E5-/3 HOLLINGER pH8J MILL RUN F3.1543 ComiuontaCciltl) of JJliis^^irjjusctls. T^ '•^Z ij Executive Depautmknt, Boston, Feb. 3, 1863. S. F. Wktmoue, Esq., Indianapolh^ Indiana: — ]yiy Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 22il January would liavc rceeived that prompt attention whieh tlie suhje.et itself demands, and whicii is surely duo to the interest you have manifested, on more tlian one occasion, in the establi.sli- ment of the truth touciiin;: the conduct of New Enijland, and particularly of JIassachusetts, when arraigned by j)er?ons of other sections of the country, had my enirajiemonts permitted an earlier rej)ly. You inform me, in the first plai-e, that a committee has been raised by the popular branch of the legislature of Indiana, to incjuire and rejOTrt, Why iMa.tsachu.->etl.t han not sent to the field during the present war as muntj men as hare been sent by Indiana. I do not know how many men have been furnished to the Union army hitherto by the State of Indiana. I am unable, therefore, to present you the facts sought for in the form of a comparati\ e statement. And I am not sorry, for the pur|)oses of the present moment, that I am thus ignorant, since the testimony I sliall give you will be relieved of tJie moral disadvantages which wouUl attend the effort of reciting facts and presenting an argumentative comparison at the same time. I may be allowed to remark, however, that while we in Massachusetts have devoted ourselves to the business of the national delence with an earnestness, zeal, and success which have arouseil the hatred of every enemy of the Union, scarcely less apparint on the lips of Northern syni|)athizei-3 with treason than of Southern traitors and rebels themselves, I liave always believed that the government and jieople of In- diana have been alike distinguished, from thi; beginning of the struggle, by the fidelity of their exertions and tiie valor of their troops. Tiie contribution of Massachusetts to the Union army, in the year 1861, was twenty-two regiments anil eight companies of infantry, two companies of sharpshootei-s, five batteries of liglit artillery, and one regiment of cavalry, all enlisted for three years, besides five regiments of infantry, one battalion of rilles, and one company of artillery, who served for three months. The contribution of 186'2, made by Massachusett.s to the Union arniy, was thirty regiments and tour comjianiis of infantry, of which thirteen regiments and three companies were enlisted tor three yeai"s, scM'nteen regin\ents for nine months, and one company fi)r six months; five batteries of light artil- lery, of which three were enlisted for three years, one for nine months, and one for six months; five companies of heavy artillery eidisted for three years ; three companies of cavalry enlisted for three yeai-s; two r()|M)rticni of men litlcil to hear arms in the State! of Massailmsflts may not bo in tlin suiu; ratio to tbi; wIioU; numljcr of Iier inalo inhabitants, whicli tin; niiinl»'r of thtr same class of mah^ inliabitaiits of Indiana bears to the a^;.'ri'iralf nnmbiT of her male |)o|iiihilion. For cxanipk', in two sncli .Status tlu- rclativt' pi-onortion.s of tlicir iiit.'ii i-apabh- of l)t'aring arms will nrci'ssarily be aUVctiul oy all those circumstances which tend to create ditl'erences in the character of the ])oj)ulations of old comninnities, and those more recently settled. In an old conununily the number of aged men and wonu'n must be ibun7, and the total amount expended and chaiged to the fJeneral Government since the commencement of the war is S.'3,450,l 10.52, This includes the purchase of arms, horses, wagons, ecjuijjments, subsistence, and other supplies required in the raising, outfit and movement of troop.s, and it d(x?s not imluile any sums paid in the nature of bounties nor of aid to the families of volunteers. Thus much tor our record. AVhether we have done well or done ill I may not attempt to decide. But I pray those who would criticise any shortcoming of Massachusetts, in camp or on the field, by land or sea, in arts or arms, in any of the works or the dangers of ])atriotic duty, to declare aflirmatively, and by methals the most positive and responsible, wherein she has failed or fallen short. And if the accusation shall come from men who have striven hitherto and are striving now to crush the rebellion, and to conquer the power against which our brethren have drawn the sword and opposed their lives, I am sure that Massachusetts will cheerfully accept the instruction, and will supply the omitted duty. You have done me the honor, also, to inquire, What was done h>/ the men of ^fa.tsachtl.1Cll.