The Numerical Strength of the Confederate Army: An examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis Adams and others — John Shaqi
The Numerical Strength of the Confederate Army: An examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis Adams and othersMcKim, Randolph H. (Randolph Harrison)
History
The Numerical Strength of the Confederate Army: An examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis Adams and others
McKim, Randolph H. (Randolph Harrison)
Confederate States of America. Army
The estimate above alluded to, of 20,000 Marylanders in the Confederate
service, rests apparently upon no better basis than an oral statement of
General Cooper to General Trimble, in which he said he believed that the
muster rolls would show that about 20,000 men in the Confederate army
had given the State of Maryland as the place of their _nativity_. How
many were _citizens of Maryland_ when they enlisted does not appear.
Obviously many _natives_ of Maryland were doubtless in 1861 _citizens of
other States_, and could not therefore be reckoned among the soldiers
furnished by Maryland to the Confederate armies.
As to the estimates furnished by writers in "_The South_" concerning the
number of men furnished the Confederacy from the Border States, viz.,
Kentucky, 30,000; Missouri, 60,000; West Virginia, 7,000; the same
unintentional exaggeration doubtless exists here as I have shown in
regard to the numbers alleged to have been furnished by the seceded
States. Unfortunately it is not possible to be definite in stating the
numbers furnished by the Border States. When we observe the discrepancy
between Colonel Fox's 19,000, President Tyler's 117,000, and Colonel
Livermore's 143,000, it becomes clear that the whole subject is involved
in uncertainty. I incline to the opinion that 50,000 is nearer the
actual numbers in the Southern army from these Border States than
100,000; but for the sake of argument I leave the number 75,000, as
stated above.[14]
Before concluding this branch of the subject I would call attention to
the following remark made by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in his "Military
Studies," p. 282. He says "that the States named [meaning Kentucky,
Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia] sympathizing, as at the time the
Southern authorities claimed, most deeply with the Confederacy should
have furnished over 316,000 recruits to the Federal army, and only
117,000 to that of the Confederacy is, to say the least, deserving of
remark,--it calls for explanation." Again he says: "It would be not
unnatural to assume that these States furnished an equal number of
recruits to the Confederacy." (_Id._ p. 238.)
This statement is sufficiently amazing. On the contrary, would it not be
most _unnatural_ to assume that these four States, occupied and
controlled from end to end by the Federal armies, should have furnished
as many men to the Confederate army as to the Federal army,
notwithstanding the enormous difficulties of passing through the lines?
Although there was much sentiment favorable to the Confederacy in these
four States, I fear there cannot be any doubt that the preponderance of
sentiment was in favor of the Union; and he must be blind who does not
recognize the fact that the difficulties in the way of a young man
desiring to enlist in the Southern army, while his State was occupied by
the Federal forces, were enormously great.
CONCLUSION
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account