Showing posts with label Grant's Drinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grant's Drinking. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Diary of Private Daniel L. Ambrose: May 5, 1862

The artillery is coming up all day. Halleck is moving slowly with his grand army. Would that Grant would be permitted to swing it; there would soon be a commotion among these tall pines. The whining and whelping would-be military masters and generals, whose wisdom is distilled out at wholesale in the bar-rooms of Northern hotels, have clamored against Grant, and since the dark days of Shiloh the army of the Tennessee, who bravely stood with him there, has been grieved to know that the government listened to those base, unmitigated lies told about him in reference to his conduct at Shiloh. We see that this contemptible and cowardly bar-room gentry charge our General with being drunk on Sunday at Shiloh. Tell it to the world, but tell it not to the army of the Tennessee. If a General, drunk, can form, amid such confusion, a line so compact, so powerful, so military as was Grant's last line on Sunday evening, would to God that more Generals were made drunk that we might crush out this fratricidal war and hasten the return of peace to a stricken and throbbing people.

 “But mark my word, boys," old U. S. will yet ride these men's wicked opposition, and ere this war is over, this man wearing the old slouch hat, commanding the army before Corinth, will receive orders from General Grant; for with Grant at the head of this grand army, he would stamp armies into the earth, and plant the old flag where the gulf winds blow.

SOURCE: Daniel Leib Ambrose, History of the Seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, p. 68-9

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Major John A. Rawlins to Major-General Ulysses S. Grant, June 6, 1863

Before VicksBURG, Miss., June 6th, 1863, 1 A. M.
DEAR GENERAL:

The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention, what I had hoped never again to do, the subject of your drinking. This may surprise you, for I may be, and trust I am, doing you an injustice by unfounded suspicion, but if in error, it had better be on the side of the country's safety than in fear of offending a friend.

I have heard that Dr. McMillan at General Sherman's a few days ago induced you, notwithstanding your pledge to me, to take a glass of wine, and to-day when I found a box of wine in front of your tent, and proposed to move it, which I did, I was told you had forbid its being taken away, for you intended to keep it until you entered Vicksburg, that you might have it for your friends; and to-night, when you should, because of the condition of your health, if nothing else, have been in bed, I find you where the wine bottle has just been emptied, in company with those who drink and urge you to do likewise; and the lack of your usual promptness and decision, and clearness of expressing yourself in writing, conduces to confirm my suspicion.

You have the full control over your appetite, and can let drinking alone. Had you not pledged me the sincerity of your honor early last March, that you would drink no more during the war, and kept that pledge during your recent campaign, you would not to-day have stood first in the world's history as a successful military leader. Your only salvation depends upon your strict adherence to that pledge. You cannot succeed in any other Way. . . .

As I have before stated, I may be wrong in my suspicions, but if one sees that which leads him to suppose a sentinel is falling asleep on his post, it is his duty to arouse him; and if one sees that which leads him to fear the General commanding a great army is being seduced to that step which he knows will bring disgrace upon that General and defeat upon his command, if he fails to sound the proper note of warning, the friends, wives and children of those brave men whose lives he permits to remain thus in peril, will accuse him while he lives, and stand swift witnesses of wrath against him in the day when all shall be tried.

If my suspicions are unfounded, let my friendship for you and my zeal for my country be my excuse for this letter; and if they are correctly founded, and you determine not to heed the admonitions and prayers of this hasty note, by immediately ceasing to touch a single drop of any kind of liquor, no matter by whom asked or under what circumstances, let my immediate relief from duty in this department be the result. I am, General,

Yours respectfully,
JoHN A. RAwlins.

SOURCE: James Harrison Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 128-9

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Major-General William F. Smith to Senator Solomon Foot, July 30, 1864

College Point, L. I., July 30, 1864.
Hon. S. Foot:

Dear Senator: — I am extremely anxious that my friends in my native State should not think that the reasons of General Grant relieving me from duty was brought about by any misconduct of mine, and, therefore, I write to put you in possession of such facts in the case as I am aware of, and think will throw light upon the subject.

About the very last of June or the first of July, Generals Grant and Butler came to my headquarters and shortly after their arrival, General Grant turned to General Butler, and said: “That drink of whiskey I took has done me good,” and then directly afterwards asked me for a drink. My servant opened a bottle for him and he drank of it, when the bottle was corked up and put away. I was aware at this time that General Grant had within six months pledged himself to drink nothing intoxicating, but did not feel it would better matters to decline to give it upon his request in General Butler's presence.

After the lapse of an hour or less the general asked me for another drink, which he took. Shortly after his voice showed plainly that the liquor had affected him and after a little time he left. I went to see him upon his horse, and as I returned to my tent, I said to a staff officer of mine, who had witnessed his departure: “General Grant has gone away drunk; General Butler has seen it and will never fail to use the weapon which has been put into his hands.” Two or three days after that I applied for a leave of absence for the benefit of my health, and General Grant sent word to me not to go, if it were possible to stay, and I replied, in a private note, warranted by our former relations, a copy of which note I will send you in a few days. The next day the Assistant Secretary of War (Mr. Dana) came to tell me that he had been sent by General Grant to say what it becomes necessary to repeat in view of subsequent events, to wit: That he, General G., had written a letter the day before to ask that General Butler might be relieved from that department July 2, and I placed in command of it, giving as a reason that he could not trust General Butler with the command of troops in the movements about to be made, and saying also that next to General Sherman he had more confidence in my ability than in that of any general in the field. The order1 from Washington dated July 7, sent General B. to Fortress Monroe, and placed me in command of the troops, then under him, and General Grant said he would make the changes necessary to give me the troops in the field belonging to that department. I had only asked that I should not be commanded in battle by a man that could not give an order on the field, and I had recommended General Franklin or General Wright for the command of the department. I was at the headquarters of General Grant on Sunday, July 10, and there saw General B., but had no conversation with him. After General B. had left, I had a confidential conversation with General Grant about changes he was going to make. In this connection it is proper to state that our personal relations were of the most friendly character. He had listened to and acted upon suggestions made by me upon more than one important occasion. I then thought and still think (whatever General Butler's letter writers may say to the contrary) that he knew that any suggestion I might make for his consideration would be dictated solely by an intense desire to put down this Rebellion, and not from any personal considerations personal to myself, and that no personal friendships had stood in the way of what I considered my duty with regard to military management, a course not likely to be pursued by a man ambitious of advancement. In this confidential conversation with General Grant, I tried to show him the blunders of the late campaign of the Army of the Potomac and the terrible waste of life that had resulted from what I considered a want of generalship in its present commander. Among other instances I referred to the fearful slaughter at Cold Harbor, on the 3d of June. General Grant went into the discussion defending General Meade stoutly, but finally acknowledged, to use his own words, “that there had been a butchery at Cold Harbor, but that he had said nothing about it because it could do no good.” Not a word was said as to my right to criticise General Meade then, and I left without a suspicion that General Grant had taken it in any other way than it was meant, and I do not think he did misunderstand me.

