Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-07-31
GEN. GRANTS MISTAKES.
Il Criticism. of His Criticism of the Con-
duct of Gen. VVarren at the Battle of Pc

n Criticism of HIS Criticism of the Con-
duct of Gen. Warren at the Battle of Pc
tersburg.
Referring to Gen. Grants criticism of Gen.
Warrens conduct at the battle of Petersburg,
the New York World says:
The failure Of the attack after the springing
of the mine at Petersburg, July 80, 1864,
was fully investigated some months subsequent
to the disaster, by the committee on the con-
duct of the war, and military court ofinquiry
convened few days after the battle, under the
presidency of Gen. Hancock. The committee,
which was chiefly concerned about the reputa-
ton of Gen. Burnside and the good character of
the colored troops who were engaged in the as
sault. held that the failure was due mainly to
the fact that Burnside's plan of attack which
contemplated movement by Hancock and
Warren his right and left was changed, and
that the negro troops were not kept at the
head of the assaulting column. The commit
tee did not censure Warren for failure to
move. as his orders conditioned his attack on
the weakening of the enemy line in front of
him after the explosion and the assault by
Burnside, and in his Judgment there was
no such weakening. The military court
held that the failure was due to Burnside
mismanagement and the inefficiency of
several of his subordinate officers. The opin-
ion of that body was, that the attack might
have succeeded if the Ninth corps had pushed
straight through the crater to Cemetery Hill
and the crest beyond, as directed by Gen.
Meade. Not word of censure was dealt out to
himself appeared as witness before the COM
mittee on the conduct of the war, at City
Point December 20. 1864, and testified in regard
to the disaster at Petersburg. He praised Gen.
Meade's order for the attack, and said Of the
assaulting column: IF they had marched
through to the crest of that ridge they would
have taken everything in the rear. / do not
think there would have been any opposition to
our troops at all had that been done. think
we would have cut off entirely those of the
enemy to the right, while those on the lef,
would have tried to make their escape across
the Appomattox." He blamed Burnside fol
deciding which division should lead
by pulling straws; he blamed him !
vision-commander' in the corps; he blamed
Burnside for failing to make aproper debo,tche-
n,ent for the supporting troops to get through
his lines; he blamed him for not getting to the
front and driving the advance; he blamed the
division commanders for letting the soldiers &c
carrying out his positive orders would have
swept on to Cemetery Hill and given us every
thing and finally he blamed the general loss
of time. There is not in his evidence a word
about Gen. Warren, and 1T is plain that he
considered the whole affair decided outside OF
of the Fifth corps. Warren's own testimony
before the court of inquiry looks more like
corroboration of Grants latest view than the
testimony of his accuser; for Warren, who had
no faith in the attack, said that he was in
doubt what course to take whether to move to
the left OF to the right to help Burnside. and
he complained that no one with authority was
present to rule the fght-thus by implication
censuring Grant and Meade.