by Bruce Catton
41.
Interview with Sherman in the Washington Post, quoted in the Army and Navy Journal for December 30, 1893.
CHAPTER TWELVE
The Question of Surprise
1.
George W. Cable, in B. & L., Vol. II, p. 18; Charles Wright, A Corporal’s Story; Beauregard, “The Campaign of Shiloh,” in B. & L., Vol. I, p. 592.
2.
Beauregard, as Note 1; C. C. Briant, History of the Sixth Indiana Infantry, pp. 102–103; Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 350.
3.
Lew Wallace: An Autobiography, Vol. II, pp. 544–545.
4.
Wallace, Autobiography, p. 524
5.
Brigadier General Thomas Jordan, “Notes of a Confederate Staff Officer at Shiloh,” in B. & L., Vol. I, p. 603; Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, pp. 350–351. This is probably the basis for the totally false legend that Grant in person led a final victorious charge at Shiloh.
6.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 94, 96–97. See also Grant’s remarks in his Memoirs, Vol. I, pp. 354–355.
7.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 97–98.
8.
Bragg to Beauregard, O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 398, 400.
9.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, p. 97.
10.
The point is well made by Thomas B. Van Home in his History of the Army of the Cumberland, Vol. I, p. 119; “Perhaps no battle of the war was projected with greater objects than that of Shiloh. The aims were to crush, first, Grant, then Buell, and then take the offensive throughout the west. But the magnitude of the interests involved did not find correspondence in the strength of the army gathered at Corinth, and the initial movement of the grand scheme was undertaken too late to succeed.… A grand plan there failed through inadequate resources and comparative feebleness of execution.”
11.
Badeau, Vol. I, pp. 597–598. Beauregard’s note to Grant is most curiously worded. It begins: “At the close of the conflict yesterday, my forces being exhausted by the extraordinary length of time during which they were engaged with yours … and it being apparent that you had received and were still receiving reinforcements, I felt it my duty to remove my troops.” It almost sounds as if Beauregard were offering Grant the explanation which was due to Jefferson Davis; according to a newspaperman who was then at Federal headquarters, Grant chuckled over it, and said he was tempted to reply that no apologies were necessary. (Richardson, p. 255.)
12.
Downing’s Civil War Diary, p. 43; History of the 51st Indiana Veteran Volunteer Infantry, p. 43.
13.
AGATE (Whitelaw Reid) in the Cincinnati Commercial, April 15; O. R., Vol. X, Part Two: Grant’s Order, p. 100; Halleck to Grant, p. 99.
14.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 109, 130.
15.
The original of this letter is in the De Coppet Collection at the Princeton University Library.
16.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two: Halleck to Stanton, p. 98; to Pope, pp. 107–108.
17.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, p. 99.
18.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two: General Orders No. 16, p. 105; Halleck to Grant, April 13, pp. 105–106.
19.
Letter of W. C. Carroll to Congressman Washburne, dated December 24, 1862, in the Washburne Papers. Carroll had been invited that spring to serve on the staff of John A. Logan, had gone upstream to Savannah to wait for Logan, and while waiting had formed a temporary connection with Grant. When he wrote to Washburne, eight months later, he was asking for help to get an appointment as an aide to one of the major generals in the Regular Army, and he recited his feat in writing the story about Shiloh to show that his was a deserving case.
20.
New York Herald, April 10, 1862; Emmet Crozier, Yankee Reporters, p. 217.
21.
New York Herald, April 16, 1862; for Sherman’s comment, see his letter to Grant dated Sept. 10, 1884, in the Sherman Letter Book. The Crozier book mentioned in Note 20 (hereafter cited as Crozier) has a very good account of the way Reid got and wrote his story, pp. 210–217.
22.
Sherman, Fighting Prophet, pp. 233–234; Chicago Times, May 6, 1862; Cincinnati Commercial, April 25, 1862; New York Herald, April 22; F. W. Keil, The Thirty-fifth Ohio Regiment, p. 64.
