New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-08-02

that OF Northern sates they would have had IN 1870
Tbs featSe loss cannot be ascibed to that
mortality among the colored population which some
the contrary this part OF the Southern population mas
gained lol per centslighy more than the whte pGpa
ation Nor can the loss be sustained by supposng mat
either from the larger infusion OF foreign blood or rom
greater prosperity, the natural reproduction mas oee ~
greater proportion in the Northern States Confessea
Imperfect as the census OF 1870 was IN enumer atoh o
persons under OF age IL may yet be m
states, and in the southern States the enumeration
shows 3l 05 persons under year OF age 10 ~
of and ratio OF TO 323s while tne fat9 6
ali the other states and Territories Is only one to 1881
Thus whatever the true brthrae may DO, We nus
clude that 1t higher In the southern tnap IN ne
ern States and instead of deficiency In reproduetpu
TO account for relative loss In popuauon We ho
greater reproduction increase the loss YET 10 pe ea
blamed Nor can the Southern loss In popuiatiYn De
ascribed TO greater mortality Returns OF 9eas 80 he
rnib eauaily in different states, ana these show only
lls per cent OF deaths In the SoutncEu In
eight of the Is states appear TO be much below e
average in the rate OF mortality. 1eoTSn rssssinn
,yhcre n ia iii: Alabama. where 1t is LOS Ken
fucjy where II IL lO9 South Carolina W1eI W.. ~
Is los North Carolina where II IS only VI anu y, III
the States the ratio OF reported oeas ,ive loss
m pannlsion at the South like statistics OF births
only show q still greater loss 10 DC W. sc 90 nst
For with an apparent birth rate OF one 70 3l5S, az
rate ~ az "a In Northern States and apparent death
rate of LA against 1856 in Northern states lnerg @ 20
have heen Greacr excess OF births over deaths ny az
iaas Io 00 In the Southern than In the Northern states
The relative loss yet TO be explained thus rises 70
IO67s35 persons-the population OF the south Wouu
have been greater by least that number than IL ae
tuay was in 1870 had not some cause not yet consd
cred diminished Its increase
LOSSES DY WAR.
Can II be supposed that the losses Of the Southern
States in consequence of the so much greater
than their due proportion to those OF the Northern
Satesi To state this question Is TO answer It, AL losses
TO the Southern States directly indirectly caused by
the war; cannot have been great in numbers sti less
therefore its OF loss over Its proportion TO
losses OF Northern States have boon 50 great,
The SuryeyOrGeneral states the direct losses OF the
Union armies at $4,000 Upon this basis the supern-
tenden OF Census estimates the entire Northern loss at
5OOOOO and the Southern 35O0OO iu each excu-
OF the retardaton OF production caused by inter
ruptiOn OF domestic relations. This estimate Tor
Southern loss would 10 be excessively liberal put
the population Of the Southern was barely onea that
of the Northern States the number Of troops in service
and exposed to casualties disease not onehalf as
great the Southern forces fought ON the defenVe OF
ten behind Notifications with natural advantages OF
position their troops serving In climate TO when
they accustomed, while II proved peculiarly utauy
20 Northern men exposed 70 II ior lne nIst ld
seem ample to outweigh the better medical attendance
of Northern armies, and their better supplies OF ioou
Some support Is gwen 10 these reas0nlngs from the
statements OF casualties TO the Southern armies taken
from the Rebel archives, which show only lS deaths
from battle and disease and only 6929 from disease 10
5295i killed In action and 25'O aleu OF Wouhus; me
the records OF our own armies show 65o2 ulsa d, ac
than three times as many as were killed: Inc
Rebel records also show only $3.50 discharges iop ua
biuty, while the Union armies discharged 2243Oo. III
seems probable that the estimate OF $4,000 Tor direct
Southern losses quite TOO large o Bn, IL pe
tonate loss OF Southern as compared with Northern
States, ,.,- ~. -
ductiye age was withdrawn from domestic relations by
the war; for less than four years out OF the decade
In 1860 the male population Of 10 years OF age and over
numbered 9G25,2A aud the population OF Northern
States being a little more than double that OF
the Is Southern States, the number OF males OF
is and over in Northern States 6,4ooOO0 Now
largest number of men in the Union service at any
Aftrfn
that much less than onesxth OF the males OF poduc
tive were engaged In the war The proportion mus
smaller. With 100000 males OF productive age, the
Southern States certainly did not Keep constantly III Tue
field half million But II we allow for retarda-
ton OF increase onesxth of the entire productive FORCE
aud for the whole of four years out OF
allowance which suggests that 10 furloughs were
granted TO soldiers anu no children were born IN one
sixth OF families in the country during four years,
we shall still have accounted for loss OF only l6IoO III
the Southern states. The entire Southern losses from
war direct aud indirect, cannot then DO more than
53 GOO But If the entire Southern loss caused by war
was but little more than half million the excess Oh
the due proportion 10 losses al the north
the cause can by no means account LOT the
relative loss OF 100000 nor for OF that NUN
ber However widely any reasonable conjecture may
vary these estimates there yet remains relative loss
10000 in the population OF the 10 southern saes'
for not yet considered must Dc sought
MIGRATION.
Both during and since the war the Southern States
have lost largely by migration OF their inhabitants The
number thus lost it is not possible TO ascertain with ac-
curacy, because the number OF natives OF Southern
States who had moved TO the North before the war and
still survived In 1870 is known The census Of 1870
shows however that 1O25 natives of the IS Southern
States were at that time living in other States S39l2
being whites 1S6455 being colored, and 200 Indians
Wthordlnary allowance for deaths during the decade
of natives Of the South had migrated prior 10 1860
the number Of them remaining in 1870 cannot have been
greater than 66sOOO that the migration from the IL
Southern other States during the last decade must
have been al least $751; 76. This number added TO the
Northern and at the time taken from the Southern
increase counts douby in the comparison and explains
a difference OF fully 10000 in the relative progress OF
the two sections ia population
Examination of condition OF industry IN the South
ern States will show why this migration has been so
large The terrible loss OF wealth. already considered,
points TO the same cause. The loss OF property ana
utter prosraon of industry IN that section have driven
one-thirtieth OF its entire population To NY 10 Other
States and have caused loss 10 States siDce the war
closed greater than all the Southern armies suffered by
battle and disease during the entire conflict