We arrive at the result indicated above by several independent lines of
evidence.
I.--Our figures are supported by the statements of a number of men who
were in position to know what was the total effective strength of the
Southern armies. Among them were General Cooper, adjutant-general of the
Confederate armies, writing in 1869 (see "Southern Historical Society
Papers," Vol. vii, p. 287); Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, Assistant Secretary of
War; General John Preston, chief of the Conscription Bureau;
Vice-President Alexander H. Stephens ("War Between the States," 1870,
Vol. ii, p. 630); General Jubal A. Early ("Southern Historical Papers,"
Vol. ii, p. 20); Dr. Joseph Jones (official report, June, 1890,
"Southern Historical Society Papers," xix, 14), and General Marcus J.
Wright--who now, however, puts the numbers at 700,000 ("Southern
Historical Society Papers," xix, 254). I ask what better authorities on
this subject could be named than the adjutant-general of the army, the
Assistant Secretary of War, and the chief of the Conscription Bureau of
the Confederate States?
In August, 1869, Dr. Joseph Jones sent to General Cooper a carefully
prepared paper on this subject, asking his opinion as to the accuracy of
the data contained therein. General Cooper replied that after having
"closely examined" the paper he had "come to the conclusion, from his
general recollection," that "it must be regarded as nearly critically
correct." Is it credible that the adjutant-general of the army should
have given as his opinion that this number--600,000,--was "_nearly
critically correct_," if in fact there had been upon the rolls of the
Confederate armies twice that number,--1,277,000 men,--as General Adams
would have us believe?
II.--By adding together the Confederate prisoners in the hands of the
United States at the close of the war, 98,000;[5] the soldiers who
surrendered in 1865, 174,223; those who were killed or died of wounds,
74,508; died in prison, 26,439; died of disease, 59,277; died from other
causes, 40,000; discharged, 57,411; deserters, 83,372; we get a total of
613,230.
These figures as to the killed and died of wounds, and of disease, are
taken from Fox's monumental work on regimental losses. He "conjectures"
that nearly 20,000 must be added to the 74,508 given above, making
94,000; but gives no grounds for this.
III.--Again the official report of General S. Cooper, Adjutant General,
dated March 1, 1862 (127 W. R. 963), states the aggregate of the
Confederate armies, including armed and organized militia, officers
and men, as 340,250
General Preston, Superintendent of Conscription,
C. S. A., reports from February,
1862, to February, 1865 (W. R.,
series iv, Vol. iii, p. 1101):
Conscriptions (exclusive of Arkansas and
Texas) 81,993
Enlistments east of the Mississippi River. 76,206
-------
498,449
Estimated conscriptions and enlistments
west of the river and elsewhere 120,000
-------
Total 618,449
IV.--Now compare with these reports the following statement from the
_New York Tribune_ of June 26, 1867:
"Among the documents which fell into our hands at the downfall of the
Confederacy are the returns, very nearly complete, of the Confederate
armies from their organization in the summer of 1861 down to the spring
of 1865. These returns have been carefully analyzed, and I am enabled to
furnish the returns in every department and for almost every month from
these official sources. We judge in all 600,000 different men were in
the Confederate ranks during the war."
This was accompanied by a detailed tabular statement.
Is not this good secondary evidence as to the numbers of men in the
Confederate Army, especially when we remember the statement of General
Cooper, late adjutant-general of the Confederate armies? He says:
"The files of this office which could best afford this information [as
to numbers] were carefully boxed up and taken on our retreat from
Richmond to Charlotte, North Carolina, where they were, unfortunately,
captured and, as I learn, are now in Washington." These files, be it
remembered, have never been examined by any Southern writer.
Observe also that the "American Encyclopædia" (1875), of which Mr.
Charles A. Dana, late Assistant Secretary of War, U. S., was editor,
quotes General Cooper's statement as to numbers, without comment, thus
tacitly admitting the truth of that statement. Can it be justly said, in
the light of these facts, that the estimate usually given by Southern
writers is based on assertion only?[6]
V.--There is a fifth line upon which we are led to a very similar
conclusion.
In the work of Lieutenant Colonel Wm. F. Fox, "Regimental Losses in the
Civil War," we find the strength of the Confederate armies furnished by
the seceded States and by the border States as well, reckoned as
follows: 529 regiments and 85 battalions of infantry; 127 regiments and
47 battalions of cavalry; 8 regiments and 1 battalion of partisan
rangers; 5 regiments and 6 battalions of heavy artillery, and 261
batteries of light artillery--in all equivalent to 764 regiments of 10
companies. In making this statement Colonel Fox assures his readers that
"no statistics are given that are not warranted by the official
records."
As to the size of the regiments we got some light from the following
reports: The Confederate adjutant-general reports in March, 1862, an
average strength of 823 men in 369 regiments and 89 battalions (127 W.
R. 963). Beauregard's Corps (32 regiments) is reported Aug. 31, 1861, as
numbering 1037 men to the regiment (5 W. R. 824). Longstreet's Virginia
troops, June 23, 1862, averaged 754 men to the regiment. (14 W. R. 614,
615.) But more important is the legislation of the Congress. The
Confederate Act of March 6, 1861, prescribed for infantry companies the
number of 104, and for cavalry 72, which gives, for an infantry regiment
(10 companies) 1040 men, and for a cavalry regiment 720 men--provided
the ranks were full, which was by no means the rule but rather the
exception. Observe now that in November, 1861, the War Department
prescribed that no infantry company should be accepted with less than 64
men and no cavalry company with less than 60 and no artillery company
with less than 70. On this basis infantry regiments might number only
640 men and cavalry regiments only 600.
This marked change in the standard of the size of companies and
regiments prescribed by the War Department in November, 1861, as
compared with the Act of March, 1861, lowering the requisite number of
men in an infantry regiment from 1040 to 640, and in a cavalry regiment
from 720 to 600, is suggestive of the fact that it was not found easy to
raise regiments of the size originally prescribed.
Now in calculating the strength of the Confederate army from the number
of regiments, we shall probably approximate closely a correct result by
taking the mean between the larger and smaller number just referred to.
But the mean between 1040 and 640 is 840, and that between 720 and 600
is 660.
Applying this standard to Colonel Fox's statement of the troops in the
entire Confederate army, we get the following result:
Men
529 regiments of infantry, 840 each 444,360
85 battalions infantry, 400 each 34,000
127 regiments cavalry, 600 each 76,200
47 battalions cavalry, 400 each 18,800
261 batteries light artillery, 70 each 16,270
5 regiments heavy artillery, 800 each 4,000
6 battalions heavy artillery, 400 each 2,400
8 regiments partisan rangers, 700 each 5,600
1 battalion partisan rangers 350
-------
601,980
The size of infantry and cavalry battalions and of regiments and
battalions of heavy artillery in this calculation, as well as of the
regiments of partisan rangers, is in each case suggested by that
accomplished and experienced officer, Colonel Walter H. Taylor,
adjutant-general on the staff of General Robert E. Lee. His figures may
be rather high--certainly they are not too low. Of course such a
calculation is necessarily only approximate, but the basis on which it
is made appears reasonably reliable. To one who, like myself, had
personal observation of the armies in Virginia from the first battle of
Manassas to Appomattox, the standard of strength in regiments and
battalions in the field above adopted, seems in conformity with the
facts.