23.
Capt. W. Irving Hodgson, C. S. A., of the Washington Artillery, wrote that his battery opened fire at 7:10 A.M.—approximately two hours after the first clash between Prentiss’s and Hardee’s advance patrols—“on the first camp attacked and taken by our army”—and said that Confederate infantry stormed and occupied this camp only after his guns had silenced two Union batteries. Colonel Daniel W. Adams of the 1st Louisiana Infantry, which was in the column that attacked Prentiss’s camp, said Federal resistance was so stiff that he feared for a time his brigade would have to retreat. General Hardee said that his skirmishers were attacked at dawn, that “in half an hour the battle became fierce,” and that Cleburne’s brigade, “after a series of desperate charges,” was driven back, entering “the enemy’s encampments” only after a second line came up to its support. For these and other Confederate reports bearing on the fight for the camps, see O. R., Vol. X, Part One, pp. 513, 514, 532, 536, 541, 548, 568 ff., 573, 581. The report of Sherman’s 53rd Ohio (same, p. 264) one of the Union regiments most prominently involved in the rout, shows the 53rd in line and ready for action “shortly after daybreak.” After some time it was moved to a new position directly in the rear of the camp, at which time Confederate skirmishers appeared on the opposite side of the camp. Still later a Confederate line of battle came up behind the skirmishers, and the Ohioans got off two volleys before their colonel bolted—after which the regiment disintegrated. Major D. W. Reed, historian of the postwar National Shiloh Commission, says the opening shots were fired at 4:55 A.M., and estimates that more than four hours fighting occurred before Premiss’s camp was taken. See Ohio at Shiloh: Report of the Commission, by T. J. Lindsay, pp. 79–80.
24.
New York Herald, May 3, 1862. Grant almost certainly was driven to write this letter by the fact that Julia, then in Covington, Kentucky, was reading the bitter attacks on him which were appearing in the Cincinnati newspapers.
25.
The Sherman Letters: Correspondence between General and Senator Sherman from 1831 to 1891, edited by Rachael Sherman Thorndike, pp. 143–145. See also letter of Gen. Sherman to Senator Sherman dated May 12, 1862, in the Sherman Papers. After the war Sherman wrote furiously: “The truth is that Buell took no part in the battle of April 6, 1862, which was the Battle of Shiloh. He came on the field grudgingly and actually held back Nelson’s division at Savannah after Grant had ordered it forward. Had Wallace and Nelson come on the Field as they might have done by noon, we could have assumed the offensive and recovered all the ground lost—we lost ground, nothing else—for at night the Rebs were as much beaten as we were.” (Letter of April 12, 1886, to “Dear Moulton,” in the Sherman Papers at the Huntington Library.)
26.
Rowley to E. Hempstead, April 19, 1862; Rowley to Washburne, April 23; J. E. Smith to Washburne, May 16; all in the Washburne papers. Ammen’s diary entry, which does not appear in the portion printed in the Official Records, is in his original manuscript in the Illinois State Historical Library. Clyde C. Walton, Illinois State Historian, writes: “We have no reason to assume that the diary was not written at the time of the battle of Shiloh. I suspect that it was written from notes kept day by day from the battle and put in the book possibly beginning April 8.” The interesting point here, of course, is that Ammen wrote this testimonial to Grant’s sobriety before any accusation of intoxication at Shiloh had been publicly made. On May 20, 1862, General N. J. T. Dana wrote to his brother: “As to Gen. Grant’s intemperance, it is pure fiction and slander … I hope my testimony on this will be conclusive with those who know me.” (Ms.
letter in the Huntington Library.)
