights, wagon-makers, express companies, equity, justice +and necessity, indigent circumstances, and miscellaneous. (_Id._ p. +873.) + +Thus General Preston, writing November 23, 1864 (W. R., ser. iv. vol. +iii, p. 850), says: "The governors of the States do not confine their +certificates of exemption to officers, as that term seems to be used in +the law, but extend them to all persons in the service of the State, or +in any mode employed by State authority; and that authority is +interposed to prevent the conscript officers from enrolling and +assigning such persons to the Confederate service." + +He gives a table (p. 851) of _State officers_ exempted on certificates +of the governors, and it appears that in Virginia, North Carolina, South +Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida there +were 18,843 such exempts. + +The _civil officers_ exempted in the State of Georgia were 5,478, and +militia officers 2,751. (See W. R., iv., vol. iii, p. 869.) In the same +State the exempts for agricultural and necessary purposes reached the +number of 4,156, making the total exemptions in that one State, 12,385. +(_Id._ iv. iii. p. 873.) + +General Preston also reports the number of State officers exempted in +North Carolina, November, 1864, at 14,675 (_Idem_, p. 851). + +There is a report in the same publication, p. 96, which gives the number +of persons exempted by occupation, in Virginia, at 13,063. Thus in +these three States we have records of exemptions amounting to 40,123. I +am unable to give the number of exemptions in the remaining eight +seceded States; but if they were at all in proportion to what we find +them in Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina, then we must reckon the +exemptions in the whole Confederacy as nearly 120,000, since the +military population of those three States was only a little more than a +third of the whole. These, be it observed, were not men detailed from +the army, but exempted from enrollment. + +3.--Estimate of men _detailed_ for special work in the various branches +of manufacture necessary for the support of the Army and people. Here we +have a difficult problem, but some light is thrown upon it by the +following report of men detailed in the State of Georgia (_Idem._ iv. +iii. p. 874): + + For agricultural purposes 957 + For public necessities 1,264 + For government purposes 629 + For contractors 141 + For artisans, mechanics, etc. 508 + ----- + Total 3,499 + +And in Virginia we find this item: + + Men detailed in departments 4,494 + ----- + Total in these two States 7,993 + +From these figures of details in these States we may conservatively +estimate the number of men detailed for various branches of work in the +eleven States of the Confederacy as about 40,000.[10] + +4.--The seceded States exclusive of West Va., according to the report +of the War Department, furnished the United States armies with 55,000 +men. These must also be deducted from the aggregate above stated. + +5.--Then we must deduct, as General Adams acknowledges, from the +aggregate number of men of military age as above (viz., 927,200, less +80,000 disloyal and 55,000 in U. S. army, leaving 792,200) twenty per +cent. for those exempt on account of physical or mental disability, or +158,440. This is the usual percentage, though in the French and British +armies it has been as high as thirty-three per cent. + +6.--Natural death rate in two and a half years before being enrolled in +army 11,055 (compare Livermore, p. 22).[11] + +But it will be said, and justly, that although after May, 1862, at least +one-fourth of the territory of the seceded States was not in control of +the Confederate government, and therefore not available as a recruiting +ground for its armies, nevertheless many thousands of men had enlisted +in the Confederate armies previous to May, 1862. Now, it appears from +General Cooper's official report that the aggregate number of men and +officers enrolled in March, 1862, was 340,250. And so our question is, +How large a proportion of this number is to be credited to that part of +the Confederacy which by May, 1862, was occupied by the Federal armies? +If we assume that the part of the country thus occupied furnished as +large a proportion as the rest of the Confederacy (a large assumption), +then, as the population of the occupied part is estimated to have been +about one-fourth of the whole, we may suppose that it furnished the +Confederate army one-fourth of the total 340,000; that is to say, 85,000 +men. This is probably a very large assumption, but it may be accepted +for the purposes of our calculation. + +To sum up this part of the argument: Let it be granted that there was an +available military population, first and last, in that part of the +Confederacy not occupied by the Federal armies, of 927,200, + + To which may be added volunteers first + year of war from territory occupied + by Federal forces after May, 1862 85,000 + And also men from Border States 75,000 + --------- + Aggregate 1,087,200 + --------- + +Deductions from this as follows: + + Natural death rate in 2-1/2 years, before + being enrolled in army, 2-1/2% 11,055 + Southern men in U. S. army 55,000 + Disloyal, estimated 80,000 + Exempt for physical and mental disability: + 20% of the whole (after deducting + the two previous items) viz. + 792,200 158,440 + --------- + 304,495 + Leaving available aggregate 782,705[12] + --------- + Aggregate 1,087,200 + +Now let us remember that out of this available aggregate (exaggerated +though I believe the number to be), there had to be created for the +service of the Confederate State three armies,--an army of soldiers, an +army of civil servants and an army of industrial and agricultural +workers. If we put the strength of the fighting army at 620,000, there +will remain for the other two armies 162,000 men,--and we have seen +grounds for believing that there were 40,000 soldiers detailed for +special work, and 120,000 exempt as State officers, workmen in various +occupations, agricultural and necessary purposes, mechanics, railway +servants, etc. And it may be asked with confidence whether for all these +manifold purposes one hundred and sixty-two thousand men can be +considered an excessive or unreasonable number. To support the army in +the field, to equip the civil governments of eleven great States, and to +supply the life blood of civilization in a country of such vast extent +as the Southern Confederacy, necessarily absorbed the energies of a +great number of men. + + +GENERAL ADAMS CLAIMS SOUTHERN SUPPORT FOR HIS CONCLUSION + +But General Adams supports his opinion by figures taken from a recent +work, "The South in the Building of the Nation." He is thus able to show +on the authority of Southern writers themselves, an aggregate estimate +of 944,000 enlistments in the Confederate armies--to which he adds +117,000, as the number claimed to have been furnished the Confederate +army from the four Border States, making a grand total of 1,061,000 +men. + +Now, even if the numbers furnished by these _Southern writers_ could be +accepted as approximately accurate, the result would be quite different +from what General Adams figures. For let me call attention to a +memorandum issued by the War Department, U. S. A., May 15, 1905, in +which I find this statement: "It is estimated from the best data now +obtainable that the re-enlistments in the army during the Civil War +numbered 543,393" (p. 4), which is about twenty per cent. of the whole. +This number, the military secretary says, must be deducted from the +total number of enlistments (2,778,304) to get the actual number of men +who were enrolled. + +Now, if we apply this same principle and proportion to the alleged +enlistment of 944,000 men in the Southern army, we should deduct for +re-enlistment 188,800; leaving as the actual number of enlisted men, all +told, with the colors and not with the colors, 756,200. And further, +though we have no accurate figures concerning the number of men detailed +for duties of various kinds,--as clerks, skilled mechanics, gunsmiths, +teamsters, cooks, etc.; also details in the medical, quartermaster, +commissary, and other supply departments; and as apothecaries, +physicians, teachers, nurses, agriculturists, railroad employees, +etc.,--we know they numbered many thousands, so that this +number--756,200--must be greatly reduced. + +It has, indeed, been argued that we cannot make the deduction which the +War Office claims in estimating the number of men in the Union armies, +as stated above, for the reason that the twelve-months' men in the +Confederate armies "were all retained in service for the war" by the Act +of April 16, 1862. Again, it is insisted that "substantially all of the +regiments enrolled in 1861 remained in service to the end of the war." +"It may, then, be assumed that in effect the term of service of all who +entered the Confederate armies continued from the time they entered +until the end of the War, May 4, 1865." (See Livermore, "Numbers and +Losses," p. 52, 53.) + +The best way to test the soundness of this conclusion is to look into +the actual record of some of the troops, to see whether or not they did +re-enlist. If they did, then the same opportunity for error in counting +them twice offered itself as in the case of the Union enlistments. + +I cite then a few examples of re-enlistment, established beyond doubt. + +1. The first Maryland Infantry, spring of 1862. + +2. Rodes' Brigade at Yorktown, spring of 1862; the fifth, sixth and +twelfth Alabama and twelfth Mississippi regiments. + +"They retained their corporate identity, but not simply continued over. +At any rate, some men in them did not remain." (Colonel J. W. Mallet, +February 16, 1912.) + +3. Bonham's South Carolina regiment enlisted for six months. Re-enlisted +1861. (Statement of Colonel Hilary Herbert.) + +4. General Dickinson, late Secretary of War, remembers regiments which +were enlisted for three months, and then re-enlisted. + +5. The Eighth Alabama, Colonel Hilary Herbert. He says: + +"The men stepped out one by one and re-enlisted, all but one man, and he +exercised the liberty which all had, of declining to re-enlist. This was +in January, 1864." + +I quote also an order of General Lee's on the subject, February 3, 1864: +"The Commanding General announces with gratification the re-enlistment +of the regiments of this army for the war, and the reiteration of the +war regiments of their determination to continue in the army until +independence is achieved." The fact of re-enlistment then is absolutely +established. In fact practically all of the twelve-months' volunteers +re-enlisted in 1862. + + +THESE RECENT SOUTHERN ESTIMATES GREATLY EXAGGERATED + +But it can be shown, I think beyond contradiction, that the numbers +given by the representatives of the various States which Mr. Adams +quotes from "_The South_," and from other Southern publications, are +enormously exaggerated. + +We may test the accuracy of this estimate of theirs briefly as follows: +The total military population of the 11 seceded States in 1861 was +984,475, not taking into account that about one-fourth of our territory +and population became unavailable for recruiting purposes within one +year of the breaking out of the war. If we add one-tenth for the +extension of the military age by Confederate law down to 17 and up to +50, we have 98,447; and, if we add 12 per cent. for youths reaching +military age in four years, we have 118,137, aggregating 1,201,518. But +from this we must deduct, as military writers agree, 20 per cent. for +men exempt for physical and mental disability, viz., 240,303, which +leaves available for military duty in the four years of the war, through +the whole extent of the Southern territory, 961,215. Now, if we accept +the figures of the State historians, we have 935,000 enrolled in the +Confederate Army; and the reports of the United States War Department +state that, exclusive of West Virginia, there were 55,000 soldiers in +the Union Army from these same Southern States, which makes an aggregate +of 990,000 men furnished to both armies, which, it will be observed, is +nearly 30,000 more than the entire military population! Without going +any further, this shows that there has been serious error in the above +estimates of Confederate enrollment. + +But there are several other matters to be considered. In the first +place, by the spring of 1862 at least one-fourth of the territory of the +seceded States was under the control of the United States Army; and, +therefore, that much of the territory was not available as a source of +supply for the Confederate Army. This cuts off nearly one-fourth of the +military strength. Calculated on this basis, the writers alluded to make +the aggregate of Southern soldiers more than 200,000 in excess of the +entire military population! + +Again, the conscript law, drastic as it was, was very imperfectly +executed, as those in charge of it at the time amply testified. The +opposition of the Governors of Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and +North Carolina to the conscript law will be remembered. We must also +remember that thousands of men were employed on the railroads, in the +Government departments and in various branches of manufacture necessary +for the support of the army and the people, and also for agricultural +labor. It must also be remembered that there were thousands of men in +all the Confederate States exempted by State authority. + +If these things are considered, it becomes plain that the previously +quoted estimates of the several States of the Confederacy cannot +possibly be accepted as at all near the real facts. + +Let us now compare these estimates of the Southern writers quoted with +the military population of some of the States: + + The military population of Virginia in + 1861, exclusive of West Virginia, is + estimated by Livermore at 116,000 + Add one-tenth for extension of military + age down to seventeen and up to fifty 11,600 + Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing + to seventeen in four years 13,920 + ------- + Total 141,520 + Deduct exempts for physical and mental + defects, twenty per cent 28,304 + ------- + Available military population 113,216 + +But the representative writer in "_The South_" puts the number of men +furnished by Virginia to the Southern armies at 175,000, which is +61,784 more than the available military population! Could there be a +more palpable _reductio ad absurdum_?[13] + +Besides, as I have shown, in Virginia and all the States there were +large numbers of men exempt as State officers. This considerably +increases the twenty per cent. which Colonel Fox says are in all +countries exempted from military service. + +Take next Florida: + + Her military population in 1861 was 15,739 + Add one-tenth for extension of military + age down to seventeen and up to fifty 1,573 + Add twelve per cent. for youths attaining + seventeen years in four years 1,888 + ------- + 19,200 + Deduct exempts, twenty per cent. 3,840 + ------- + Available military population 15,360 + +But the writer quoted by Mr. Adams states that Florida furnished 15,000 +to the Confederate States army, and the War Office records show that +she furnished the Union army 1,270; making a total of 16,270, which is +900 more than the entire available military population! + + Georgia.--Military population in 1861 + was 111,005 + Add one-tenth for extension of military + age down to seventeen and up to fifty 11,100 + Add twelve per cent. for youths attaining + seventeen years in four years 13,320 + ------- + Total 135,425 + Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts 23,085 + ------- + Available military population 112,340 + +But the alleged enrollment in the Confederate States army is 120,000, +which is 7,110 more than the available military population, making no +allowance for the failure of the conscript officers to put into the army +every man liable to military duty, and none for the thousands exempt +from service. + + North Carolina.--Military population + was 115,369 + Add one-tenth for the extension of military + age down to seventeen and up to + fifty 11,500 + Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing + to seventeen years in four years 13,800 + ------- + Total 140,669 + Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts 28,133 + ------- + Leaving available 112,536 + +Alleged Confederate enrollment 129,000; furnished to the Union army, +3,156; total, 132,156; which is 19,620 more than the available military +population, although in one-fourth of the State the conscript law could +not be executed, and although many thousands were exempted from service +by State law. + + South Carolina.--Military population 55,046 + Add one-tenth as above 5,504 + Add twelve per cent. as above 6,605 + ------- + Total 67,155 + Deduct twenty per cent. 13,231 + ------- + Leaving available 53,924 + +The alleged Confederate enrollment was 75,000, which is more than 21,000 +in excess of the total number of men available for service, though here +also there were thousands of State exemptions. + + Mississippi.--Military population 70,295 + Add one-tenth for extension of military + age 7,029 + Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing + to military age in four years 8,435 + ------- + Total 85,759 + Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts 17,151 + ------- + Leaving available 68,608 + +The alleged Confederate enrollment was 70,000, and furnished to the +United States army 515, which is nearly 2,000 more than the total +military population, taking no account of the large number of exempts +and of the failure to execute the conscript act. + + Alabama.