1861 the governors of Kentucky and Missouri both at heart favored secession; the latter renounced his office, left his State, and gave his personal services to the Confederacy; and subsequently the Confederate Congress admitted both of those States as members of the Confederacy, to which, with their slaves, they would certainly now belong, had the South succeeded. Politically, these States constitute, at this time, parts of the "Solid South," the same as Georgia and Virginia, and for the same reason, because of the race question, growing out of the freeing and enfranchisement of their slaves. It is indeed true that in the beginning the people of the border States strongly opposed secession; but the same was also true of Virginia, North Carolina, and other Southern States. The census of 1860 shows that the three States, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, had white males of military age―i. e., between 18 and 45- to the number of 516,000. Allowing for the youths who attained to the military age from 1861 to 1864 inclusive, the number would reach nearly 600,000. Of these, 180,000 served in the Union army. There were, therefore, fully 400,000 Southern men of military age in those three States, who were not in the Union army, as against 180,000 who were. In the year 1861, most of the important military operations were those in the border States; and throughout the war they were overrun or infested by partizan troops, so that the war spirit was more intense in those States than elsewhere. These facts, when fairly considered, leave room for only one of two conclusions: either those States furnished, at the lowest calculation, as many men to the Southern as to the Northern army, or else the men whose sympathies and interests were with the South, in those States, were greatly wanting in military spirit, and were without the courage to fight for their convictions. The latter conclusion I do not entertain. On the contrary, I doubt not the truth of the famous declaration of a Kentucky senator, that "Kentucky has its quota full on both sides." And the same was doubtless true, at least so far as the South was concerned, of all the border slave States. The fact that there are no complete records of the Southern troops proves nothing, and is not a fair or legitimate argument. Mr. Derry, after having excluded from his estimate all the troops from four Southern States, deducts from my estimate the further number of 200,000 upon the assertion that in certain portions of Virginia, Tennessee, and in the city of New Orleans, which early in 1862 were occupied by the Union forces, the Confederate government could not enforce the conscript laws. In this statement he makes little or no allow ance for volunteers, but seems to assume that none served in the Confederate army except the conscripts. Virginia and Tennessee were in great part the battlegrounds of the war, and they were overrun and occupied in turn by both armies. The men in those States, more than those of any other, were compelled to serve on one side or the other, and they did so to the last man, as everybody knows. To assert that 200,000 men, principally of Virginia and Tennessee, either from cowardice or want of convictions, looked idly on at the heroic struggle that was being waged upon the soil of those States, taking no part on either side, is so manifestly unreasonable, and the accusation is so new, that it seems scarcely necessary to deny it. Two of Mr. Derry's arguments appear to be inconsistent. In one he assumes, what I concede, that the Confederate army was composed in a great measure of conscripts, whose service in that army, therefore, was involuntary. But on the other hand he contends that this army was inspired by such lofty convictions of duty that, under this inspiration, they "often have proved more than a match for superior numbers of men equally as brave, but without the same conviction of ruin threatening their homes and loved ones." I regret that Mr. Derry has repeated an argument, which is not uncommon with Southern writers, in which he sets up this comparison which seeks to disparage the patriotism and sense of duty of the Union army. I have tried in vain to comprehend how brave and honorable men of the South can insist upon such a comparison. Let us consider a few facts touching the question of the patriotism of the Confederate army. It is an undoubted fact that tens of thousands of the men in that army had opposed, and voted against, secession, and in their hearts believed it to be wrong. The State of North Carolina, for instance, never adopted an ordinance of secession by direct popular vote. It was once submitted to the people of that State, who voted against it; although it is true that when the war was fairly begun they were well united in its support. In 1863 and 1864 six regiments of United States troops, organized for service against the Indians, were composed entirely of Confederate prisoners, who thus returned to an allegiance which in their hearts they had never wholly forsaken. In