to the purposes mentioned above. The whole matter can, therefore, be more clearly presented by treating these preliminary detached campaigns separately, following in order the operations in the defence of Washington, the repression or subjugation of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the invasion of Virginia for the purpose of securing western Virginia to the Union, and, finally, the suddenly formed expedition to capture by a dash the Confederate capital, which the Confederate authorities, by defiantly locating their seat of government at Richmond, had brought supposedly within reach of the Union army. CHAPTER III SUBJUGATION OF THE BORDER STATES THE term "Border States" was condemned by President Lincoln, but has been popularly used. Its application, however, is ambiguous. Early in the conflict it was generally applied to the eight most northern slave States, viz: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky, which, stretching from Delaware Bay to the Mississippi, formed the northern frontier, North Carolina and Tennessee, further south, extending in a parallel line from east to west, and together formed a double row covering the northern slave border, with Missouri and Arkansas as a similar double barrier west of the Mississippi. It was perhaps originally given to these States on account of their geographical position as intervening between the two hostile sections. The Confederacy ardently desired to maintain this line of defence, but when it was broken the term "Border States" was restricted to the four States that seceded, or more strictly to Virginia and Tennessee, which became the Southern Border States. The term "Northern Border States" was sometimes applied to Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky. After the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee, the political efforts of both governments were directed to the States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, which still remained in the Union. Delaware was not expected to secede. Each of these States had a large element of foreign population, and of immigrants from the free States, amounting in Delaware to fifty-four per cent of the white population, in Maryland to fifty-six, in Kentucky to twenty-eight, and in Missouri to eighty-three per cent. The peace movements gave these two classes time to unite their strength. Hence, to the surprise of political leaders, the Union sentiment in these States grew stronger as the time for decision arrived, and these classes coalesced to form a strong Union force. Though a minority in Kentucky, this element was strong, and active aid from the United States government and adroit management stimulated its development. The United States was thus enabled to throttle the contemplated movement in Maryland and Missouri and to take advantage of the conditions in Kentucky, and finally to invade and subjugate these States. The following tables are compiled from the census of 1870 because that of 1860 does not give all the information needed; for instance, separate statistics for Virginia and West Virginia. For our purposes the ratios given below differ but little from those of 1860. The reader may pursue the narrative of events in each of the States above named with the lesson from the census to suggest that one cause of the apparent hesitation in these States was that their populations were not homogeneous. The especial condition of each State, however, will be considered in its order. The large percentage of foreign population in Louisiana and Texas as shown in Table III is easily explained. The great body of the foreign element in Louisiana is of French descent, and in Texas of Mexican and Spanish descent, and almost wholly favored slavery and had become thoroughly assimilated in thought and sympathy with the Southern people. It may further be noted, that in all the States which seceded the number of persons therein who were born in the free States, and of their descendants, is small; and the foreign element except in Louisiana and Texas is comparatively insignificant and certainly not large enough to exert any appreciable influence. Born in the Free States and Territories. TABLE I.-Native White Population of the Slaveholding States 73 15 California. 165 412 353 326 225 218 2,061 176 555 305 391 576 233 183 94 336 Connecticut. 649 3,960 193 73 44 5,833 358 Illinois. 2,730 1,294 23 178 39 541 253 36 92 51,219 546 185 639 11,604 140 38 36 2,931 271 Indiana. 15 22,383 652 37 Iowa. 14 20 155 88 2 2 4,783 15 Kansas. 176 281 322 210 112 107 2,312 137 422 405 329 256 258 81 140 177 Maine. 452 736 592 542 303 278 5,694 263 1,182 825 779 615 454 327 217 351 Massachusetts. 50 112 213 348 14 24 4,495 116 95 95 229 60 33 19 209 86 Michigan. 251 6 66 85 3 1,114 9 13 19 Minnesota. 2 Nebraska. Nevada. New Hampshire. 228 New Jersey. New York. 656 Ohio. 1 Oregon. 695 Pennsylvania. 39 Rhode Island. 125 Vermont. 54 Wisconsin. 82 The Territories, etc. 31,564 14,683 19,038 18,030 2,372 2,861 326,398 6,063 35,773 10,747 49,372 6,298 3,086 12,836 16,045 5,176 Total. 67 57 II 8 33 10 40 2 25 35 I 134 229 345 738 139 91 56 47 115 1,514 1,313 19,359 349 122 149 2,092 8 2 2 8 4 24 2 71 31 5 I 31 13 5 9 Percentage. The percentages of the two preceding tables have been based on the total population. The table that follows is based on the white population, and also takes into the account another important element, omitted in the statistics of the census. As the colored population before the war had no voice or influence in politics, it is proper to base our calculations on the white population. Again, an examination of the statistics shows that the foreign immigrant population is more closely analyzed in the census than the native immigrant population. It shows in each State the population of foreign birth and also the population of foreign parentage. In every State the population of foreign parentage is two or three times as great as that of foreign birth. Total. Approximate per cent of Foreign Lineage on Total Population. |