Adjutant-General, and Captain Franklin, Topographical Engineers, were detailed to assist him.

The senior officer, like the Secretary of War, was so wholly engrossed in preparing orders for the Government, assignment, and instruction of the militia, that he could not be present at any of the discussions of the board.

The junior officer was a subordinate of the Secretary of the Treasury, being at the time in charge of the bureau now known as that of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury.

When Major McDowell and Captain Franklin reported to Mr. Chase, he informed them that "the whole matter of organization was left with him," and then directed them to draw up a programme.

In the informal board as then constituted, there was no equality between members. The officers were free to make propositions, but their acceptance or rejection rested wholly with the Secretary.

Both officers united in recommending for all of the troops a regimental organization of three battalions, two of which were to be kept in the field, the third to remain in depot for the purpose of drilling and recruiting. Not coinciding with the officers, the Secretary settled the difference of opinion by compromise. The three-battalion organization was accepted for the regulars, but rejected for the volunteers on the ground that it was inexpedient to abandon an organization with which the militia were already familiar. Like most compromises this solution proved unsatisfactory, the new regular regiments never were raised, while for the volunteers an organization was adhered to, descending from the Revolution.

The next recommendation, that the term of enlistment should be for three years, was accepted. A call for 300,000 men was also discussed. Captain Franklin recommended that they should be considered a part of the Regular Army, the regiments to be regularly numbered, the officers to be commissioned by the President, on nomination by the governors of States, the regiments to be apportioned to the States on the basis of Congressional representation, each regiment to be kept full, by recruitment from the district within which it was raised.

These propositions were rejected by the Secretary, who said "he would rather have no regiments raised in Ohio than that they should not be known as Ohio regiments." e

It was partly to meet these states-rights objections, and to relieve the fear of too great a centralization of power in the hands of the Government, that the proposition was made to permit the Governors to name the officers.

It will be seen from the foregoing recommendations that before being fatally committed to a system which had bankrupted the nation in the Revolution, and dissipated nearly all its resources in the war of 1812, an officer of the Army recommended the three-battalion organiza ⚫tion, regimental depots, and territorial recruitment. Had he urged in addition, the adoption of the principle of obligatory military service-a principle the Government was forced to adopt two years later-the

@ Letter from General Franklin, dated November 9, 1877.

This objection was entirely groundless. In Iowa, for example, the battalion or regimental organization was unknown, there being but three or four companies of militia in the State. The number of volunteers furnished and sent forth in new organizations from Iowa was 75,793.

In the language of General Franklin, "Here his states-rights feelings came in." Letter from General Franklin, November 9, 1877.

system would have been identical with that of every nation famed for military power.

The general policy of the Government in favor of volunteers having been decided, the officers drew up two plans of organization for the regulars and volunteers, which were approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, adopted by the War Department, and published to the Army in General Orders, Nos. 15 and 16, dated May 4, 1861. Subsequently they were adopted by Congress in the laws of July 22, 25, and 29, and thus became the basis of organization for all the national forces.

Novel as were the duties imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury, he and his assistants deserved the gratitude of the nation. By simply fixing the term of enlistment at three years, thus giving the volunteers time to become veterans, they insured us against a series of disasters such as under the system of 1812, or that adopted for the volunteers at the beginning of the Mexican war, must inevitably have terminated in the dissolution of the Union. "

USE OF THE REGULAR ARMY.

To anyone familiar with our military history, the difficulties of recruiting regulars in competition with volunteers, would have suggested the reduction of the line of the Army to a cadre, and the dispersion of its officers as commanders and instructors among the new troops. Had this course been adopted every regiment of volunteer infantry, cavalry, and artillery might have had a regular officer for a leader, and with these to guide the instruction, three months would have sufficed to give us an army in fair drill and discipline.