On my return from a short leave of absence on the 19th of July, General Grant sent for me, to report to him, and then told me that he “could not relieve General Butler,” and that as I had so severely criticised General Meade he had determined to relieve me from the command of the Eighteenth Corps and order me to New York City to await orders. The next morning the general gave some other reason, such as an article in the Tribune reflecting on General Hancock, which I had nothing in the world to do with, and two letters which I had written before the campaign began to two of General Grant's most devoted friends, urging upon them to try and prevent him from making the campaign he had just made. These letters, sent to General Grant's nearest friends, and intended for his eye, necessarily sprang from an earnest desire to serve the man upon whom the country had been depending, and these warnings ought to have been my highest justification in his opinion and, indeed, would have been, but that it had become necessary to make out a case against me. All these matters, moreover, were known to the general before he asked that I might be put in command of the Department of Virginia and North Carolina, and, therefore, they formed no excuse for relieving me from the command I held. I also submit to you that if it had been proven to him that I was unfitted for the command I then held, that that in no wise changed the case with reference to General Butler and his incompetency, and did not furnish a reason why he should not go where the President had ordered him at the request of General Grant, and that as General Grant did immediately after an interview with General Butler suspend the order and announce his intention of relieving me from duty there, other reasons must be sought, different from any assigned, for this sudden change of views and action. Since I have been in New York, I have heard from two different sources (one being from General Grant's headquarters and one a staff officer of a general on intimate official relations with General Butler) that General Butler went to General Grant and threatened to expose his intoxication if the order was not revoked. I also learned that General Butler had threatened to make public something that would prevent the President's re-election. General Grant told me (when I asked him about General Butler's threat of crushing me) that he had heard that General Butler had made some threat with reference to the Chicago convention, which he (Butler) said “he had in his breeches pocket,” but General Grant was not clear in expressing what the threat was. I refer to this simply because I feel convinced that the change was not made for any of the reasons that have been assigned, and whether General Butler has threatened General Grant with his opposition to Mr. Lincoln at the coming election, or has appealed to any political aspirations which General Grant may entertain, I do not know, but one thing is certain, I was not guilty of any acts of insubordination between my appointment and my suspension, for I was absent all those days on leave of absence from General Grant. I only hope this long story will not tire you, and that it will convince you that I have done nothing to deserve a loss of the confidence which was reposed in me.

Yours very truly,
Wm. F. Smith,            
Major-General.

P. S. I have not referred to the state of things existing at headquarters when I left, and to the fact that General Grant was then in the habit of getting liquor in a surreptitious manner, because it was not relevant to my case; but if you think at any time the matter may be of importance to the country I will give it to you. Should you wish to write to me, please address care of S. E. Lyon, Jauncy Court, 39 Wall Street, N. Y.

Wm. F. S.
_______________

1 This order was approved by the President in General Order No. 36, adjutant-general’s office, July 28, 1864.

SOURCE: Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benj. F. Butler, p. 1088-90

Sunday, June 28, 2020

Brigadier-General John A. Rawlins, July 28, 1864

City Point, July 28, 1864.

. . . On my return yesterday from Washington I touched at Cherry Stone Point and there received your despatch, for which accept my thanks. . I find the General in my absence digressed from his true path. The God of Heaven only knows how long I am to serve my country as the guardian of the habits of him whom it has honored. It shall not be always thus. Owing to this faltering of his, I shall not be able to leave here till the rebel movement in Maryland is settled and also the fate of Atlanta.

SOURCE: James Harrison Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 249

Brigadier-General John A. Rawlins, July 28, 1864 [Later.]

City Point, July 28, 1864.

. . . Matters are now such that it is impossible for me to leave here at present. Active operations have commenced, which with the fact of the General's forgetting himself, in that one danger of which I wrote you this morning, renders my being here of an importance that you can appreciate as fully as any person living, although it deprives you of an immediate visit from me, a visit which my health demands . . .

Since writing the foregoing I have had a long talk with the General and Colonel Bowers, and they conclude I had better go as early as the first of next month, and I have thought, all things considered, I can perhaps as well be spared by that time as at any time thereafter. So you may begin to look for me about next Wednesday if I have no delays. . . .

SOURCE: James Harrison Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 249

Monday, March 2, 2020

Captain John A. Rawlins to Congressman Elihu B. Washburne, December 30, 1861

Headquarters, District of Cairo,        
December 30, 1861.
DEAR WASHBURNE:

Yours of the 21st is at hand. I was no less astounded at the contents of your note than you must have been at the information reported to you.

I thank you for the confidence manifested by you in the frank manner of your inquiry. I feel that you of all other men had the right, as you would feel it your duty, to investigate the charge. I know how much you have done for General Grant and how jealous you are of his good name, and assure you it is appreciated not only by General Grant but by all his friends.

I will answer your inquiry fully and frankly, but first I would say unequivocally and emphatically that the statement that General Grant is drinking very hard is utterly untrue and could have originated only in malice.

When I came to Cairo, General Grant was as he is to-day, a strictly total abstinence man, and I have been informed by those who knew him well, that such has been his habit for the last five or six years.

