The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-10-09
WHERE WERE THE BORDER STATES
IN THE WAR?

A controversy going on In the Century
Magazine over the number of men en-
listed during the war in the Confederate
armies between q Mr.. Deny for the
South and Mr.. Casselman for the North
has developed an interesting side issue
respecting the trend of sympathy amongst
the people of the border States OF Mary
land, Kentucky and Missouri during the
wsr. In the October number Mr.. Deny
makes the following remarks:
MARYLAND gave $4,000 men to the
Union armies, Kentucky 81, 900 and Mis-
souri, 100000. Maryland was too FIRMLY
held by the Federal armies to furnish any
considerable number of men to the cause
of the South. The same is true, for the
greater part of the war, of kentucky
and Missouri. While there were earnest
Southern sympathizers in Kentucky and
Missouri, the great mass of the people
in those States stood firmly on the side
of the Union. General Albert sydney
Johnston, in a letter to Mr.. Davis writ
ten in March, 1862, says that no enthu-
siasm for the CoDfederacy, but hostility,
was manifested during his stay In Ken
lucky; hence but few Kentuckians JOIN
ed his standard. We have the testimony
of Union and Confederate officers for the
statement that the Bragg and Kirby
Smith expeditions did not add more than
n brigade to the Confederate strength.
Search the published records of the com
pesition of the respective armies and 1t
Is easy to see how greatly the number OF
Union regiments from those States ex-
coed the number of Confederate regi-
ments. There was never possibility of
enforcing the COnscript act in those
States, and but very little chance, after
February, 1862, for any of their citizens,
who desired so to do, to enlist in the
armies of the Confederacy. AS TO Mary
land, there was exceedingly small oppor-
tunity for such thing, even in 1861. |
cannot find from the records that these
three States furnished even as high as
10000 men to the Confederacy."
Mr.. Casselman controverts Mr. Denys
statement that "the great mass Of the
people of those States were firmly on
the side of the Union" He says
'Fourffths Of their people were of
Southern birth. Socially and politically
their sympathies were all with
the South, with which they
were likewise identified in their
material interests, in the institution
of slavery. Whatever cause existed TO
Justify the South in the war affected the
border slave States rs well as those of
the interior. They had a slave popuia.
ton of 427 1000, representing value of
two hundred million dollars. In 1861
the Governors Of Kentucky and Missouri
both at heart favored secession; the lat
ter renounced his Office, left his State,
and gave his personal services TO the
Confederacy; and subsequently the Con-
federate Congress admitted both of those
States as members of the Confederacy.
In the Senate of the United
States at this time West Virginia il rep
resented by two ex-Confederate soldiers;
Missouri is represented by an ex-Con-
federate soldier and an ex-member Of
the Confederate Senate: Kentucky by
an ex-Confederatc soldier. Thus FIVE of
the eight United States Senators from
those States are ex-Confederates. Not one
of the eight was Union soldier, nor 9th
erwise distinctively identified as a Tn
ionist. 1t is remarkable, therefore. that
ex-Confederates should be thus preferred
for Offices of trust and honor, if, as Mr.
Deny contends, the great mass of the
people of those States were firmly on the
side of the Union"
This is certainly one of the most GU
Ai"uo N"Sco 'hu1 Couiu pOssiply arise,
and one of the hardest to understand. 1t
is certain. as Mr. Deny says, that the
three States mentioned did not COL trib-
ute more than 10000 men to the Con-
federate armies, and that they did con-
tribute certainly three times that number
to the Federal armies. But it is equally
certain that the overwhelming sympathy
of all three of these States is now with
the South. How is their course during
the war 10 be exnlninad2