--Military population was 99,667 + Add one-tenth for the extension of military + age down to seventeen and up to + fifty 11,500 + Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing + to seventeen years in four years 11,796 + ------- + Total 121,959 + Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts 24,391 + ------- + Leaving available 97,568 + +The alleged Confederate enrollment was 90,000, and furnished to the +Union army, 2,576, making a total of 92,576; which is within 5,000 of +the total available, taking no account of the large number exempted for +State officers and other causes, and taking no account, either, of the +number of men who could not be reached by the conscript officers. + + Tennessee.--Military population 159,353 + Add one-tenth as before 15,935 + Add twelve per cent. as before 19,222 + ------- + Total 194,510 + Deduct twenty per cent. 38,902 + ------- + Leaving available 155,608 + +The alleged Confederate enrollment was 115,000, and the State furnished +the Union army 31,092, a total of 146,092, which is within 9,000 of the +total available military population, without taking account of the men +not reached by the conscript officers, and, further, taking no account +of the fact that so large a part of the State was in occupation of the +Federal armies. + +As to Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, it is enough to say that they were +in that Trans-Mississippi Department of which the Confederate +Government lost control in July, 1863. Hence, it is not surprising that +even those inflated estimates of the number of men furnished the +Confederate army fall far short of the estimated military population. In +Arkansas, however, the estimate comes within 5,000 of the total +available,--58,289 out of 63,665. + +In the light of the facts just stated we must conclude that the Southern +writers quoted by General Adams have, in their zeal for the honor and +glory of their several States, greatly overestimated the number of men +contributed by the same to the Confederate armies. This would be more +probable _a priori_, than that the leading men in the Confederate army +and Government who were at the sources of information, and who ought to +have been well informed, should have so enormously underestimated the +strength of the armies of the South; but the tests to which we have now +submitted the figures given by these State historians demonstrate their +error beyond the possibility of doubt. They must be cut down by several +hundred thousand. A large element of this error is to be found, as I +have suggested, in the failure to observe the great number of +re-enlistments that undoubtedly took place, especially in 1862, when the +terms of service of nearly all the Confederate regiments expired. This +duplication, in the opinion of the military Secretary of the United +States, reduces the total by twenty per cent. + +As a sample of how errors creep into reports of numbers, it is stated +(W. R., ser. iv., vol. iii, p. 96) as to a certain number of conscripts, +"We find some men were reported three times." And again (_Id._ p. 99) +that the "Adjutant-General's report contains an error in which he has +accounted for 14,000 men twice." + +Let it be observed, finally, that when we have reached a reasonably +probable conclusion of the men enlisted in the Confederate armies during +the four years of war, we must then proceed to ascertain, if we can, the +probable number of these enlisted men who were _detailed_ for various +duties and occupations ancillary to the support of the government and +the army. And only when this number has been deducted from the total +enlistments will we have ascertained the probable number of men actually +serving with the colors and making up the fighting force of the +Confederacy. + + +THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE BORDER STATES TO THE ARMIES OF THE CONFEDERACY + +It is a difficult problem to determine with any degree of probability +how many men were contributed to the armies of the Confederacy by the +Border States. The factors by which it might be solved do not seem to be +within reach. At least, I have not been able to possess myself of them. +There lies before me a printed "List of Regiments and Battalions in the +Confederate States' Army, 1861-1865." According to this there were +furnished by Missouri 21 battalions and 79 regiments; by Kentucky 16 +battalions and 26 regiments; by Maryland 2 infantry regiments and 4 +battalions, 4 batteries; also the Maryland Line, of various arms. But, +upon inspection, it appears that this "Maryland Line" was formed of +those regiments and battalions and batteries previously enumerated. + +General Charles Francis Adams, following Colonel Livermore, tells us +there were 238 full regiments from the Border States in the Confederate +army, besides 132 lesser organizations. On the other hand, Colonel Fox, +in his well-known work, "Regimental Losses in the Civil War," credits +the Border States with having sent into the Confederate army only 21 +regiments and 4 battalions of infantry; 9 regiments and 5 battalions of +cavalry, and 11 batteries of light artillery. As to numbers, he +estimates them at "over 19,000" (p. 552). + +These estimates and numbers of Colonel Fox look strange beside the +estimate of 117,000 and 125,000, as given by some Southern writers. We +have already stated that in "The South in the Building of the Nation," +Maryland is credited with having furnished 20,000 men to the Confederate +army. How wide of the mark this statement is, may be seen by inspecting +the following total of organizations of Maryland men in the Confederacy: + + INFANTRY + First Maryland Infantry, number of men 782 + Second Maryland Infantry 627 + Company B, Twenty-first Virginia, Colonel + L. Clarke 109 + One company, Thirteenth Virginia Lanier + Guards, estimated 75 + One company, Sixty-first and Sixty-second + Virginia, estimated 65 + ----- + Total Infantry 1,658 + + CAVALRY + First Maryland, Colonel Ridgeley Brown 74 + Company K, First Virginia; transferred in + August, 1864, to First Maryland 197 + Lieutenant Harry Gilmour Battalion, + estimated 250 + Colonel Sturgis Davis Battalion, estimated 100 + One Maryland Company in Seventh Virginia, + estimated 75 + One Maryland Company in Thirty-fifth Virginia, + Colonel Elijah White 103 + One Maryland Company in Forty-third Virginia, + Colonel Mosby, estimated 75 + ----- + Total cavalry 674 + + ARTILLERY + Colonel Snowden Andrews 204 + Second Maryland, Captain Griffin 197 + Third Maryland, Colonel Rowan, Captain + Ritter 350 + In Western Army, Fourth Maryland, + Chesapeake, Captain Brown, Captain + Chew 137 + Captain Brethed, Horse Artillery (a Maryland + battalion, though mustered into service + as Virginian) 75 + Baltimore Heavy Artillery, estimated 100 + Marylanders at Charleston, South Carolina, + estimated 225 + ----- + Total artillery 1,288 + ----- + Grand total 4,580 + +These figures are compiled from the muster rolls, with the exception of +those "estimated." It is to be observed that a very large proportion of +the men in the Second Maryland Infantry were those who had previously +served in the First Maryland Infantry; so that there is a good deal of +duplication there by reënlistment. On the other hand, there were many +individual Marylanders in various regiments accredited to other States. +We have also the names of 137 Marylanders who were officers in various +other commands. + +The estimate above alluded to, of 20,000 Marylanders in the Confederate +service, rests apparently upon no better basis than an oral statement of +General Cooper to General Trimble, in which he said he believed that the +muster rolls would show that about 20,000 men in the Confederate army +had given the State of Maryland as the place of their _nativity_. How +many were _citizens of Maryland_ when they enlisted does not appear. +Obviously many _natives_ of Maryland were doubtless in 1861 _citizens of +other States_, and could not therefore be reckoned among the soldiers +furnished by Maryland to the Confederate armies. + +As to the estimates furnished by writers in "_The South_" concerning the +number of men furnished the Confederacy from the Border States, viz., +Kentucky, 30,000; Missouri, 60,000; West Virginia, 7,000; the same +unintentional exaggeration doubtless exists here as I have shown in +regard to the numbers alleged to have been furnished by the seceded +States. Unfortunately it is not possible to be definite in stating the +numbers furnished by the Border States. When we observe the discrepancy +between Colonel Fox's 19,000, President Tyler's 117,000, and Colonel +Livermore's 143,000, it becomes clear that the whole subject is involved +in uncertainty. I incline to the opinion that 50,000 is nearer the +actual numbers in the Southern army from these Border States than +100,000; but for the sake of argument I leave the number 75,000, as +stated above.[14] + +Before concluding this branch of the subject I would call attention to +the following remark made by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in his "Military +Studies," p. 282. He says "that the States named [meaning Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia] sympathizing, as at the time the +Southern authorities claimed, most deeply with the Confederacy should +have furnished over 316,000 recruits to the Federal army, and only +117,000 to that of the Confederacy is, to say the least, deserving of +remark,--it calls for explanation." Again he says: "It would be not +unnatural to assume that these States furnished an equal number of +recruits to the Confederacy." (_Id._ p. 238.) + +This statement is sufficiently amazing. On the contrary, would it not be +most _unnatural_ to assume that these four States, occupied and +controlled from end to end by the Federal armies, should have furnished +as many men to the Confederate army as to the Federal army, +notwithstanding the enormous difficulties of passing through the lines? +Although there was much sentiment favorable to the Confederacy in these +four States, I fear there cannot be any doubt that the preponderance of +sentiment was in favor of the Union; and he must be blind who does not +recognize the fact that the difficulties in the way of a young man +desiring to enlist in the Southern army, while his State was occupied by +the Federal forces, were enormously great. + + +CONCLUSION + +There are two remarks of General Adams to which, before closing, I +should like to call attention. He states that the foreigners in the +Union army were more than counterbalanced by our drastic conscription +("Military Studies," p. 246). Now it appears from official reports that +there were 494,000 foreigners in the Union army, so that he must have +supposed that the conscription law produced about 500,000 soldiers. It +actually produced, east of the Mississippi, 81,992 men from February, +1862, when the first law was passed, to February, 1865. We cannot +suppose that the additions from the States west of the +Mississippi--Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas--could have been even +one-fourth as numerous. The military population was about one-third as +large, but by 1863 that territory was overrun by the Federal armies. But +if we put these at 20,000, we have only 101,992, instead of the half +million which Mr. Adams supposes. And if we should add the 76,000 men +which the conscription officers, magnifying their diligence, _guessed_ +had been driven into the army by enlistment to avoid conscription we +would then have only 177,993. + +Again, General Adams says: + +"As respects mere numbers, it is capable of demonstration that at the +close of the struggle the preponderance was on the side of the +Confederacy, and distinctly so. The Union at that time had, it is said, +a million men on its muster rolls.... It might possibly have been able +to put 500,000 men into the fighting line. On the other side ... the +fighting strength of the Confederacy cannot have been less than +two-thirds its normal strength. The South should have been able to +muster, on paper, 900,000 men." (_Idem_, pp. 241-2.) + +Compare this statement of what the South _should have been able_ to +muster with the consolidated abstract of the latest returns of the +Confederate army showing what she _was able_ to muster. This is the +record: + +Officers and men in _all_ the Confederate armies, February, 1865, +aggregate for duty, 160,000; aggregate present and absent, 358,000 (W. +R., iv. iii. p. 1182). + +General Marcus Wright, an expert authority, estimates the strength of +the Confederate army _at the close of the war_ thus: + + Present 157,613 + Absent 117,387 + ------- + Total 275,000 + +And of the Union army thus: + + Present 797,807 + Absent 202,700 + --------- + Total 1,000,507 + +If General Adams is right, one cannot but ask, where were the other +542,000 men, over and above the 358,000 shown by the official report +alluded to have been on the rolls? The 90,000 men in Northern prisons +will not help the situation, for they were not exactly available as part +of the "fighting strength of the Confederacy." Compare also the fact +that there were mustered out of the Union army at the end of the war +1,034,000 men; and there were, in all the Confederacy, surrendered +Confederate soldiers to the number of 174,000 only, and this included +all who were paroled, whether in hospital, or at their homes, as well as +those in arms. + + * * * * * + +In conclusion I am reminded of the words of General Lee in a letter to +General Jubal A. Early, shortly after the war, "IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO +GET THE WORLD TO UNDERSTAND THE ODDS AGAINST WHICH WE FOUGHT." + +Still I cannot help thinking that the statements of the adjutant-general +of the Confederate armies in his official reports, and the testimony of +General Lee himself in regard to the numbers in his army, will +ultimately be considered by the world more reliable than the _a priori_ +estimates of even so careful and honest an investigator as Colonel +Livermore. + +When immediately after the surrender at Appomattox General Meade asked +General Lee how many men he had in his army, the latter replied that he +had on his entire front, from Richmond to Petersburg, not more than +29,000 muskets. "Then," said General Meade, "we had five to your one." +On the whole I think we may still claim for the armies of the Southern +Confederacy the encomium penned by Virgil nearly two thousand years ago: + +"Exigui numero, sed bello vivida virtus." + + + + +POSTWORD + + +The arguments adduced in the preceding pages are believed by the writer +to be valid and sufficient to refute the conclusion reached by Colonel +Livermore, the Hon. Charles Francis Adams, and others, that there was in +the Confederacy a "minimum of 1,160,000 effectives, to which we must add +117,000 men from the Border States, giving a total Confederate strength +of 1,277,000." I have not attempted to give definite figures as to the +actual enrollment in the Southern armies. My argument is of necessity +largely based on the probabilities of the situation,--it does not +profess to be demonstrative, or final. But "probability is the guide of +life"; and I believe I have blazed a path by which future students of +the subject, having before them the muster rolls of the Confederate army +will be able to reach more definite conclusions in this important +subject--conclusions, however, not seriously at variance with those +stated in these pages.[15] + + + + +FOOTNOTES + + +[1] Gen. Adams says: "Computations based on the census returns tend to +show that at the very lowest estimate the increase of time of military +service would represent an increase of at least 30 per cent. in +effectives." Id. p. 284. + +[2] Our critic has made an error here: 12 per cent, of 1,000,000, i.e., +120,000, so that his aggregate should be 1,420,000. + +[3] See Merivale's History of the Romans, III, 416, and IV, 298 and 343, +and V. 386. + +[4] In the first edition of Col. Henderson's work, cited above, he +actually stated that the element of foreigners in the Southern armies +was almost as large as in the Northern armies! + +[5] Gen. Marcus J. Wright puts this number at only 65,387. But cf. +Mansfield's Life of Grant, p. 338. + +[6] See a valuable discussion of our subject in a pamphlet entitled +"Acts of the Republican Party," by Cazenove G. Lee, who wrote under the +_nom de plume_ of "C. Gardner," Winchester, Va., 1906, pp. 59-69. + +[7] I acted as adjutant of the Third Brigade A. N. Va., in the +Gettysburg campaign. Even then, in the third year of the war, and in +that best equipped army, the returns showed only 1480 muskets to 1941 +men in the brigade. One-fourth of the command was without arms. + +[8] "The Government, at the opening of 1864, estimated that the +Conscription would place four hundred thousand men in the field." Lee +did not share this belief. By the end of the year it was, in his +opinion, "diminishing, rather than increasing, the strength of his +army."