The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-07-29
GRANTS "REMINISCENCES
THE WAR BETWEEN TIE STATES.
The Nonsense ana Faisebo0ds that Grant
Utters on the subject.
New York World.

| The conversations of Gen. Grant which our
esteemed contemporary, the HerdJd, reports
ht great length, are very interesting, but we
doubt the prOpriety Of publishing all the
careless gossip Of o. man whose highest word
OF censure may affect the reputation Of others
when he speaks Of the events Of the war in
which he commanded That he Is capable Of
error where he ought to be surest is shown in
his own account of how easily he was
taken in by newspaper correspondents
| criticism Of Gen. Shermans Memoirs,
when, through the skllltul manlp-
ulatiOn Of few documents, he lost
confidence in his friend and comrade and be-
came confused in his memory Of the events
| which he was supposed to have controlled
| In his narrative Of Incidents and In his state
| ment Of figures especially, If not in his eS-
innate Of men, he is liable to be mistaken, re-
| moved as he is from books of reference and
| from the COmpaniOnShip Of those whose rGeOl-
lection might serve to test the accuracy of his
| own. There are many things in his last con-
versatiOn which will challenge controversy.
| We are tempted to notice few Of them. The
| capture OF Fort DonelsOn was 81 gallant feat
! OF arms, and doubtless Grants knowledge Of
| the weakmindednesS of the Confederate com
InanderS was the secret Of his bOldness in
attack; but what is the use Of such ga3conade
as this ?
"'PeOple think that Donelson WIS captured
| by pouring men into it ten to- one, or some
such odds. The truth is our army, 81 new
army, invested q fortified plaCea compelled
| a surrender Of q force much larger than our
own. A large number Of the rebels escaped
| under Floyd and Pillow, but as it was | took
more prisoners than | had men under my
command for the first two days Of my invest
ment After the investment we were rein
forced, so that at the surrender there were
10000 Union troops, about 1000 of which were
sent back to guard the road to where the
steamers lay with our supplies. There were
$4,000 effective men in DOnelsOn at the begin
ming of the siege. Of course there was risk
in attacking D0nelson as did, but, said the
General, smiling, knew the men who COM
manded it,
Greeley says Of the rebels in DOnelson that
the number Of it's defenders had been swelled
by successive reinforcements to about $4,000
men" ("American Conflict" vol. 2, .. 47) and
he estimates the army surrendered ut 10000,
including 1000 wOunded. ID, p. 51.) The Con-
federate authority Pollard, cuts the number
down to 5079 Greeley says Of Grants force
that it ''had been increased by the arrival of
transport after transport until it must have
amounted to 10000, if not nearer 10000 men"
("American Conflict" vol 2, p. 49, The "Amer-
lean CyclOp@dia" puts the rebel garrison at
$4,000 and Grants army at 10000. or Gen
Warren the President says:
Warren is o good soldier and good man,
trained in the art Of war But, as 81 general,
IL you gave him an order, he would not act
until he knew what the other corps would do.
Instead Of Obeying-and knowing that the
power which was guiding him would guide
the Others-he would hesitate and inquire and
want to debate. 1t was this quality which
led to our disaster at the mine explosion be-
fore Petersburg. If Warren had Obeyed or
derS we would have broken Lees army in |
two and taken Petersburg. But when he
should have been in the works he was worry
ing over what other corps would do. So the
chance was lost. / should have relieved War
ren then, but did not like to iniure an officer
OF so high rank for what WAS an error Of
Judgment. But at Five Forks it was differ
eut. There was no time to think OF rank or
md I n Hns to-
lteve Warren If he at all failed him. Sheridan
did so, and no one regretted the necessity |
more than | did"
The failure OF the attack after the spring. |
ing Of the mine at Petersburg, July 80, 1864, |
was fully investigated some months subse- |
quent to the disaster by the Committee on the
Conduct Of the War and by military court Uf
inquiry convened few days after the battle
under the presidency Of Gen. Hancock The
committee, which was chiefly concerned about
the reputation Of Gen. Burnside, and the good
Of the COOred troops who were en-
gagged in the assault, held that the failure was
due mainly to the fact that Burnside's plan
Of attack which contemplated movement
by Hancock and Warren on his right and
left, was changed and that the
negroes troops were not kept at the
head Of the assauting column. The commit
tee did not CenSure Warren for failure to
move, as his orders conditioned his attack on
5he weakening Of the enemy's line in front Of
lm after the explosion and the assault by
Burnside and in his judgme there was no
such weakening. The military court held
hat the failure was due to Burnside's mis-
and the inefficiency of several Of
lis subordinate officers The opinion Of that
,Ody was that the attack might have sue
,eeded if the Ninth Corps had pushed straight
rest beyond, as directed by Gen. Meade. Not {
word Of censure was dealt out to Gen. {
Warren. This is not all. Gen. Grant {
himself appeared as a witness before the !
Committee on the Conduct Of the War at City !
POINT, December 20, 1854, and testified in re- |
.ard to the disaster at Petersburg. He praised !
zen. Meade's order for the attack, and said Of /
he assauting column: III they had marched c
through to the crest Of that ridge they would
ave taken everything in the rear do not t
hink there would have been any opposition 1
0 our troops at all had that been done.
hink we would have cut off entirely those Of (
he enemy to our right, while those on the il
eft would have tried to make their escape G
ide for deciding which division should lead '
" pulling straws; he blamed himself for al -
owing the arrangement to stand after the lot | a
eli upon the poorest division commander" O
D the CORPS; he blamed Burnside for falling +
D make proper announcement for the sup b
Orting troops to get through his lines; he | r
famed him for not getting to the front and h
irving the advance; he blamed the division ]
for letting the soldiers go in h
Without leaders, when general intent upon Y
arrying out his positive orders would have b
wept on to Cemetery Hill and "given US u
and finally he, blamed the gen =
raj loss Of time. There is not in his evil
ence a word about Gen. Warren, land it n
plain that he considered the whole affair :,
ecded outside Of the Fifth Corps. Warren's -
wn testimony before the Court Of Inquiry 2
,oks more like corroboratton Of Grants = =
stest view than the testimony Of his accuser, ~
)r Warren VINO had no faith in the attack, II
aid that he was in doubt what course to take, 4
neither to move to the left or to the right to ia
elp Burnside, and he complained that no one eS t$
tth authority was present to rule the fight, +
nus by implication censuring Grant and !,
[eade. Again, the report of our esteemed Il
represents the ex-Presdent as a eS
aging: h
BY the way, there is one point about the q, u
ampaign in the Wilderness worth remem- a
ering. Ny critics say that / threw away :,
70 900 men in that campaign. This has been p
epeated so often that it will soon be history. :,
0w, my total losses were about $4,000, all Il
I'D. Badeau's book will have the figures, r
ut that is about the figure; and those losses
0 not mean killed, but the number Of effect
'e men taken from my army by death
OlndS caDt1re and desertiOn That move