The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-19

have produced profound impression In WASH
ington. 1.-The feeling among many army and
navy officers, he says, sis intense against
the General Of the Army, and thousand
pens viii leap to the defence Of the principal
characters who have been so harshly criti-
cised. The complaints will lot be confined
alone to army circles; and, should the re-
marks anticipated about the navy appear in
/ the forthcoming work, there will be broad
sides to give as well as to receive. ''Ihe
4 severest censure, continues our correspond
ent, ''the book has yet received has been from
4 the old army officers who served with General
sherman in his Western campaign, and who
we're in his confidence in the most important
movements Our correspondent further
says that the friends of General Grant are
urging him to prepare material for his
memoirs of the war. His experience, he
adds, "has been more varied than that of
General Sherman, and advantages for col
lating facts and arranging them are offered
the President which General Sherman did
not enjoy" So, altogether, we are on the eve
of an interesting and lively discussion.
Before we drift too far into this debate let
us see what the situation really is. General
Sherman publishes his Memoirs in two vol
umes, giving graphic, brilliant and complete
history of his connection with the war. In
this work for the first time he enables the
country to measure his exact status as gen.
eral In doing so he follows the example of
the greatest commanders, of Caesar, Frede-
rick, Napoleon and Scott. In speaking of
generals who served with him he uses O
frankness which is censured, but we think un-
Justly. General Sherman has as much right
ing as any other critic. Napoleon did not
hesitate TO do the same even during the life
time Of his associates Murat, Napoleon said,
was man OF extraordinary courage and
little intelligence" zone who remained cour-
ageous and nothing more" who deserted his
cause with unfeeling brutality and ran with
''unblushing baseness TO hail the new dy-
nasty" Ney was 1.-THE bravest Of the brave
and nothing more" who sacrificed his honor
in his defence at his trial. Bernadotte was
''swayed by personal considerations and silly
vanity and all sorts of mean passions.
Angereau was a bravo. Junot a spend
thrift and boor. Jerome Bonaparte was Of
''boundless extravaganza and most odious
libertinism." Berthier was a goose, who i'm
agined himself an eagle, while Wellington
was a man whose "faults were enormous
and whose glory was wholly negative" So
! that General Shermans criticism on his as
sociates in the war are by no means as sharp
or comprehensive as Napoleon's. Sherman
expressly says thai he does not care
to write anything that will bring annoyance
10 many of those who were actors in the war
and who are still living. AS to whether his
Judgment OF the different generals is right or
wrong we, of course, cannot say. That is
matter of history and Of discussion. But why
there should be so much indignation in
Washington at the publication OF o frank,
manly statement OF the part taken by an illus
trious general in a great campaign is sur
prisinc. The only question to be considered
/ is, docs General Sherman tell the truth ?"
| TT Sc then he can stand the criticisms upon
| his work.
Clearly enough General Sherman is justi-
fed in writing this memoir. He shows that
the admirers and the friends of President
Grant have steadily fostered the idea that to
the President must be attributed the credit of
the march to the sea, which is universally
conceded to have been the most brilliant
achievement OF the war. Some of the admin
istration journals now say that there was no
justification for this feeling on General Sher-
mans part that the President himself never
has claimed the credit of the achievement of
any other officer. General Sherman has
another opinion in his book. His exact
words are :-''General Grant has never, IN
my opinion, thought so or said so''-namely,
that he planned the march TO the sea. And,
as nc have al along contended, General Sher-
man il justified 10 feeling that an attempt
has been made to take from hum
the credit Of his illustrious achieve
meni. General Badeau, whose life Of
General Grant Is, if anything, official,
and who writes with clcarness and eloquence
aud the fullest information on the subject, says
expressly that General Grant frequently ex-
planned to bis staff. Of which General Badeau
was a member, his plan for fighting his way
10 Atlanta and then cutting loose with the
army for either Mobile or Savannah. Further,
according to General Bedeau, when General
/ Grant left the armies Of the West for Wash
ington 70 take command as Lieutenant Gene
raj. 1T was his firm intention to return to
Chattanooga. and. while he retained control
Of all the armies, to lead in person those
which moved toward the sea-" This is clear
explicit statement, and from The Presidents
chosen and cherished historian. In the preface
TO his work General Badeau says, in order that
his evidence may have the utmost value, that
he was a member Of General Grants staff be-
fore the President assumed command Of the
armies, that be remained with him until the
end Of the war. II have not, says the Cen
L..