^i for the mUilari/ service of the United Stales during the war of the Revolution ? An answer was furnished to the (piestion by tlu" Depart- ment of War in 17!tO, on the call of Fisher Ames. fJeneral Knox was, at that time, the Secretary of War. It is contained in a statement copied from the first volunu! of the American Archives. It exhil)its not only the contribu- tion of troops made by Massachusetts to the war of the Revolution, but also the contribution made by each of the original thirteen States. Statement of the number of Troops and Militia furnished by the several States, for the support of the Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1783, inclusive. II « o 3 §• ■-: 2 STATES. s- a S "^ H B % S a O "3 5 c 3 ■" o c 3 c o ~ Northern. New Hampshire, 12,40G 2,093 14,598 7.300 Massachusetts, 67,937 15,155 83,092 9,500 Rhode Island, 5,908 4,284 10,192 1,500 Connecticut, 32,039 7,792 39,831 3,000 New York, 17,781 3,312 21,093 8,750 Pennsylvania, 25,008 7,357 32,965 2,000 New Jersey, 10,727 6,055 16,782 2,500 Totals, 172,496 46,048 218,553 30,950 Southern. Delaware, 2,387 376 2,263 1,000 Mar3'land, 13,912 5,464 19,376 4,000 Virjrinia, 26,072 4,163 30,835 21,880 North Carolina, 7,263 2,716 9,969 12,000 South Carolina, 5,508 - 5,508 28,000 Georgia, 2,079 2,679 9,930 Totals, 58,421 12,719 71,130 76,810 The followino; Table exhibits a comparative view of the populations of the New England States and of the Southern States, severally and respectively, according to the census of 1790 ; attended by an exhibit of the authenticated troops furnished by each of those States and both sections : — h.f?h f^Vo a c * 22 oj c '^ = »■/=« New England g States. 3 ^ t_ r, .« c3 G Southern States. 3 ? d* ^A*"^*'" Pi ^^'-.^^ Massachusetts, . . 475,257 83,092 Delaware, . . . 59,096 2,763 Connecticut, . . . 238,141 39,831 Maryland, . . . 319,728 19,376 New Hampshire, . 141,899 14,598 Virginia, .... 748,308 30,835 Ehode Island, . . 69,110 10,192 North Carolina, . 393,751 9,969 South Carolina, . Georgia, .... Totals, . . . 249,073 82,548 5,508 2,679 Totals, . . . 924,407 147,713 1,852,504 71,130 Thus it will be seen that Massachusetts alone, with only about one-fourth the population of the South, furnished 11,9G2 more authenticated troops than they all ; and that the four New England States of the old thirteen, with a trifle less than one-half of the population of the six States of the South, con- tributed, of continental and authenticated militia troops, a little more than twice as many as the contribution of the South to the national cause of inde- pendence. In actual numbers, the New England contingent, furnished by a population of 924,407, was 147,713 soldiers, against the southern contingent of 71,130 soldiers, furnished by a ]iopulalion of 1,852,501. Tims, New Enff- land »rave of lier sons in tlie j)i()|)c)iii()n ot" more th.in ibtir to one, eomparcil ■witli the awtlK'ntlcatcd southern roll ot" revolutionary troops. Your letter su;zi;ests, also, thesis sitinificant and important ipiestions: " What intercut Ma^aiic/niscttx Inis taken in the Nniili-Wcsl, in tlif waij of fdvnring ilx settlemeut'f How much nionai/ she hn.s exjxnded in muds, anuds, roofs of the eordial pood will and interest constantly felt and manifested from the bepiniiin<2;, not less in the moral welfare than in the material /growth and the industrial development of the ^Vest by the ]ieople of Nt!w iMij^land. The results of these investigations ■will form the substance of another eommunieation. Meanwhile, will you allow me to allude to the characteristic policy in national alfairs, by which the statesmen of the East have distinguished their inlluenee in the national Icijislation bearing on the interest of the ^^'esterIl States? I do so, not only tor the purpose of illustrating what Ave regard a.s our prescri])tive career of friendship, but because it enables me to introduce evidence drawn from ]iu])lie history, and the opinions of eminent men, ex- pressed in better woi'ds than mine. To this end I have extracted the following ])aragra])h from the speech of Mr. Sumner, of ^lassachnsetts, in the Senate of the Uniteil States, in January, 1852, in support of a bill granting the right of vay and certain pul)lie lands in Iowa to aid the construction of certain roads in that State. I\Ir. Sumner said : — "In sustaining this bill, I but followed the example of the Senators and Representatives of Massachusetts on kindred measures, from their earliest introduction down to the present time. The first instance was in 1823, on the grant of the State of Ohio of land one hundred and twenty-five feet wide, ■with one mile on each side, for the construction of a road from the lower rapids of the ]\Iiami River to the western boundary of the Connecticut Reserve. On the final passage of this grant in the House, the Massachusetts delegation voted as follows: Yeas. — Samuel C. Allen, Henry W. Dwight, Timothy Fidler, Jeremiah Nelson, John Reed, Jonathan Russell. Nay. — Benjamin Gorliani. In the Senate, the bill passed without a division. In 1828, a still greater unanimity occurred, on the passage of the bill to aid the State of Ohio in extending the IMIami Canal from Dayton to Lake Erie ; and this bill is the first instance of the grant of alternate sections, as in that now before the Senate. "On this the Massachusetts delegation in the House voted as follows: Yeas. — Isaac C. Bates, Benjamin W. Crowninshield, John Davis, Edwai'd Everett, John Locke, John Reed, .Joseph Richardson, John Varnum. Nays. — None. In the Senate, Messrs. Silsbee and Webster both voted in the anirmative. I pass over the intermediate grants, which, I am told, have been sustained by tlie ^Massachusetts delegations with substantial unanimity. " The extensive grants at the last session of Congress to Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile, were sustained