A few days after I came here a gentleman made him a present of a box of champagne. On one or two occasions he drank a glass of this with his friends, but on neither occasion did he drink enough to in any manner affect him. About this time General Grant was somewhat dyspeptic and his physician advised him to drink two glasses of ale or beer a day. He followed this prescription for about one or two weeks (never exceeding the two glasses per day) and then being satisfied it did him no good, he resumed his total abstinence habits, until some three or four weeks after the Battle of Belmont, while he was rooming at the St. Charles Hotel, Colonel Taylor of Chicago, Mr. Dubois, Auditor of State, and other friends, were visiting Cairo, and he was induced out of compliment to them to drink with them on several occasions but in no instance did he drink enough to manifest it to any one who did not see him drink. About this time Mr. Osborne, President of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, our mutual friend J. M. Douglas, and several of their friends made a visit to Cairo, and gave a dinner (or lunch) on the cars, to which the General and I were invited with others; champagne was part of the fare. Sitting near the General I noticed that he did not drink more than half a glass. The fact of his drinking at all was remarked simply because of his usual total abstinence.

But no man can say that at any time since I have been with him has he drunk liquor enough to in the slightest unfit him for business, or make it manifest in his words or actions. At the time I have referred to, continuing probably a week or ten days, he may have taken an occasional drink with those gentlemen and others visiting Cairo at that time, but never in a single instance to excess, and at the end of that period he voluntarily stated he should not during the continuance of the war again taste liquor of any kind, and for the past three or four weeks, though to my knowledge frequently importuned on visits of friends, he has not tasted any kind of liquor. Ever since I have been with General Grant he has sent his reports in his own handwriting to Saint Louis, daily when there was matter to report, and never less than three times a week, and during the period above referred to he did not at all relax this habit.

If there is any man in the service who has discharged his duties faithfully and fearlessly, who has ever been at his post and guarded the interest confided to him with the utmost vigilance, General Grant has done it. Not only his reports, but all his orders of an important character are written by himself, and I venture here the statement there is not an officer in the Army who discharges the duties of his command so nearly without the intervention of aides, or assistants, as does General Grant.

Some ten or twelve days ago an article was published in the Chicago Tribune, charging frauds on the Quartermaster's Department here, in the purchase of lumber at Chicago. General Grant immediately sent Captain W. S. Hillyer, a member of his staff, to Chicago, with instructions to thoroughly investigate and report the facts. That report and a large mass of testimony substantiating the charge had been forwarded to St. Louis when orders came from Washington to investigate the charge. The investigation had already been made. Thus time and again has he been able to send back the same answer when orders were received from St. Louis in reference to the affairs of this District.

I am satisfied from the confidence and consideration you have manifested in me that my statement is sufficient for you, but should the subject be mooted by other parties, you can refer them to Colonel J. D. Webster, of the 1st Illinois Artillery, General Grant's Chief of Staff, who is well known in Chicago as a man of unquestionable habits. He has been counsellor of the General through this campaign, was with him at and all through the Battle of Belmont, has seen him daily and has had every opportunity to know his habits. I would further refer them to General Van Renssalaer, who was specially sent to inspect the troops and investigate the condition of the District by Major General McClellan, and Generals Sturgiss and Sweeny, who were sent here by Major General Halleck for the same purpose. These gentlemen after a full and thorough investigation returned to St. Louis some two weeks ago. I know not what report they made; but this I do know, that a few days after their return an order arrived from St. Louis creating the District of Cairo, a District including Southeast Missouri, Southern Illinois, and all of Kentucky west of the Cumberland, a District nearly twice as large as General Grant's former command. I would refer them to Flag Officer A. H. Foote of the U. S. Mississippi Naval Fleet, a man whose actions and judgments are regulated by the strictest New England standard, a strict and faithful member of the Congregational Church who for months has had personal as well as official intercourse with the General.

If you could look into General Grant's countenance at this moment you would want no other assurance of his sobriety. He is in perfect health, and his eye and intellect are as clear and active as can be.

That General Grant has enemies no one could doubt, who knows how much effort he has made to guard against and ferret out frauds in his district, but I do not believe there is a single colonel or brigadier general in his command who does not desire his promotion, or at least to see him the commanding general of a large division of the army, in its advance down the Mississippi when that movement is made.

Some weeks ago one of those irresponsible rumors was set afloat, that General Grant was to be removed from the command of the District, and there was a universal protest expressed against it by both officers and men.

I have one thing more to say, and I have done, this already long letter.

None can feel a greater interest in General Grant than I do; I regard his interest as my interest, all that concerns his reputation concerns me; I love him as a father; I respect him because I have studied him well, and the more I know him the more I respect and love him.

Knowing the truth I am willing to trust my hopes of the future upon his bravery and temperate habits. Have no fears; General Grant by bad habits or conduct will never disgrace himself or you, whom he knows and feels to be his best and warmest friend (whose unexpected kindness toward him he will never forget and hopes some time to be able to repay). But I say to you frankly, and I pledge you my word for it, that should General Grant at any time become an intemperate man or an habitual drunkard, I will notify you immediately, will ask to be removed from duty on his staff (kind as he has been to me), or resign my commission. For while there are times when I would gladly throw the mantle of charity over the faults of friends, at this time and from a man in his position I would rather tear the mantle off and expose the deformity.

Having made a full statement of all the facts within my knowledge, and being in a position to know them all and I trust done justice to the character of him whom you and I are equally interested in,

I remain, your friend,
John A. Rawlins.

