National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-10-30
soME PAGES OF HISTORY.

a. v Boynton, Washington Correspondent Of
the Cincinnati Gazette. Cincinnati: Wilstsch,
Baldwin Co.; 1875.
While it is safe to say that no work has been
issued from the American press since the war
of more interest to the general reader and of
less value to the historian than the "Memoirs
of General Sherman" it is equally safe to
assert that in the same time no book has been
issued more interesting to the military student
and of more value to the historian than the
volume beforeus. Ifwewere to judge by their
books, General Sherman and General Boynton
have, "for this occasion only" exchanged
places. The former appears as a lively, spark
ling rdeontetrr, and the latter as a calm, severe
military critic and historian. Neither is per-
feet in his character. General Boynton points
out many of the faults and errors of the ''Me-
moirs, " but is apparently oblivious of the fact
that he is himself liable to the same criticism
that he makes on General Sherman, and is in
danger of doing injustice to the good qualities
and really distinguished services Of the author
of the 'sMemoirs" in his haste to right those
whom he conceives General Sherman has
wronged. General Boynton shows how COM
pletely our army was surprised at Shiloh, and
who is mainly responsible therefor, but he
fails to tell how valiantly and almost success
fully General Sherman fought to retrieve his
blunder and avert disaster. The author also
appears to attribute to General Sherman a
deliberate design to maliciously belittle the
achievements of others, when it is apparent that
vanity and not malice has inspired
THE GENERAL OF THE ARMY
to conceal or condemn what others have done
in order that he may exaggerate his own i'm
portance and achievements. General Boynton
appears also to have gone outside of his text
to bring in the record in reference to the con-
templated removal of General Thomas from
command at Nashville. Interesting and val
liable as this chapter is, we really think that
there is nothing in the "Memoirs" thatcalls for
publication of this record at the present time
and in this connection.
The object of the volume is stated by the
author to be TO show "wherein the Memoirs
ofGeneral Sherman fall far short of presenting
the correct history of many of the great events
of which they treat; how much they lack of
giving a complete account of incidents which
they relate; how far the authors recollection,
even when corrected by his own memoranda,
is at fault, and to furnish the future historian
with facts which will guard him against per-
petuating the error and the injustice which
pcrvades both volumes of the work." He
disclaims any idea of criticising General Sher-
man except so far as the official records pre-
scented furnish such criticism.
The second chapter of the book is entitled
efforts Henry and Donelson-the credit which
Sherman denies to Grant" In it the author
quotes General Sherman's account of the way
" Cullum or p advised General Halleck to
break the rebel line s'near the centre;" how
Halleck conceded, and how, subsequently,
General Grant, who was under General Hal
ieck's orders, made the movement advised by
"Cullum or u against the centre, capturing
Forts Henry and Donelson, adding: " have
ALWAYS given General Halleck the full credit
for that movement, which was skillful, sue
cessful and extremely rich in military results"
This endeayor to glorify "Cullum or ~ through
General Halleck, at the expense of General
Grant, is thus effectually disposed of. "If
General Sherman had taken the trouble to
send for General Halleck's letter-book for the
time he mentions above, he would have found
letter to General Mcclellan, then General
in Chief of the army, showing that he (Hal-
leck) had no settled plans for movement up
the Cumberland and the Tennessee, and only
general ideas of it at most, and that he did not
expect such movement could take place till
long after the time General Grant actually
captured both Forts Henry and Donelson, and
efectually opened these rivers" And it must
be borne in mind that General Boynton makes
no assertion of his own that he does not sup
port by clear and irrefutable proofs taken from
the official records. There is no brighter chap
ter in General Grants history than this record
of the commencement of his distinguished
career, and General Boynton has done simple
act of
JUSTICE TO THE GREAT HERO OF THE WAR,
and to the whole country in thus bringing 1t
freshly to our notice, and fixing it securely
upon the pages of history.
The question of the surprise at Shiloh and
the unfair treatment accorded to Gen. Buell.
and his army-by the "Memoirs" is discussed.
1t is conclusiyely demonstrated that our army
was surprised at Shiloh, but it is not as clear
that the main responsibility for the surprise
should rest upon Gen. Sherman's shoulders, as
Gen. Boynton appears to think. 1t is true
that Gen. Sherman was in command Of one
division in front, but he was only one of three
division commanders, and his authority did
not extend beyond his own immediate front.
The other division commanders should be
inside to share equally with Gen. Sherman the
responsibility for a surprise which, sitter all,
was, perhaps, inevitable with our raw troops
and raw Commanders. II is, however, mat
ter Of surprise that Gen. Sherman should seek
to perpetuate in his memoirs the silly stories
that were set aAoat Immediately after the
battle in relation to Gen. Buell. and his army,
and actually endeayor to rob that army which
saved him from irretrievable defeat of the
credit which is so justly its due. The records
as quoted by Gen. Boynton clearly show the
importance of the services rendered by Gen.
Buell's army and how warmly the aid they
rendered was appreciated at the time.
A deeply-interesting chapter isdevoted to
Chattanooga and Chickamaugs and the fnjus-
tice done by the Memoirs to Rosecrans, Thomas
and the Army of the Cumberland. One Of