Among the many mysteries that attend the progress of the war, and for the explanation of which the inquisitive mind will be obliged to wait until peace is restored and investigation places on the historic roll of fame or infamy the names of those Generals who have participated in the struggle, none are more inexplicable than those that hang over the head of Gen. U. S. Grant. Whether the “powers that be” design it or not, fate seems determined that in every important engagement in the west this General shall have the command, and although each time our forces achieve victory under the most disadvantageous circumstances, yet such culpable carelessness seems to be manifested by the officer in command that with each battle a storm of censure is hurled at Gen. Grant, that it would seem as though it were impossible for any man to withstand the popular indignation.
At Fort Donelson his conduct was such that a general feeling of distrust in his abilities as a commanding officer was aroused, and it was thought that if not immediately degraded, at least no important position would again be assigned him. The public felt he was to blame – for what, they could not exactly tell. Our troops had achieved a glorious victory, they had stormed the enemy in his strongly intrenched position and taken him prisoner. But much blood had been shed, and the people felt that had the enemy with the least show of his boasted chivalry, turned like a lion at bay, he could have repulsed our brave boys and slaughtered them where they stood. Providence was with us and tipped the scale, that hung so evenly balanced on our side, and we conquered. In the glory of the victory the faults of the commanding General were over looked, and he was retained in his position.
At Pittsburg – not three weeks ago and it seems to us we have almost grown old in the interim – notwithstanding his knowledge that the enemy was in force in the immediate vicinity, that its commander was a bold, dashing Frenchman, who believed with his illustrious, or notorious, countryman, Napoleon, in offensive warfare, and although actually warned of his approach, yet it is said Gen. Grant lay upon his arms making no preparations to receive him. The terrible slaughter that followed the unexpected appearance of a well-drilled, well-armed, whisky-excited enemy in their midst, is already a matter of history. Not only the public, who from their stand-point scanned the whole field of battle, but the soldiers who participated in the bloody engagement, saw that great blame rested upon some one and none doubted that the commanding officer would be held responsible for the unnecessary loss of live. Every letter that comes from the scene of blood censures Gen. Grant for the first day’s carnage. Upon him rested the responsibility, by his own negligence he brought upon us this slaughter of our brave troops, hold him accountable for it; such is the burthen of each letter that reaches us. Not one line had we seen in his defence, and, coinciding with the public, we thought he would at once be degraded.
Yesterday came the first ripple of returning confidence. “I have it from excellent authority,” says the correspondent of the Chicago Times, “that every charge against Gen. Grant, will be shown to be groundless, and that facts not generally known, tend to exculpate him from any blame whatever.” We admit the authority is poor, miserable, being nothing more than the correspondence of a paper that for its secession proclivities is a disgrace to the city whose name it bears, still it shows which way the current sets.
That Gen. Grant is brave almost to rashness on the battle field, that his ability to command a regiment cannot be surpassed, we believe; but that he possesses the requisite strategy to constitute him a third-rate commander, we have yet to be convinced. If Gen. Grant is not to blame in this instance then his hands were tied by a superior officer, and he must be held responsible for the utter want of capacity exhibited in permitting the unpardonable surprise at Pittsburg. The mystery of this General’s conduct and the apparent leniency shown him, will not, however be solved until the close of the war, then the public mind will be relieved in respect to this and a thousand other seemingly inexplicable circumstances that now disturb it.
– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport Iowa, Friday Morning, April 25, 1862, p. 2
At Fort Donelson his conduct was such that a general feeling of distrust in his abilities as a commanding officer was aroused, and it was thought that if not immediately degraded, at least no important position would again be assigned him. The public felt he was to blame – for what, they could not exactly tell. Our troops had achieved a glorious victory, they had stormed the enemy in his strongly intrenched position and taken him prisoner. But much blood had been shed, and the people felt that had the enemy with the least show of his boasted chivalry, turned like a lion at bay, he could have repulsed our brave boys and slaughtered them where they stood. Providence was with us and tipped the scale, that hung so evenly balanced on our side, and we conquered. In the glory of the victory the faults of the commanding General were over looked, and he was retained in his position.
At Pittsburg – not three weeks ago and it seems to us we have almost grown old in the interim – notwithstanding his knowledge that the enemy was in force in the immediate vicinity, that its commander was a bold, dashing Frenchman, who believed with his illustrious, or notorious, countryman, Napoleon, in offensive warfare, and although actually warned of his approach, yet it is said Gen. Grant lay upon his arms making no preparations to receive him. The terrible slaughter that followed the unexpected appearance of a well-drilled, well-armed, whisky-excited enemy in their midst, is already a matter of history. Not only the public, who from their stand-point scanned the whole field of battle, but the soldiers who participated in the bloody engagement, saw that great blame rested upon some one and none doubted that the commanding officer would be held responsible for the unnecessary loss of live. Every letter that comes from the scene of blood censures Gen. Grant for the first day’s carnage. Upon him rested the responsibility, by his own negligence he brought upon us this slaughter of our brave troops, hold him accountable for it; such is the burthen of each letter that reaches us. Not one line had we seen in his defence, and, coinciding with the public, we thought he would at once be degraded.
Yesterday came the first ripple of returning confidence. “I have it from excellent authority,” says the correspondent of the Chicago Times, “that every charge against Gen. Grant, will be shown to be groundless, and that facts not generally known, tend to exculpate him from any blame whatever.” We admit the authority is poor, miserable, being nothing more than the correspondence of a paper that for its secession proclivities is a disgrace to the city whose name it bears, still it shows which way the current sets.
That Gen. Grant is brave almost to rashness on the battle field, that his ability to command a regiment cannot be surpassed, we believe; but that he possesses the requisite strategy to constitute him a third-rate commander, we have yet to be convinced. If Gen. Grant is not to blame in this instance then his hands were tied by a superior officer, and he must be held responsible for the utter want of capacity exhibited in permitting the unpardonable surprise at Pittsburg. The mystery of this General’s conduct and the apparent leniency shown him, will not, however be solved until the close of the war, then the public mind will be relieved in respect to this and a thousand other seemingly inexplicable circumstances that now disturb it.
– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport Iowa, Friday Morning, April 25, 1862, p. 2
No comments:
Post a Comment