initial commit of ebook 34334HEADmain

1 files changed, 2070 insertions, 0 deletions

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 Bœotian 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.