SOURCE: James Harrison Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 68-71

Sunday, March 1, 2020

William Bross* to Simon Cameron, December 30, 1861

Tribune Office,
Chicago, Ill., Dec. 30, 1861
Hon. SIMON CAMERON
Sec. of War

Dear Sir

Evidence entirely satisfactory to myself and Associate Editors of the Tribune has become so convincing that Gen U. S. Grant commanding at Cairo is an inebriate, that I deem it my duty to call your attention to the matter. The inclosed anonymous letter would not deserve a moment's attention, were not facts abundant from other sources that what the writer says is true. His treatment to myself refered to in the first paragraph I care nothing about, but I was satisfied that he would not have acted as he did, had he been sober. The names on the second page of the letter may assist you to get at the facts. We think it best to call your attention to this painful matter, rather than to attack Gen. Grant in the Tribune. As you may not know me personally I refer to Dr Chas V. Dyer & His Excellency President Lincoln

Your Obt. Servt.
WM. BROSS

Respectfully referred to the President.
SIMON CAMERON.
War Dept.
January 4, 1861.
_______________

On Jan. 4, 1862, Cameron forwarded the letter to President Abraham Lincoln. The anonymous letter is no longer available, but was once the subject of a newspaper article which quoted excerpts. “Your Mr. Bross who was so badly treated here by General Grant and by Captain Lagow ought not to influence you against others of General Grant's staff officers.” The writer went on to accuse Grant of frequently being too drunk to fill his station and of “being perfectly inebriate under a flag of truce with rebels.” The letter continued: “All these things are facts which the world ought to know. Until we can secure pure men in habits and men without secesh wives with their own little slaves to wait upon them, which is a fact here in this camp with Mrs. Grant, our country is lost.” — Robert Anderson, "A New Lincoln Letter," Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine, Jan. 14, 1962, p. 45.

On Jan. 4, Lincoln endorsed the anonymous letter. “Bross would not knowingly misrepresent. Gen. Grant was appointed chiefly on the recommendation of Hon. E. B. Washburne—Perhaps we should consult him”

On Jan. 6, Cameron added his endorsement. “Respectfully referred to Hon. E. B. Washburne, with the request that he will return these papers to the Dept.”
_______________

* Of the Chicago Tribune.


SOURCES: John Y. Simon, Editor, The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: Volume 4: January 8-March 31, 1862, p. 118-9; Washburne, E. B. E. B. Washburne Papers: Bound volumes, letters received; ; Dec. 6-31, undated. 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mss44651.020/. Image #'s 296, 297, 298.

Friday, October 4, 2019

Major-General Charles F. Smith, March 17, 1862

PITTSBURG, TENN., March 17, 1862

The Public are all astray about Gen. Grant.  His habits (drink) are unexceptionable.  His absence during the engagement to see Flag Officer Foote was explained to the satisfaction of Gen. Halleck, and his going to Nashville was perfectly proper if he thought fit to go.  The reason why both McClellan and Halleck were down upon him was they had no information from him for two weeks, although he always wrote once and sometimes twice or thrice a day, and sent daily reports of the strength of his force.  Why these reports were not received is not known, but the moment Halleck had Grant’s explanation he was restored to command.  Grant is a very modest person.  From old awe of me—he was one of my pupils from 1838 to 1842 (I think)—he dislikes to give me an order, and says I ought to be in his place.  Fancy his surprise when he received no communication from the General for two weeks after the fall of Donelson, and that a telegram of bitterest rebuke!  He showed it to me in utter amazement, wondering at the cause, as well he might.

SOURCE: “Grant and Halleck,” St. Louis Post Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri, Tuesday, August 11, 1885, p. 4

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, July 31, 1863

I met at the President's, and was introduced by him to, Colonel Rawlins of General Grant's staff. He arrived yesterday with the official report of the taking of Vicksburg and capture of Pemberton's army. Was much pleased with him, his frank, intelligent, and interesting description of men and account of army operations. His interview with the President and Cabinet was of nearly two hours' duration, and all, I think, were entertained by him. His honest, unpretending, and unassuming manners pleased me; the absence of pretension, and I may say the unpolished and unrefined deportment, of this earnest and sincere man, patriot, and soldier pleased me more than that of almost any officer whom I have met. He was never at West Point and has had few educational advantages, yet he is a soldier, and has a mind which has served his general and his country well. He is a sincere and earnest friend of Grant, who has evidently sent him here for a purpose.

It was the intention of the President last fall that General McClernand, an old neighbor and friend of his, should have been associated with Admiral Porter in active operations before Vicksburg. It was the expressed and earnest wish of Porter to have a citizen general, and he made it a special point to be relieved from associations with a West-Pointer; all West-Pointers, he said, were egotistical and assuming and never willing to consider and treat naval officers as equals. The President thought the opportunity a good one to bring forward his friend McClernand, in whom he has confidence and who is a volunteer officer of ability, and possesses, moreover, a good deal of political influence in Illinois. Stanton and Halleck entered into his views, for Grant was not a special favorite with either. He had also, like Hooker, the reputation of indulging too freely in whiskey to be always safe and reliable.

Rawlins now comes from Vicksburg with statements in regard to McClernand which show him an impracticable and unfit man, — that he has not been subordinate and intelligent, but has been an embarrassment, and, instead of directing or assisting in, has been really an obstruction to, army movements and operations. In Rawlins's statements there is undoubtedly prejudice, but with such appearance of candor, and earnest and intelligent conviction, that there can be hardly a doubt McClernand is in fault, and Rawlins has been sent here by Grant in order to enlist the President rather than bring dispatches. In this, I think, he has succeeded, though the President feels kindly towards McClernand. Grant evidently hates him, and Rawlins is imbued with the feelings of his chief.

Seward wished me to meet him and the President at the War Department to consider the subject of the immediate occupation of some portion of Texas. My letters of the 9th and 23d ult. and conversation since have awakened attention to the necessity of some decisive action. [These letters follow.]


The European combination, or concerted understanding, against us begins to be developed and appreciated. The use of the Rio Grande to evade the blockade, and the establishment of regular lines of steamers to Matamoras did not disturb some of our people, but certain movements and recent givings-out of the French have alarmed Seward, who says Louis Napoleon is making an effort to get Texas; he therefore urges the immediate occupation of Galveston and also some other point. At the Cabinet meeting to-day, he took Stanton aside and had ten minutes' private conversation with him in a low tone. I was then invited to the conversation and received the above information. I agreed to call as requested at the appointed time, but why this partial, ex-parte, half-and-half way of doing these things? Why are not these matters unfolded to the whole Cabinet? Why a special meeting of only three with General Halleck? It is as important that the Secretary of the Treasury, who is granting clearances from New York to Matamoras and thereby sanctions the illicit trade of the English and French, should be advised if any of us. The question which Mr. Seward raises is political, national, and so important to the whole country that the Administration should be fully advised, but for some reason is restricted. The Secretary of State likes to be exclusive; does not want all the Cabinet in consultation, but is particular himself to attend all meetings. It exhibits early bad training and party management, not good administration.