the great battles which decided the war, "the thought of loved ones at home" wrought no greater effect with one army than with the other; and a majority of the troops on either side were not natives of the State on whose soil the battle was fought. The Southern troops displayed as magnificent courage on the soil of Pennsylvania, at Gettysburg, as they ever did in Virginia; and why should they not? Putting aside this argument as to the comparative devotion of the opposing armies, let us turn again to the legitimate argument of figures. The State of North Carolina furnished, in the year 1861, forty-two regiments of Confederate volunteers, the minimum number in a regiment, according to the regulations, being one thousand. Moore's roster preserves the names of over 32,000 of those who enlisted in that year; but allowing for the numerous admitted deficiencies in the rolls, the number doubtless exceeded 40,000. In that first year, after the war had fairly begun, the South displayed a zeal and enthusiasm in the conflict beyond that which was then shown in the North. Counting the troops from the border States, who were all or nearly all volunteers, and who enlisted early in the war, the forty-two regiments of North Carolina troops constituted perhaps less than a tenth part of the Confederate army for that first year. The act of the Confederate Congress of August 8, 1861, authorized a call for 400,000 volunteers; and without doubt the army for that year comprised over 400 regiments and upward of 400,000 men,-all volunteers. Before the end of 1862, under the conscript laws then in force, the North Carolina contingent had more than doubled. Moore's roster preserves the names of about 85,000 men who were enrolled in the years 1861 and 1862. But this roster omits thousands of names; the give this assertion careful thought, he will be convinced that it is not borne out by the facts. Maryland gave 34,000 men to the Union armies, Kentucky 51,000, and Missouri 100,000. Maryland was too firmly held by the Federal armies to furnish any considerable number of men to the cause of the South. The same is true, for the greater part of the war, of Kentucky and Missouri. While there were earnest Southern sympathizers in Kentucky and Missouri, the great mass of the people in those States stood firmly on the side of the Union. General Albert Sidney Johnston, in a letter to Mr. Davis written in March, 1862, says that no enthusiasm for the Confederacy, but hostility, was manifested during his stay in Kentucky: hence but few Kentuckians joined his standard. We have the testimony of Union and Confederate officers for the statement that the Bragg and Kirby Smith expedition did not add more than a brigade to the Confederate strength. Search the published records of the composition of the respective armies, and it is easy to see how greatly the number of Union regiments from those States exceeded the number of Confederate regiments. There was never a possibility of enforcing the Conscript Act in those States, and but very little chance after February, 1862, for any of their citizens who desired so to do, to enlist in the armies of the Confederacy. As to Maryland, there was exceedingly small opportunity for such a thing even in 1861. I cannot find from the records that these three States furnished even as high as 60,000 men to the Confederacy. "The principal ex-Confederate historians . . who held high civil or military rank in the Confederate government" were as high-minded and honorable men as any that this world can boast, and would not stoop to misrepresent facts. Their estimate of Confederate strength (viz., about 700,000 men) comes much nearer the mark than the excessive estimates made by some writers on the other side. The Confederate armies reached their maximum effective strength for the field during 1862. After that year there was a steady decline in their numbers, and all the efforts of the Confederate government to fill up their depleted ranks were unavailing. Adjutant-General S. Cooper says that for the last two years of the war the active force present in the field was nearly one half less than the returns called for. As to the incompleteness of Confederate muster-rolls, is not this mainly due to losses of official papers that must have occurred on the sudden collapse of the Confederacy? But the rolls in possession of the officers in the field, on which depended the necessary knowledge of the condition of their commands, were correct, and the official reports of Confederate strength in the several battles of the war, as made by their commanders, can be relied upon as accurate. The thought that one is standing between his loved home and war's desolation will nerve even a timid heart, and make strong a feeble arm. What wonder then that brave men fired by such a conviction should so often have proved more than a match for superior numbers of men equally as brave, but without the same conviction of ruin threatening their homes and loved ones? It was the conviction that on them depended the