Manpower allocations for Civil War Union and Confederate armies June 1863

By Michael Collie
East vs. West manpower
WEST UNION(k) CONFED(k) ratio %union %confed %Cf Pop Pop Conf %Milt Pop Milt Pop(men)
Missouri 25 - - 4.83% - - - - -
Arkansas - 15 1.7 - 5.42% 6.87% 324,335 7.36% 65,231
Louisiana 24 14 1.7 4.63% 5.05% 7.97% 376,276 9.42% 83,456
Kentucky 38 - - - - - - - -
Tennessee 84 61 1.4 16.22% 22.02% 17.67% 834,082 17.98% 159,356
Mississippi 100 55 1.8 19.31% 19.66% 7.51% 354,674 7.93% 70,295
Alabama - - - - - 11.21% 529,193 11.28% 99,967
Georgia - - - - - 12.54% 592,080 12.53% 111,005
total west 271 145 1.9 52.32% 52.35% 63.77% 3,010,640 66.50% 589,310

NOTE: Union & Confederate strengths (cols 2&3) in thousands
ratio = Union/Confederate

EAST UNION(k) CONFED(k) ratio %union %confed %Cf Pop Pop Conf %Milt Pop(men) Milt Pop
Virginia 217 101 2.1 41.89% 36.46% 15.83% 747,418 14.27 126,412
N. Carolina 16 15 1.1 3.09% 5.42% 14.01% 661,563 13.02% 115,369
S. Carolina 14 16 0.9 2.70% 5.78% 6.38% 301,302 55,046% 589,310
total east 247 132 1.9 47.68% 47.65% 36.23% 1,710,283 33.50% 296,827
total 518 277 1.9 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4,720,923 100.00% 886,137

This data appears to show that there was no east/west misallocation of forces by Confedertaes as suggested by some writers. Although the western states had 2/3's of population and miltatry population, the politcal nessessity of holding the capital at Richmond simply meant that more forces were required in the East. It appears that holding Virginia with an even greater Union strength than the 2-1 historical advantage shown here would be extemely difficult.

NOTE: data for Texas and Florida not included
sources - Official Records and Eighth Census

Michael Collie 01/23/08

graph

back