by all the Massachusetts votes in the House exoejit one. Still further, in sustain- ing the present bill on grounds of iusliee to the land States, I but followed the recorded instructions of the Legislature of ^Massachusetts, addressed to its Senators and Representiitives here on a former occasion. " The subject was presented, in a spicial message, to the Legislature in 1841, by the dislinguisheil CJovernor at the time, who strongly urged 'a liberal policy toward the actual settler, and toward the new States, for this is justly due to Loth.' And he a(hlcd : * Such States arc entitled to a more liberal siiare of the proceeds of the public lands than the old States, as we owe to their enter- prise much of the value this property has acquired. It seems to me, therefore, that justice toicard the States in tvhich these lands lie demands a liberal and generous policy toivard them.' In accordance with this recommendation, it was resolved by the Legislatur.e, ' That, in the disposition of the public lands, this Commonwealth approves of making liberal provisions in favor of the new States ; and that she ever has been and still is ready to co-operate with other portions of the Union, in securing to those States such provisions.' Thus, a generous policy toward the land States, with liberal provisions in their favor, was considered by Massachusetts the part of justice." What could be more triumphant in the confidence of its tone, the emphasis of its contradiction, than the defiant denial with which Mr. Webster, on the same floor, met the attack of Mr. Calhoun, whose political disciples, in Avhat- ever section of the Union, have not failed to imitate the traits of his mis- chievous career. In his remarkable speech on " Foot's Resolution," Mr. Webster exclaimed : " I deny that the East has, at any time, shown an illiberal policy towards the West. I pronounce the whole accusation to be without the least founda- tion in any facts, existing either now or at any previous time. " I deny it in the general, and I deny each and all its particulars. I deny the sum total, and I denj- the detail. I deny that the East has ever manifested hostility to the West, and I deny that she has adopted any policy that would naturally have led her in such a course." And, further on in the same speech, Mr. Webster declares, " I maintain tliat, fi'om the day of the cession of tlie territories by the States to Congress, no portion of the country has acted either with more liberality or more intel- ligence, on the subject of the public lands in the new States, than New England." And, again, supporting the declaration, he says : — "At the foundation of the Constitution of those new North Western States lies the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. We are accustomed. Sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity ; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus ; but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced eiFects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787. That instrument was drawn by Nathan Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. ******* " It was sustained, indeed by the votes of the South, but it must have failed without the cordial support of the New England States. If New England has been governed by the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very measure was, of all others, the best calculated to thwart her purposes. It was of all things, the very means of rendering certain a A'ast Immigration from her own population to the West. She looked to that consequence only to disregard it." And yet again : — "I assert, boldly, that in all measures conducive to the welfare of the West, since my acquaintance here, no part of the country has manifested a more liberal policy. I beg to say, sir, that I do not state this with a view of claim- ing for her any special regard on that account. Not at all. She does not place her support of measures on the ground of flivor conferred. Far other- wise. What she has done has been consonant to her view of the general good, and therefore she has done it. She has sought to make no gain of It ; on the contrary, individuals may have felt, undoubtedly, some natural regret at finding the relative Importance of their own States diminished by the growth of the West. But New England has regarded that as the natural course of things, and has never complained of it. " Let me see any one measure favorable to the West which has been opposed by New England, since the government bestowed its attention on these Western improvements. Select what you will, — If it be a measure of acknowledgod utility, — I answer for it, it will he found that not only wore Nt'w England voti's cast for it, hut that New Knghuul voles cdrricd it. Will you tako the Cunihorhnul Road V — wIkj has niailc that? Will you take, tho Portland Canal V — wliosi', support carritMl that hill? Sir, at what period hi'vond the (ireek Kalends, could tiicst- measures, or nu'asures like these, have been aeconiplished, had they depended on the votes of Southern gen- tlemen. " Why, sir, wo know that wo must have waited till tho constitutional notions of those gentlemen had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, tlu'v iiave done nothing, and can