--Letter of Dec. 31, 1864. See "R. E. Lee, Man and Soldier," p. +591, by Thos. Nelson Page. + +[9] Thus, to quote that able and expert authority Gen. Marcus J. Wright: +Battles around Richmond (1862), Lee, 80,835; McClellan, 115,249. At +Antietam, Confederates, 35,255; Federals, 87,164. At Fredericksburg, +Confederates, 78,110; Federals, 110,000. At Chancellorsville, +Confederates, 57,212; Federals, 131,661. At Gettysburg, Confederates, +64,000; Federals, 95,000. At the Wilderness, Confederates, 63,981; +Federals, 141,160. + +[10] A consideration of the portentous difference between the number of +men borne on the regimental rolls and the number actually available on +the battlefield, suggests that it may be in large degree accounted for +by the number of men detailed for service in the industrial army. + +Thus in the army of Northern Virginia just before Fredericksburg, Nov. +20, 1862: + + Aggregate present and absent 153,773 + Aggregate present for duty 86,569 + Soon after Gettysburg: + 1863: Present and absent 109,915 + Present for duty 50,184 + Before Wilderness campaign: + 1864: Present and absent 98,246 + Present for duty 62,925 + On reaching Petersburg, July 10, 1864: + Present and absent 135,805 + Present for duty 68,844 + +As to exemptions it was customary to exempt farmers who engaged to raise +a certain amount of corn. + +Again the practice was extensively pursued of granting furloughs for +recruiting service. Such men continued to be borne on the rolls of their +commands in the field. + +[11] Aggregate available military population 792,000, of which 350,000 +in the army January, 1862. Above figure is 2-1/2 per cent. of remainder, +viz. 442,000. + +[12] Col. Livermore's method of computation, if applied to the true +available number 760,000, with additions and deductions noted above, +yields a very similar result, about 790,000. See his book, p. 23, but +note on p. 21 an error of calculation, where instead of 265,000 he +should give 246,872. + +[13] The ten per cent. addition for extension of military age is too +high an estimate in this and the following tables, when we remember that +the conscript law lowering the age to seventeen and raising it to fifty +did not go into operation until February 17, 1864, by which time the +territory of the Confederacy was greatly contracted. + +[14] + WAR DEPARTMENT, + WASHINGTON, May 18, 1912. +DEAR DR. MCKIM, +I think your estimate of 50,000 as representing the total number of +troops furnished by the Border States is about correct. It can never be +definitely ascertained. + Very truly yours, + MARCUS J. WRIGHT. + +[15] I have not in this Monograph taken account of an argument sometimes +put forward, drawn from the alleged fact that the census of 1890 showed +that there were then living 432,020 Confederate and 980,724 United +States soldiers (or including sailors and marines 1,034,073). But the +Report on Population, 1890, Part II, p. clxxii, states that the figures +first quoted are approximate only, and "have not been subjected to +careful revision and comparison." No positive conclusion, therefore, can +be drawn from them. Their unreliability is shown by the fact that at +that very time the War Department estimated that there were then living +1,341,332 Federal soldiers. + + * * * * * + +Transcriber's Corrections + +Following is a list of significant typographical errors that have been +corrected. + +- Page 70, repeated "to" eliminated (alluded to have been). + +- Footnote 10, "Fredricksburg" changed to "Fredericksburg" (just before +Fredericksburg). + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The numerical strength of the +Confederate army, by Randolph H. McKim + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF *** + +***** This file should be named 34334-0.txt or 34334-0.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/3/3/34334/ + +Produced by Patrick Hopkins and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/34334-0.zip b/34334-0.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..57160a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-0.zip diff --git a/34334-h.zip b/34334-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d9f407 --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-h.zip diff --git a/34334-h/34334-h.htm b/34334-h/34334-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8630d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-h/34334-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2249 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<!-- $Id: header.txt 236 2009-12-07 18:57:00Z vlsimpson $ --> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Numerical Strength Of The Confederate Army, by Randolph H. Mckim, D.D., Ll.D., D.C.L. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + text-indent: 1em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + width: 400px; +} + +th { + text-align: center; +} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + color: silver; +} /* page numbers */ + +.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +/* Images */ +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; +} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +/* Custom */ +.clr {clear: both;} + +.tn { background-color: #EEE; color: inherit; font-size: 80%; margin: 2em 10% 1em 10%; padding: 0.5em 1em 0.5em 1em; font-family: sans-serif; border: thin solid black; } + +.correct {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted red;} + +li {margin-bottom: .5em;} + +.noin {text-indent: 0em;} +.in {text-indent: 1em; width: 90%;} +.hang {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; margin: 0em; text-align: left;} + +.tval {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;} +.tvalb {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom; border-bottom: 1px solid black;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The numerical strength of the Confederate +army, by Randolph H. McKim + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The numerical strength of the Confederate army + an examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis + Adams and others + +Author: Randolph H. McKim + +Release Date: November 15, 2010 [EBook #34334] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF *** + + + + +Produced by Patrick Hopkins and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<div class="tn"> + +<h3>Transcriber's Note</h3> + +<ul> +<li> Illustration captions in {brackets} have been added by the transcriber +for reader convenience.</li> + +<li> In general, geographical references, spelling, hyphenation, and +capitalization have been retained as in the original publication.</li> + +<li> Minor typographical errors—usually periods and commas—have been +corrected without note.</li> + +<li> Significant typographical errors have been corrected and are marked with +dotted underlines. Place your mouse over the highlighted word and the original text will +<ins class="correct" title="Like this!">appear</ins>. A full list of these same corrections +is also available in the <a href="#TC">Transcriber's Corrections</a> section at the end of +the book.</li> +</ul> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<h1>THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH<br /> +OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY</h1> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 90px;"> + <img src="images/i002.jpg" width="90" height="83" alt="{Logo with letter "N"}" title="" /> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<h1>THE NUMERICAL<br /> +STRENGTH OF THE<br /> +CONFEDERATE ARMY</h1> + +<p class="center">AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT<br /> +OF THE HON. CHARLES FRANCIS<br /> +ADAMS AND OTHERS<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +BY</p> +<h2>RANDOLPH H. McKIM, D.D., LL.D., D.C.L.</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Late 1st Lieut, and A. D. C. 3d Brigade Army of Northern<br /> +Virginia. Author of "A Soldier's Recollections."</i><br /> +<br /> +<i>Exigui numero sed bello vivida virtus—Virgil</i></p> + +<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"> + <div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 350px;"><p class="noin">It will be difficult to get the world to understand<br /> + the odds against which we fought.</p> + <p style="text-align: right;">—<span class="smcap">General Robert E. Lee</span></p></div> +</div> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 90px; padding: 50px 0 50px 0;"> + <img src="images/i003.jpg" width="90" height="110" alt="{Logo}" title="" /> +</div> + +<p class="center">NEW YORK<br /> +THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY<br /> +1912</p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + + +<p class="center"> +<br /> +<br /> +Copyright, 1912, by<br /> +<span class="smcap">The Neale Publishing Company</span> +<br /> +<br /></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE</h2> + + +<p>The distinguished soldier and critic whose name appears on the title +page argues, as do various other Northern critics, that the usual +Southern estimate of the strength of the Confederate army is too small +by half. This conclusion is supported, they contend, both by the census +of 1860, according to which there were at the very beginning of the war +between the States nearly a million men in the Southern States of +military age, and by the number of regiments of the several armies, as +shown by the muster rolls of the Confederate army, captured on Lee's +retreat from Richmond, and now stored among the archives in Washington. +This second line of argument has been developed, among others, by two +well-known military critics, Colonel Wm. F. Fox, in his monumental work +entitled "<i>Regimental Losses in the Civil War</i>" (who concludes that the +Southern Armies contained the equivalent of 764 regiments, of ten +companies each), and by Thomas L. Livermore, Colonel of the 18th New +Hampshire Volunteers, in his laborious and painstaking monograph, +"Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America," published in 1901.</p> + +<p>Both these authors have had the advantage of studying the Muster Rolls +of the Confederate army just alluded to, but General Marcus J. Wright, +of the Adjutant General's Office, War Department, Washington, writes me +that he knows of no Southern man who has ever examined these Rolls, +although General T. W. Castleman of Louisiana has recently received +permission to copy the Louisiana Rolls. Colonel Walter H. Taylor, of +General Lee's staff was also permitted to examine some of the official +returns of Lee's Army.</p> + +<p>Although the author of the following pages has not had the opportunity +of studying those precious Muster Rolls, he hopes that he has been able +to show that the thesis maintained by the distinguished critics just +mentioned rests on no sufficient foundation and ought to be rejected by +careful thinkers.</p> + +<p>The main points of my counter argument are these: 1. The lack of arms +limiting the enrolment of soldiers the first year of the war. 2. The +loss of one-fourth of our territory by the end of the first year. 3. The +loss of control of the trans-Mississippi in 1863-4. 4. The enormous +number exempted from enrolment for every sort of State duty, and for +railroads and new manufacturing establishments made necessary by the +blockade of our ports. 5. The opposition of some of the State +governments to the execution of the Conscript law. 6. The comparative +failure of the Conscript law. 7. The disloyalty of a part of our +population. 8. The necessity of creating not only an army of fighters, +but also an industrial army, and an army of civil servants out of the +male population liable for military duty.</p> + +<p>The character of the evidence available precludes a precise estimate of +the actual strength of the Confederate army. As Colonel Walter H. +Taylor, Lee's Adjutant General, says in a letter addressed to the +author, "I regret to have to say that I know of no reliable data in +support of any precise number, and have always realized that it must +ever be largely a matter of conjecture on our side."</p> + +<p style="text-align: right;"> +<span class="smcap">R. H. McK.</span></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THE_NUMERICAL_STRENGTH_OF_THE_CONFEDERATE_ARMY" id="THE_NUMERICAL_STRENGTH_OF_THE_CONFEDERATE_ARMY"></a>THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY</h2> + + +<p>Charles Francis Adams holds a warm place in the hearts of the survivors +of the Army of Northern Virginia, and, indeed, of all the Confederate +Armies, not only because of his splendid tribute to General Robert E. +Lee and to the army he commanded, but also because of his generous +recognition of the high motives of the Southern people in the course +they pursued in 1861.</p> + +<p>It is therefore in the friendliest spirit that I undertake to question +the accuracy of his conclusion as to the numerical strength of the +Southern forces engaged during the four years of the War between the +States. In his recent volume, "Studies Military and Diplomatic," p. 286, +he states "that the actual enrollment of the Confederate Army during the +entire four years of the conflict exceeded 1,100,000, rather than fell +short of that number."</p> + +<p>General Adams is of the opinion that it is a mistake to suppose that the +Confederate States were crushed by overwhelming resources and numbers. +He calls attention to the statement usually given by Southern writers, +that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> the South had on her muster rolls, from first to last, about +600,000 men, and refers to this as a "legend" (p. 287), "opposed to all +reasonable assumption and unsupported by documentary evidence"; "based +on assertion only" (p. 286).</p> + +<p>His argument is chiefly <i>a priori</i>, and proceeds substantially thus: The +census of 1860 shows there were upward of 5,000,000 white people in the +States which subsequently seceded. This represents an arms-bearing +population of 1,000,000 men between eighteen and forty-five years of +age. To this he adds thirty per cent, for those males between sixteen +and eighteen years, and between forty-five and sixty years of age—added +by law, so he states, to the military population—making 300,000 +more.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Now, further add twelve per cent.—or 150,000—for youths +reaching, between May, 1861, and May, 1865, the age of sixteen years, +and we have a total aggregate Confederate arms-bearing population of +1,450,000.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> From this total General Adams deducts twenty per cent, for +exempts of all classes.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> "There were then remaining a minimum of +1,160,000 effectives, to which we must add men from the Border States +117,000; giving a total Confederate strength of 1,277,000." He says +also: "The whole male arms-bearing population was thus put in arms."</p> + +<p>Now I wish on the very threshold to acknowledge freely that this +conclusion is not, in the opinion of General Adams, discreditable to the +South, but the reverse. He holds that the Southern estimate of a total +strength of only 600,000 with the Confederate colors, is discreditable +to the spirit and the patriotism of our people. In his opinion a just +appreciation of the virtue and self-sacrifice exhibited by the men of +the South should lead us to accept the much higher estimate which he +gives, not reluctantly, but freely and cheerfully. He thinks that we who +contest it place the Southern people on a lower level of devotion than +the Boers of South Africa.</p> + + +<h3>THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE BOERS AND THE CONFEDERATES</h3> + +<p>He says, at p. 239 of his "Military Studies": "How was it under very +similar circumstances with the South Africans? On Confederate showing, +they are a braver, a more patriotic,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> and self-sacrificing race!" He +goes on to show that the Boers had in actual service more than 1 in 4 of +their population; while, if it be true that there were only 600,000 +Southern soldiers in the Confederacy, there was only 1 out of 12 at the +front. This, he thinks, would be discreditable to Confederate manhood; +he cannot believe that the Southerners of that period were a race of +such "mean-spirited, stay-at-home skulkers."</p> + +<p>In answer to this I shall undertake to show in the following pages that +Mr. Adams' figures are very wide of the mark, so that the proportion of +fighting men in the Confederate army was enormously greater than he +admits in this passage, not less than 1 in 6 of the population. But the +fact is that the conditions in the cases of the Boers and the +Confederates were about as dissimilar as they well could be. In the one +case there was a small, compact population, for the most part half +civilized, and occupying a territory less than a quarter of that +included in the Confederacy. They had no highly differentiated +civilization to support. In the Confederacy there were eleven States, +each of which was organized as a distinct government and each of which +required a large number of men to fill its offices and to maintain its +civilization. Large numbers of men were also needed, as I shall show, +for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> purposes of manufacture, and to supply the army with food and +munitions of war. To compare a small community of 323,000 (Boers) with a +nation of 5,000,000 whites, besides 3,000,000 blacks; a perfectly +homogeneous people with one containing divers elements; a semi-civilized +people with one whose civilization was highly differentiated; a people +accustomed to live on the veldt in the saddle, with one dwelling largely +in towns and cities and engaged in diversified occupations—is to make a +comparison illusory in a high degree.