Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1875-06-01
GENERAL sn EnMAN.s MEMOIRS.

GENERAL sH GERMANS MEMOIRS.
The publication of General Sher-
mans Memoirs has kicked up quite
a umpus in military circles. We nave
not seer the book, but the telegraph
on several occasions OF late has stated
thatthe demand for it was so greatthat
extra editions would have to be print
ed Immediately. An article in a lead
ing Eastern exchange furnishes some
idea of its contents. One fact is stated
which promises to cause the widest
range of discussion. General Sher-
man plainly says that the march
+" from Atlanta to the Sea-" conceded
by foreign critics to he the most bril-
liant achievement of the war, was his
own act, and that he has been denied
this honor by the friends of Presl-
dent Grant. General Badeau and
Charles A. Dana have both written
histories of Grants military exploits
and both have the Endorsement OF the
President himself that their publ.ca-
lions are faithful and substantially cor
rect. In one part of his book, Mr..
Dana, abiding to a certain period of
the war, says:
at was about this time that the idea
Of severing the rebel territory again t,y
conducting q campaign from Chatta-
nooga to the seacoast first presented
itself to his (Grant's) mind" y : =
y y g 1.-The Atlanta campaign and
the march to the sea" and "Sher-
mans grand holiday excursion and
picnic party through the Carolinas,
again severing the Southern territory,
isolating and scattering its armies,
breaking its communications and eat
ing out the vitals of the Coniederacy,"
:. bear ample testi .nony not only to
the grandeur OF Grants conceptions,
but to the heroic and unshakable, res
olution with which he carried them
into effect"
Now what is the truth? The issue
could not be more clearly joined than
upon this one point. Did Gen. Sher-
man plan the march to the sea? Gen.
Badeau and Mr.. Dana-the one Grants
private secretary, the other Assistant
Secretary of War-attribute the glory
of it to Grant. Gen. Sherman con-
tends that it belongs to himself alone.
Certainly, in the interest OF history
there could be no more important
question submitted to the discussion
of the public. Whatever harm may
result in the controversy the solemn
interests of truth will be served in the
end.
More than this, there are questions
affecting the fame and ability of other
commanders which Gen. Sherman dis
cusses. He criticises Hooker, Me-
Clernand, Mcclellan, Rosecrans, Lo-
gan, Blair, Mcpherson, Palmer, and
others. To some, like Howard, Scho-
field, Slocum, and Thomas, he awards
praise; to others censure. Many OF
these officers still live. They can
write, or they have friends who can.
Naturally, those who are censured
complain; but how much better to
answer the assaults now than to have
them made when reply is impossible!
Gen. Sherman invites as free criticism
as he bestows. The trouble with mil
tary men is that We are apt to allow
their glory to hide their faults, to look
at them as though wrapped in glamour;
as mysterious, supernatural beings,
above envy or reproach or question.
1t is something for MS to see that
they are mere men after all, and that
under the uniform there is as much
envy, passion, ambition, love OF praise
and dislike of censure as under the
civilian who knows no more Of battle
than a spinster. The best interests of
the country will be served by the con-
troversy, and all we have to say is, let
there be a wide, open field and fair
play, and may the truth win.