Soon after two I went to the War Department. Seward, Stanton, and Halleck were there, and the Texas subject was being discussed. Halleck, as usual, was heavy, sluggish, not prepared to express an opinion. Did not know whether General Banks would think it best to move on Mobile or Galveston, and if on Galveston whether he would prefer transportation by water or would take an interior route. Had just written Banks. Wanted his reply. I turned to Seward, and, alluding to his morning conversation, I inquired what a demonstration on Mobile had to do with foreign designs in another section. How far Halleck had been let into a knowledge of measures which were withheld from a majority of the Cabinet I was uninformed, though I doubt not Halleck was more fully posted than myself. Halleck, apprehending the purport of my inquiry, said he mentioned Mobile because there had been some information from Banks concerning operations in that direction before the new question came up. I then asked, if a demonstration was to be made on Texas to protect and guard our western frontier, whether Indianola was not a better point than Galveston. Halleck said he did not know, — had not thought of that. “Where,” said he, “is Indianola? What are its advantages?” I replied, in western Texas, where the people had been more loyal than in eastern Texas. It was much nearer the Rio Grande and the Mexican border, consequently was better situated to check advances from the other side of the Rio Grande; the harbor had deeper water than Galveston; the place was but slightly fortified, was nearer Austin, etc., etc. Halleck was totally ignorant on these matters; knew nothing of Indianola,1 was hardly aware there was such a place; settled down very stolidly; would decide nothing for the present, but must wait to hear from General Banks. The Secretary of State was profoundly deferential to the General-in-Chief, hoped he would hear something from General Banks soon, requested to be immediately informed when word was received; and we withdrew as General Halleck lighted another cigar.

This is a specimen of the management of affairs. A majority of the members of the Cabinet are not permitted to know what is doing. Mr. Seward has something in regard to the schemes and designs of Louis Napoleon; he cannot avoid communicating with the Secretaries of War and the Navy, hence the door is partially open to them. Others are excluded. Great man Halleck is consulted, but is not ready, — has received nothing from others, who he intends shall have the responsibility. Therefore we must wait a few weeks and not improbably lose a favorable opportunity.

The truth is that Halleck, who has been smuggled into position here by Stanton, aided by Pope and General Scott, is unfit for the place. He has some scholastic attainments but is no general. I can pass that judgment upon him, though I do not profess to be a military man. He has failed to acquit himself to advantage as yet, and the country needs other talents to be successful.
______________

1 Indianola, Texas, is no longer to be found on the map. It was situated on the western shore of Matagorda Bay on the site now occupied by Port Lavaca, about 125 miles west-southwest of Galveston, but was destroyed by cyclones in 1885 and 1886.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 386-92

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, May 21, 1863

Had an early call from the President, who brought a communication from Tassara to Seward, complaining of violation of neutral rights by a small pilot-boat, having a gun mounted amidships and believed to be an American vessel, which was annoying Spanish and other neutral vessels off the coast of Cuba. The President expressed doubts whether it was one of our vessels, but I told him I was inclined to believe it was, and that I had last week written Mr. Seward concerning the same craft in answer to Lord Lyons, who complained of outrage on the British schooner Dream, but I had also written Admiral Bailey on the subject. I read my letter to the President. He spoke of an unpleasant rumor concerning Grant, but on canvassing the subject we concluded it must be groundless, originating probably in the fact that he does not retain but has evacuated Jackson, after destroying the enemy's stores.

It is pretty evident that Senator John P. Hale, Chairman of the Naval Committee of the Senate, is occupying his time in the vacation in preparing for an attack on the Navy Department. He has a scheme for a tract of land with many angles, belonging to a friend, which land he has procured from Congress authority for the Secretary to purchase, but the Secretary does not want the land in that shape. It is a “job,” and the object of this special legislative permission to buy, palpable. Hale called on me, and has written me, and I am given to understand, if I do not enter into his scheme, — make this purchase, — I am to encounter continued and persistent opposition from him.

Hale has also sent me a letter of eight closely written pages, full of disinterested, patriotic, and devoted loyalty, protesting against my detailing Commodore Van Brunt to be one of a board on a requisition from the War Department for a naval officer. Van Brunt has committed no wrong, is accused of none, but Hale doesn't like him. I replied in half a page. I will not waste time on a man like Hale.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 307-8

Sunday, June 26, 2016

William Cullen Bryant to John M. Forbes, October 16, 1862

Office Of The Evening Post,
New York, October 16, 1862.

My Dear Sir, — What your friend says of Grant may be the truth, so far as he is acquainted with his history. But I have friends who profess to be acquainted with him, and who declare that he is now a temperate man, and that it is a cruel wrong to speak of him as otherwise. I have in my drawer a batch of written testimonials to that effect. He reformed when he got or was put out of the army, and went into it again with a solemn promise of abstinence. One of my acquaintances has made it his special business to inquire concerning his habits, of the officers who have recently served with him or under him. None of them have seen him drunk, or seen him drink. Their general testimony is that he is a man remarkably insensible to danger, active, and adventurous.

Whether he drinks or not, he is certainly a fighting general, and a successful fighter, which is a great thing in these days.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 335-6

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Diary of Mary Boykin Chesnut: January 1, 1864

General Hood's an awful flatterer— I mean an awkward flatterer. I told him to praise my husband to some one else, not to me. He ought to praise me to somebody who would tell my husband, and then praise my husband to another person who would tell me. Man and wife are too much one person — to wave a compliment straight in the face of one about the other is not graceful.

One more year of Stonewall would have saved us. Chickamauga is the only battle we have gained since Stonewall died, and no results follow as usual. Stonewall was not so much as killed by a Yankee: he was shot by his own men; that is hard. General Lee can do no more than keep back Meade. “One of Meade's armies, you mean,” said I, “for they have only to double on him when Lee whips one of them.”