</p> + +<p>In confirmation of the preceding statement, I add the following passage +from a letter addressed to me by my friend, Colonel Archer Anderson, of +Richmond, Va.:</p> + +<p>"My argument was that the comparison of the Confederates with the Boers +was not fair, the Boers being at a primitive stage of civilization—a +pastoral and agricultural people with no arts, no culture, and no wants +beyond a bare subsistence. Such a people can call out a large proportion +of its population, and in their case there was the particular advantage +that through their relations to the great mining region operated by +foreigners, they had accumulated a vast treasure and a great stock of +European munitions of war, and for a long period were able to draw what +they further<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> needed from Europe through their railway communication +with the Portuguese port on Delagoa Bay. You have shown that the +Confederates on the other hand were highly civilized, with national, +State, and municipal institutions to maintain, and, being cut off from +supplies from the outside world, obliged to extemporize varied +manufactures of powder, cannon, small arms, clothing, shoes, hats, and +every sort of material needed by their railway systems and their people +at home as well as the armies in the field. The maintenance of civil +government, and such a task of production over and above the yield of +agriculture, required the abstraction of a vast number of men from +military service."</p> + +<p>It is instructive, in considering this argument to recall what a great +historian tells us of the Helvetii, in their contest with Cæsar. He +says,</p> + +<p>"The whole population of the assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, +including women and children: the number that bore arms was 92,000." +(Merivale, History of the Romans, vol. I, pp. 242-3.)</p> + +<p>Here is a real historical parallel between two peoples at a not +dissimilar stage of civilization. Their numbers were very nearly the +same: in one case 323,000, in the other 368,000; and their fighting +strength was about in the same propor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>tion,—one in four of the +population; 89,000 in one case, 92,000 in the other.</p> + +<p>It may be added that if Mr. Adams is right in estimating the Southern +armies at nearly 1,300,000 men, then we face the remarkable fact that a +white population of a little more than 5,000,000 people sent to the +front almost as many men as a population of over 22,000,000. For Colonel +Livermore tells us there were 2,234,000 individuals in the United States +army; but of these, 186,017 were negroes, 494,000 foreigners, and 86,000 +from the Southern states; so that the North only sent into the field +1,467,083.</p> + +<p>Judged then by the numerical standard, the patriotism and devotion of +the Southern people, according to this showing, was to that of the North +as four to one. And this takes no account of the many thousands who +served the South as mechanics, laborers, etc.</p> + + +<h3>FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN THE ARGUMENT OF NORTHERN WRITERS</h3> + +<p>It seems to be overlooked by General Adams, Colonel Livermore, and other +persons, in their estimates of the population available for military +purposes, that the Confederate States' Government had not only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> to +organize an army, but also to establish extensive manufacturing plants +for the equipment of the army; for clothing, for harness, for saddles, +for guns, powder, and ordnance; even for mining the ore which had to be +worked up into iron for the Tredegar works and other similar plants +within the limits of the Confederacy.</p> + +<p>Again, a large contingent of men had to be retained as railway servants +and government clerks, and for purposes of agriculture, for it must be +remembered that not one in ten of the soldiers in the Confederate army +was an owner of slaves, and therefore a very large proportion of the +agriculture of the country had to be carried on by white men. It is also +overlooked that the complicated machinery of civilized government had to +be maintained in eleven States with the necessary officers and clerks +pertaining to their administration. (This is one of the particulars in +which the case of the Boer Republic differs so radically from that of +the Southern Confederacy that the comparison between the two is quite +illusory.) If, as General Adams insists, "the whole male arms-bearing +was thus put in arms," one cannot but wonder who did all these things +just enumerated?</p> + +<p>When these things are taken into consideration, and the figures I shall +present are care<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span>fully examined, it will be seen that to have put +600,000 men into the armies of the South—men serving with the +colors—instead of being discreditable to the patriotism of the Southern +people was in reality a great achievement.</p> + +<p>One of the most accomplished English military critics of our time, +Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, author of the Life of Stonewall Jackson, +writes on this aspect of the subject as follows:</p> + +<p>"Not only had the South to provide from her seven millions of white +population an army larger than that of Imperial France, but from a +nation of agriculturists she had to provide another army of craftsmen +and mechanics to enable the soldiers to keep the field. For guns and gun +carriages, powder and ammunition, clothing and harness, gunboats and +torpedoes, locomotives and railway plant, she was now dependent on the +hands of her own people and the resources of her own soil. The +organization of these resources scattered over a vast extent of +territory, was not to be accomplished in the course of a few months, nor +was the supply of skilled labor sufficient to fill the ranks of her +industrial army." (Life of Stonewall Jackson, II, 253.)</p> + +<p>Upon this striking passage one or two remarks may be appropriate. The +distinguished critic tells us most truly that the South, by reason of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +her isolated situation, had to provide two armies,—an army of fighters +and an army of workers. He might have said she had to provide three +armies; for besides the industrial army and the army of soldiers, she +had to provide an army of civil servants to man the offices necessary to +carry on not only the Confederate States government, but also the +government of eleven separate States, with their highly differentiated +organizations.</p> + +<p>Our author calls attention to the fact that the fighting army of the +South was larger than that of Imperial France. Let me add that, even if +the Southern army numbered no more than 650,000 men, it was nearly +double the army of Imperial Rome in the reign of Augustus. Radiating +from the golden milestone in the forum to every point of the compass, +that vast empire extended from the Pillars of Hercules to the banks of +the Euphrates, and from the coasts of Britain to the borders of the +great African desert. It comprehended among its subjects at least an +hundred divers races, numbering about 85,000,000 people; and yet the +historian tells us that the entire armies of the empire, exclusive of +some battalions maintained in Rome<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> itself, did not exceed 340,000 +men,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> there being at the time among the <i>citizens</i>, exclusive of the +<i>subjects</i>, 5,984,072 males of military age.</p> + +<p>I have quoted Colonel Henderson's admiring comment on the size of the +army the South was able to put in the field. In doing so I have not +forgotten that he estimates that army at 900,000. But his judgment upon +that point loses much of its weight when we observe that in two distinct +passages in his Life of Stonewall Jackson he gives seven millions as the +white population of the South, instead of five millions, as it actually +was. This error may serve to show how easy it is for a foreign critic to +be mistaken upon a question of statistics. Apart from the influence upon +his judgment of his error as to the size of the white population, it is +evident, from the passage quoted above, that Henderson included in the +estimate of 900,000 many thousands of men detailed for the various +industries he enumerates.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> + +<p>I submit then that these preliminary considerations quite do away with +the presumption that an army of only six hundred thousand men serving +with the colors, would have been unworthy of the devotion or the +patriotism of the Southern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> people, or inadequate to what might have +been expected of a nation of five millions of whites.</p> + +<p>In other words, we enter upon our argument without any reasonable +presumption against the conclusion which it is our purpose to defend. +Whoever will fairly consider that the South had to provide out of her +indigenous male population of military age, a fighting army, an +industrial army, and an army of civil servants, will not be surprised if +it shall appear from the evidence available that she was not able to +muster in battle array more than six hundred thousand men.</p> + + +<h3>AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OUR CONCLUSION</h3> + +<p>We arrive at the result indicated above by several independent lines of +evidence.</p> + +<p>I.—Our figures are supported by the statements of a number of men who +were in position to know what was the total effective strength of the +Southern armies. Among them were General Cooper, adjutant-general of the +Confederate armies, writing in 1869 (see "Southern Historical Society +Papers," Vol. vii, p. 287); Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, Assistant Secretary of +War; General John Preston, chief of the Conscription Bureau; +Vice-President Alexander H. Stephens ("War<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> Between the States," 1870, +Vol. ii, p. 630); General Jubal A. Early ("Southern Historical Papers," +Vol. ii, p. 20); Dr. Joseph Jones (official report, June, 1890, +"Southern Historical Society Papers," xix, 14), and General Marcus J. +Wright—who now, however, puts the numbers at 700,000 ("Southern +Historical Society Papers," xix, 254). I ask what better authorities on +this subject could be named than the adjutant-general of the army, the +Assistant Secretary of War, and the chief of the Conscription Bureau of +the Confederate States?</p> + +<p>In August, 1869, Dr. Joseph Jones sent to General Cooper a carefully +prepared paper on this subject, asking his opinion as to the accuracy of +the data contained therein. General Cooper replied that after having +"closely examined" the paper he had "come to the conclusion, from his +general recollection," that "it must be regarded as nearly critically +correct." Is it credible that the adjutant-general of the army should +have given as his opinion that this number—600,000,—was "<i>nearly +critically correct</i>," if in fact there had been upon the rolls of the +Confederate armies twice that number,—1,277,000 men,—as General Adams +would have us believe?</p> + +<p>II.—By adding together the Confederate prisoners in the hands of the +United States at the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> close of the war, 98,000;<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> the soldiers who +surrendered in 1865, 174,223; those who were killed or died of wounds, +74,508; died in prison, 26,439; died of disease, 59,277; died from other +causes, 40,000; discharged, 57,411; deserters, 83,372; we get a total of +613,230.</p> + +<p>These figures as to the killed and died of wounds, and of disease, are +taken from Fox's monumental work on regimental losses. He "conjectures" +that nearly 20,000 must be added to the 74,508 given above, making +94,000; but gives no grounds for this.</p> + +<p>III.—Again the official report of General S. Cooper, Adjutant General, +dated March 1, 1862 (127 W. R. 963), states the aggregate of the +Confederate armies, including armed and organized militia, officers and men, as </p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">340,250</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">General Preston, Superintendent of Conscription, +C. S. A., reports from February, +1862, to February, 1865 (W. R., +series iv, Vol. iii, p. 1101):</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Conscriptions (exclusive of Arkansas and +Texas)</td><td class="tval">81,993</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Enlistments east of the Mississippi River.</td><td class="tvalb">76,206</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">498,449</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> +Estimated conscriptions and enlistments +west of the river and elsewhere</td><td class="tvalb"> 120,000</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval">618,449</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>IV.—Now compare with these reports the following statement from the +<i>New York Tribune</i> of June 26, 1867:</p> + +<p>"Among the documents which fell into our hands at the downfall of the +Confederacy are the returns, very nearly complete, of the Confederate +armies from their organization in the summer of 1861 down to the spring +of 1865. These returns have been carefully analyzed, and I am enabled to +furnish the returns in every department and for almost every month from +these official sources. We judge in all 600,000 different men were in +the Confederate ranks during the war."</p> + +<p>This was accompanied by a detailed tabular statement.</p> + +<p>Is not this good secondary evidence as to the numbers of men in the +Confederate Army, especially when we remember the statement of General +Cooper, late adjutant-general of the Confederate armies? He says:</p> + +<p>"The files of this office which could best afford this information [as +to numbers] were carefully boxed up and taken on our retreat from +Rich<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span>mond to Charlotte, North Carolina, where they were, unfortunately, +captured and, as I learn, are now in Washington." These files, be it +remembered, have never been examined by any Southern writer.</p> + +<p>Observe also that the "American Encyclopædia" (1875), of which Mr. +Charles A. Dana, late Assistant Secretary of War, U. S., was editor, +quotes General Cooper's statement as to numbers, without comment, thus +tacitly admitting the truth of that statement. Can it be justly said, in +the light of these facts, that the estimate usually given by Southern +writers is based on assertion only?<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> + +<p>V.—There is a fifth line upon which we are led to a very similar +conclusion.</p> + +<p>In the work of Lieutenant Colonel Wm. F. Fox, "Regimental Losses in the +Civil War," we find the strength of the Confederate armies furnished by +the seceded States and by the border States as well, reckoned as +follows: 529 regiments and 85 battalions of infantry; 127 regiments and +47 battalions of cavalry; 8 regiments and 1 battalion of partisan +rangers; 5 regiments and 6 bat<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>talions of heavy artillery, and 261 +batteries of light artillery—in all equivalent to 764 regiments of 10 +companies. In making this statement Colonel Fox assures his readers that +"no statistics are given that are not warranted by the official +records."</p> + +<p>As to the size of the regiments we got some light from the following +reports: The Confederate adjutant-general reports in March, 1862, an +average strength of 823 men in 369 regiments and 89 battalions (127 W. +R. 963). Beauregard's Corps (32 regiments) is reported Aug. 31, 1861, as +numbering 1037 men to the regiment (5 W. R. 824). Longstreet's Virginia +troops, June 23, 1862, averaged 754 men to the regiment. (14 W. R. 614, +615.) But more important is the legislation of the Congress. The +Confederate Act of March 6, 1861, prescribed for infantry companies the +number of 104, and for cavalry 72, which gives, for an infantry regiment +(10 companies) 1040 men, and for a cavalry regiment 720 men—provided +the ranks were full, which was by no means the rule but rather the +exception. Observe now that in November, 1861, the War Department +prescribed that no infantry company should be accepted with less than 64 +men and no cavalry company with less than 60 and no artillery company +with less than 70. On<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> this basis infantry regiments might number only +640 men and cavalry regiments only 600.</p> + +<p>This marked change in the standard of the size of companies and +regiments prescribed by the War Department in November, 1861, as +compared with the Act of March, 1861, lowering the requisite number of +men in an infantry regiment from 1040 to 640, and in a cavalry regiment +from 720 to 600, is suggestive of the fact that it was not found easy to +raise regiments of the size originally prescribed.</p> + +<p>Now in calculating the strength of the Confederate army from the number +of regiments, we shall probably approximate closely a correct result by +taking the mean between the larger and smaller number just referred to. +But the mean between 1040 and 640 is 840, and that between 720 and 600 +is 660.