The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-08-20
ADDITIONAL as TO THE TROOPS
IN THE WAR.

We have not heard from Editor Cald-
we'll as to the impression made by the
Neathery publication in 1901, forty
wears offer the wal began. But our
friend. Major z. J.. Hale, copies in the
Wednesdays issue Of his paper, the
FAYETTEVILLE Observer, the Neathery list
That will enable US to say what we re-
gard as necessary That part with
which we are particularly concerned
now, the headlines being omitted, is
this. The Raleigh correspondent of the
Charlotte Observer introduced the list
of regiments with this:
LAS to the strength of the North Car
DINA Confederate regiments he writer
is luckily able to give some information
which is official. The late Major John
r. Neathery, of Raleigh. who was dur
ing the war q clerk in the capitol, made
up for Governor Vance a statement of
the strength of each of the state regi-
ments when turned over to the Confed-
racy."
What was this "strengh' when six
ty-fve regiments were turned over to
the Confederacy?" 1t was summed no
at $500. When was this? How Ions
d1LC III val 60" bNACAS ~
lima had ready sixty-five regiments?
When turned over the 65th had but 426
men, the 60th but 637. The part that
mainly mislead us in the one reading
we gave it. was this. which supplement-
ed as we suppose, the original strength
with other troops afterward added. The
supplement is this: Unattached COM
1919 A 20 aon.o~;n+- o onn. raorI,i+c
1O,4OO; total 1899"
We simply took this to express the
final total, as conscripts and recruits
and unattached companies were added
to reach the 1899 as given. The editor
of the Observer. like this writer, knows
such a statement would be outrageous
~ untrue. if it meant to include all that
North Carolina contributed in men.
He say, i. is correct, we have no
doubt whatever, Anyone familiar with
North Carolina wal history will see the
explanation of the apparent discrep-
ancy. The number of recruits, con-
stantly sent forward, otter Mr.. Meath
ery's summing up account, accounts for
the other As, 1000"
If we misunderstood the real mean
ing of the publication we are glad, for
we were mortified and ashamed at 1.-The
apparent discrepancy" as Major Hale
calls it. We have not any lou that
this list would mislead outsiders who
knew nothing of the real number of
troops furnished by North Carolina, as
appears N the Roster of troops, and
49, I'D 9TH
ers. The Richmnd Dispatch copied that
list, and it was but fair that it should
have copied the Messengers first arti-
Gle setting forth the evidence in favor
of not less than 125, 600 troops as the
real number. Major Hale state that in
his issue of the 31st of July, he referred
to what the Messenger said. copying a
small part. So far as we know the OBJ
server was the only paper that Tic this.
If we %bIundered. as some paper say,
then we rejoice. for it relieves the state
of the effects of hat we considered a
most unfortunate publication. When
North Cardinals record is involved we
would rather be too swift than to be
Indifferent. Why recruits, ETC., were
supplemental Of the original list we do
not know. When those conscripts and
recruits were gathered and forwarded
would be an interesting contribution.
Ii We have really made a mistake we
will unhesitatingly apologize, but as
yet we cannot say we see it.
Lieutenant Colonel w. F. Cox, U. S.
volunteers, published in 1889 a work en-
+;+IaS ssRepimontal Losses in the War,
1916" He puts North Cardinals loss
at 1925. He says North Carolina had
in the war a regiments, and four bat
lilo of infantry; 1 regiment and .
battalions of cavalry and II batteries OF
artillery. He says North Carolina has
$4,000 total enrolment including eight
regiments of junior and senior reserves.
Robbed the Grave.
A startling incident, of which Mr.