The National tribune., 1909-04-22
MEN IN THE coNFEDERATE ARMY.

veteran:
notice in the excellent March num-
ber of the Confederate Veteran that you
reprint from the Baltimore Sun Mr..
tCassenove G. Lees ancient civil war sta
| tistics as to the number of soldiers in
the. armies of the North and SOUTH.
tThere is no historical foundation What
ever for the statement made by him
THAT the total enlistments in the Con-
| federate army consisted of 900, 600
| men,
Il much more distinguished and re-
liable Southern authority, DIR. Woodrow
Wilson, of Virginia (now President of
Princeton College), in his admirable
History of the American People" ;"
states the number of Federal and Con-
federate soldiers in the civil war as fol-
lows: In the North four men out of
every nine OF the military population
had enlisted for service of three years
| in the field--in all, 100000 out of a
military population of 100000" (Vol-
ume ~, page 261.) And again tpage
| 267) he gives the numbers in the Con-
federate armies as follows: THE total
military population of the South (the
Iseceding States) was but l,O65,OOO.
Nine hundred thousand of these she
drew into her armies for at least three
years of service, and before the war
ended mere half-grown boys and men
ter" The Confederate soldiers in the
Border States were not included in DIR.
Wilson's statement.
In the carefully prepared History of
the United States,,' by Mr. Waddy
Thompson, of Atlanta. Ga, published in
1904. after it's civil war chapters had
been reviewed by that prince of gentle
men and soldiers, Gen. John B. Gordon,
he states that sit is probable that the
total number of enlistments in the Con-
federate armies was nearly million
| (See preface and page 406.)
l am so fond of the editor of the Con-
federate Veteran and read the magazine
with SO much pleasure that / am anx-
ious that it shall be Historically accu-
rate in its statements.
| The editor of the Confederate Veter-
an writes:
| Gen. Thruston has been studying the
statistics of the two armies for years.
/ and there can be no question of his alb
solute sincerity in seeking to have the
truth established; but he has been in
the South so long that he must be par
doned for pride in reducing discrepancy
of numbers. Gen. Thruston is one of
the best citizens in the South, and none
the less good for having married twice
into families of cultured, ardent South
[ern people. True, he simply quotes in
the foregoing from cordially accepted
Southern authors; yet the Veteran,
while having due esteem for him and
them, does not agree to quite so great
compromise of the statistics that have
been SO long accepted. The Union army
reduced from 100000 to 1,700, eco and
the Confederate increased from 600, ,00G
| to 1,6 600 men is too great a differ
! ence. Southern authors should be very
careful of their figures. A compromise
from both sides as to actual tfIree-year
soldiers might be nearer the truth.
Another estimate as to figures:
Rev. DIR. John r. Deering, of Lexing.
ton, KY, refers to the article (March
Veteran) by Mr.. C. c. Lee on the
strength of the Northern and Southern
armies in the great war, and expresses
the opinion:
'It is correct, believe, save that it
does not include as part of the Union
strength the men serving on the North
ern side in the Navy OF the United
/ States. The author of Lee and His
Cause uses the same figures for the
forces of the United Stntes engaged on
/ land, but increases them by the number
of men in tie naval service of the
Union, SO that the aggregated strength
opposed to the South is more exactly
represented by his figures-namely, g.
987.776 men.
The Encyclopedias Britannica, an
authority of high reputation for fair
| ness and accuracy, gives somewhat
smaller numbers-viz.. 2,f59.049 men
| called out by the Federal Government
and as in actual service 2.656 ,053 men.
The difference is not great. but it seems
to me thar fairness requires the histo-
rian to include IN his figures the thou
sands of hardy and trained seamen, who
fought US on rivers. coasts. bays, CULTS
and high seas, where our numbers
scarce deserve mention.
| If this be done and 10000 men be
accepted as the Confederate strength,
| 1t viii be seen that we fought a good
! fight. oh, the fearful odds of that un-
equal fray'-aImost five to one! 1t
lacked but 12.224 men of that-exactly.
And. as Mr.. Lee has shown, there were
more negros and foreigners against us
by S0.917 than We had men in all our
Southern armies Leaving out all diff
ferences in supplies, equipment, trans
portation, manufactures, materials,
skilled labor, foreign influence, Nation
al credit and the like. we had in the
mere mass of men against us too much
done more, yet could not have been sue
cessful."
Gen. Thruston has done a good SER
vice in calling attention to the probable
| figures as to the number of men on both
sides. and 1t is to the credit of the Con-
federate Veteran that 1t shows some
disposition to abandon the old fiction
of the Confederacy having only 600, 600
men in the field.
1t is an easy matter to reduce the ac-
fcessibIe facts and statistics to a still
more conclusive basis than Gen. Thrus-
ton. the editor of the Confederate Vet
eran or the authorities that he cites
have done. The figures in the War De-
partment show that there were 2,778,-
304 enIistments in the Union army. OF
these 80, were coiored troops. This
figure of 2,77s.304 is the outside figure
for the enlistments. In 1t must have
been several hundred thousand men
who served two or more enfistments,
and consequently were counted as often
as they enlisted The Pension Bureau
has made an effort to ascertain the
number of individuals in the Union
army, and has come to the conclusion
that there were 2,223,000 different in
Ediyiduals. This, we think, is still in
excess of the real number. which must
be reduced to nearer the 1000, 000
mark.
On the other hand, the Census Of
Il