The Numerical Strength of the Confederate Army / An examination of the argument of the Hon. Charles Francis Adams and others

The alleged Confederate enrollment was 70,000, and furnished to the United States army 515, which is nearly 2,000 more than the total military population, taking no account of the large number of exempts and of the failure to execute the conscript act.

The alleged Confederate enrollment was 90,000, and furnished to the Union army, 2,576, making a total of 92,576; which is within 5,000 of the total available, taking no account of the large number exempted for State officers and other causes, and taking no account, either, of the number of men who could not be reached by the conscript officers.

The alleged Confederate enrollment was 115,000, and the State furnished the Union army 31,092, a total of 146,092, which is within 9,000 of the total available military population, without taking account of the men not reached by the conscript officers, and, further, taking no account of the fact that so large a part of the State was in occupation of the Federal armies.

As to Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, it is enough to say that they were in that Trans-Mississippi Department of which the Confederate Government lost control in July, 1863. Hence, it is not surprising that even those inflated estimates of the number of men furnished the Confederate army fall far short of the estimated military population. In Arkansas, however, the estimate comes within 5,000 of the total available,—58,289 out of 63,665.

In the light of the facts just stated we must conclude that the Southern writers quoted by General Adams have, in their zeal for the honor and glory of their several States, greatly overestimated the number of men contributed by the same to the Confederate armies. This would be more probable a priori, than that the leading men in the Confederate army and Government who were at the sources of information, and who ought to have been well informed, should have so enormously underestimated the strength of the armies of the South; but the tests to which we have now submitted the figures given by these State historians demonstrate their error beyond the possibility of doubt. They must be cut down by several hundred thousand. A large element of this error is to be found, as I have suggested, in the failure to observe the great number of re-enlistments that undoubtedly took place, especially in 1862, when the terms of service of nearly all the Confederate regiments expired. This duplication, in the opinion of the military Secretary of the United States, reduces the total by twenty per cent.

As a sample of how errors creep into reports of numbers, it is stated (W. R., ser. iv., vol. iii, p. 96) as to a certain number of conscripts, "We find some men were reported three times." And again (Id. p. 99) that the "Adjutant-General's report contains an error in which he has accounted for 14,000 men twice."

Let it be observed, finally, that when we have reached a reasonably probable conclusion of the men enlisted in the Confederate armies during the four years of war, we must then proceed to ascertain, if we can, the probable number of these enlisted men who were detailed for various duties and occupations ancillary to the support of the government and the army. And only when this number has been deducted from the total enlistments will we have ascertained the probable number of men actually serving with the colors and making up the fighting force of the Confederacy.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE BORDER STATES TO THE ARMIES OF THE CONFEDERACY

It is a difficult problem to determine with any degree of probability how many men were contributed to the armies of the Confederacy by the Border States. The factors by which it might be solved do not seem to be within reach. At least, I have not been able to possess myself of them. There lies before me a printed "List of Regiments and Battalions in the Confederate States' Army, 1861-1865." According to this there were furnished by Missouri 21 battalions and 79 regiments; by Kentucky 16 battalions and 26 regiments; by Maryland 2 infantry regiments and 4 battalions, 4 batteries; also the Maryland Line, of various arms. But, upon inspection, it appears that this "Maryland Line" was formed of those regiments and battalions and batteries previously enumerated.

General Charles Francis Adams, following Colonel Livermore, tells us there were 238 full regiments from the Border States in the Confederate army, besides 132 lesser organizations. On the other hand, Colonel Fox, in his well-known work, "Regimental Losses in the Civil War," credits the Border States with having sent into the Confederate army only 21 regiments and 4 battalions of infantry; 9 regiments and 5 battalions of cavalry, and 11 batteries of light artillery. As to numbers, he estimates them at "over 19,000" (p. 552).

These estimates and numbers of Colonel Fox look strange beside the estimate of 117,000 and 125,000, as given by some Southern writers. We have already stated that in "The South in the Building of the Nation," Maryland is credited with having furnished 20,000 men to the Confederate army. How wide of the mark this statement is, may be seen by inspecting the following total of organizations of Maryland men in the Confederacy:

These figures are compiled from the muster rolls, with the exception of those "estimated." It is to be observed that a very large proportion of the men in the Second Maryland Infantry were those who had previously served in the First Maryland Infantry; so that there is a good deal of duplication there by reënlistment. On the other hand, there were many individual Marylanders in various regiments accredited to other States. We have also the names of 137 Marylanders who were officers in various other commands.

