The Washington times., 1904-01-13
Statistical Errors.
The Fallacy of Basing an Argument on
the Look of Things.

The Baltimore Sum-" in comment
ing on a paper on the training of the
militia of this country, takes occasion
to show the fighting temper of the
South in the war between the States
by some statistics which, though true,
are somewhat twisted'in the applica-
ton. While the bravery and patriot
ism of Southern soldiers is not to be
questioned, the article itself is mis-
leading
1t is stated that the number of
Union volunteers in service at the
close of the war was 1,O34,064 to
which army the South could oppose
not more than 100000. 1t is further
stated that a very large contingent,
including negroes, was drawn from
the Southern States to strengthen the
Union armies, ito say nothing of Can
ada, Germany, ard other foreign
countries" The author then adds:
Maryland furnished 46,63S Union
troops, or more than New Hampshire,
Vermont, Kansas, Rhode Island, West
Virginia, or Minnesota. Kentucky
supplied 1880, or more than Maine
or Connecticut, and within a thousand
Of as many as Iowa or New Jersey.
The fighting temper of the South was
indisputable."
The statement in the last sentence
is certainly indisputable But these.
statistics have nothing to do with the
case. They are intended to give the
impression that there was no compar-
ison between the size of the Southern
army and that of the Northern army.
and that the struggle was absolutely
unequal. The argument takes abs
lrtely no notice of the fact, admitted
by every military authority, that an
attacking force must, in order to be
on equal terms with a defending force
in good position, be considerably
larger. The Northern army had not
only to fight military force, but the
climatic conditions of the South,
which, while healthfui for the native
and the acclimated citizen, are weak
ening and disastrous to those who
come from an entirely different sort
of country. The mountaiLeers OF
New England, the lumbermen of
Maine, suffered seriously from ma
laria and fever while encamped in the
South, and it is generally recognized
that more men were lost IN one way
and another by McClellan's policy of
delay, which kept the Army of the
Potomac encamped among unfamiliar
conditions, than fell in some of the
great battles. In country as large
as ours, extending over the whole tenn
perate zone, such things have to be
taken into account.
To base an argument on the fact
that Maryland, which did not seeede,
furnished more Union troops than
New Hampshire, becomes evidently
absurd when it is noted that the pop
ulation of Maryland in 1890 was
100000, while that of New Hamp-
shire is $4,000, about one-third that
of Maryland, and, moreover, the pop
ulation Of New Hampshire has been
materially increased since the war by
foreign immigration, half the popula-
ton of the cities Of that State being
now Of foreign descent. Vermont's
population is even smaller 32, 900.
Rhode Islands is $4,000. The popu-
latiOn Of Kansas is now / ,427 900, but
al the time of the war Kansas was not
half settled, and a large part of its
population was made up of Mis-
sOu1ans who were not Union material.
Minnesota was little more than a col
lection of lumber camps, though her
population IS now larger than that of
Maryland, owing partly to constant
foreign immigration within twenty
five years. The only one of these com
parsons which comes anywhere near
bearing on the situation, when all the
facts are known, is that between Ken
lucky and New Jersey, Kentucky hav-
ing a population in 1890 of 1885, 600.
and New Jersey of 1,SS3,O0O; but
Kentucky, like Maryland, was Dor
der State, and moreover had large
mountain population who were not.
and never had been, Shareholders, and
while Southe-ners in spirit and tradi-
ton, were not identified with the in
forests of secession, and had little IN
common with the people Of middle