</p> + +<p>Applying this standard to Colonel Fox's statement of the troops in the +entire Confederate army, we get the following result:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">Men</td></tr> +<tr><td>529 regiments of infantry, 840 each</td><td class="tval">444,360</td></tr> +<tr><td>85 battalions infantry, 400 each</td><td class="tval">34,000</td></tr> +<tr><td>127 regiments cavalry, 600 each</td><td class="tval">76,200</td></tr> +<tr><td>47 battalions cavalry, 400 each</td><td class="tval">18,800</td></tr> +<tr><td>261 batteries light artillery, 70 each</td><td class="tval">16,270</td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>5 regiments heavy artillery, 800 each</td><td align="right">4,000</td></tr> +<tr><td>6 battalions heavy artillery, 400 each</td><td class="tval">2,400</td></tr> +<tr><td>8 regiments partisan rangers, 700 each</td><td class="tval">5,600</td></tr> +<tr><td>1 battalion partisan rangers</td><td class="tvalb">350</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">601,980</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>The size of infantry and cavalry battalions and of regiments and +battalions of heavy artillery in this calculation, as well as of the +regiments of partisan rangers, is in each case suggested by that +accomplished and experienced officer, Colonel Walter H. Taylor, +adjutant-general on the staff of General Robert E. Lee. His figures may +be rather high—certainly they are not too low. Of course such a +calculation is necessarily only approximate, but the basis on which it +is made appears reasonably reliable. To one who, like myself, had +personal observation of the armies in Virginia from the first battle of +Manassas to Appomattox, the standard of strength in regiments and +battalions in the field above adopted, seems in conformity with the +facts.</p> + + +<h3>THE ARGUMENT OF GENERAL ADAMS</h3> + +<p>Turn we now to examine the estimate made by General Adams and quoted at +the beginning of this paper.</p> + +<p>But first let me say that I quite agree with him when he says that if +the South had as many as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> 600,000 men in arms she ought to have been +unconquerable, and probably would have been so, but for the United +States Navy.</p> + +<p>That opinion was expressed by a distinguished Southern writer, Dr. +Bledsoe, Assistant Secretary of War, in an article written about forty +years ago. He said: "The decisive circumstance which robbed the South of +the defensive advantage of its wide territory was the superiority of its +enemy upon the water." All the water front of the Confederate States was +"an exposed frontier," both ocean coasts and navigable rivers. The best +authorities in the South have maintained the same view with practically +unanimity; hence, in differing from Mr. Adams I am not influenced by a +desire to account for our defeat by the overwhelming force of numbers +opposed to us, but by the desire to establish the truth of history.</p> + + +<h3>WEAK POINTS IN GENERAL ADAMS' ARGUMENT</h3> + +<p>Now in making the calculation previously alluded to, it appears to me +that our gallant and generous friend has overlooked some important +considerations bearing on the problem discussed.</p> + +<p>1.—During the first year of the war the Confederate Government could +not have availed itself of even half a million of men for its armies, +in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>asmuch as it was utterly unable to arm and equip them. The supply of +arms and of artillery was utterly inadequate for even half that +number.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> As the war progressed the muskets, the sabers, the cannon, +used in the Confederate army, if examined, would have been found to have +been in larger part captured on the field of battle. Pompey the Great is +reported to have said, "I have only to stamp with my foot to raise +legions from the soil of Italy." Had Jefferson Davis been able by a +stamp of his foot to summon a million men to the Confederate colors in +the spring of 1861, what advantage would it have been? He could not have +armed them, even if he could have fed and clothed and transported them. +As General Adams himself has said: "The strength of an army is measured +and limited not by the census number of men available, but by the means +at hand of arming, equipping, clothing, feeding, and transporting those +men."</p> + +<p>2.—General Adams appears to have overlooked the fact that by May, 1862, +the Northern armies were in permanent occupation of middle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> and west +Tennessee, nearly the whole of Louisiana, part of Florida, the coasts of +North and South Carolina, southeastern Virginia, much of northern +Virginia, and practically the whole of that part of Virginia known as +Western Virginia. The population thus excluded from the support of the +Confederacy may be estimated conservatively at 1,200,000, leaving +3,800,000 to bear the burden of the war. Hence the estimate of the +arms-bearing population in 1862, when the real tug began, would be not +1,000,000, but 760,000. Of this number, one-fifth, as General Adams +admits, would be regularly exempt, i.e., 152,000; and many thousands +more were detailed for various branches of industry. Doubtless during +the first year thousands entered the Confederate army from this +territory—a fair proportion of the 340,000 on the muster rolls in +March, 1862; but the conscript law could not operate—never did +operate—in this fourth of the Southern territory.</p> + +<p>3.—The seceded States (including West Va.) furnished the Northern +armies, according to the returns of the War Department, 86,000 men. I do +not remember any mention of this by Mr. Adams, though he alludes to the +statement that 316,000 men were furnished by Southern States to the +Union armies, including the Border States, which did not secede. (The +records of the War<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> Department show a total of white soldiers from all +Southern States, including Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, +Delaware and District of Columbia, of 295,481.)</p> + +<p>4.—It must be remembered that while the unanimity with which the +Southern people supported the war has perhaps never been surpassed in so +large a revolution, yet there was a large element of disloyalty, +especially in the mountainous regions of the South. For instance, in the +Valley of Virginia there were large numbers of Quakers and Dunkards, all +opposed to war. There were also in that region the numerous descendants +of the Hessian prisoners, who were not in sympathy with us. The number +of Union men in the South who did not take up arms has been estimated at +80,000.</p> + +<p>5.—It must also be remembered, as Dr. Bledsoe said in his article in +the <i>Southern Review</i>, that "there was also a large element of baser +metal,—men who begrudged the sacrifice for liberty and shirked danger."</p> + +<p>6.—General Adams says that the Confederate States passed the most +drastic conscript law on record—which may be true; but he is mistaken +in supposing that this law was successfully executed. Thus, General Cobb +writes, December, 1864, from Macon, Georgia, to the Secretary of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> War: +"I say to you that you will never get the men into the service who ought +to be there, through the conscript camp. It would require the whole army +to enforce the conscript law if the same state of things exist +throughout the Confederacy which I know to be the case in Georgia and +Alabama, and I may add Tennessee." (W. R., series iv, vol. iii, p. 964.)</p> + +<p>Again, H. W. Walters, writing from Oxford, Mississippi, to the +Department, December, 1864, says: "I regard the conscript department in +Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi as almost worthless." Yet again +General T. H. Holmes reports to Adjutant-General Cooper as to North +Carolina, April 29, 1864: "After a full and complete conference with +Colonel Mallett, commandant of conscription, ... I am pained to report +that there is much disaffection in many of the counties, which, +emboldened by the absence of troops, are being organized in some places +to resist enrolling officers." And General Kemper reports, December 4, +1864, that in his belief there were 40,000 men in Virginia out of the +army between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. (W. R., series iv, +vol. iii, p. 855.)</p> + +<p>In support of his thesis that the whole military population was enrolled +in the Confederate armies Colonel Livermore quotes a letter of General +Lee,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> urging the necessity of "getting out our entire arms-bearing +population in Virginia and North Carolina." But this letter, written +October 4, 1864, six months before the surrender, is strong evidence +that <i>up to that time</i> the stringent conscript laws had failed to get +out even in Virginia and North Carolina, "the entire arms-bearing +population." (Livermore, "Numbers and Losses," p. 17.)</p> + +<p>Colonel Livermore quotes another letter of General Lee, dated September +26, 1864, in confirmation of his opinion that the conscription laws were +thoroughly enforced, in which General Lee speaks of the "imperious +necessity of getting all our men subject to military duty in the field," +and adds, "<i>I get no additions.</i>" (Id. p. 17.) Is that statement +consistent with the rigid and successful enforcement of the conscript +law? Is it not rather the most conclusive evidence that it was not +successfully enforced? Or is my Bœotian wit so dull that I cannot see +the point? If so, I pray to be enlightened!<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span><a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> + +<p>The statement is often made that the Confederate Conscription embraced +all white males between 16 and 60 years of age. This is an error. The +first Act, April 16, 1862, embraced men between 18 and 35 years; the +second, of Sept. 27, 1862, men between 18 and 45 years; the third and +last, of February 17, 1864, men between 17 and 50. Both General Adams +and Colonel Livermore acknowledge this. Yet the latter rests his +argument on the supposition that the Conscription gathered in all males +between 16 and 60 years.</p> + +<p>In further illustration of this subject, I may point out that one of the +difficulties confronting the conscript officers was the opposition of +the governors of some of the States, notably the Governor of +Mississippi, the Governor of North Carolina, and the Governor of +Georgia. Thus the doctrine of States' Rights, which was the bedrock of +the Southern Confederacy, became a barrier to the effectiveness of the +Confederate government! South Carolina passed an exemption law which +nullified to a certain extent the conscript laws of the Confederacy, and +Governor Vance of North Carolina proposed "to try title with the +Confederate Government in resisting the claims of the conscript officers +to such citizens of North Carolina as he made claim to for the proper +administration of the State."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> + +<p>"The laws of North Carolina," General Preston complains (W. R., iv, iii, +p. 867), "have created large numbers of officers, and the Governor of +that State has not only claimed exemption for those officers, but for +all persons employed in any form by the State of North Carolina, such as +workers in factories, salt-makers, etc."</p> + +<p>"This bureau has no power to enforce the Confederate law in opposition +to the ... claims of the State."</p> + +<p>Governor Brown of Georgia forbade the enrollment of "large bodies of the +citizens of Georgia." The number is supposed to have reached eight +thousand men liable to Confederate service. General Preston complains in +like strain of the action of the Governor of Mississippi.</p> + + +<h3>EXEMPTS AND DETAILS</h3> + +<p>There is an important report by General Preston in February, 1865 (W. +R., iv, iii, pp. 1099-1011). In this he gives the number of exempts +allowed by the Conscript Bureau in seven States, and parts of two +States, east of the Mississippi as 66,586.</p> + +<p>He then gives the agricultural details, details for public necessity, +and for government service, contractors and artisans, a total of +21,414—the whole aggregating 87,990 men.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p> + +<p>In another report, already referred to, November, 1864, he gives the +number of State officers exempted on the certificates of governors in +nine States as 18,843. This, with the preceding, makes a grand total of +106,833.</p> + +<p>These are exemptions under the Confederate States' law in seven States, +and in parts of two States. They do not include the States west of the +Mississippi. But in addition to these there were many thousand +exemptions under purely State laws. We have no complete record of these +last; but in the State of Georgia alone we have a record of 11,031 such +exemptions.</p> + +<p>7.—We must also consider the large numbers of men employed on the +railroads, in the government departments, in State offices, and in the +various branches of manufacture necessary for the support of the army +and of the people; and in directing the agricultural labor of the +slaves. Factories were started for making swords, bayonets, muskets, +percussion caps, powder, cartridges, cartridge boxes, belts, and other +equipment; for clothing, for caps and shoes, for harness and saddles, +for artillery-caissons and carriages; for guns, cannon and powder.</p> + +<p>I have already referred to the statement of General Kemper that in +December, 1864, "the returns of the bureau, obviously imperfect and +par<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>tial, show 28,035 men in the State of Virginia between eighteen and +forty-five, exempt and <i>detailed</i> for all causes." The South having an +agricultural population, it was necessary, as just said, when war came, +to organize manufactories of every kind of equipment for the army.</p> + +<p>After all, the most important question to determine is the number of men +actually serving with the colors in the armies of the Confederate +States. And even if we admit an enrollment in the Confederate army of +700,000, and reduce our estimates of exemptions and details for special +work from 125,000 to 100,000, there remain apparently for <i>service in +the field</i> only about 600,000 men; and that, I suppose, is what General +Cooper and other Southern authorities had in mind.</p> + +<p>We know approximately the respective numbers in the great battles of the +war, and I submit that these numbers are far more consistent with the +maximum of 600,000 serving with the colors than with the maximum of +1,200,000.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> If, indeed, the Confederacy had been able to muster in +arms a million two hundred thousand men, it is greatly to the discredit +of their able generals that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> never in any one battle were they able to +confront the enemy with more than 80,000 men.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>But our gallant and generous friend taxes us, as we have seen, with +casting discredit upon the patriotism of the South by our claim that we +had no more than six or seven hundred thousand men in the field. Is he +justified in this opinion? Let us see how the matter stands.</p> + + +<h3>THE MILITARY POPULATION OF THE CONFEDERACY</h3> + +<p>In the month of May, 1862, as we have shown above, at least one-fourth +of the Southern territory had been wrenched from the control of the +Confederate Government. In the territory remaining there was in round +numbers a population of about 3,800,000 souls. The military population +then should have been 760,000.</p> + +<p>To this must be added, by the extension of the military age down to +seventeen, and up to fifty, ten per cent.—that is, in all, six +additional years, 76,000.</p> + +<p>[In this calculation I adopt Mr. Adams' ratio of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> three-tenths by a +supposed extension down to sixteen and up to sixty,—which gives in the +light of the census returns about one-tenth for the <i>actual</i> extension +provided by the law of February 17, 1864, viz. down to seventeen and up +to fifty years.]</p> + +<p>Then we must make a further addition (again adopting Mr. Adams' ratio), +for youths reaching military age in four years, of twelve per cent. of +the military population, or 91,200 men. This, with the age-extension +addition—76,000—makes a total of 167,200, which, added to the original +estimated population of 760,000, makes a grand total of 927,200.</p> + +<p>To this number Mr. Adams would add the men furnished by the Border +States to the Confederate army, viz. (as is alleged), 117,000, a grand +available total of 1,044,200.