General Edward Johnston says he got Grant a place —  esprit de corps, you know. He could not bear to see an old army man driving a wagon; that was when he found him out West, put out of the army for habitual drunkenness. He is their right man, a bull-headed Suwarrow. He don't care a snap if men fall like the leaves fall; he fights to win, that chap does. He is not distracted by a thousand side issues; he does not see them. He is narrow and sure — sees only in a straight line. Like Louis Napoleon, from a battle in the gutter, he goes straight up. Yes, as with Lincoln, they have ceased to carp at him as a rough clown, no gentleman, etc. You never hear now of Lincoln's nasty fun; only of his wisdom. Doesn't take much soap and water to wash the hands that the rod of empire sway. They talked of Lincoln’s drunkenness, too. Now, since Vicksburg they have not a word to say against Grant's habits. He has the disagreeable habit of not retreating before irresistible veterans. General Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston show blood and breeding. They are of the Bayard and Philip Sidney order of soldiers. Listen: if General Lee had had Grant's resources, he would have bagged the last Yankee, or have had them all safe back in Massachusetts. “You mean if he had not the weight of the negro question upon him?” “No, I mean if he had Grant's unlimited allowance of the powers of war — men, money, ammunition, arms.”

Mrs. Ould says Mrs. Lincoln found the gardener of the White House so nice, she would make him a major-general. Lincoln remarked to the secretary: “Well, the little woman must have her way sometimes.”

A word of the last night of the old year. “Gloria Mundi” sent me a cup of strong, good coffee. I drank two cups and so I did not sleep a wink. Like a fool I passed my whole life in review, and bitter memories maddened me quite. Then came a happy thought. I mapped out a story of the war. The plot came to hand, for it was true. Johnny is the hero, a light dragoon and heavy swell. I will call it F. F.'s, for it is the F. F.'s both of South Carolina and Virginia. It is to be a war story, and the filling out of the skeleton was the best way to put myself to sleep.

SOURCE: Mary Boykin Chesnut, Edited by Isabella D. Martin and Myrta Lockett Avary, A Diary From Dixie, p. 269-70

Friday, January 30, 2015

Brigadier-General John A. Rawlins to Mary Emeline Hurlburt Rawlins, February 4, 1864

Nashville, February 4, 1864.

. . . General Grant arrived this evening and is in excellent health. His non-arrival last night made me nervous, and you will not be surprised to know that it caused me to break over my resolution not to swear. I feared everything was not as it should be with him, but his appearance has agreeably disappointed me, and for once I have done him injustice in my thoughts. He left Mrs. Grant in St. Louis with Fred, who is slowly recovering, but is a mere skeleton. I have had no talk with him yet about the supper given him at the Lindell House, business being first in order.

To-day I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel McCallum and of assigning him to duty as General Manager of railways in the Military Division and relieving Mr. Anderson, whose inefficiency has paralyzed the operations of this army very considerably, in my opinion. However, I may be wrong. In Colonel McCallum we look for more energy, greater efficiency, and more cordial subordination to the military authorities. In other words, he will work for the interests of the army and feel that he belongs to and is not independent of it, as did Mr. Anderson.

SOURCE: James H. Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 395

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Brigadier-General John A. Rawlins to Mary Emeline Hurlburt Rawlins, January 31, 1864

Nashville, Jan. 31, 1864.

. . . General Grant has not yet returned, but will leave St. Louis in the morning. I see by the papers he was to have a supper given him at the Lindell last night. I'm sorry it is so, for I had hoped he would go there and return without permitting himself to be paraded before the public, but the fact is — you know the General pretty well — he can't say no, and then there is another thing which may do to tell the masses: that is, he dislikes these public ovations. He may appear awkward in the midst of them, but he likes them nevertheless. At least I've yet to know of his declining one. You are fully aware of my fears in all this. I need not state them.

SOURCE: James H. Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, p. 393

Friday, August 22, 2014

Major-General George G. Meade to Margaretta Sergeant Mead, December 20, 1863

Headquarters Army Of The Potomac, December 20, 1863.

As to the Christmas box you ask about, it is hardly necessary to send it, as the Frenchman who messes me provides me liberally with everything, and these boxes are very expensive. I expect you will have your hands full with the children at Christmas, and I think you had better throw into this fund the amount you would expend on me for a box and mufti.

I have had several visitors recently. One was the Chevalier Danesi, a young Sardinian officer, who has come to this country with a view of serving in our army. The other was an English gentleman, from Liverpool, an original Union man, who desired to see our army in the field. Danesi brought me a letter from McClellan, and the Englishman one from Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. They both spent a day very pleasantly, and I endeavored to be civil to them.

I suppose you have seen Greeley's apology about the New Jersey letter. After he found it was written to a loyal Republican, he changed his tune about the character of its contents. I wonder what these people want if they are not satisfied with my services and my practical devotion to their cause?

You ask me about Grant. It is difficult for me to reply. I knew him as a young man in the Mexican war, at which time he was considered a clever young officer, but nothing extraordinary. He was compelled to resign some years before the present war, owing to his irregular habits. I think his great characteristic is indomitable energy and great tenacity of purpose. He certainly has been very successful, and that is nowadays the measure of reputation. The enemy, however, have never had in any of their Western armies either the generals or the troops they have had in Virginia, nor has the country been so favorable for them there as here. Grant has undoubtedly shown very superior abilities, and is I think justly entitled to all the honors they propose to bestow upon him.

SOURCE: George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 2, p. 162-3

Monday, May 26, 2014

Lieutenant-Colonel John Rawlins to Major-General Ulysses S. Grant, June 6, 1863 – 1 a.m.

Before VICKSBURG, MISS., June 6th, 1863, 1 A. M.
DEAR GENERAL:

The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention, what I had hoped never again to do, the subject of your drinking. This may surprise you, for I may be, and trust I am, doing you an injustice by unfounded suspicion, but if in error, it had better be on the side of the country's safety than in fear of offending a friend.

I have heard that Dr. McMillan at General Sherman's a few days ago induced you, notwithstanding your pledge to me, to take a glass of wine, and to-day when I found a box of wine in front of your tent, and proposed to move it, which I did, I was told you had forbid its being taken away, for you intended to keep it until you entered Vicksburg, that you might have it for your friends; and to-night, when you should, because of the condition of your health, if nothing else, have been in bed, I find you where the wine bottle has just been emptied, in company with those who drink and urge you to do likewise; and the lack of your usual promptness and decision, and clearness of expressing yourself in writing, conduces to confirm my suspicion.