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

There are two remarks of General Adams to which, before closing, I should like to call attention. He states that the foreigners in the Union army were more than counterbalanced by our drastic conscription ("Military Studies," p. 246). Now it appears from official reports that there were 494,000 foreigners in the Union army, so that he must have supposed that the conscription law produced about 500,000 soldiers. It actually produced, east of the Mississippi, 81,992 men from February, 1862, when the first law was passed, to February, 1865. We cannot suppose that the additions from the States west of the Mississippi—Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas—could have been even one-fourth as numerous. The military population was about one-third as large, but by 1863 that territory was overrun by the Federal armies. But if we put these at 20,000, we have only 101,992, instead of the half million which Mr. Adams supposes. And if we should add the 76,000 men which the conscription officers, magnifying their diligence, guessed had been driven into the army by enlistment to avoid conscription we would then have only 177,993.

Again, General Adams says:

"As respects mere numbers, it is capable of demonstration that at the close of the struggle the preponderance was on the side of the Confederacy, and distinctly so. The Union at that time had, it is said, a million men on its muster rolls.... It might possibly have been able to put 500,000 men into the fighting line. On the other side ... the fighting strength of the Confederacy cannot have been less than two-thirds its normal strength. The South should have been able to muster, on paper, 900,000 men." (Idem, pp. 241-2.)

Compare this statement of what the South should have been able to muster with the consolidated abstract of the latest returns of the Confederate army showing what she was able to muster. This is the record:

Officers and men in all the Confederate armies, February, 1865, aggregate for duty, 160,000; aggregate present and absent, 358,000 (W. R., iv. iii. p. 1182).

General Marcus Wright, an expert authority, estimates the strength of the Confederate army at the close of the war thus:

And of the Union army thus:

If General Adams is right, one cannot but ask, where were the other 542,000 men, over and above the 358,000 shown by the official report alluded to have been on the rolls? The 90,000 men in Northern prisons will not help the situation, for they were not exactly available as part of the "fighting strength of the Confederacy." Compare also the fact that there were mustered out of the Union army at the end of the war 1,034,000 men; and there were, in all the Confederacy, surrendered Confederate soldiers to the number of 174,000 only, and this included all who were paroled, whether in hospital, or at their homes, as well as those in arms.

In conclusion I am reminded of the words of General Lee in a letter to General Jubal A. Early, shortly after the war, "It will be difficult to get the world to understand the odds against which we fought."

Still I cannot help thinking that the statements of the adjutant-general of the Confederate armies in his official reports, and the testimony of General Lee himself in regard to the numbers in his army, will ultimately be considered by the world more reliable than the a priori estimates of even so careful and honest an investigator as Colonel Livermore.

When immediately after the surrender at Appomattox General Meade asked General Lee how many men he had in his army, the latter replied that he had on his entire front, from Richmond to Petersburg, not more than 29,000 muskets. "Then," said General Meade, "we had five to your one." On the whole I think we may still claim for the armies of the Southern Confederacy the encomium penned by Virgil nearly two thousand years ago:

"Exigui numero, sed bello vivida virtus."

POSTWORD

The arguments adduced in the preceding pages are believed by the writer to be valid and sufficient to refute the conclusion reached by Colonel Livermore, the Hon. Charles Francis Adams, and others, that there was in the Confederacy a "minimum of 1,160,000 effectives, to which we must add 117,000 men from the Border States, giving a total Confederate strength of 1,277,000." I have not attempted to give definite figures as to the actual enrollment in the Southern armies. My argument is of necessity largely based on the probabilities of the situation,—it does not profess to be demonstrative, or final. But "probability is the guide of life"; and I believe I have blazed a path by which future students of the subject, having before them the muster rolls of the Confederate army will be able to reach more definite conclusions in this important subject—conclusions, however, not seriously at variance with those stated in these pages.[15]

FOOTNOTES