Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1910-03-11

''.... ............ 2, $50, 062
III the number of her sons sacrificed
III the cause of the Union Vermont led
all the other States by a heavy ner
CENT with the exception of Kansas.
Vefmonts proportion per thousand
contributed to the total of deaths in
actlon was 5S.22; that of Ohio 1855;
that of New York 1868. Massachusetts
was 47.76; Iowa, 1914.
IN the proportion per thousand of
deaths from disease Iowa led with a
percentage of 114.O2, and Vermont fol-
loWed with 91.S1. Ohio's percentage
was 1858. The proportion of deaths
from all causes in the troops of each
State was as follows: Maine. | in 7;
New hampshire, l in Z; Vermont. / in
.; Massachusetts,, l in 8; Rhode Isl.
and, l in IL; Connecticut, 1 in 10: New
YORK, l IN II; New Jersey, l in -;
pennsylvania, 1 in -; Delaware, l in
~; Maryland, I in %; Ohio, 1 in %;
Indiana, ! in 8; Illinois, l in 7; Michi.
gan, l in 6; Wisconsin, l in 7: Mime
sofa, l in s; Iowa, 1 in 5 (nearly 81;
Kansas, l in 5; California, l in 90;
Virginia, 1 in g.; Kentucky, 1 in 10;
Missouri, 1 in 8.
Again the young man must not for
get as he reads of the great battles of
history that few of them can ompar
in magnitude with the great battles of
the Civil War, and that the battles OF
that war were the bloodiest in all the
history of wars in the proportion of
killed to those engaged. Waterloo was
one of the most desperate and bloody
fields chronicled in European history.
and yet Wellington's casualties were
less than II per cent, his losses being
2,432 killed and 95S wounded out of
over 100000, while at Shiloh one side
lost in killed and wounded $40 out of
$4,000, while their opponents reported
their killed and wounded at 9,616,
making the casualties about 80 per
cent. At the great battle of Wagram.
Napoleon lost but about 5 per cent.
At Wurzburg the French lost but 3h
per cent, and yet the army gave up the
field and retreated to the Rhine.
At Racour, Marshal SAKE lost but 49,
per cent. At Zurich, Massena lost but
8 per cent. At Lagriz, Frederick lost
but 6H per cent. At M%alplaquet, MARI
borough lost but 10 per cent, and at
Families the same intrepid command
er lost but 6 per cent.
At Contras, Henry of Navarro was
reported as cut to pieces, yet his loss
was less than 10 per cent. At Lodi,
Napoleon lost but ~ per cent. At
Valmy, Frederick William lost but 8
per cent, and at the great battles of
Marengo and Austerlitz, sanguinary as
they were, Napoleon lost an average
of less than 14H per cent. At Magenta
and Solferino, in 1859, the average loss
Of both armies was less than 9 per
cent At Konigratz, in 1868, it was 6
per cant. At Worth, S~pecheram, Mars
lie Tour, Gravelotte, and Sedan, in 1870,
the average loss was - per cent; while
at Linden General Moreau lost but 4
per cent, and the Archduke John lost
but 7 per cent in killed and wounded.
In addition to the vast list of dead
from the wal must be added those who
have died from wounds received dur
ing the war. The killing is still going
on about as rapidly as ever, and the
men are dropping daily from wounds
received in action who ought to live
for long years yet. The figures that 1
nave given really give but a glimpse
into the sad truth of the awful NOR
tally of the war that saved the Union.
I hope the young men who read this
will feel no more Impotence because
the sacrifices of the great war are talk
ed about, and they will cut out the
figures I have collected for them and
save them for reference whenever they
feel that way.-Chicago Ledger.