According to Walter Q. Gresham, then Colonel of the 53rd Indiana, who commanded the post of Savannah before and during the battle, Rawlins asked every officer who had had contact with Grant to write a statement covering every occasion on which he had seen Grant during the 10 days previous to and including the day of the battle. Colonel Gresham said that he himself had seen Grant at all hours of the day and night during that time and never saw the slightest sign that the man had been using intoxicants. (The Life of Walter Quintin Gresham, by Matilda Gresham, Vol. I, p. 182.) If Rawlins did make such a collection, it is not in the National Archives today. A search made there in the winter of 1959 revealed only a letter of inquiry written in 1909 by Colonel Gresham’s son, Otto Gresham, who sought to find the report which the colonel had made.
27.
James Grant Wilson, The Life and Campaigns of General Grant, p. 37.
28.
Letter of Julia Grant to E. B. Washburne, May 16, 1862, in the Grant Papers, Illinois State Historical Library.
29.
Letter of Joseph Medill to Washburne, May 24, 1862, in the Washburne Papers.
30.
O. R., Vol. X, Part One, p. 99.
31.
Letter of Grant to “E. B. Washburn” May 14, 1862, in the Washburne Papers. This letter, incidentally, shows how Grant’s carelessness about spelling extended even to his method of writing Washburne’s name in his letters. As often as not Grant would omit the final “e.”
32.
Col. Chetlain, who was in a position to know the headquarters opinion of the battle, wrote (in Recollections of Seventy Years, p. 89) that Grant’s staff officers always believed that if Lew Wallace’s division had come promptly into action when ordered the battle would have been won by midafternoon of April 6. This belief is of course debatable, but it apparently was the basis for the position Grant took in his letter to Washburne.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
The Unpronounceable Man
1.
New York World’s correspondence, printed in the Chicago Times, May 19, 1862; letter from Henry Doolittle to Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, undated, in the Doolittle Papers, State Historical Library, Madison, Wis.
2.
On June 4 Halleck made his attitude explicit by writing to Pope: “Our main object now is to get the enemy far enough south to relieve our railroads from danger of an immediate attack. There is no object in bringing on a battle if this object can be obtained without one.” (O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, p. 252.) Grant said that in the advance on Corinth Federal commanders were warned not to bring on an engagement “and informed in so many words it would be better to retreat than to fight.” (Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 373.)
3.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 138–139, 144.
4.
Same, p. 144.
5.
William F. G. Shanks, Personal Recollections of Distinguished Generals, pp. 80–81. See also a speech by General James H. Wilson before survivors of the Army of the Cumberland at Columbus, Ohio, in 1897, quoted in History of the 68th Indiana Infantry, by Edwin W. High. In his Memoirs (Vol. I, p. 372), Grant remarks that none of Buell’s Shiloh reports were submitted to him—an irregularity which caused him to refuse to write a full report on the battle himself.
6.
Letter of Grant to Halleck dated May 11, 1862, in the Civil War Papers of the Missouri Historical Society.
7.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 182–183.
8.
Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 377.
9.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 166, 172, 214. On May 22 Governor Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, who was then visiting the army, wrote Stanton that the Federals appeared to be outnumbered and should be reinforced. (Same, p. 209.)
10.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 439–440, 618.
11.
Leander Stillwell, The Story of a Common Soldier; Robert L. Kimberly and Ephraim S. Holloway, The 41st Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, p. 28; Chicago Times for June 3, 1862; William Witherby Brown, “Reminiscences of an Ohio Volunteer,” in the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, Vol. 48; Alexis Coupe, History of the 15th Ohio; letter of Edward D. Kittoe, dated June 24, and letter of Colonel J. E. Smith, dated June 1, to Congressman Washburne, both in the Washburne Papers; C. C. Briant, History of the 6th Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, pp. 130–131; E. W. Keil, History of the 35th Ohio Regiment Volunteer Infantry; Charles F. Hubert, History of the 50th Illinois Infantry, p. 119; Charles H. Smith, History of Fuller’s Ohio Brigade, p. 72.
12.
Personal Memoirs of P. H. Sheridan, Vol. I, pp. 152–153.
13.
Stanley Horn, The Army of Tennessee, p. 148.
14.
Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 378; interview with Webster in the New York Times, reprinted in the Cincinnati Commercial October 26, 1867.