You have the full control over your appetite, and can let drinking alone. Had you not pledged me the sincerity of your honor early last March, that you would drink no more during the war, and kept that pledge during your recent campaign, you would not to-day have stood first in the world's history as a successful military leader. Your only salvation depends upon your strict adherence to that pledge. You cannot succeed in any other way. . . .

As I have before stated, I may be wrong in my suspicions, but if one sees that which leads him to suppose a sentinel is falling asleep on his post, it is his duty to arouse him; and if one sees that which leads him to fear the General commanding a great army is being seduced to that step which he knows will bring disgrace upon that General and defeat upon his command, if he fails to sound the proper note of warning, the friends, wives and children of those brave men whose lives he permits to remain thus in peril, will accuse him while he lives, and stand swift witnesses of wrath against him in the day when all shall be tried.

If my suspicions are unfounded, let my friendship for you and my zeal for my country be my excuse for this letter; and if they are correctly founded, and you determine not to heed the admonitions and prayers of this hasty note, by immediately ceasing to touch a single drop of any kind of liquor, no matter by whom asked or under what circumstances, let my immediate relief from duty in this department be the result. I am, General,

Yours respectfully,
JOHN A. RAWLINS.

SOURCES: James Harrison Wilson, The life of John A. Rawlins, p. 128-9; John Y. Simon, Editor, The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 8, p. 322-3

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Major General William T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing Sherman, June 6, 1862

Camp at Chewalla, 10 miles N. West of Corinth
 daylight, June 6, 1862.

. . . I get nearly all or all the papers here somehow or other, and have seen most of the pieces you have clipped out, but I had not seen that of your father from the Louisville Journal signed E. It is sufficiently complimentary, more so than I merit, from such a high source, and the illustration of the fable of the warrior's fight with the mud turtles is very strong and like your father. I will get even with the miserable class of corrupt editors yet. They are the chief cause of this unhappy war. They fan the flames of local hatred and keep alive those prejudices which have forced friends into opposing hostile ranks. At the North and South each radical class keeps its votaries filled with the most outrageous lies of the other. In the North the people have been made to believe that those of the South are horrid barbarians, unworthy a Christian burial, whilst at the South the people have been made to believe that we wanted to steal their negroes, rob them of their property, pollute their families, and to reduce the whites below the level of their own negroes. Worse than this at the North, no sooner does an officer rise from the common level, but some rival uses the press to malign him, destroy his usefulness, and pull him back to obscurity or infamy. Thus it was with me, and now they have nearly succeeded with Grant. He is as brave as any man should be, he has won several victories such as Donelson which ought to entitle him to universal praise, but his rivals have almost succeeded through the instrumentality of the press in pulling him down, and many thousands of families will be taught to look to him as the cause of the death of their fathers, husbands and brothers.

The very object of war is to produce results by death and slaughter, but the moment a battle occurs the newspapers make the leader responsible for the death and misery, whether of victory or defeat. If this be pushed much further officers of modesty and merit will keep away, will draw back into obscurity and leave our armies to be led by fools or rash men, such as _____.  Grant had made up his mind to go home, I tried to dissuade him, but so fixed was he in his purpose that I thought his mind was made up and asked for his escort a company of 4th Illinois. But last night I got a note from him saying he would stay.1 His case is a good illustration of my meaning.

He is not a brilliant man and has, himself, thoughtlessly used the press to give him éclat in Illinois, but he is a good and brave soldier, tried for years; is sober, very industrious and as kind as a child. Yet he has been held up as careless, criminal, a drunkard, tyrant and everything horrible. Very many of our officers, knowing how powerful is public opinion in our government have kept newspaper correspondents near their persons to praise them in their country papers; but so intense is public curiosity that several times flattery designed for one county has reached others, and been published to the world, making their little heroes big fools. It had become so bad — and the evil is not yet eradicated —  that no sooner was a battle fought than every colonel and captain was the hero of the fight. Thus at Shiloh, for a month, all through Illinois and Missouri a newspaper reader would have supposed McClernand and Lew Wallace were away ahead of my division, whereas the former was directly behind me, and the other at Crump's Landing. Again, at Corinth you will hear of five hundred first men inside the works. Let them scramble for the dead lion's paw. It is a barren honor not worth contending for. If these examples and a few more will convince the real substantial men of our country that the press is not even an honest exponent of the claims of men pretending to serve their country, but the base means of building up spurious fame and pulling down honest merit, I feel that I have my full reward in being one of the first to see it and suffer the consequences. . . .
__________


SOURCES: M. A. DeWolfe Howe, Editor, Home Letters of General Sherman, p. 226-9.  A full copy of this letter can be found in the William T Sherman Family papers (SHR), University of Notre Dame Archives (UNDA), Notre Dame, IN 46556, Folder CSHR 1/146.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

St. Louis Correspondence

ST. LOUIS, May 2, 1862.

ALFRED SANDERS, Esq. – Dear Sir:  Reading in the Weekly Gazette of yesterday your editorial on Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant, I am induced to add a word.  I knew Gen. Grant in 1858, was a collector of house rents in this city.  He was then strictly temperate, but of inactive habits.  For coolness and perfect equanimity he is justly noted.  All West Pointers pride themselves on those qualities.  But one who estimates the General with impartial eyes will accord him the possession of even the qualities for “a third rate” commander.  Aside from habits of intemperance which have resumed their sway after an interregnum of some years, the battles of Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson and Pittsburg Landing have fully tested him.  And curious it is, and sad as curious, to note how the successful results of those fights, so far as successful, have been passed to his credit at Washington.

At Belmont, his utter neglect to protect his rear, and to station a few field pieces to prevent the enemy from crossing, led to a terrible reverse and slaughter of the best of troops, and the Iowa boys poured out their blood like water, in vain.

At Fort Henry Grant was to co-operate with Com. Foote, but failed to get his forces to the rear of the fort for four hours after the surrender.  The rebel infantry instead of being bagged, as they might, had abundant time to “skedaddle,” which they did effectually.