</p> + +<p>But this estimate of 117,000 men furnished the Confederate army by the +Border States (Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) cannot be +relied upon as even approximately accurate. For example, it includes +20,000 men alleged to have been furnished by the State of Maryland. But +a careful examination of all the Maryland organizations, including +several companies in Virginia regiments, gives a total of only 4,580 +from the State of Maryland; and this number must be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> largely reduced by +names duplicated through re-enlistments. Applying the ratio adopted by +the War Department of the United States, we must deduct at least 920 +men, which leaves a total of only about 3,500. Even this I believe to be +too large. This item alone reduces the estimate of 117,000 to about +100,000. I will discuss this subject at length a little further on in +this paper, and will only say here that there is good reason to believe +100,000 an excessive estimate of the number actually furnished to the +Confederate colors by the Border States. Let us place the figure at +75,000 as a compromise. Then we should have:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Grand total of men available in the +Southern States</td><td align="right" valign="bottom" class="tval">927,200</td></tr> +<tr><td>Furnished by the Border States</td><td class="tvalb"> 75,000</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 1,002,200</td></tr> +</table> + + +<h3>NECESSARY DEDUCTIONS</h3> + +<p>Let us turn now to the deductions that have to be made from this number.</p> + +<p>1.—On the ground of disloyalty we have no facts on which to base an +estimate, hence the number must be left indeterminate, but it was +certainly considerable. The chief of the Bureau of Education estimates +the Appalachian mountaineers in the Southern States at present at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +3,000,000. They must therefore have been very numerous in 1861, and it +is conceded that most of them were loyal to the Union. Some Southern +writers estimate 80,000 as the number of Union men who refused and +evaded service in the Confederate army. If there were only one million +of these mountaineers, they would represent 160,000 men of military age +and fitness.</p> + +<p>2.—We must also deduct a large number for men <i>exempted</i> for various +causes, besides the accepted exemption of twenty per cent. for physical +and mental disability. Of this we have no complete statistics, but there +are preserved in the War Department Records several documents which +enable us to arrive at an approximate estimate.</p> + +<p>Under the head of "Public Necessity" we find <i>exemptions</i> for railroad +companies, telegraph companies, navigation companies, cotton and wool +factories, paper mills, iron manufactories, foundries, printing +establishments, fire department, police department, gas-works, salt +manufactories, shoemakers, tanners, blacksmiths, millers, millwrights, +ferrymen, wheelwrights, wagon-makers, express companies, equity, justice +and necessity, indigent circumstances, and miscellaneous. (<i>Id.</i> p. +873.)</p> + +<p>Thus General Preston, writing November 23,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> 1864 (W. R., ser. iv. vol. +iii, p. 850), says: "The governors of the States do not confine their +certificates of exemption to officers, as that term seems to be used in +the law, but extend them to all persons in the service of the State, or +in any mode employed by State authority; and that authority is +interposed to prevent the conscript officers from enrolling and +assigning such persons to the Confederate service."</p> + +<p>He gives a table (p. 851) of <i>State officers</i> exempted on certificates +of the governors, and it appears that in Virginia, North Carolina, South +Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Florida there +were 18,843 such exempts.</p> + +<p>The <i>civil officers</i> exempted in the State of Georgia were 5,478, and +militia officers 2,751. (See W. R., iv., vol. iii, p. 869.) In the same +State the exempts for agricultural and necessary purposes reached the +number of 4,156, making the total exemptions in that one State, 12,385. +(<i>Id.</i> iv. iii. p. 873.)</p> + +<p>General Preston also reports the number of State officers exempted in +North Carolina, November, 1864, at 14,675 (<i>Idem</i>, p. 851).</p> + +<p>There is a report in the same publication, p. 96, which gives the number +of persons exempted by occupation, in Virginia, at 13,063. Thus in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +these three States we have records of exemptions amounting to 40,123. I +am unable to give the number of exemptions in the remaining eight +seceded States; but if they were at all in proportion to what we find +them in Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina, then we must reckon the +exemptions in the whole Confederacy as nearly 120,000, since the +military population of those three States was only a little more than a +third of the whole. These, be it observed, were not men detailed from +the army, but exempted from enrollment.</p> + +<p>3.—Estimate of men <i>detailed</i> for special work in the various branches +of manufacture necessary for the support of the Army and people. Here we +have a difficult problem, but some light is thrown upon it by the +following report of men detailed in the State of Georgia (<i>Idem.</i> iv. +iii. p. 874):</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>For agricultural purposes</td><td class="tval"> 957</td></tr> +<tr><td>For public necessities</td><td class="tval"> 1,264</td></tr> +<tr><td>For government purposes</td><td class="tval"> 629</td></tr> +<tr><td>For contractors</td><td class="tval"> 141</td></tr> +<tr><td>For artisans, mechanics, etc.</td><td class="tvalb"> 508</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 3,499</td></tr> +</table> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span></p> + +<p>And in Virginia we find this item:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Men detailed in departments</td><td class="tvalb"> 4,494</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total in these two States</td><td class="tval"> 7,993</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>From these figures of details in these States we may conservatively +estimate the number of men detailed for various branches of work in the +eleven States of the Confederacy as about 40,000.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p>4.—The seceded States exclusive of West Va.,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> according to the report +of the War Department, furnished the United States armies with 55,000 +men. These must also be deducted from the aggregate above stated.</p> + +<p>5.—Then we must deduct, as General Adams acknowledges, from the +aggregate number of men of military age as above (viz., 927,200, less +80,000 disloyal and 55,000 in U. S. army, leaving 792,200) twenty per +cent. for those exempt on account of physical or mental disability, or +158,440. This is the usual percentage, though in the French and British +armies it has been as high as thirty-three per cent.</p> + +<p>6.—Natural death rate in two and a half years before being enrolled in +army 11,055 (compare Livermore, p. 22).<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> + +<p>But it will be said, and justly, that although after May, 1862, at least +one-fourth of the territory of the seceded States was not in control of +the Confederate government, and therefore not available as a recruiting +ground for its armies, nevertheless many thousands of men had enlisted +in the Confederate armies previous to May, 1862. Now, it appears from +General Cooper's official<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> report that the aggregate number of men and +officers enrolled in March, 1862, was 340,250. And so our question is, +How large a proportion of this number is to be credited to that part of +the Confederacy which by May, 1862, was occupied by the Federal armies? +If we assume that the part of the country thus occupied furnished as +large a proportion as the rest of the Confederacy (a large assumption), +then, as the population of the occupied part is estimated to have been +about one-fourth of the whole, we may suppose that it furnished the +Confederate army one-fourth of the total 340,000; that is to say, 85,000 +men. This is probably a very large assumption, but it may be accepted +for the purposes of our calculation.</p> + +<p>To sum up this part of the argument: Let it be granted that there was an +available military population, first and last, in that part of the +Confederacy not occupied by the Federal armies, of 927,200,</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">To which may be added volunteers first +year of war from territory occupied +by Federal forces after May, 1862</td><td class="tval">85,000</td></tr> +<tr><td>And also men from Border States</td><td class="tvalb"> 75,000</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Aggregate</td><td class="tvalb">1,087,200</td></tr> +</table> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +Deductions from this as follows:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Natural death rate in 2-1/2 years, before +being enrolled in army, 2-1/2%</td><td class="tval">11,055</td></tr> +<tr><td>Southern men in U. S. army</td><td class="tval"> 55,000</td></tr> +<tr><td>Disloyal, estimated</td><td class="tval"> 80,000</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Exempt for physical and mental disability: +20% of the whole (after deducting +the two previous items) viz. +792,200</td><td class="tvalb">158,440</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">304,495</td></tr> +<tr><td>Leaving available aggregate</td><td class="tvalb"> 782,705</td><td><a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Aggregate</td><td class="tval"> 1,087,200</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Now let us remember that out of this available aggregate (exaggerated +though I believe the number to be), there had to be created for the +service of the Confederate State three armies,—an army of soldiers, an +army of civil servants and an army of industrial and agricultural +workers. If we put the strength of the fighting army at 620,000, there +will remain for the other two armies 162,000 men,—and we have seen +grounds<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> for believing that there were 40,000 soldiers detailed for +special work, and 120,000 exempt as State officers, workmen in various +occupations, agricultural and necessary purposes, mechanics, railway +servants, etc. And it may be asked with confidence whether for all these +manifold purposes one hundred and sixty-two thousand men can be +considered an excessive or unreasonable number. To support the army in +the field, to equip the civil governments of eleven great States, and to +supply the life blood of civilization in a country of such vast extent +as the Southern Confederacy, necessarily absorbed the energies of a +great number of men.</p> + + +<h3>GENERAL ADAMS CLAIMS SOUTHERN SUPPORT FOR HIS CONCLUSION</h3> + +<p>But General Adams supports his opinion by figures taken from a recent +work, "The South in the Building of the Nation." He is thus able to show +on the authority of Southern writers themselves, an aggregate estimate +of 944,000 enlistments in the Confederate armies—to which he adds +117,000, as the number claimed to have been furnished the Confederate +army from the four Border States, making a grand total of 1,061,000 +men.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p> + +<p>Now, even if the numbers furnished by these <i>Southern writers</i> could be +accepted as approximately accurate, the result would be quite different +from what General Adams figures. For let me call attention to a +memorandum issued by the War Department, U. S. A., May 15, 1905, in +which I find this statement: "It is estimated from the best data now +obtainable that the re-enlistments in the army during the Civil War +numbered 543,393" (p. 4), which is about twenty per cent. of the whole. +This number, the military secretary says, must be deducted from the +total number of enlistments (2,778,304) to get the actual number of men +who were enrolled.</p> + +<p>Now, if we apply this same principle and proportion to the alleged +enlistment of 944,000 men in the Southern army, we should deduct for +re-enlistment 188,800; leaving as the actual number of enlisted men, all +told, with the colors and not with the colors, 756,200. And further, +though we have no accurate figures concerning the number of men detailed +for duties of various kinds,—as clerks, skilled mechanics, gunsmiths, +teamsters, cooks, etc.; also details in the medical, quartermaster, +commissary, and other supply departments; and as apothecaries, +physicians, teachers, nurses, agriculturists, railroad employees, +etc.,—we know they numbered many thousands, so that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> this +number—756,200—must be greatly reduced.</p> + +<p>It has, indeed, been argued that we cannot make the deduction which the +War Office claims in estimating the number of men in the Union armies, +as stated above, for the reason that the twelve-months' men in the +Confederate armies "were all retained in service for the war" by the Act +of April 16, 1862. Again, it is insisted that "substantially all of the +regiments enrolled in 1861 remained in service to the end of the war." +"It may, then, be assumed that in effect the term of service of all who +entered the Confederate armies continued from the time they entered +until the end of the War, May 4, 1865." (See Livermore, "Numbers and +Losses," p. 52, 53.)</p> + +<p>The best way to test the soundness of this conclusion is to look into +the actual record of some of the troops, to see whether or not they did +re-enlist. If they did, then the same opportunity for error in counting +them twice offered itself as in the case of the Union enlistments.</p> + +<p>I cite then a few examples of re-enlistment, established beyond doubt.</p> + +<p>1. The first Maryland Infantry, spring of 1862.</p> + +<p>2. Rodes' Brigade at Yorktown, spring of 1862; the fifth, sixth and +twelfth Alabama and twelfth Mississippi regiments.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span></p> + +<p>"They retained their corporate identity, but not simply continued over. +At any rate, some men in them did not remain." (Colonel J. W. Mallet, +February 16, 1912.)</p> + +<p>3. Bonham's South Carolina regiment enlisted for six months. Re-enlisted +1861. (Statement of Colonel Hilary Herbert.)</p> + +<p>4. General Dickinson, late Secretary of War, remembers regiments which +were enlisted for three months, and then re-enlisted.</p> + +<p>5. The Eighth Alabama, Colonel Hilary Herbert. He says:</p> + +<p>"The men stepped out one by one and re-enlisted, all but one man, and he +exercised the liberty which all had, of declining to re-enlist. This was +in January, 1864."</p> + +<p>I quote also an order of General Lee's on the subject, February 3, 1864: +"The Commanding General announces with gratification the re-enlistment +of the regiments of this army for the war, and the reiteration of the +war regiments of their determination to continue in the army until +independence is achieved." The fact of re-enlistment then is absolutely +established. In fact practically all of the twelve-months' volunteers +re-enlisted in 1862.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span></p> + + +<h3>THESE RECENT SOUTHERN ESTIMATES GREATLY EXAGGERATED</h3> + +<p>But it can be shown, I think beyond contradiction, that the numbers +given by the representatives of the various States which Mr. Adams +quotes from "<i>The South</i>," and from other Southern publications, are +enormously exaggerated.</p> + +<p>We may test the accuracy of this estimate of theirs briefly as follows: +The total military population of the 11 seceded States in 1861 was +984,475, not taking into account that about one-fourth of our territory +and population became unavailable for recruiting purposes within one +year of the breaking out of the war. If we add one-tenth for the +extension of the military age by Confederate law down to 17 and up to +50, we have 98,447; and, if we add 12 per cent. for youths reaching +military age in four years, we have 118,137, aggregating 1,201,518. But +from this we must deduct, as military writers agree, 20 per cent. for +men exempt for physical and mental disability, viz., 240,303, which +leaves available for military duty in the four years of the war, through +the whole extent of the Southern territory, 961,215. Now, if we accept +the figures of the State historians, we have 935,000 enrolled in the +Confederate Army; and the reports of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> United States War Department +state that, exclusive of West Virginia, there were 55,000 soldiers in +the Union Army from these same Southern States, which makes an aggregate +of 990,000 men furnished to both armies, which, it will be observed, is +nearly 30,000 more than the entire military population! Without going +any further, this shows that there has been serious error in the above +estimates of Confederate enrollment.</p> + +<p>But there are several other matters to be considered. In the first +place, by the spring of 1862 at least one-fourth of the territory of the +seceded States was under the control of the United States Army; and, +therefore, that much of the territory was not available as a source of +supply for the Confederate Army. This cuts off nearly one-fourth of the +military strength. Calculated on this basis, the writers alluded to make +the aggregate of Southern soldiers more than 200,000 in excess of the +entire military population!