15.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, p. 130; letter of W. T. Sherman to R. W. Scott, dated Sept. 6, 1885, in the Sherman Papers.
16.
Richardson, pp. 257–258. See also the same author’s Siege, Dungeon and Escape, p. 244.
17.
Address by Brevet Major General William W. Belknap, printed in War Sketches and Incidents, by the Iowa Loyal Legion, pp. 161–162.
18.
Correspondence of the New York World, reprinted in the Chicago Times May 19, 1862.
19.
Letter of W. R. Rowley to Washburne, May 24, 1862; note of same date, Rowley to Washburne; letter from Colonel Clark B. Lagow to Washburne, also dated May 24; from the Washburne Papers.
20.
Letter of U. S. Grant to the Reverend J. M. Vincent, dated May 25, 1862, loaned by Mrs. George Vincent of Westport, Connecticut: in the Lloyd Lewis papers.
21.
Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman, Vol. I, p. 255. The manuscript of Sherman’s work, in the Library of Congress, differs slightly from the published version.
22.
Grant to Washburne, letter dated June 1, 1862, from the Grant Papers in the Illinois State Historical Library. Grant’s Memoirs give his brief reference to Sherman’s visits in Vol. I, p. 385.
23.
Grant to Washburne, June 19, 1862, from the Washburne Papers.
24.
Grant to Washburne, July 22, 1862, from the Washburne Papers.
25.
Halleck to Mrs. Halleck, letter dated Aug. 13, 1862, in the Oliver Barrett Collection.
26.
See also Badeau, Vol. I, pp. 120–121.
27.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. 225–226.
28.
Lieutenant S. D. Thompson, Recollections with the 3rd Iowa, p. 275; letter of John E. Smith to Washburne, dated June 17, 1862, in the Washburne Papers; Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 381; B. & L., Vol. II, p. 720.
29.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, p. 235; Vol. X, Part One, pp. 774–86.
30.
O. R., Vol. X, Part One, p. 671; Vol. XVI, Part Two, pp. 14, 63; letter of Grant to Washburne dated July 22, 1863, in the Washburne Papers.
31.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, p. 14; Vol. XVII, Part Two, p. 5; Vol. X, Part Two, p. 254.
32.
O. R., Vol. XVII, Part Two, p. 9.
33.
O. R., Vol. X, Part Two, pp. III, 114–118, 124–125, 236, 243–244, 264–265; Vol. XVI, Part Two, pp. 9, 46.
34.
For the use which Bragg made of the breathing spell granted by the Federals after Corinth, see Stanley Horn, Army of Tennessee, pp. 157–159.
35.
In this paragraph I am following a suggestion advanced by Major General U. S. Grant III, grandson of the Civil War General, who wrote a lucid summary of the argument for Lloyd Lewis.
36.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, p. 3.
37.
O. R., Vol. XVII, Part Two, pp. 29–
30.
38.
Grant’s letter to Washburne, dated June 19, 1862, in the Washburne Papers.
39.
Grant’s Memoirs, Vol. I, pp. 368–369.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
“To Be Terrible on the Enemy”
1.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, p. 8.
2.
O. R., Vol. XVII, Part Two, pp. 17, 20; Vol. XII, Part Three, p. 435.
3.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, pp. 69–70. It is a matter of no importance but of some interest that while Stanton was sending this dispatch—which proposed to cripple the entire campaign in the West in order to restore the campaign in Virginia—McClellan was writing his famous dispatch to Stanton demanding immediate reinforcements of from ten to twenty thousand men, and was saying bitterly: “If I save this army now, I tell you plainly that I owe no thanks to you, or any other persons in Washington.” (McClellan’s Own Story, pp. 424–425.)
4.
O. R., Vol. XVII, Part Two, pp. 55–56; Vol. XVI, Part Two, pp. 60, 74–76.
5.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, p. 75.
6.
O. R., Vol. XVI, Part Two, pp. 82, 88, 100, 117.