The 750 remaining in service were reduced by death, retirement, and other causes before the actual commencement of hostilities to 741, and of this number remaining to be accounted for, there were 8 dismissed and took no part on either side; 9 resigned and took no part on either side; 168, or 224 per cent, resigned and joined in the Rebellion; 556, or 75 per cent, remained in the service."

Of the 556 remaining in service 51, or 19 per cent, attained the rank of major-general; 91, or 16.3 per cent, attained the rank of brigadier-general; 106, or 19 per cent, attained the rank of colonel; 56, or 10 per cent, attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel; 69, or 12.2 per cent, attained the rank of major; 157, or 27.1 per cent, attained the rank of captain; 32, or 5.7 per cent, attained the rank of lieutenant; total attaining grade of general officer, 142; total attaining grade of colonel and above, 248.

Percentage of whole number remaining in service who attained grade of general officer, 0.25.

Percentage of whole number remaining in service who attained grade of colonel and above, 0.44.

Of the 313 who were out of the service in 1861, 1 remained in foreign service; 98, or 31 per cent, remained in civil life; 92, or 29 per cent, joined in the rebellion; 102, or 32 per cent, reentered the service.

Of the 102 who reentered the service, 1 attained the rank of general; 1 attained the rank of lieutenant-general; 19 attained the rank of major-general; 32 attained the rank of brigadier-general; 29 attained the rank of colonel; total attaining grade of general officers, 53; total attaining grade of colonel and above, 82.

Percentage of whole number reentering the service who attained the grade of general officer, 51.

Percentage of whole number reentering the service who attained the grade of colonel and above, 80.

Thus it appears that while only one-quarter of the number of graduates in service rose to the rank of general officer, more than one-half of those who came back from civil life attained the same grade, and that while 80 per cent of the graduates who came back to the Army attained the rank of colonel and above, only 44 per cent reached those grades who remained in the Army."

With such brilliant results for the 102 officers who came back to the service, the policy which kept 308 graduates (of whom 151 were captains) in the lower grades of the Army should be ranked as one of the greatest blunders of the war.

This fatal policy did not apply exclusively to graduates, but included many able and accomplished officers appointed from civil life and the Army, whose long and faithful service specially qualified them for the command of new troops.

The statistics above quoted show another defect in our system which allowed 98 officers, educated at public expense, to remain in civil pursuits at a time when the life of the Republic was in danger.

In Europe, every officer of the army who retires to private life is, up to a certain age, subject to the call of his government, and the fact that we found our two most eminent commanders among the graduates who had resigned, should teach us the importance of holding officers

a "This mathematical discussion, though valuable to graduates, will not strengthen with the world your real argument.-W. T. S." Note by General Sherman. EDITORS.

who have once been commissioned in the Army, subject to the call of our Government till they reach the age of physical disability.

PATRIOTISM OF THE ARMY.

In describing the condition of the country in 1861, the Committee on the Conduct of the War reported:

There was treason in the Executive Mansion, treason in the Cabinet, treason in the Senate and the House of Representatives, treason in the Army and the Navy, treason in every department, bureau, and office connected with the Government.«

Notwithstanding the universality of this assertion, the Army, because of the defection of a few of its officers, suffered more in the estimation of the people than any other branch of the public service.

Disloyalty in the civil departments was readily ascribed to the influence of birth and education, but no such charity was extended to the Army. The officers who proved disloyal, particularly those who had received the benefit of a professional education, were charged with being ungrateful. Their conduct, too, with singular unanimity, was ascribed less to the influence of birth and kindred than to the alleged treasonable teachings at the Military Academy, a national institution whose chief pride had been to encourage among its pupils a sense of duty, love of country, and reverence for its flag.

The influence of association and training at the Military Academy in promoting the loyalty of the graduates is not a subject for speculation, but can be settled by statistics.

The total number of graduates from 1802 to 1861 who were supposed to be living at the latter date was 1,249.

Of this number, 99 from civil life and 184 from the Army, or less than 23 per cent, joined the Rebellion, leaving 77 per cent loyal.

Adding to the disloyal two-thirds of the 37 graduates whose records were unknown, which would probably include all who were living, the figures still show that 75 per cent of the graduates remained faithful to the Union."

Of the 821 graduates in the Army when the States began to secede, 184 joined the rebellion, leaving 78 per cent, or nearly four-fifths, who remained loyal.

Of the 99 graduates who joined the rebellion from civil life, all except one were from slave territory or residents therein.

Of the 350 graduates born in or appointed from slave territory who were in the military service when the Southern States seceded, 162, or nearly one-half, remained loyal, while 168 joined the rebellion. To the latter must be added 16 from the Northern States, making the total disloyal 184.

