Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1878-05-11
SHEPHERDSTOWN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. SATURDAY,
THE WEST VIRGINIA CAM
PAIGN OF 1851.
AN INTERESTING CONTRIBUTION TO THE
WAR HISTORY OF THAT TINE, By COL.
PoRTERFlELD.

Nv attention has been called to all
article published in 1878, in the June
number of the OLD and Ne'o, entitled
"The West Virginia Campaign OF 1861.
The author of this article Is an ola ac-
oua;utance aud former friend, General
Henry w. Benham, U. S. Army. 1he
object of the writer was obviously 10
commend himself to General I. ,.
Grant, then President Of the United
STATES This end he sought by brag-
siug of his own exploits, ard by full
some praise of General Grant; also by
slurring General Mcclellan. The au-
thor seems TO have supposed that Ueh,
eral Grant would be as much gratlhed
by assaults on General Mcclellan as ny
praise OF himself. The spirit OF the al
ticle is to show that the credit Oh the
success of the campaign, which he re-
CARDS as wonderful, was largely due to
the writer; but that it had been unjustly
attributed to himself by General Nc
Clellan; and he charges him as habitual-
" ''kicking down the ladders, by which
he rose;' while he says OF General
Grant, (to whom the writer was ehdeav-
inc TO commend hmself,) that she has
clung to every good man about him,
who aided him as he rose, as every such
man has clung to him.
Though was sorry to see one VINO
had been a friend descend to such
means Of obtaining favor with the then
President Of the United States, yet L
shall take no notice of what | believe To
be SANDERS upon General Mcclellan,
because he needs no defense against
such charges, and because these charges
| in no manner are my concern. l would
have taken no notice of this article, had
the writer not slandrred me. These
| misrepresentationS of lie were clearly
made with a view Of enhancing the sup
posed merits of the writer in his con
duct during this campaign. The truth
is, as every one of intelligence knows,
who knows anything of the West Vir-
ginia campaign of 1861, that it reflected
no special credit on any officer, Conted-
crate or Federal, except on General
Mcclellan, for the skillful manner III
which he surprised aud defeated the
command of General Garnett.
The State of West Virginia, and es-
pecially the northern part OF this State
was really country hostile TO the Con
federate States. 1t was folly to expect
a force to be raised in that section sufti-
cient, even, to keep the open field, much
more to hold the country and 1t was
impossible for the forces sent there by
the Coufederates to hold such a coun-
try against the largely superior forces
which the Federal Government could,
and did send as needed, to take posses
sion of this State. The only excuse
that can be made for the Confederate
authorities, for making so vain an effort
is that it was in the very beginning OF
the war, and the difficulties OF such ar
undertaking were not then duly consld,
cred or properly appreciated. The folly
of their attempts to hold military pos
session of West Virginia, is clearly
shown by the fact, that alter the failure
of the first efforts, the command OF the
army intended to effect this purpose
was conferred on Gen. X. +. Lee, but
under his command the campaign was
slill an utter failure.
Had the campaign been begun with
any skill at all by the Federal officers,
it must have resulted in the capture OF
destruction of the small force which
was organizing. | do not claim any
credit for escaping with this force
That | did escape with the loss Of two
or three men only was due entirely to
the wait of capacity on the part OF
those in command of the Federal troops
in that vicinity: General Morris and his
five or six colonels, including Colonel
Bcnham.
Ny conduct was the subject of inves-
tieation at the time by Court OF In.
qury, composed OF Colonel William B.
laliafcrro, nt-Colonel John Re
gram and Captain julius De LagneI.
The following is the result OF their pro
ce( dings: