Numbers of troops by state

prroh

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Location
Maryland
I have been curious as to the distribution of troops provided to the armies of both sides by state of origin during the Civil War. Since most troops served in state organized units and with most states giving some sort of post war pension or award, it would seem that this information would be readily available in a centralized way. This assumption did not prove to be correct, at least as far as my limited research skills led me.

At the new(ish) Gettysburg Visitors Center there is a display, located near the entrance to the museum, that provides, by state, the numbers of men who served in both armies. recently I went to the VC and copied the numbers provided. I had some questions about the sources for those numbers and what was or was not included in the listings.

I was not sure how Regular troops were counted nor was I certain about naval personnel and marines were included, if at all.

Also I wanted confirmation that the state totals were not of individuals but strengths of regiments raised by states. For, example, Someone from MD enlisting in a VA regiment would show up in the VA totals and a VA man enlisting in a MD Union Regiment would show up in the MD totals. This was confirmed verbally during my visit.

I also wanted the sources for the figures so I asked a noted NPS historian who worked with the Gettysburg Foundation in setting up displays. Here is his reply to my questions:

“We used several sources to compile these figures. For the Union army the standard source was the summary of troops furnished found in Frederick H.Dyer, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, (Reprint, Morningside Bookshop, 1979), page 11. However, we discovered some additional enlistments for Alabama and Arkansas that increased the number of Union enlistments for these states, but unfortunately I cannot determine which source this was taken from. Dyer's figures do include USCT, Sailors and Marines. [my emphasis] It is not clear whether Dyer included white Regular Army soldiers in his state tabulations, or left them out. He includes all USCT that were enlisted in Southern states as part of the Regular Army, but these are the only soldiers that he counts as Regulars. So it is possible that our statistics do not include men serving in Regular Army regiments and batteries. [my emphasis]

For the Confederate figures the primary source was Broadfoot Publishing,
Roster of Confederate Soldiers, which was compiled from the consolidated
index of Confederate soldiers in the National Archives. Broadfoot does not list the number of enlistments from each state in this multi volume work. This information was provided to us by Robert K. Krick, an authority on the Army of Northern Virginia, and who worked closely with Broadfoot as an advisor on the compilation of the Confederate roster. Krick recommended to us that we should reduce Broadfoot's numbers by 25% to account for soldiers who served in multiple units. Also, these numbers do not include Confederate servicemen who did not serve from a particular state, which would include the Navy and Marine Corps.[emphasis mine] So, the Confederate enlistment figures are best estimates and do not include naval and Marine Corps personnel, and they are probably a bit on the low side.

Hope this helps.” Indeed it has and sincere thanks for the reply.

Also, I know CSN commerce raiders recruited much of their crews outside the US and CSA.
The numbers, copied from the display are as follows:

State Name Numbers serving in Union organizations Confederate Units

ALA 7,545 ...................................................................106,803
ARK 13,815 ...................................................................58,000
FL 2,334 ..........................................................................17,535 ,
GA 195 ............................................................................135,774
LA 29,276 ........................................................................69,840
MISS 18,414 ........................................................................95,301
NC 8,191 .............................................................................103,145
SC -- .......................................................................................76,683
TN 51,225 ..........................................................................141,728
TX 2,012 ..............................................................................86,702
VA ---* ...............................................................................160,857

TOT CSA 133,007 ................................................................1,052,212

KY 75,760 ..................................................................................28,038
MD 46,638 ....................................................................................3,324
MO 109,111 ...................................................................................39,750

TOT BDR 231,509 .......................................................................... 71,112


CA 15,725 ---
CO Terr 4,998 ---
CT 55,864 ---
DAKOTA 206 ---
DE 12,284 ---
DC 16,523 ---
IL 259,093 ---
IN 196,363 ---
IOWA 76,242 ---
KS 29,149 ---
ME 70,107 ---
MA 146,730 ---
MI 87,364 ---
MN 24,020 ---
NEB 3,157 ---
NV 1,080 ---
N MEX 6,561 ---
NH 33,937 ---
NJ 76,814 ---
NY 448,850 ---
OH 313,180 ---
ORE 1,810 ---
PA 337,936 ---
RI 22,236 ---
UTAH 96 ---
VT 33,288 ---
WA Terr 964 ---
WV 32,068 ---*
WI 91,327 ---

TOT NORTH 2,397,972 ---

GRND TOT 2,762,488 ..............................................................................1,123,324

Notes: The totals for VA & WV were judgment calls.
Confederate navy had about 130 ships of all sizes with many volunteers from infantry regiments used, so an estimate around 9,000 seems reasonable to me with a number recruited outside US & CSA. The CSMC had an authorized strength of 992, which was never reached, so 1,200 men serving is another guess on my part. This means an additional 10 -11,000 men serving. As noted, USN & USMC are included in totals.
I wish to apologize for any errors I may have made in adding up the totals
 
I've got a listing for the US Regulars and think I have one somewhere for the CS Regulars, I'll see if I can dig them up.

As a note Dyer did not include the Regulars as being from any one state but I thought he included the USCT as Regulars and as there were considerably more USCT than Regulars... it will be later in the week before I can get to it as I have a funeral & such to plan & attend.
 
Actually had to hand the Regulars data:
1 Jan 1863 The Regulars numbered 19,871 w/ an average strength of the Regulars as 17,735. 6 Regts of Cav, 5 Arty Regts, 19 Inf totaling 30 regts but keep in mind a Regular Inf Regt had 24 Cos vs the volunteer of 10. I'm going to have to dig for what I have on the CS Regulars.

This came from Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States by Phisterer 1st published in 1883.
 
Actually had to hand the Regulars data:
1 Jan 1863 The Regulars numbered 19,871 w/ an average strength of the Regulars as 17,735. 6 Regts of Cav, 5 Arty Regts, 19 Inf totaling 30 regts but keep in mind a Regular Inf Regt had 24 Cos vs the volunteer of 10. I'm going to have to dig for what I have on the CS Regulars.

This came from Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States by Phisterer 1st published in 1883.

With an average strength of 17,735 and taking into account discharges, casualties, desertions, disease, would you agree with my estimate of 21,000 enlistees during the war?
 
There were many short term units in the Union Army and the CSA tendency of conscription /enlistment for the duration,so wonder what the average strength of both armies were in 1862-64?
I would guess the average ratio of CSA to USA was 1::1.4.
 
Any estimates on the Indian Territory?
I gave you what they they had in the display. If this was missing than please provide numbers for the Indian territories and we should have a pretty complete reckoning.
 
I gave you what they they had in the display. If this was missing than please provide numbers for the Indian territories and we should have a pretty complete reckoning.
I went to a couple of websites, but saw no figures or estimates of their numbers. I'd be surprised if the number exceeded 5,000 per side, judging by the size of the forces engaged in the battles in that area. [I just got a Server not Found message at CWSS.]
 
I went to a couple of websites, but saw no figures or estimates of their numbers. I'd be surprised if the number exceeded 5,000 per side, judging by the size of the forces engaged in the battles in that area. [I just got a Server not Found message at CWSS.]
True kinda a footnote area
 
The Nation contributed 3,530 3 year men to the US. I recall reading somewhere that there was about 20% difference between US & CS numbers & while I'm pretty sure the numbers favored the CS I don't remember.
 
In such highly contested states like West Virginia and Kentucky the numbers need closer scrutiny, particularly West Virginia. Kentucky's Union numbers are inflated by about 2,000 men, as the 1st and 2nd KY Infantry were almost entirely Ohio men. According to Dr. Mark Snell of the George Tyler Moore Center in Shepherdstown, the WV numbers contain about 1/3 non-West Virginians, and he puts the Union/Confederate numbers at around 20,000 each. The idea that Virginia qua Virginia gave no men to the Union is absurd. Again, according to the GTM Center, the 1st WV Cavalry contained about 6% east Virginians, or around 114 men. Many of the men recruited by Ward H. Lamon were undoubtedly from eastern Virginia. The Virginia numbers need serious revising. The information in this map from the NPS is totally unreliable, as is the Record Totals button, as the NPS entered tens of thousand of duplicate records.
 
In such highly contested states like West Virginia and Kentucky the numbers need closer scrutiny, particularly West Virginia. Kentucky's Union numbers are inflated by about 2,000 men, as the 1st and 2nd KY Infantry were almost entirely Ohio men. According to Dr. Mark Snell of the George Tyler Moore Center in Shepherdstown, the WV numbers contain about 1/3 non-West Virginians, and he puts the Union/Confederate numbers at around 20,000 each. The idea that Virginia qua Virginia gave no men to the Union is absurd. Again, according to the GTM Center, the 1st WV Cavalry contained about 6% east Virginians, or around 114 men. Many of the men recruited by Ward H. Lamon were undoubtedly from eastern Virginia. The Virginia numbers need serious revising. The information in this map from the NPS is totally unreliable, as is the Record Totals button, as the NPS entered tens of thousand of duplicate records.