</p> + +<p>Again, the conscript law, drastic as it was, was very imperfectly +executed, as those in charge of it at the time amply testified. The +opposition of the Governors of Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and +North Carolina to the conscript law will be remembered. We must also +remember that thousands of men were employed on the railroads, in the +Government departments and in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> various branches of manufacture necessary +for the support of the army and the people, and also for agricultural +labor. It must also be remembered that there were thousands of men in +all the Confederate States exempted by State authority.</p> + +<p>If these things are considered, it becomes plain that the previously +quoted estimates of the several States of the Confederacy cannot +possibly be accepted as at all near the real facts.</p> + +<p>Let us now compare these estimates of the Southern writers quoted with +the military population of some of the States:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">The military population of Virginia in +1861, exclusive of West Virginia, is +estimated by Livermore at</td><td class="tval">116,000</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for extension of military +age down to seventeen and up to fifty</td><td class="tval">11,600</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing +to seventeen in four years</td><td class="tvalb">13,920</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval">141,520</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct exempts for physical and mental +defects, twenty per cent.</td><td class="tvalb">28,304</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Available military population</td><td class="tval"> 113,216</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>But the representative writer in "<i>The South</i>" puts the number of men +furnished by Virginia to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> the Southern armies at 175,000, which is +61,784 more than the available military population! Could there be a +more palpable <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>?<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> + +<p>Besides, as I have shown, in Virginia and all the States there were +large numbers of men exempt as State officers. This considerably +increases the twenty per cent. which Colonel Fox says are in all +countries exempted from military service.</p> + +<p>Take next Florida:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Her military population in 1861 was</td><td class="tval"> 15,739</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for extension of military +age down to seventeen and up to fifty</td><td class="tval"> 1,573</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. for youths attaining +seventeen years in four years</td><td class="tvalb"> 1,888</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td class="tval">19,200</td></tr> +<tr><td>Deduct exempts, twenty per cent.</td><td class="tvalb"> 3,840</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Available military population</td><td class="tval"> 15,360</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>But the writer quoted by Mr. Adams states that Florida furnished 15,000 +to the Confederate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> States army, and the War Office records show that +she furnished the Union army 1,270; making a total of 16,270, which is +900 more than the entire available military population!</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Georgia.—Military population in 1861 +was</td><td class="tval"> 111,005</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for extension of military +age down to seventeen and up to fifty</td><td class="tval"> 11,100</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. for youths attaining +seventeen years in four years</td><td class="tvalb"> 13,320</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 135,425</td></tr> +<tr><td>Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts</td><td class="tvalb"> 23,085</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Available military population</td><td class="tval"> 112,340</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>But the alleged enrollment in the Confederate States army is 120,000, +which is 7,110 more than the available military population, making no +allowance for the failure of the conscript officers to put into the army +every man liable to military duty, and none for the thousands exempt +from service.</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">North Carolina.—Military population +was</td><td class="tval"> 115,369</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for the extension of military +age down to seventeen and up to +fifty</td><td class="tval"> 11,500</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing +to seventeen years in four years</td><td class="tvalb"> 13,800</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 140,669</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts</td><td class="tvalb"> 28,133</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Leaving available</td><td class="tval"> 112,536</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Alleged Confederate enrollment 129,000; furnished to the Union army, +3,156; total, 132,156; which is 19,620 more than the available military +population, although in one-fourth of the State the conscript law could +not be executed, and although many thousands were exempted from service +by State law.</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">South Carolina.—Military population</td><td class="tval"> 55,046</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth as above</td><td class="tval"> 5,504</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. as above</td><td class="tvalb"> 6,605</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 67,155</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct twenty per cent.</td><td class="tvalb"> 13,231</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Leaving available</td><td class="tval"> 53,924</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>The alleged Confederate enrollment was 75,000, which is more than 21,000 +in excess of the total number of men available for service, though here +also there were thousands of State exemptions.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span></p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Mississippi.—Military population</td><td class="tval"> 70,295</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for extension of military +age</td><td class="tval"> 7,029</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing +to military age in four years</td><td class="tvalb"> 8,435</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 85,759</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts</td><td class="tvalb"> 17,151</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Leaving available</td><td class="tval"> 68,608</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>The alleged Confederate enrollment was 70,000, and furnished to the +United States army 515, which is nearly 2,000 more than the total +military population, taking no account of the large number of exempts +and of the failure to execute the conscript act.</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Alabama.—Military population was</td><td class="tval"> 99,667</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth for the extension of military +age down to seventeen and up to +fifty</td><td class="tval"> 11,500</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. for youths maturing +to seventeen years in four years</td><td class="tvalb"> 11,796</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 121,959</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct twenty per cent. for exempts</td><td class="tvalb"> 24,391</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Leaving available</td><td class="tval"> 97,568</td></tr> +</table> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>The alleged Confederate enrollment was 90,000, and furnished to the +Union army, 2,576, making a total of 92,576; which is within 5,000 of +the total available, taking no account of the large number exempted for +State officers and other causes, and taking no account, either, of the +number of men who could not be reached by the conscript officers.</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td class="hang">Tennessee.—Military population</td><td class="tval"> 159,353</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add one-tenth as before</td><td class="tval"> 15,935</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Add twelve per cent. as before</td><td class="tvalb"> 19,222</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval"> 194,510</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Deduct twenty per cent.</td><td class="tvalb"> 38,902</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Leaving available</td><td class="tval"> 155,608</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>The alleged Confederate enrollment was 115,000, and the State furnished +the Union army 31,092, a total of 146,092, which is within 9,000 of the +total available military population, without taking account of the men +not reached by the conscript officers, and, further, taking no account +of the fact that so large a part of the State was in occupation of the +Federal armies.</p> + +<p>As to Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, it is enough to say that they were +in that Trans-Mississippi Department of which the Confederate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> +Government lost control in July, 1863. Hence, it is not surprising that +even those inflated estimates of the number of men furnished the +Confederate army fall far short of the estimated military population. In +Arkansas, however, the estimate comes within 5,000 of the total +available,—58,289 out of 63,665.</p> + +<p>In the light of the facts just stated we must conclude that the Southern +writers quoted by General Adams have, in their zeal for the honor and +glory of their several States, greatly overestimated the number of men +contributed by the same to the Confederate armies. This would be more +probable <i>a priori</i>, than that the leading men in the Confederate army +and Government who were at the sources of information, and who ought to +have been well informed, should have so enormously underestimated the +strength of the armies of the South; but the tests to which we have now +submitted the figures given by these State historians demonstrate their +error beyond the possibility of doubt. They must be cut down by several +hundred thousand. A large element of this error is to be found, as I +have suggested, in the failure to observe the great number of +re-enlistments that undoubtedly took place, especially in 1862, when the +terms of service of nearly all the Confederate regiments expired.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> This +duplication, in the opinion of the military Secretary of the United +States, reduces the total by twenty per cent.</p> + +<p>As a sample of how errors creep into reports of numbers, it is stated +(W. R., ser. iv., vol. iii, p. 96) as to a certain number of conscripts, +"We find some men were reported three times." And again (<i>Id.</i> p. 99) +that the "Adjutant-General's report contains an error in which he has +accounted for 14,000 men twice."</p> + +<p>Let it be observed, finally, that when we have reached a reasonably +probable conclusion of the men enlisted in the Confederate armies during +the four years of war, we must then proceed to ascertain, if we can, the +probable number of these enlisted men who were <i>detailed</i> for various +duties and occupations ancillary to the support of the government and +the army. And only when this number has been deducted from the total +enlistments will we have ascertained the probable number of men actually +serving with the colors and making up the fighting force of the +Confederacy.</p> + + +<h3>THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE BORDER STATES TO THE ARMIES OF THE CONFEDERACY</h3> + +<p>It is a difficult problem to determine with any degree of probability +how many men were con<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>tributed to the armies of the Confederacy by the +Border States. The factors by which it might be solved do not seem to be +within reach. At least, I have not been able to possess myself of them. +There lies before me a printed "List of Regiments and Battalions in the +Confederate States' Army, 1861-1865." According to this there were +furnished by Missouri 21 battalions and 79 regiments; by Kentucky 16 +battalions and 26 regiments; by Maryland 2 infantry regiments and 4 +battalions, 4 batteries; also the Maryland Line, of various arms. But, +upon inspection, it appears that this "Maryland Line" was formed of +those regiments and battalions and batteries previously enumerated.</p> + +<p>General Charles Francis Adams, following Colonel Livermore, tells us +there were 238 full regiments from the Border States in the Confederate +army, besides 132 lesser organizations. On the other hand, Colonel Fox, +in his well-known work, "Regimental Losses in the Civil War," credits +the Border States with having sent into the Confederate army only 21 +regiments and 4 battalions of infantry; 9 regiments and 5 battalions of +cavalry, and 11 batteries of light artillery. As to numbers, he +estimates them at "over 19,000" (p. 552).</p> + +<p>These estimates and numbers of Colonel Fox<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> look strange beside the +estimate of 117,000 and 125,000, as given by some Southern writers. We +have already stated that in "The South in the Building of the Nation," +Maryland is credited with having furnished 20,000 men to the Confederate +army. How wide of the mark this statement is, may be seen by inspecting +the following total of organizations of Maryland men in the Confederacy:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><th colspan="2">INFANTRY</th></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">First Maryland Infantry, number of men</td><td class="tval"> 782</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Second Maryland Infantry </td><td class="tval"> 627</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Company B, Twenty-first Virginia, Colonel +L. Clarke</td><td class="tval"> 109</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">One company, Thirteenth Virginia Lanier +Guards, estimated</td><td class="tval"> 75</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">One company, Sixty-first and Sixty-second +Virginia, estimated</td><td class="tvalb"> 65</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total Infantry</td><td class="tval"> 1,658</td></tr> +<tr><td></td></tr> +<tr><th colspan="2">CAVALRY</th></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">First Maryland, Colonel Ridgeley Brown </td><td class="tval"> 74</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Company K, First Virginia; transferred in +August, 1864, to First Maryland</td><td class="tval"> 197</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Lieutenant Harry Gilmour Battalion, +estimated</td><td class="tval"> 250</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Colonel Sturgis Davis Battalion, estimated </td><td class="tval"> 100</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +One Maryland Company in Seventh Virginia, +estimated</td><td class="tval"> 75</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">One Maryland Company in Thirty-fifth Virginia, +Colonel Elijah White</td><td class="tval"> 103</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">One Maryland Company in Forty-third Virginia, +Colonel Mosby, estimated</td><td class="tvalb"> 75</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total cavalry </td><td class="tval"> 674</td></tr> +<tr><td></td></tr> +<tr><th colspan="2">ARTILLERY</th></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Colonel Snowden Andrews </td><td class="tval"> 204</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Second Maryland, Captain Griffin </td><td class="tval"> 197</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Third Maryland, Colonel Rowan, Captain +Ritter</td><td class="tval"> 350</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">In Western Army, Fourth Maryland, +Chesapeake, Captain Brown, Captain +Chew</td><td class="tval"> 137</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Captain Brethed, Horse Artillery (a Maryland +battalion, though mustered into service +as Virginian)</td><td class="tval"> 75</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Baltimore Heavy Artillery, estimated </td><td class="tval"> 100</td></tr> +<tr><td class="hang">Marylanders at Charleston, South Carolina, +estimated </td><td class="tvalb"> 225</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total artillery </td><td class="tvalb"> 1,288</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in" style="text-indent: 2em;">Grand total </td><td class="tval"> 4,580</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>These figures are compiled from the muster<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> rolls, with the exception of +those "estimated." It is to be observed that a very large proportion of +the men in the Second Maryland Infantry were those who had previously +served in the First Maryland Infantry; so that there is a good deal of +duplication there by reënlistment. On the other hand, there were many +individual Marylanders in various regiments accredited to other States. +We have also the names of 137 Marylanders who were officers in various +other commands.