The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-07-28

his right and capacity 10 do so were unques-
tOnable, but the saddening sounds Of recent
defeat still ringing in his ears no doubt held
him back from attempting It,
Let us listen, now, to what Gen. Beaure-
gards-as sincere friend and admirer as Gen.
Johnston ever had-said on that question,
rendered delicate by Neutrality-suspicious. and
comments from those who seem to prefer
appearances to realities, prescriptions to
facts.
In its Issue of January, 1872, the Southern
Magazine has an exhaustive article of Gen,
Beauregard's, entitled "Notes on T.. A. Pol
lard's Lost Cause in which, at page 60 Of
the number we refer to-he states:
This plan Of battle speaking of the battle
OF Shiloh was adopted by me and submitted
carried out faithfully notwithstanding the
Typographical obstacles in the way and the
raw condition of the troops which had to
execute it,
Elsewhere, to wit, in letter dated New Or
leans, March 9, 1877, and addressed to Col
VIM. Preston Johnston, q son of the heroic
Sidney Johnston, Gen. Beauregard writes the
following:
when Gen. Johnston first met me at Cor
NTH, he proposed, after our staff officers had
retired, to turn over the command of the
united forces to me; but positively declined
on his Own account and that of the Cause"
telling him that had come to assist, but not
TO supercede him, and offering him oil the as
remain in command. 1t was one of the most
affecting scenes Of my life. He intended, he
said, to establish his department headquarters
at Memphis or Holly Springs.
Before we parted on that occasion he re-
uuested me to complete the organization Of
the forces which ] had called for from the va
rious States of Tennessee Mssissippi Ala
bama and Louisiana, 30 defend my district
and to attack the Federals, as soon as they
should land on our side of the Tennessee river.
Fat np nd Il LOFT inn tn Mt
tack Grant at Pittsburg Landing-which was
to have taken place two or three days earlier
than 1t did, but, owing to want OF prepara-
tion etc, could mott prepared the order OF
march and of battle, which were submitted
by me to Gems Johnston and Bragg, in the
presence Of Col. Jordan, chief of staff OF the
whole army, and they were accepted with
out one word Of alteration. They were then
put in proper form by Col. Jordan and fur
niShed to the corps commanders"
| OF the two honorable men and distinguished
| soldiers between whom the above recorded
conversation took place, one, to our lasting
| regret, is no more. He cannot return to con
| firm the words of him who survives. But
who, among u.s. without casting q stain upon
his own honor, could refuse to give credence
| to Gen. Beauregards words?
| Gen. Jordan, who had acted at Corinth rs
| Assistant Adiutant General, after Gen John
ston had assumed command, and who, in his
| official capacity, had signed special orders
| No. g. dated Corinth, Miss, April 8, 1862
| (which constituted the order of march and oil
battle for the battle of Shlohl-Gen. Jordan,
| speaking of special orders No. 8-gives, Mt
| Corinth on the fifteenth of April, 1862, the
| following certificate:
THE foregoing plan of operations and Or
| ders Of engagement were drawn up and sub
mitted by Gen. Beauregard on the morning
Of the third of April, 1ou2, to Gen. A. s. john
ston, who accepted the same without modit-
cation in single particular"
(Signed) THOMAS JORDAN,
Brig. Gent and A. A. g.
| We could here close our remarks, for, to oil
unprejudiCed minds, we have fully established
| the correctness of our statements and thereby
performed the duty devolving upOD us lac
cOrding to your correspondents) 'of proving
unquestionably" and demonstrating to the
world the grave and almost universal error
Of all the historians (O who have written on
| the theme"
The attempt to confirm the averments OF
| Mr. Davis, as to the planning OF the battle Of
Shiloh, by showing that at q council OF gen
eral officers held on the eve of the battle
Gen. Beauregard advised an abandonment OF
the attack, and the return of our forces tC
Corinth, is, we must be allowed to say it.
simply puerile. That he soadvised, we readily
admit. but that his course on that occasion
leads to the conclusion aimed at by your cor
respondents, we most emphatiCally deny
Gen. Beauregard was unwilling to begin the
attack on the sixth of April, because he
feared we were too late by tWenty-four hours
at least, because our main object in moving
forward, to wit To surprise Grant and crust
him before Buell. could come to his assistance
would probably be frustrated, and our success
thereby incomplete.
Does that show that Gen Beauregard never
drew out the plan Of the battle of Shiloh? II
simply shows how wise and far-seeing ht
was, for his fears were realized and Buell. die
operate his junction with Grant, before Oul
victory WAS assured.
But no further argument is needed as to the
question before us, for the simple reason thai
it has already been finally settled. And from
what we have not only asserted, but unques
tiOnably proven, it is easy to demonstrate
how supposed facts of our military history
so notable and clearly established" 1--WE quote
the language of one of your correspondence
can be shown as having no foundation what
ever In truth.
We hardly think it necessary to revert tx
the apology offered by one of your cor
respondents in extenuation of Mr.. Davis
omission to mention the name Of Gen. Beaure
gard in connection with the Army Of Tennes
see. What 'Vindex" did not say about the
matter is, in our opinion, much more fOrciblt
than what RUS" attempted, but failed, to ex
plain, to wit That Mr.. Davis did not speak
of Gen. Beauregard to the LOuisianlans who
came to listen to him at Mississippi City, be-
cause sit was a matter entirely within the
province of his own taste and Judgment anC
no one has q right to call him to account fol-
| the manner in which he chose to exercise
these" Startling views these are and apt tc
lead to very startling doctrines. We haC
| been SchOOled in the belief that matters Of
justice and propriety were always obligatory
and could never be left to the choice or caprice
of any public speaker. Must we be of diff
ferent opinion now? We think not.
Before taking leave of your readers we wish
to draw attention to passage in one of your
correspondents letters. We deplore the allu
sion there made, for it denotes a feeling of as
perity-perhaps, even ,ofinvidiousness- which
we were surprised to find In his otherwise very
courteous communication.
Your correspondent ("Rus') thinks we are
greatly mistaken" when we allege that Gen
Beauregard was unexpectedly relieved" from
command by order of President Davis. HI
says: "My understanding of the matter is
that Gen. Beauregard reLieued himself, left the
army on q surgeons certificate of disability
and turned over the command to Gen. Bragg
all without any knowledge of the transaction
by the President or War Department, unit
they were 1toGrpectedty informed Of it after the
General had gone"
II the fact OF Gen Beauregard's being re,
lieved from his command at Tupelo, was moi