Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-02
THE GREAT STRUGGLE.
The Relative Strength of the
Armies OF Generals Lee
WI and Grant.
Reply of Gen. Early to the Let
ter of Gen. Badeau to the
London Standard.
To the Editors of the London Standard:

10 the Editors Of the London Standard:
To people overpowered and crushed
In struggle for their rights, there is still
lett one resource on earth for the vindica-
tlon OF their conduct and character that
adopted by England's great Philosopher
an appeal to "foreign nations and to the
next age" A persistent and systematic
effort 10 falsify the truth of history has
been made, since .he close of the late
war in this country, by the adherents of
the United States Government in that con-
nlct; and such generous desire to vindi-
cate the truth as that evinced by your
recent articles upon the death of Gen.
Lee, has awakened deep sense of graft
tude in the hearts of all true Confederates.
Presumjng upon the kind sentiments mani
tested in your columns, venture to ask
the privilege of correcting, through the
came medium, some of the gross errors
contained in the letter of Gen. Badeau,
the late military and private Secretary
TO Gen. Grant" which has been extern
slVely copied from your journal into
American journals.
In reference to the campaign of 1864,
from the Rapidan to James river, Gen.
Badeau makes this remarkable statement:
''The calculation that Grant had three
times as many men as Lee has been OBJ
tanned by emitting Longstreet's corps
altogether from the estimate, and by
giving only Lees force present for duty
on the Rspidsn; while in reckoning
Grants numbers, not only the present for
duty are counted, but those constituting
what, in military parlance, is called the
total, which includes the sick, the extra
duty men, aud various others, invariably
amounting in any large army to many
thousands. Manifestly, either Lees total
should be compared with Grants total, or
Grants present for duty with Lees
present for duty. But besides this, in
order to make out Grants army three
times as large as Lees, Grants two forces
in the Valley of Virginia and on the
James river (each at least 100 miles from
the Widerness) are included in the esti-
mate of his strength while the troops
which Lee had in front of these separate
forces of Grant are left out of the calcu-
latiOn altogether. | repeat that in the
battle of the Wilderness Lee had about
200 engaged, while Grant ha6 $4,000
present for duty-according to the con-
fdential field returns made at the time by
each General TO bis own government,
when no General would Intentionally mis-
state or mislead."
That officers of Grants army, after
witnessing the terrible havoc made in
their ranks by the small force opposed to
them at the Wilderness, at SpOtsylvania
G. H, and at Cold HaEbor, should ever
estimate the strength of that force, is not
TO be wondered at, but when the report
of Mr.. Edwin NJ. Stanton, the United
States Secretary of War, made at the
opening session of Congress for the years
1866, is critically examined, it viii be
regarded as most surprising that Gen.
Badeau should have committed such gross
plumbers in regard to the strength of
Grants army. In order to expose those
blunders, and to enable you to verify the
extracts which | shall make from Mr..
Stanton's report, send you an official
copy of that report printed under the au-
tkority of the United States Congress.
On page Of his report, Mr.. Stanton
says:
'sThe national forces engaged in the
Spring campaign of 1864 were organized
partments as follows:
''The Army of the Potomac, COM
manded by Major Gen. Meade, whose
headquarters were on the north side of
the-Rapidsn. This army was confronted
by the Rebel army of Northern Virginia,
stationed on the south side of the RspidaD,
under Gen. Robert E. Lee.
''The 9th corps, under Msjor-Gen.
Burnside, was at the opening of the cam
psign, distinct organization, but on the
oath of May, 1854, it was incorporated
into the Army of the Potomac.
''Tbe Army of the James was COM
manded by Msjor-Gen. Butler, whose
headquarters were at Fortress Monroe.
''The headquarters of the Army of the
Shenandoah, commanded by Major-Gen.
Sigel, were at Winchester. T II is not
necessary to mention the other armies for
my purpose.
On pages and of his report Mr..
Stanton says:
Official reports show that on the 1st of
May, 1864, the aggregate military force
of all arms, officers and men, was 970,-
40, tO-wit:
Available force present for duty.....662,3 45
On detached service in the different
military departments. I09, 34S
&n field hospitals, or unfit for duty. Al, 266
In general hospitals, or on sickleave
at home..................... 1913
Absent on furlough, or as prisoners
OF war. $3.50
Absent without leave..................... Il, 483
Grand aggregate. $40, 40
The aggregate available force present
for duty May l, 1864, was distributed in
the different commands as follows:
Department of Washington. 1874
q Army of the Potomac........... 100, $50
Department of Virginia and North
Carolina ...........,.................. $3.50
Department of the South. ........... Is. l65
Department of the Gulf 81, S66
Department Of Arkansas. %. 666
Department of the Tennessee...... 74.I74
Department of the Missouri. 1910
Department of the Northwest. 1926
Department of Kansas. ,79S
Headquarters Military Division of
the Mississippi. 47G
Department of the Cumberland. 1884
Department of the Ohio. 35.4I6
Northern Department. 9.546
Department of the West Virginia 30, 7S2
Department of the East........... 2,S2S
Department of the Susquehanna E. $3.50
middle department. 5.627
ES-Nioth army corps.................. 20, $50
Department of New Mexico......... 3,454
Department Of the Pdcific.....,.... j,l41
GG2, 345
Nv Stanton in This stqtprnent sccounte