Litchfield enquirer., 1873-08-28

states gained 2S.4 per cent III population. But they were aided by immigration, of which but little has turned southward. If we suppose, however, that not single i'm migrant since 1860 has settled in Southern states, and deduct the whole number of immigrants from 1860 to 1870 from the Northern, there yet remains increase of 1892 per cent in the Northern, and only 9.6 per cent in the southern population. The latter states have relatively lost, therefore, about 6f per cent; in other words, had their gain from natural causes been as great, and their loss from war and migration no greater than that of North ern states would have had in 1870 pop ulation 66S, ,O00 larger than actually ex- isted.
 This relative loss cannot be ascribed to that excessive mortality among the color ed population which some persons antici- pated as an effect of emancipation. On the contrary, this part of the Southern population has gained 10.1 per cent slightly more than the white population. Nor can the loss be sustained by suppos- ing that, either from the larger infusion of foreign blood or from greater prosperi- ty, the natural reproduction has been in greater proportion in the Northern States. Confessedly imperfect as the census of 1870 was i'll enumeration of persons under year of age. it may yet be considered as approximating to the truth equally in the different States, and in the Southern States the enumeration shows 347 ,403 per sons under year of age to 8 population of Il, ,250, ,511, and a ratio of one to 32. 3S while the ratio in all the other States and Territories is only one to 35.S0 Thus, whatever the true birth-rate may be, we must conclude that it is higher in the 1 Southern than in the Northern States, and instead of deficiency in reproduc- tion to account for a relative loss in pop ulatlon, we have 8 greater reproduction to increase the loss yet to be explained. Nor can the Southern loss in population be ascribed to greater mortality. Returns of deaths, however imperfect, must be supposed to. approximate to the truth equally i'll different States, and these show l only l. IS per cent of deaths in the South ern States, against 1.36 per cent in all the the other States and Territories. Indeed eight of the l3 States appear to be much below the average in the rate of mortality
 Georgia, where the rate reported Is l. 15; florida, where it is 1.21; Mississippi, where 1t is LII; Alabama, where it is 1.03; Kentucky, where it is 1.09 South Caroli- na, where it is 1.O5; North Carolina, where 1t is only .98; and West Virginia, where it Is only .91, are among the lowest of all the States in the ratio of reported deaths Statistics of mortality, therefore, do not account for the relative loss of popula- tlon at the South; but like statistics of births only show still greater loss to be | otherwise explained. For with an appa- rent birth rate of one to 32.38, against a rate of 35.8O in Northern States, and an apparent death rate of LIS agsinst 136 in Northern States, there should have been @ greater excess of births over deaths by at least 400, ,O0O Tn the Southern than in the Northern States. The relative loss, yet to be explained, thus rises to ,O67, 735 persons population of the South would have been greater, by at least that number. than it actually was in 1870, had not some cause not yet considered dimin- lshed its increase.
 l LOSSES BY WAR.
 Can 1t be supposed that the losses of the Southern States in consequence of the war were so much greater than their due proportion to those of the Northern States? To state this question is to an | swer it.. All losses to the Southern States, directly or indirectly caused by the war, cannot have been so great in number; still l less, therefore, can its excess of loss over its proportion to losses of Northern States have been so great.
 The Surveyor General states the direct losses of the Union armies at BOA ,O0O. Upon this basis the Superintendent of Census estimates the entire Northern loss at 800, ,OOO and tho Southern at $50, ,000, in each case exclusive of the retardation of production caused by interruption of do- l frn n4S l, fo~ IL ern loss would seem to be excessively lib- eral, but the population of the Southern | was barely one half that of the Northern States; the number of troops in service and exposed to casualties or disease, was not one half as great; the Southern forces l fought on the defensive, often behind l Notifications, or with natural advantages. | of position; their troop were serving in a | climate to which they were accustomed, | while it proved peculiarly deadly to North ern men exposed to it for the first time in | the hardships of a campaign. These con | slderatlons would seem ample to out | weigh the better medical attendance of Northern Armies, and their better SUD- pl1es of food. Some support is given to | these reasOnings from the statement of causualties to the Southern armies. taken | from the Rebel archives, whi ch show only l 133, ,S21 deaths from battle and disease, and only 59,397 from disease to 52,954 killed ill action. and 31 ,57O died of wounds while the records of our own armies show 1 61 1862 killed in action, 34, 727 died of wounds. and 1S3,287 died of disease more than three times as many as were killed. The Rebel records also show only 35, ,46O discharges for disability, while the Union armies discharged PA, ,3O6. It | ohoI l, T.,
 900 for direct Southern losses is quite large. But if it be allowed, there ap- pears an excess of only 100, ,OOO over the proportionate loss of Southern as com pared with Northern States.
 Less than one-sixth of the male poDula- tlon of productive age was withdrawn l from domestic relations by the war and for less than four years out of the decade In 1S6O the male population of 15 years of age and over numbered 9,625, PA, and the | population of the Northern States be1ng a little more than double that of the 13 l Southern States, the number of males of | 15 and over in Northern States was over 6, 400, 900. Now the largest number of men in the Union service at any one time during the war was 80,O96, March 31, l 1865, so that much less than one-sixth of the males of productive age were engaged Ill the war. The proportion thus engaged on the Southern side must have been small CT. With 3,200,O of productive age, the Southern States certainly did not keep constantly in the field half million men. But if allow for retardation of increase one-sixth of the entire productive force, and for the whole of four years out of ten -equivelent to one-ffteenth of the natu- ral increase of decade-an allowance which suggests that no furloughs were l granted to soldiers, and no children were born in one-sixth of the families in the country during four years. we still shall have accounted for loss of only 187, 1000 III the Southern States. The entire South ern losses from war, direct and indirect, can not then be more than 537, 900. But if the entire Southern loss caused by war was but little more than half a million, the excess of such losses at the due pro- portion to losses at the North from the