At least one statesman in the Senate perceived the wisdom of such a policy. In discussing the increase of the Regular Army, Mr. Wilson said:

This Army of ours is paralyzed toward the head. Your ablest officers are young captains and lieutenants, and if I wished to-day to organize a heavy military force, such as we are calling into the field, I would abolish the Army as the first aet, and Í then would take officers from the Army and place them where their talents fit them to go, without reference to the rank they occupied in the old regiments.

The volunteers themselves felt the need of this policy, and when first called to arms, eagerly sought trained commanders.

Unfortunately for the country, the General in Chief and the Adjutant-General of the Army placed themselves in opposition. Fearing to ruin the Army, so little did the latter appreciate the value of instructing the volunteers, that officers already in command of regiments and brigades were ordered back to their companies to serve in obscurity, while officers of little or no education at once leaped to the command of divisions and armies.

For this deplorable result, entailing a prolongation of the war and

The author is indebted for the above facts to Generals Franklin and McDowell, In reference to the part taken by the Secretary of the Treasury in organizing our armies, General McDowell in his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War, relating to events immediately preceding the battle of Bull Run, stated: "I have begged of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Treasury, who at that time was connected with the Secretary of War in many of the plans and organizations going forward, that I should not be obliged to organize and discipline and march and fight all at the same time. I said that it was too much for any person to do." (Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, vol. 2, p. 37.) Senate Debates, July 13, 1861.

a useless sacrifice of life and treasure, our military counselors at Washington were chiefly responsible. But they were not alone in the conviction that the policy of detaching officers to command the volunteers, "would ruin the Army," for as late as 1864 General Meade, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, refused to let a subaltern of engineers take a regiment, on the ground that "a lieutenant of engineers was of more importance than a colonel of volunteers."

Being persuaded, through the intercession of a corps commander, to withdraw his opposition, the lieutenant within six months was advanced from a regiment to a brigade, and within a year was leading a cavalry division.

So strong was the opposition to this policy and so ardent the desire of officers to accept regiments that, reflecting the popular feeling on the subject, Congress, in the law of July 29, 1861, organizing the new regiments, authorized the Commanding General, in his discretion, to "detail any of the officers now in the Regular Army to service with the volunteer regiments now in the field, or which may hereafter be called out, with such rank as may be offered them in said volunteer regiments, for the purpose of imparting to them military instruction and efficiency."

The defeat of the law, so excellent in intention, scarcely needs vindication. For want of being mandatory, it permitted the fatal opposition to continue, until the volunteers began to feel themselves soldiers no longer requiring trained officers to lead them."

The failure at the War Department to appreciate the value of professional training operated against individuals outside of the Army. When General Grant, in 1861, addressed the Adjutant-General, stating that, having received a military education, he felt it his duty to place at the disposal of the Government whatever skill or experience he had formerly acquired in its service, no notice was taken of his application, nor was his letter deemed of sufficient importance to preserve.

This neglect, however, proved to himself and the country a blessing in disguise. Five weeks later, placed at the head of a regiment by Governor Yates, of Illinois, he began the marvelous career which led him to the command of all our armies, and still higher, to the Presidency of the Republic.

Other graduates of the Military Academy were scarcely less fortunate in being out of the Army. Wherever they were living, popular instinct designated them to fill the highest commands, to become at once prominent characters in the war.

To establish the fact that the Government did not know how to utilize the professional skill at its disposal, let us again refer to statistics:

Total number of graduates of the Military Academy, from 1829 to 1861, both years inclusive

Total died within same period

Number remaining in service.

Total living in 1861..

Number in civil life..

1,426

363

1,063

750

313

a As an instance of the opposition of the Adjutant-General, the first War Governor of Iowa made a personal application for the detail of a graduate of the Military Academy as colonel of an Iowa regiment, and was refused. He afterwards succeeded, by carrying the application to the Secretary of War. (Statement made by ex-Governor Kirkwood, March 15, 1879.)

Badeau's Military History of Ulysses S. Grant, vol. 1, p. 9.

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 223 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 oflicers, 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

"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. 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.