very existence of Southern civilization, and the salvation of their homes from utter ruin, that caused the thousands of raw recruits in the Seven Days' Battles around Richmond to rival the valor of seasoned veterans. It was this same conviction that made such heroes of the boys of the Virginia Military Institute at New Market in May, 1864, and of the mere striplings of fifteen and sixteen years of age at Honey Hill in South Carolina on November 30 of the same year. Our Northern brethren need not wonder that heavy odds were required to crush the South. The record of the race to which they and we belong proves that under like circumstances it would take as heavy odds to conquer them. MACON, GA. Joseph T. Derry. II. MR. CASSELMAN'S REJOINDER. IN my original paper I alluded to the well-known fact that the records of the Confederate army are so incomplete that it is impossible to state exactly, or even to estimate very closely, its total strength; which, however, I expressed the opinion was not very far from 1,500,000. I alluded also to the fact, equally well understood, and specifically referred to by General Grant in his "Memoirs," that Confederate historians have always understated its strength,- a fact which is further shown, I think, by Mr. Derry's article. In the absence of sufficient available data for a close estimate, I should not now add further argument but for the reason that the subject plainly deserves more attention than it has ever received, and hence any discussion which serves to bring into prominence the salient facts must result, eventually, in benefit to the cause of historical truth. Mr. Derry estimates that the total strength of that army could not have been much above 800,000. This is a gain of 200,000 over the figures of A. H. Stephens. But in this estimate he excludes altogether all of the troops furnished by four Southern States - West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland. He seeks to justify this by asserting that the number of Confederate troops from those States did not more than equal the 54,ooo Union troops from the other Southern States, 31,000 of whom were from East Tennessee; and that "the great mass of the people of those States were firmly on the side of the Union." Other Southern writers likewise assume that the border slave States furnished only a few thousand troops to the Confederate army,- far less than to the Union army: an assumption which is certainly contrary to the fact, as I shall undertake to show. In the Senate of the United States at this time, West Virginia is represented by two ex-Confederate soldiers; Missouri is represented by an ex-Confederate soldier and an ex-member of the Confederate Senate; Kentucky, by an ex-Confederate soldier. Thus, five of the eight United States senators from those States are exConfederates. Not one of the eight was a Union soldier, nor otherwise distinctively identified as a Unionist. It is remarkable, therefore, that ex-Confederates should be thus preferred for offices of trust and honor, if, as Mr. Derry contends, "the great mass of the people of those States were firmly on the side of the Union." Four fifths of the people of those States were of Southern birth. Socially and politically their sympathies were all with the South, with which they were likewise identified in their material interests, in the institution of slavery. Whatever cause existed to justify the South in the war affected the border slave States as well as those of the interior. They had a slave population of 427,000, representing a value of two hundred million dollars. In 1861 the governors of Kentucky and Missouri both at heart favored secession; the latter renounced his office, left his State, and gave his personal services to the Confederacy; and subsequently the Confederate Congress admitted both of those States as members of the Confederacy, to which, with their slaves, they would certainly now belong, had the South succeeded. Politically, these States constitute, at this time, parts of the "Solid South," the same as Georgia and Virginia, and for the same reason,— - because of the race question, growing out of the freeing and enfranchisement of their slaves. It is indeed true that in the beginning the people of the border States strongly opposed secession; but the same was also true of Virginia, North Carolina, and other Southern States. The census of 1860 shows that the three States, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, had white males of military age―i. e., between 18 and 45 — to the number of 516,000. Allowing for the youths who attained to the military age from 1861 to 1864 inclusive, the number would reach nearly 600,000. Of these, 180,000 served in the Union army. There were, therefore, fully 400,000 Southern men of military age in those three States, who were not in the Union army, as against 180,000 who were. In the year 1861, most of the important military operations were those in the border States; and throughout the war they were overrun or infested by partizan troops, so