</p> + +<p>The estimate above alluded to, of 20,000 Marylanders in the Confederate +service, rests apparently upon no better basis than an oral statement of +General Cooper to General Trimble, in which he said he believed that the +muster rolls would show that about 20,000 men in the Confederate army +had given the State of Maryland as the place of their <i>nativity</i>. How +many were <i>citizens of Maryland</i> when they enlisted does not appear. +Obviously many <i>natives</i> of Maryland were doubtless in 1861 <i>citizens of +other States</i>, and could not therefore be reckoned among the soldiers +furnished by Maryland to the Confederate armies.</p> + +<p>As to the estimates furnished by writers in "<i>The South</i>" concerning the +number of men furnished the Confederacy from the Border<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> States, viz., +Kentucky, 30,000; Missouri, 60,000; West Virginia, 7,000; the same +unintentional exaggeration doubtless exists here as I have shown in +regard to the numbers alleged to have been furnished by the seceded +States. Unfortunately it is not possible to be definite in stating the +numbers furnished by the Border States. When we observe the discrepancy +between Colonel Fox's 19,000, President Tyler's 117,000, and Colonel +Livermore's 143,000, it becomes clear that the whole subject is involved +in uncertainty. I incline to the opinion that 50,000 is nearer the +actual numbers in the Southern army from these Border States than +100,000; but for the sake of argument I leave the number 75,000, as +stated above.<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a></p> + +<p>Before concluding this branch of the subject I would call attention to +the following remark made by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in his "Military +Studies," p. 282. He says "that the States named [meaning Kentucky, +Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia] sympathiz<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>ing, as at the time the +Southern authorities claimed, most deeply with the Confederacy should +have furnished over 316,000 recruits to the Federal army, and only +117,000 to that of the Confederacy is, to say the least, deserving of +remark,—it calls for explanation." Again he says: "It would be not +unnatural to assume that these States furnished an equal number of +recruits to the Confederacy." (<i>Id.</i> p. 238.)</p> + +<p>This statement is sufficiently amazing. On the contrary, would it not be +most <i>unnatural</i> to assume that these four States, occupied and +controlled from end to end by the Federal armies, should have furnished +as many men to the Confederate army as to the Federal army, +notwithstanding the enormous difficulties of passing through the lines? +Although there was much sentiment favorable to the Confederacy in these +four States, I fear there cannot be any doubt that the preponderance of +sentiment was in favor of the Union; and he must be blind who does not +recognize the fact that the difficulties in the way of a young man +desiring to enlist in the Southern army, while his State was occupied by +the Federal forces, were enormously great.</p> + + +<h3>CONCLUSION</h3> + +<p>There are two remarks of General Adams to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> which, before closing, I +should like to call attention. He states that the foreigners in the +Union army were more than counterbalanced by our drastic conscription +("Military Studies," p. 246). Now it appears from official reports that +there were 494,000 foreigners in the Union army, so that he must have +supposed that the conscription law produced about 500,000 soldiers. It +actually produced, east of the Mississippi, 81,992 men from February, +1862, when the first law was passed, to February, 1865. We cannot +suppose that the additions from the States west of the +Mississippi—Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas—could have been even +one-fourth as numerous. The military population was about one-third as +large, but by 1863 that territory was overrun by the Federal armies. But +if we put these at 20,000, we have only 101,992, instead of the half +million which Mr. Adams supposes. And if we should add the 76,000 men +which the conscription officers, magnifying their diligence, <i>guessed</i> +had been driven into the army by enlistment to avoid conscription we +would then have only 177,993.</p> + +<p>Again, General Adams says:</p> + +<p>"As respects mere numbers, it is capable of demonstration that at the +close of the struggle the preponderance was on the side of the +Confed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>eracy, and distinctly so. The Union at that time had, it is said, +a million men on its muster rolls.... It might possibly have been able +to put 500,000 men into the fighting line. On the other side ... the +fighting strength of the Confederacy cannot have been less than +two-thirds its normal strength. The South should have been able to +muster, on paper, 900,000 men." (<i>Idem</i>, pp. 241-2.)</p> + +<p>Compare this statement of what the South <i>should have been able</i> to +muster with the consolidated abstract of the latest returns of the +Confederate army showing what she <i>was able</i> to muster. This is the +record:</p> + +<p>Officers and men in <i>all</i> the Confederate armies, February, 1865, +aggregate for duty, 160,000; aggregate present and absent, 358,000 (W. +R., iv. iii. p. 1182).</p> + +<p>General Marcus Wright, an expert authority, estimates the strength of +the Confederate army <i>at the close of the war</i> thus:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Present</td><td class="tval">157,613</td></tr> +<tr><td>Absent</td><td class="tvalb">117,387</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total</td><td class="tval">275,000</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>And of the Union army thus:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Present </td><td class="tval"> 797,807</td></tr> +<tr><td>Absent </td><td class="tvalb"> 202,700</td></tr> +<tr><td class="in">Total </td><td class="tval"> 1,000,507</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>If General Adams is right, one cannot but ask, where were the other +542,000 men, over and above the 358,000 shown by the official report +alluded <ins class="correct" title="to to">to</ins> have been on the rolls? The 90,000 men in Northern prisons +will not help the situation, for they were not exactly available as part +of the "fighting strength of the Confederacy." Compare also the fact +that there were mustered out of the Union army at the end of the war +1,034,000 men; and there were, in all the Confederacy, surrendered +Confederate soldiers to the number of 174,000 only, and this included +all who were paroled, whether in hospital, or at their homes, as well as +those in arms.</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + +<p>In conclusion I am reminded of the words of General Lee in a letter to +General Jubal A. Early, shortly after the war, "<span class="smcap">It will be difficult to +get the world to understand the odds against which we fought.</span>"</p> + +<p>Still I cannot help thinking that the statements of the adjutant-general +of the Confederate armies in his official reports, and the testimony of +Gen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>eral Lee himself in regard to the numbers in his army, will +ultimately be considered by the world more reliable than the <i>a priori</i> +estimates of even so careful and honest an investigator as Colonel +Livermore.</p> + +<p>When immediately after the surrender at Appomattox General Meade asked +General Lee how many men he had in his army, the latter replied that he +had on his entire front, from Richmond to Petersburg, not more than +29,000 muskets. "Then," said General Meade, "we had five to your one." +On the whole I think we may still claim for the armies of the Southern +Confederacy the encomium penned by Virgil nearly two thousand years ago:</p> + +<p>"Exigui numero, sed bello vivida virtus."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="POSTWORD" id="POSTWORD"></a>POSTWORD</h2> + + +<p>The arguments adduced in the preceding pages are believed by the writer +to be valid and sufficient to refute the conclusion reached by Colonel +Livermore, the Hon. Charles Francis Adams, and others, that there was in +the Confederacy a "minimum of 1,160,000 effectives, to which we must add +117,000 men from the Border States, giving a total Confederate strength +of 1,277,000." I have not attempted to give definite figures as to the +actual enrollment in the Southern armies. My argument is of necessity +largely based on the probabilities of the situation,—it does not +profess to be demonstrative, or final. But "probability is the guide of +life"; and I believe I have blazed a path by which future students of +the subject, having before them the muster rolls of the Confederate army +will be able to reach more definite conclusions in this important +subject—conclusions, however, not seriously at variance with those +stated in these pages.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="FOOTNOTES" id="FOOTNOTES"></a>FOOTNOTES</h2> + + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Gen. Adams says: "Computations based on the census returns +tend to show that at the very lowest estimate the increase of time of +military service would represent an increase of at least 30 per cent. in +effectives." Id. p. 284.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Our critic has made an error here: 12 per cent, of +1,000,000, i.e., 120,000, so that his aggregate should be 1,420,000.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> See Merivale's History of the Romans, III, 416, and IV, 298 +and 343, and V. 386.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> In the first edition of Col. Henderson's work, cited above, +he actually stated that the element of foreigners in the Southern armies +was almost as large as in the Northern armies!</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Gen. Marcus J. Wright puts this number at only 65,387. But +cf. Mansfield's Life of Grant, p. 338.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> See a valuable discussion of our subject in a pamphlet +entitled "Acts of the Republican Party," by Cazenove G. Lee, who wrote +under the <i>nom de plume</i> of "C. Gardner," Winchester, Va., 1906, pp. +59-69.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> I acted as adjutant of the Third Brigade A. N. Va., in the +Gettysburg campaign. Even then, in the third year of the war, and in +that best equipped army, the returns showed only 1480 muskets to 1941 +men in the brigade. One-fourth of the command was without arms.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> "The Government, at the opening of 1864, estimated that the +Conscription would place four hundred thousand men in the field." Lee +did not share this belief. By the end of the year it was, in his +opinion, "diminishing, rather than increasing, the strength of his +army."—Letter of Dec. 31, 1864. See "R. E. Lee, Man and Soldier," p. +591, by Thos. Nelson Page.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Thus, to quote that able and expert authority Gen. Marcus +J. Wright: Battles around Richmond (1862), Lee, 80,835; McClellan, +115,249. At Antietam, Confederates, 35,255; Federals, 87,164. At +Fredericksburg, Confederates, 78,110; Federals, 110,000. At +Chancellorsville, Confederates, 57,212; Federals, 131,661. At +Gettysburg, Confederates, 64,000; Federals, 95,000. At the Wilderness, +Confederates, 63,981; Federals, 141,160.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> A consideration of the portentous difference between the +number of men borne on the regimental rolls and the number actually +available on the battlefield, suggests that it may be in large degree +accounted for by the number of men detailed for service in the +industrial army. +</p> +<p> +Thus in the army of Northern Virginia just before <ins class="correct" title="Fredricksburg">Fredericksburg</ins>, Nov. +20, 1862:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Aggregate present and absent</td><td class="tval"> 153,773</td></tr> +<tr><td>Aggregate present for duty </td><td class="tval"> 86,569</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Soon after Gettysburg:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>1863:</td><td>Present and absent</td><td class="tval"> 109,915</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>Present for duty</td><td class="tval"> 50,184</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Before Wilderness campaign:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>1864:</td><td>Present and absent</td><td class="tval"> 98,246</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>Present for duty</td><td class="tval"> 62,925</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>On reaching Petersburg, July 10, 1864:</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>Present and absent </td><td class="tval"> 135,805</td></tr> +<tr><td>Present for duty </td><td class="tval"> 68,844</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>As to exemptions it was customary to exempt farmers who engaged to raise +a certain amount of corn.</p> + +<p>Again the practice was extensively pursued of granting furloughs for +recruiting service. Such men continued to be borne on the rolls of their +commands in the field.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Aggregate available military population 792,000, of which +350,000 in the army January, 1862. Above figure is 2-1/2 per cent. of +remainder, viz. 442,000.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Col. Livermore's method of computation, if applied to the +true available number 760,000, with additions and deductions noted +above, yields a very similar result, about 790,000. See his book, p. 23, +but note on p. 21 an error of calculation, where instead of 265,000 he +should give 246,872.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> The ten per cent. addition for extension of military age +is too high an estimate in this and the following tables, when we +remember that the conscript law lowering the age to seventeen and +raising it to fifty did not go into operation until February 17, 1864, +by which time the territory of the Confederacy was greatly contracted.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> +</p> + +<div style="float: right;"> +<p class="noin"><span class="smcap">War Department</span>,<br /> +<span class="smcap">Washington</span>, May 18, 1912.</p> +</div> +<div class="clr"></div> +<span class="smcap">Dear Dr. McKim</span>,<br /> + I think your estimate of 50,000 as representing the total number of +troops furnished by the Border States is about correct. It can never be +definitely ascertained. +<div style="float: right;"> +<p class="noin">Very truly yours,<br /> +<span class="smcap">Marcus J. Wright.</span></p> +</div> +<div class="clr"></div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> I have not in this Monograph taken account of an argument +sometimes put forward, drawn from the alleged fact that the census of +1890 showed that there were then living 432,020 Confederate and 980,724 +United States soldiers (or including sailors and marines 1,034,073). But +the Report on Population, 1890, Part II, p. clxxii, states that the +figures first quoted are approximate only, and "have not been subjected +to careful revision and comparison." No positive conclusion, therefore, +can be drawn from them. Their unreliability is shown by the fact that at +that very time the War Department estimated that there were then living +1,341,332 Federal soldiers.</p></div> + +<div class="tn"> + +<h3><a name="TC" id="TC">Transcriber's Corrections</a></h3> + +<p>Following is a list of significant typographical errors that have been corrected.</p> + +<ul> + +<li> Page <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, repeated "to" eliminated (alluded to have been).</li> + +<li> Footnote <a href="#Footnote_10_10">10</a>, "Fredricksburg" changed to "Fredericksburg" (just before +Fredericksburg).</li> + +</ul> +</div> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The numerical strength of the +Confederate army, by Randolph H. McKim + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF *** + +***** This file should be named 34334-h.htm or 34334-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/3/3/34334/ + +Produced by Patrick Hopkins and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/34334-h/images/i002.jpg b/34334-h/images/i002.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..115a3b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-h/images/i002.jpg diff --git a/34334-h/images/i003.jpg b/34334-h/images/i003.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..32401e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/34334-h/images/i003.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ca05639 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #34334 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34334) |
