The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-07-21
SHILOH.


The criticism Of your correspondent, "Cy,"
on Jefferson Davis reference to Albert Sidney
Johnston strikes me as sfngularly unjust and
inaccurate. 1t Is unjust to Mr.. Davis in the
suggestion, II not the ascription to him, of
spirit altogether inconsistent with the
terms Of eulogy and respect so eloquently
conveyed in the preceding remarks of your
correspondent, spirtso foreign to thenature
and character of that magnanimous chief
tain. That Mr.. Davis splendid tribute to
the virtues, the military capacity, the patri-
otto self-devotion and strategical ability
of Gen. Johnston, should be re-
garded as an invidious depreciation
of the merits Of Gen. Beauregard; that such
an Interpretation should be placed ON senti-
ments and language SO just, SO appropriate,
and TO which every heart in that assembly re-
sp0nded with such sincere sympathy, may
well excite the surprise OF all bipartisan and
unprejudiced men. This surprise will be
greater and more profound with the hum
dreds of veterans in that assembly who parti-
cipated in the battle OF Shiloh when the al
legged depreciation by our ex-President of so
meritoriOus an officer as Gen. Beauregard u.s.
based on the remark of Mr.. Davis that the
battle Of Shiloh was fought on Gen. John
ston's plan, and executed up to the point
of victory by him in person, and at the sacri-
flee Of his valuable life.
Your correspondent impugns the accuracy
of this statement, and claims for Gen. Beau
regard the credit Of the authorship and
execution Of that plan. II this claim Is
history and to the fame Of Gen. Beauregard
that It should be indicated. Your cor
respondent will perform a duty, and
merit the commentator OF the lovers Of
evidence to justify, his assertion, and demon
strRte to the world the grave and almost
universal error of all the historians who
have written on the theme.
The assertion of your correspondent Is SO
serious a conflict with all acknowledged YER
sions hitherto, that it should be stated in his
own words. They are:
1.-THE concentration and organization OF our
forces at Corinth the plan Of the battle OF
Shiloh, the order Of march of our army, on
that day and those preceding 1t; and, in fact,
of all the minor details and preparations in
relation thereto were devised, conducted and
written out in full, not as Mr.. Davis believes,
| by Gen. Sydney Johnston, but Gen. G. L.
Beauregard, his second in command; and
that, too, at the earnest request OF Gen.
| Johnston himself. The approval Of the plan
| by Gen. Johnston may have made it, to some
| measure his own, as 1t bore his official sigma
| ture; but the conception and execution Of 1t,
so deservedly lauded by Mr.. Davis, are due
entirely to Gen Beauregard; and Gen John
ston, when adopting that plan of battle, made
not nor even suggested, one single modittca-
ton or addition thereto. The fact is. so dis
heartened was Gen. Johnston by the disas.
| trOuS and unexpected loss Of Forts Henry and
| DoneIson, which had cast such shadow of
| gloom over the whole Confederacy, that he
even urged upon Gen. Beauregard to take full
command of the whole army, he having lost,
as he thought, the public confidence and mil
itary prestige, without which commander
can neither sufficiently sway his troops, nor
| lead them to promised victory"
That Gen. Johnston availed himself Of the
valuable aid of Gen. Beauregard in this con-
centration and organization Of the army at
Corinth, that he consulted him on the plan of
the battle OF Shiloh, Is altogether probable;
but that the plan of falling suddenly upon the
army OF Grant and annihilating 1t before 1t
could be joined by Buel, and the execution Of
| it by one of the most vigorous and well di-
rected assaults, were due to Albert Sidney
Johnston. are, perhaps, the most notably
and clearly established facts of our military
history. And it is tor this version Of those
facts that your correspondent charges Mr..
| Davis with inaccuracy.
! Now the proof Is ready at hand to refute
| your corr espondent and confirm Mr.. Davis
accuracy in such form as cannot be well
! questioned by any friend OF Gen. Beauregard.
| It is contained in the testimony of Gen.
/ Thomas Jordan, chief Of staff of Gen. Beaure-
gard, who gives the following statement Of
the proceedings of council held by Gen.
Johnston on Saturday, the fifth OF April
when the army had been marshaled In front
|
| Gen. Forrest, by Gen. Jordan:
| Gen. Beauregard earnestly advised the
| idea OF attacking the enemy should be aban-
doned and that the whole force should return
| to Corinth, inasmuch as it was now scarcely
possible they could be able to take the FEEDER
ais unawares after such delay and the many
demonstrations which had been made mean
| while. He urged the enemy would be
now found formidably intrenehed and ready
for the attack; that success had Depended on
the power to assail them unexpectedly, for
they were superior in numbers, and, In large
part had been under fire. On the other hand
few, comparatively of the Confederates had
that advantage, while large part were too
raw and recently enrolled to make it proper
| to venture them in an assault upon
breastworks, which would now be
strong. And this unquestionably was the
view of almost all present. Gen. Johnston
having listened with grave attention to the
views and opinions advanced, then re-
marked in substance that he recognized the
weight of the objections to an attack under
the circumstances involved by the unfortu-
nate loss of time on the road. But, neverthe-
less, he still hoped the enemy was not look
! ing for Offensive operations and that he