that the war spirit was more intense in those States than elsewhere. These facts, when fairly considered, leave room for only one of two conclusions: either those States furnished, at the lowest calculation, as many men to the Southern as to the Northern army, or else the men whose sympathies and interests were with the South, in those States, were greatly wanting in military spirit, and were without the courage to fight for their convictions. The latter conclusion I do not entertain. On the contrary, I doubt not the truth of the famous declaration of a Kentucky senator, that "Kentucky has its quota full on both sides." And the same was doubtless true, at least so far as the South was concerned, of all the border slave States. The fact that there are no complete records of the Southern troops proves nothing, and is not a fair or legitimate argument. Mr. Derry, after having excluded from his estimate all the troops from four Southern States, deducts from my estimate the further number of 200,000 upon the assertion that in certain portions of Virginia, Tennessee, and in the city of New Orleans, which early in 1862 were occupied by the Union forces, the Confederate government could not enforce the conscript laws. In this statement he makes little or no allow ance for volunteers, but seems to assume that none served in the Confederate army except the conscripts. Virginia and Tennessee were in great part the battlegrounds of the war, and they were overrun and occupied in turn by both armies. The men in those States, more than those of any other, were compelled to serve on one side or the other, and they did so to the last man, as everybody knows. To assert that 200,000 men, principally of Virginia and Tennessee, either from cowardice or want of convictions, looked idly on at the heroic struggle that was being waged upon the soil of those States, taking no part on either side, is so manifestly unreasonable, and the accusation is so new, that it seems scarcely necessary to deny it. Two of Mr. Derry's arguments appear to be inconsistent. In one he assumes, what I concede, that the Confederate army was composed in a great measure of conscripts, whose service in that army, therefore, was involuntary. But on the other hand he contends that this army was inspired by such lofty convictions of duty that, under this inspiration, they “often have proved more than a match for superior numbers of men equally as brave, but without the same conviction of ruin threatening their homes and loved ones." I regret that Mr. Derry has repeated an argument, which is not uncommon with Southern writers, in which he sets up this comparison which seeks to disparage the patriotism and sense of duty of the Union army. I have tried in vain to comprehend how brave and honorable men of the South can insist upon such a comparison. Let us consider a few facts touching the question of the patriotism of the Confederate army. It is an undoubted fact that tens of thousands of the men in that army had opposed, and voted against, secession, and in their hearts believed it to be wrong. The State of North Carolina, for instance, never adopted an ordinance of secession by direct popular vote. It was once submitted to the people of that State, who voted against it; although it is true that when the war was fairly begun they were well united in its support. In 1863 and 1864 six regiments of United States troops, organized for service against the Indians, were composed entirely of Confederate prisoners, who thus returned to an allegiance which in their hearts they had never wholly forsaken. In the great battles which decided the war, "the thought of loved ones at home" wrought no greater effect with one army than with the other; and a majority of the troops on either side were not natives of the State on whose soil the battle was fought. The Southern troops displayed as magnificent courage on the soil of Pennsylvania, at Gettysburg, as they ever did in Virginia; and why should they not? Putting aside this argument as to the comparative devotion of the opposing armies, let us turn again to the legitimate argument of figures. The State of North Carolina furnished, in the year 1861, forty-two regiments of Confederate volunteers, the minimum number in a regiment, according to the regulations, being one thousand. Moore's roster preserves the names of over 32,000 of those who enlisted in that year; but allowing for the numerous admitted deficiencies in the rolls, the number doubtless exceeded 40,000. In that first year, after the war had fairly begun, the South displayed a zeal and enthusiasm in the conflict beyond that which was then shown in the North. Counting the troops from the border States, who were all or nearly all volunteers, and who enlisted early in the war, the forty-two regiments of North Carolina troops constituted perhaps less than a tenth part of the Confederate army for that first year. The act of the Confederate Congress of August 8, 1861, authorized a call for 400,000 volunteers; and without doubt the