At Fort Donelson he was off the field during all the important part of that bloody Saturday.  His friends say he was conferring with Com. Foote; others say he was intoxicated, but his admirers are compelled to admit that he went to confer with Foote at two or three o’clock Saturday morning, a distance of four or five miles, and did not return to the field till late in the day, when the fortunes of the day had been turned by that advance which, the N. Y. Herald says, was ordered by Capt. Hillyer, of the staff – a mere civilian – on his own responsibility.  Gen. Grant’s ablest advocate says the roads were in such condition he could not return in time – four miles!

Yet, before the facts of the affair at Fort Donelson where known, except the surrender, the President nominates Grant a Major General!  Wittily, though, profanely, has it been said Providence ought to be made a Major General, for it had given us two victories for which Grant got the credit!

But the climax of incompetency – criminal incompetency – was yet wanting.  It was attained at Pittsburg Landing.  Against orders he placed his forces on the west side of the river, on the plea that no good position could be found on the other side, and against all rule he placed the rawest troops of his command in front, under command of Prentiss, a notoriously inefficient officer.  This, too, in the face of an active enemy, distant, at the farthest, only 18 miles.  Add to this that no pickets were kept out at any proper distance, and what more could Beauregard have asked for?

The attempt has been made to show that Prentiss, alone, had no pickets out, but this is disproved by the universal testimony that all the brigades were alike surprised.  None of them had any notice of the enemy’s advance.

I have the information from a rebel surgeon, who was in the advance of the rebel army, that on the Saturday evening before the attack of Sunday morning, he, from his position, saw within his glass the evening parade of one of our regiments, and heard the drums and usual noises of the camp.  He further says that the rebel advance was in readiness to begin the attack on Saturday, but did not, because the reserve were not in supporting distance.  This surgeon is known here by union men as a gentleman, and one who entered the rebel army merely for the purposes of professional advancement, and not for love of the cause.  He has no motive for falsehood, and is corroborated by his fellow prisoners.

Thus the army was surprised and the thousands slaughtered, for whom tears are flowing through half a continent.  It was in Halleck’s fitly chosen phrase, “the heroic endurance” of the troops on Sunday, which saved them from annihilation, that their fresh reinforcements of Monday, that rolled back, but did not rout, their enemies, already weary with slaughter.

Again, before the facts were known, Gen. Grant was officially commended by Mr. Secretary Stanton, who seems to have felt that as somebody had been hurt, somebody deserved praise, and so he caught upon the readiest name and praised it.

I am happy to say that no newspaper of this city has dared, editorially, so far as I know, to say one word in favor or exculpation of Gen. Grant on the field of Shiloh, beyond testimony to his personal bravery.  But enough of General Grant.  The country has had too much of him.  His advancement has been in the teeth of his unfitness, and demerits; his successes have been in spite of disgraceful blunders; let us hope that hereafter, Providence will give us greater victories with good generalship, than those which have been won without it.

General Halleck is in the field now, and his sleepless vigilance, instructed by the late battle, will not permit a second surprise.

The Lion of St. Louis just now is Colonel Jennison, sent here in close confinement by a drunken pro-slavery General of doubtful loyalty, and unachieved promotion.  I refer to Gen. Sturgis, who, after a winter spent at the bar of King’s saloon, alternating between treasonable talk to rebels, and swallowing brandy smashes, now has signalized himself by the attempted disgrace of the peerless foe of Border Ruffians, and bushwhacking secessionists.

Nothing has so stirred up St. Louis for a long time.  The rebels, open and concealed, rejoiced greatly to know that the noted Jayhawker was here in durance vile.  The Republican fairly shrieked for joy.  It counseled indictments, and I know not what treatment.  Here was a noted enemy powerless, and with true rebel cruelty to cowardice, the Republican began to trample on him.  The Union sentiment of the city stoutly demanded that Col. Jennison be allowed his parole, as well as the rebels who parade our streets.  It was soon granted.  The Republican at once softened its tone. – Soon came permission to Col. Jennison to report himself on his parole only by letter; the Republican is mute.  The morning, its last crumb of comfort is in the apologetic card of the cowardly Sturgis, who cowering under the storm of public indignation, now seeks to evade the responsibility of Jennison’s arrest, by showing that he had instigators to do a deed for which he has yet dared to state no reason, and prefer no charges.

Jennison takes matters coolly.  He is a wiry young man, with a keen eye, and a lip of iron; but of gentle manners, and such pleasant address that Gen. Sturgis wrote to the Provost Marshal General, to warn him of the “seductive manners” of his victim!

Jennison has spoken twice in the city.  Many Union men are prejudiced against him, and many fear to be identified with him on account of his fearless avowal that he is a “real fighting abolitionist.”  The Germans regard him highly.  Anti-slavery in their opinions before the rebellion, they are now abolitionists.  Jennison makes war after the fashion of their own hearts.  He says that “rebels have no rights which loyal men are bound to respect.”  No wonder the abused and vilified Germans admire him.

Right or wrong, Jennison has been shamefully treated.  If I mistake not, the country will see him righted.  It will not tolerate the conduct of Sturgis and Denver, and there is reason to suppose they will shortly be relieved of any responsibility for such warriors as Jennison and Montgomery.

Over the capture of New Orleans there is great rejoicing, for vast interests here depend on the resumption of commerce with that city, which must soon happen unless Farragut fails to follow up his success with energy, and does not send his gunboats to co-operate with Foote on Memphis.

The weather is excellent, and reports this morning from below indicate that Halleck is taking advantage of it, and will soon, if not now, be upon Corinth.

Yesterday regiment after regiment of infantry and cavalry moved through our streets, on their way to the transports in waiting to take them, as we suppose, to Pittsburg Landing.  Whence do so many come? is the current inquiry.

Business has revived to some extent, but still suffers.  It cannot prosper till the river is opened to New Orleans, to afford an outlet for our pork and grain.

Rents are rising, and real estate is also on the ascendant.

I hope to soon give you some items relative to the emancipation movement here, but lack time and space to-day.

Yours truly.
E.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Wednesday Morning, May 7, 1862, p. 2