Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-08-03
GRANTS CRITICISMS.


GRANTS CRITICISMS.
If, by publishing Gen. Grants reminis-
cences of the war and criticisms of his gen
erals, it was the purpose of the New York
Herald to increase his popularity and give
him good send-off in the Presidential race,
that purpose has conspicuously failed. If it
was the purpose to contribute matter of value
to the history of the war, that, too, has
failed because of the utter unreliability of
the statements made, and the personal and
partisan, bias that stamps their tone. Gen.
Grant has succeeded in pleasing two Of his
and Sheridan-to whom
he accords the entire credit of the success of
the Union armies he has offended nearly all
others by his harsh, unjust, and often cruel
criticism. No one is disposed to-day to
question the ability of either Grant, Sher-
man or Sheridan. They have made for
themselves an enduring fame as the most
successful trio of generals of the present
century. There is no disposition to detract
one iota from their fame. But it is un-
necessary that their glory should be increased
by the detraction of Others that in order to
honor them it is necessary to cast dishonor
upon other soldiers equally as patriotic, as
earnest and as self-sacrifcing in the cause of
the Union as they. 1t was unnecessary that
Grant should sheer at Rosecrans, Halleck,
Warren, Mcclellan, and other brave and
patriotic commanders, and to belittle their
services that he might add to his own glory
and that of Sherman and Sheridan. These
men were every whit as bold, as sincere
and perhaps as able generals as our army
could boast. That they did not succeed as
we'll as the trio mentioned may be attributed
to no fault of theirs, but rather to those who
refused to give them the support that it was
afterwards found necessary to give to their
more fortunate successors. With an equal
force and equal encouragement from Wash
ington, no one can say that Meade, McClel-
Ian, Halleck, Rosecrans, or any of the social
ed unsuccessful generals of the early period
record as did Grant, Sherman and Sheridan
1t must be remembered that the generals
first named had every thing to contend
against, and that the others had everything
in their favor-had unlimited armies and un-
stinted resources at their command. It is
not surprising, therefore, that their achieve
ments should differ, but it i'll becomes those
who won success under such favorable circum-
stances to sheer at and belittle those who,
although as successful as could in reason be
expected, yet failed by reason of the embar-
easements with which they were surround
ed, in winning that measure of success which
gives glory to the military name.
| Grant, Sherman and Sheridan did no.
win the battles of the war alone. They were
ably supported by scores of commanders
who were as quick to see the vulnerable
points of the enemy and take advantage O
them as they-men who risled their lives
for the Union and fought it's battles to thu
death. Grants blunders would have con
signed him to disgrace had it not been TO
the bravery of his troops who, by thei
desperate efforts, turned defeat int
victory. Beaten over and over agai1
in the battle of the Wilderness, by dint o
. sheer persistence his troops held thei
ground, and finally, because they outnum
bered the force of the enemy-through brut
force solely-they retrieved the shamefr
, blunders of their commander and there brok
! the confederacy to pieces. No man is MOI
under obligations to Gen. Mcclellan tina
! Grant. He received from him
great army, perfectly disciplined, in
pregnably situated. and filled wit
+ patriotic ardor. With this army
q reinforced largely from the commands {
4 other generals whom Grnnt now ignores
:. censures he was enabled to give battle to IL
% army of Lee and ultimately to overcome
. Does Mcclellan merit the cavalier treatme1
which Grant bestows upon him
No man who ever served under him will 81
J. aye.
# Grants treatment of Senator Sumner
'. regard to San Domingo is worthy of IL
j. severest censure. His language is that
o studied misrepresentation Not conte
If with having prosecuted him during life,
u now seeks to heap upon his memory tt
d wholly unwarrantable imputation Of havi1
II sought to defeat the treaty by dishonorabl
n means. The wisdom of Senator Sur
G. ner's course has been vindicat,
by events, for the annexation
the island as then contemplated h
le been shown to have been merely a iobbir
s. speculation, promoted by corrupt men al
1t means, closely approaching, if it did n
P, completely reach, the executive. Had tho
L means triumphed the iniquity of the cred
le mobilier and other corrupt jobs would ha
If been made honorable transactions by cor
'e parison. The less Grant says of the s,
l. Domingo job the better it will be for his ON
Re reputation.
e. Grants criticisms as whole have do
N him little benefit, if we may Judge from Il
n reception they have received, not only fro
s. the press, but from those who are direct
is. interested in the events he processes
g record, He has shown a censurable ree