Please read the background information before posting your usual comment about Ohio men enlisting in WV units. The state numbers are numbers of men in units raised in the state/territory not numbers of men from each state who served. There were thousands of men who lived in one state and enlisted in another state. Many NJ residents, for example, enlisted in the more glamorous NYC regiments and are recorded in the NY totals. Until every service record is entered into a database where such queries as each man's home town and state is available, this tally, flaws and all, is what is available.
 
Since there are no numbers for the Indian nations in the display, yet tiny totals like the 96 men in a Utah unit are, I started to scratch my head and wonder why. Wasn't Fort Smith, Arkansas the administrative capitol for the Indian territories? Didn't the NPS historian say the Arkansas totals needed revising? I suggest that total are included in totals for other States/Territories, especially Arkansas. Fort Smith was occupied by both sides for considerable periods during the war. Sound reasonable? To confirm, I will ask the NPS about this question.
 
I
Please read the background information before posting your usual comment about Ohio men enlisting in WV units. The state numbers are numbers of men in units raised in the state/territory not numbers of men from each state who served. There were thousands of men who lived in one state and enlisted in another state. Many NJ residents, for example, enlisted in the more glamorous NYC regiments and are recorded in the NY totals. Until every service record is entered into a database where such queries as each man's home town and state is available, this tally, flaws and all, is what is available.

I respectfully disagree with your premise. First, if it is "state numbers are numbers of men in units raised in the state/territory", then most of the WV Union numbers should be given to Virginia, as most enlisted in "Virginia" units and were not "West Virginia" until 1863. The 16th WV Infantry was raised in the DC area, not in WV at all. Second, you cannot compare almost entire regiments of men enlisting in another state to some hundreds who crossed for one reason or another to a different state to enlist. Second, depending on outdated and inaccurate lists, just because they are "official", serves no real purpose. You cannot depend upon them for an accurate assessment for those states, if you use them you would have to post a caveat so that people would understand how they were compiled. I fail to see the purpose of this for any real understanding of who the men were and why they enlisted or how each state viewed the war. I'm sorry if I seem to be hitting only one key on the piano, but when I see inaccurate numbers posted on WV, or numbers which other people might misinterpret without knowing the background, then I will speak my mind. These are the same numbers which have been used for 150 years to twist the history of the state, and whenever I see them I will speak up.
 
I


I respectfully disagree with your premise. First, if it is "state numbers are numbers of men in units raised in the state/territory", then most of the WV Union numbers should be given to Virginia, as most enlisted in "Virginia" units and were not "West Virginia" until 1863. The 16th WV Infantry was raised in the DC area, not in WV at all. Second, you cannot compare almost entire regiments of men enlisting in another state to some hundreds who crossed for one reason or another to a different state to enlist. Second, depending on outdated and inaccurate lists, just because they are "official", serves no real purpose. You cannot depend upon them for an accurate assessment for those states, if you use them you would have to post a caveat so that people would understand how they were compiled. I fail to see the purpose of this for any real understanding of who the men were and why they enlisted or how each state viewed the war. I'm sorry if I seem to be hitting only one key on the piano, but when I see inaccurate numbers posted on WV, or numbers which other people might misinterpret without knowing the background, then I will speak my mind. These are the same numbers which have been used for 150 years to twist the history of the state, and whenever I see them I will speak up.

Register your concerns with the Gettysburg Foundation. I am simply the messenger.

"seem to be hitting only one key on the piano" Very good must remember that. "one trick pony" seems to be overused these days. :wink:
 
Since there are no numbers for the Indian nations in the display, yet tiny totals like the 96 men in a Utah unit are, I started to scratch my head and wonder why. Wasn't Fort Smith, Arkansas the administrative capitol for the Indian territories? Didn't the NPS historian say the Arkansas totals needed revising? I suggest that total are included in totals for other States/Territories, especially Arkansas. Fort Smith was occupied by both sides for considerable periods during the war. Sound reasonable? To confirm, I will ask the NPS about this question.
Sounds reasonable.
 
I will say one more thing and then bow out of the discussion. Yes, I know only one subject, and I know it well. Another reason these numbers are not to be considered seriously for the stated purpose of determining soldier numbers is the fact that the West Virginia Union totals contain the equivalent of about 4 "phantom" regiments. When the Adjutant General of the state submitted his numbers to the Federal government he counted all the re-enlistments as new soldiers, these soldiers never existed. I don't know if other state's Adjutants General did the same thing, but it is important to know.

And another reason it is relevant and important to say these things is that there are many new members on this board who may not be as informed as some of the older members, also these threads are accessed through search engines like Google and those people need that information too. The NPS can take care of itself.
 
Back
Top