Of the 293 loyal graduates in civil life at the date of secession, 115 reentered the military service as officers of regulars or volunteers. Of the graduates who remained in or reentered the military service, one-fifth laid down their lives in defense of the Union.c

In further vindication of the loyal teachings of the Military Academy, General Cullom writes:

But let us examine this rebellion record a little more closely. In the executive

a Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, vol. 1, p. 61. b"Too nice a calculation for this discussion." Note by General Sherman.EDITORS.

• The foregoing facts are transcribed_from_the table on p. 6, vol. 1, of Cullom's Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U. S. Military Academy.

department four Presidents were living when secession began. Of these, the only Southerner joined the rebels, another did the country more harm than an avowed enemy, while the others certainly were not over demonstrative in their efforts to preserve the Union. Belonging to the bench of the Supreme Court there were four Southern judges, of whom two remained loyal, one was strongly sympathetic with the South, and one joined the rebels. The Southern judges of the United States district courts sided with their own people. Of the Senators in Congress from the seceding States but one, and of the House of Representatives but three, remained loyal. Nearly all the agents of the State, Treasury, Interior, and Post-Office Departments residing in or from the seceding States espoused the rebel cause.

Over one-fourth of the officers of the Navy on the active list resigned or were dismissed in 1860-61, nearly all of whom, being Southerners, probably joined in the rebellion. Of those appointed in the Army from civil life, nearly one-half, while but a little over one-fifth of the West Point officers, left the service and joined in the rebellion.

With these pregnant facts before us we would ask: Was it a greater wrong in an humble graduate to forget the Nation's fostering care in training him for four years at the Military Academy than for a President to renounce his allegiance to the country which for four years had encircled his brow with the Republic's crown? Was it more disreputable to forsake the flag beneath which the graduate had been reared, than to stain the revered and venerable ermine of the Supreme Bench with the upas of secession? Were the makers of the laws-Southern Senators and Representatives-who trampled the Constitution under foot, less guilty than graduates for violating their vows?

Strange to say, though so many of those highest officials of the land rebelled against the Union, we rarely hear Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive and other departments of the Government stigmatized as nurseries of treason, while the Military Academy has been the butt against which every opprobrious epithet has been hurled by unscrupulous demagogues, as false to the flag and ungrateful to the nation, notwithstanding the statistics show that the West Point part of the Army has been by far the most loyal branch of the public service; that nearly four-fifths of its graduate-officers remained faithful; that one-half of those from the South stood firm by the Stars and Stripes; and in the battles for the Union that one-fifth of those engaged laid down their lives, more than one-third, and probably one-half, were wounded, and the survivors can point with manly pride to their services, here recorded, for the preservation of the nation.

Can Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Union, Princeton, or any other college in the land show a higher record of patriotism and sacrifice? Assuredly not, for their Southern graduates espoused the rebel cause almost en masse. Should, then, these noble seminaries of learning be aspersed as nurseries of treason because they did not retain all their éléves in the Union field? And is it just to launch anathemas at the Military Academy, which saved by the antidote of its loyal teachings one-half of its Southern pupils, who from infancy to early manhood, before they entered this, our truly national institution, had imbibed the poison of secession till the virus had permeated every fiber of their hearts and brains? That noble band of 162 Southern graduates, cradled and reared in State allegiance, but rescued from treason by West Point influences, bravely battled against rebellion, and no less firmly against every appeal of relative and friend to swerve them from loyalty and duty. These, with all Northern officers (save 16 who dishonored their alma mater), and 115 graduates from civil life who rejoined the military service, fought the good fight for the Union, though their merits were often overlooked to give place to those who had not learned, as Napoleon calls it "le metier des armes. " a

While the above facts should sufficiently establish the relative loyalty of the officers of the Army, the claims of the enlisted men should not be forgotten. Mostly recruited in the North, only 26 are known to have joined the Rebellion. If to this number be added 313, representing the recreant officers, it will appear that out of an aggregate of 16,367 officers and men, but 339, or less than 3 per cent proved disloyal. No branch of the civil service can boast such a record. In the South, the personnel of every civil department joined the Rebellion en masse, but to the glory of the Army it should be said that although

a Cullum's Biographical Register of Officers and Graduates of the United States Military Academy, vol. 1, Preface, pp. 12-14.

portions of it were betrayed into the hands of the enemy, no regiment, company, or detachment ever for a moment forgot its duty to the flag its members had sworn to protect.

FURNISHING MILITARY LEADERS FOR THE REBELLION.

The evil inflicted upon the country by discouraging regular officers from holding volunteer commissions, sinks into insignificance when compared with the calamities flowing from the policy of the Government in reference to officers who sought to join the Rebellion.