army for that year comprised over 400 regiments and upward of 400,000 men,—all volunteers. Before the end of 1862, under the conscript laws then in force, the North Carolina contingent had more than doubled. Moore's roster preserves the names of about 85,000 men who were enrolled in the years 1861 and 1862. But this roster omits thousands of names; the actual number, therefore, must have been almost 100,000. And what reason is there to doubt these figures, when, after 40,000 volunteers had enlisted from that State, the Confederate government called for all who remained between the ages of eighteen and thirtyfive years? These figures indicate, unmistakably, a Confederate army of more than 800,000 men, before the war was half over, and before that army had met its first great defeat. In the last two years of the war, all know what heroic measures were adopted to fill the ranks of that army: how regiments were organized of stripling boys and aged men; and how the " slaves," the "free negroes," and "other free persons of color " were conscripted under the act of February 17, 1864, for the performance of " auxiliary military duty." The eleven States had, in 1860, a free colored population of 132,660. Of these there were probably 25,000 males of military age. In 1864, owing to contraction of the Confederate lines, the number was less. This item in itself, therefore, is insignificant. But the fact that the Confederate Congress enacted a law to conscript the few scattering free colored men of the South, as well as the slaves, serves to illustrate the desperate measures that were employed to utilize the services of every human being within the Southern territory who was capable of carrying a gun or digging a trench. Mr. Derry's estimate takes, as the basis of his calculation, 125,000 as the number of troops furnished by North Carolina. But that is the lowest possible estimate for the troops of that State. I am certain it is too low, even if the estimate of 150,000 is too high. After a careful review of Mr. Derry's article, I think it will be seen that upon the whole it confirms my main conclusions, in which, however, I do not assume to have been exact. It shows that, starting with the lowest basis of calculation, excluding all the troops of four Southern States, and then deducting 200,000 more upon an assumption which seems to impeach the courage and manhood of a large proportion of the men of the South, it still leaves, according to his figures, an army of "not much more than 800,000." This, it seems to me, concedes much of what I claim. If impartial investigators shall ever be able fairly to count all the Confederate troops, without such manifestly unreasonable deductions, I still think it will be found that the number was not very far from 1,500,000. In any close estimate, due allowance must be made for the 54,000 Union troops from the seceding States. One thing seems clear. The statements commonly made by leading Southern writers, that the Confederates numbered in all only six or seven hundred thousand, against over two million Federals, are widely at variance with the facts, and are more extraordinary because they are made by those writers who, above all others, ought to know the truth. It is impossible that The Happy Poet. the men of the South, whose courage and honor have never been called in question, can sanction the efforts which some have made to juggle with this question, or to disparage the patriotism and courage of the brave men who opposed them. A. B. Casselman. "The Century's" American Artists Series. WYATT EATON. IT is hard to realize the change which has taken place in American art during the last fifteen years. In 1877 the principal exhibition of the country, the National Academy of Design, admitted three works which, although different in style, were each equally revolutionary: "The Dowager," by William M. Chase; "A Brittany Woman," by Alden Weir; and "Revery," by Wyatt Eaton. The first of these bore the stamp of Munich, the last two that of Paris. Each was the work of an American who, unknown in our art circles, had been long enough abroad to assimilate the newest art movements of Europe. This was the beginning of the change. In 1877 Wyatt Eaton had been studying art for eleven years: the first five in New York as a student of the National Academy of Design, and as a pupil of the late J. O. Eaton, who had befriended him when, a lad of eighteen, he had left his native village on the shores of Lake Champlain for New York; later, from 1872 to 1876, as a pupil of Gérôme at L'École des Beaux Arts, Paris. During this period he painted the "Revery" and "Harvester at Rest," both of which were exhibited at the Salon, the latter being now in Smith College, Northampton, Mass. Some of his first work after his return home was done for this magazine, including a series of remarkable portraits of Bryant, Emerson, Longfellow, Whittier, and Holmes, for which these gentlemen gave him sittings, and which were engraved by Cole. These were perhaps as remarkable for their