Long before the secession of South Carolina such of them as cherished the fallacy of State sovereignty proclaimed their intention to follow the fortunes of their section. Accordingly, as one State after another passed the ordinance of secession, they forwarded letters of resignation, which, with scarcely an exception, were promptly accepted. Their views of their duty to the Government and their construction of its action are thus explained by General Joseph E. Johnston:

The passage of that ordinance (i. e., ordinance of secession of Virginia) in secret session on the 17th of April was not known in Washington, where, as QuartermasterGeneral of the United States Army, I was then stationed until the 19th. I believed, like most others, that the decision of the country would be permanent, and that apart from any right of secession, the revolution begun was justified by the maxims so often repeated by Americans-that free government is founded in the consent of the governed, and that every community strong enough to establish and maintain its independence has a right to assert it. Having been educated in such opinions, I naturally determined to return to the State of which I was a native, join the people among whom I was born, and live with my kindred, and, if necessary, fight in their defense.

Accordingly, the resignation of my commission, written on Saturday, was offered to the Secretary of War Monday morning. That gentleman was requested at the same time, to instruct the Adjutant-General, who had kindly accompanied me, to write the order announcing its acceptance immediately.

No other officer of the United States Army of equal rank-that of brigadiergeneral-relinquished his position in it to join the Southern Confederacy.

Many officers of that army of Southern birth had previously resigned their commissions to return to the States of which they were citizens, and many others did so later. Their object in quitting the United States Army and their intention to enter the service of the seceded States were well known in the War Department, yet no evidence of disapproval of these intentions was given by the Federal Administration nor efforts made by it to prevent their execution. This seems to me strong proof that they were not then considered criminal. «

In seeking to repel the charge of perjury in breaking their oaths of allegiance, General Johnston continues:

The acceptance of an officer's resignation absolves him from the obligations of his military oath as completely as it absolves the Government from that of giving him the pay of the grade he held. An officer is bound by that oath of allegiance to the United States and obedience to the officers they may set over him. When the contract between the Government and himself is dissolved by mutual consent, as in the cases in question, he is no more bound under his oath to allegiance to the Government than to obedience to his former commander. These two obligations are in force only during tenure of office. The individual who was an officer has, when he becomes a citizen, exactly the same obligations to the United States as other citizens.

This principle was always acted upon by the United States. Whenever a military officer received a new appointment, either of a higher grade or of an equal one in another corps, he was required to repeat the oath of office, because the previous one, including of course that of allegiance, was held to have expired with the previous office, although the individual had not ceased to be an officer of the Army. When he left the Army, as well as a particular office in it, the case was certainly stronger.

a Johnston's Narrative of Military Operations, pp. 10, 11.
b Johnston's Narrative of Military Operations, pp. 11, 12.

It is manifest from the above views, that had the first officers who betrayed signs of defection been placed in arrest, or if necessary imprisoned, all who regarded the sanctity of an oath would have been compelled to remain in the service, while such as were determined to join the Rebellion could only have done so by adding to disloyalty the double crime of perjury and desertion. As none of our statesmen, however, fully appreciated the value of loyal officers, it was not to be expected that the Government would foresee any special danger in permitting the disloyal to withdraw. On the contrary, instead of retaining them under surveillance or unemployed, it was deemed desirable to purge the personnel of the Army, like that of every other branch of the Government, of the last trace of disaffection. Accordingly nearly every officer who applied received an honorable discharge. This unfortunate policy deprived many officers of their last plea for remaining true to their country. Beset by the importunities of their kindred, reproached for forsaking them, left alone to decide the momentous question, whether it was to their States or to the Union that they owned a paramount allegiance, many at last with bitter regret cast in their lot with secession.

The responsibility for accepting the resignations rests with no particular individual. The policy was begun by a Secretary of War notoriously disloyal, but was continued by his successors, with the sanction presumably of two Presidents and their Cabinets.

The professional training voluntarily relinquished by the Government at the beginning of the great conflict is represented by the following figures, which show the number of general officers furnished the Confederacy from the Regular Army of the United States, most of whom resigned their commissions between April 30, 1860, the date of the secession of South Carolina, and January 1, 1862:

Confederate generals....

Confederate lieutenant-generals
Confederate major-generals.
Confederate brigadier-generals

8

15

48

111

Of the number who resigned after the attack upon Fort Sumter, 4 became generals, 6 lieutenant-generals, 21 major-generals, 38 brigadier-generals. Of the total number in the Confederate Army, 182 rose to command rank.

While contemplating with just pride the final triumph of the Union, if we but recall the fact that nearly every victory gained by the armies of the Rebellion was achieved under the leadership of these officers, it may safely be affirmed that never did statesmen commit a greater mistake in managing the military resources of a nation.

Instead of leaving the Confederacy to exhaust itself, under the military system of 1792, its troops enlisted for but twelve months, its armies for the most part commanded by generals of no military experience, its officers elected by its men, we gave to it the skilled leaders who for four years jeopardized our liberties and deluged the country with blood.a

a After having been the medium of accepting the larger part of the resignations of disloyal officers, the Secretary of War, in his report of July 1, 1861, admitted that "but for this startling defection the rebellion never could have assumed formidable proportions." (Frank Moore's Rebellion Record, p. 234, Doc. 67.)

15836-04-16