engraving as for their drawing, and were a veritable new departure in magazine work. He also made a drawing from life of Dr. J. G. Holland. In 1877 Wyatt Eaton, with Walter Shirlaw, Augustus St. Gaudens, and Helena de Kay Gilder, founded the Society of American Artists, of which Mr. Eaton was the first secretary and Mr. Shirlaw the first president. Although Wyatt Eaton is an accomplished landscapepainter and a brilliant painter of the nude, he is known principally by his portraits. Among those who have sat to him are the Right Rev. Horatio Potter, Mr. Roswell Smith, and Sir William Dawson. He also painted a portrait of Garfield (after the President's death) for the Union League Club of New York. "The Man with a Violin" (a portrait of the engraver Timothy Cole), which is printed on page 882 of the present number, was painted in Florence, Italy. IN LIGHTER VEIN. IS moods are mirrored in his songs, H'Hence gladness to his verse belongs: Looking into his heart to write, Frank Dempster Sherman. W. Lewis Fraser. Mistaken Magnanimity. THE storm of words was past, the air was cleared, Edith M. Thomas. What She Said About It. LYRICS to Inez and Jane, Dolores and Ethel and May; Señoritas distant as Spain, And damsels just over the way! It is not that I'm jealous, not that, Or in one of his castles in Spain. But it is that, salable prose Put aside for this profitless strain, I sit the day darning his hose, And he sings of Dolores and Jane. Though the winged horse we know must be free I am neither Dolores nor Jane, But to lighten a little my life Charles Henry Webb. A Metrical Miniature. HER eyes display a blended hue To make her glances bright; Befringe her lids of white. Shy apple-blossoms flushed with morn A dimple with each smile. Fresh graces to beguile. Her curving lips by turns recall A hermit or a saint. Her gleaming teeth 't were vain to hymn: Must crush a pearl for paint. Beneath her kirtle peeps a foot A snowy neck, a witching chin, Samuel Minturn Peck. Reflections. THOSE are kind who give us, not what they think is fine, but what we ourselves want. THE whim of to-day is the impulse of to-morrowthe wish of next week the good or bad taste of next month the habit of next year-the instinct of your descendants. SOME people have to have their sunshine warm; others are satisfied just with its being sunshine. THE perfumes that women wear so extravagantly are a great mistake. Instead of reminding us sweetly of flowers, the flowers are beginning to remind us painfully of perfumes. I am beginning to hate violets. THERE is such a thing as too much kindness; as if one should carefully toast the bread for a bird, or spread with mayonnaise the lettuce for a rabbit. SHE rules me merely by expecting things of me which I should be ashamed not to be equal to. SHE demanded the story of his past; but the question is less what our past has been, than what our past has made of us. Not" What were you?" but "What are you? PERHAPS the gods will forgive us for having loved a little things we ought not to have loved at all, if only we have loved most the things that we ought to love. LIKE a serenade, outwardly wishing sweet rest and sleep to the beloved, but cunningly adapted to keep her very wide awake and attentive to the serenader. TOLERATION of the intolerant is the hardest thing for a bigoted radical. HE was willing to forgive them himself, but he hoped the Lord would n't." THE test of a great love-yes, even of a supreme passion is not what it demands, but what it consents to do without. SOME people think that they are good if they are doing good. Others think they are doing good merely by being good. Both are frequently mistaken, and certainly neither is complete. Again, some people think to make up for doing one thing very wrong by doing a great many little things that are very good; like a child who, planning to go fishing in the afternoon without asking for a permission which he fears may be refused, comforts his conscience by being particularly gentle and obedient all the forenoon in matters of no consequence. We call it hypocrisy when we find the forger or embezzler joining the church; but it is entirely possible that his feeling in doing so is not the culpable one of trying to conceal his sins, but the perfectly genuine wish to restore his self-respect by at least doing right somewhere. I WONDER Why it is that the charm of the wholly reliable becomes monotonous, compared with the inherent witchery of moods which you never can predict. The perfectly delightful woman would perhaps be one of whom you would never feel quite sure as to what she was going to do, and then always find that she invariably did do the right thing. WE speak sometimes of a "dominant " trait or passion or mode of thought; but it is often probable in a mind of this sort that there are really no other traits or passions or modes of thought. Mastery in one thing may mean merely the monotony of the whole. Ir is so much more fun to be richer than merely to be rich! THE DE VINNS PRESS, NEW YORK. Alice Wellington Rollins. |