The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-08-18
SHILOH AND TUPELO.
TO vyH0M THE CREDIT gOy THE pLAu
or THESE BATTLES as DUE,
To The Editor OF tha r,srno,.

| circumstances OF no interest IL, the ru,blff
have hinderod an earlier answer to the seeopf
article under the signature OF tCv.o whfeT
appeared in tbs DEMOCRAT of July ~, AL
though the plural formula ID empIoyed Frp
the writer, or writer's, leaving some 5onf6
whether the authorship 10 to be attributed *,
one or more, shall,' tor convenience sake.
and without meaning any offense, take If for
granted that this Is oaiy an assumption Of the
conventional impersorality usually restricted
TO editorial utterances, and that the Uge1da-
nyra is singular rather tAan plural,
| 1he general views expressed by yotar CORES
spohdent at some length En the bepuping ri
his article are in the main, In full accord will,
| my own. We are agreed In asprecatfng s.11ge,-
| less, inopportune controversy" while reeog-
n1ztng the necessity Of aseertadnine and tater..
mining Facts for the use Of the Hittre historian
1he sooner this is done, in casss where there's
10 any doubt or dispute, the better,
beforee proceeding further, 1t may be3
proper to state the questions Which are the
only subjects Of the present discussion. This
discussion was Initiated by eertainasrieturee
made by ICY" upon the recent address or
President Davis. The substance of theses
structures (Which were unexceptionable III
temper and expression) may be briefly stated
as follows:
/. That Mr., Davis had given to Gen. Albers.
Sidney Johnston credit for the conception
and execution" OF the plan OF the battle of
Shiloh, which are justly due to len. Beaure-
gard, 'the true hero of Shiloh, as he was
also the true hero of Manassas" This was
designated as an terror" and "stranpe,
inaccuracy,7
q That "stiIl stranger omission" was
made by Mr.. Davis in falling to make any
mention OF Gen. Beauregard, the second ef,rn
mander OF the army OF Tennessee. when
speaking in terms Of eulogy Of its first and
third commanders, Gems. A. S. Johnston and
Bragg.
8. Incidental to this last mentioned ground
OF complaint was the statement that Gen.
Beauregard, having succeeded Cen A. ~.
johnston III the command of that army on
the death OF the latter at Shiloh. had con-
tinued In the command until "unexpecteIIy
relieved therefrom" by order Of the President.
on or about the twenty-second Of June, 1862.
On each OF these points issue was taken
with your correspondent by the writer OF this
article. while the first Of them was, at the
same time, more effectually refuted by an
other correspondent, 'fVindex," who brought
forward some striking evidence that had
escaped the attention of 'Russ."
In his last communication, "Cy' reiterafass
ms former positions. argues them at length.
and claims that he has established them 77bys
substantial undeniable evidence"
/ no not question the sincerity of This ron.
Vlctlon on the part Of your correspondent.
but the confident assertion of it cannot be- exa
peceed 70 carry conviction to the minds Of
others. E1amined and analyzed, the docu-
ments which he adduces will be found to rJroyes
nothing more than what nobody has over de-
nied-that Gen. Beauregard was second tn
Gen. Johnston In command of the forces en-.
gagetd III tne oattle Of Shiloh and the move-
ments preliminary thereto; that as such. he
enjoyed the full confidence Of the cornnand~
ing general, and was intrusted with his pIana
and the details Of their execution; that great
aelefence was SHOWN TO his Judgment; and
even that the immediate command OF the
troops In the field was at one time
OFFERED HIM AND DECLINED.
1t would have been very strange had aIE
this been otherwise. Gen. Beauregard hald
the same rank with Gen. Johuston-the hIgIT~
est rank known to the Confederate army
and was merely his Junior In date of com n1iss-
sion. He had already achieved brilliant
reputation Gen. Johnston accorded TO him
all the Difference and consideration that could
De given to junior With Characteristic
and unselfishness, be endaa.
vored to give the country all the benefit Of tfls
popular confidence felt in Gen, Beaurepard.
even at the sacrifice of his own Reputation,
But ne never abdlcated his own functions,
Snlrked : u MS own responsibilities, or yielded
MS own matured convictions, even to Gen.
Beauregard. This is sufficiently attested
Dy the fact that, on the eve sof the
battle, when within less than. two miles OF
ohermans headquarters, he refused to- re-
whose testimony has been 50 pertinentiy
cited by .Vindex'J, Gen. Beauregard ear,s-
estty advised Ithat) the idea OF attacking the
enemy should be abandoned, and that the
whole force should return to Corinth," sup
ported, as the same writer tells u.s. by the
opinion OF almost all present" The result.
proved that Johnston was right and that
lB6eauregard and the others were wrong.
as Gen. Beauregard supposed; they were net
apprised OF the approach of the Confederate
army, my, and they ,nere surprised and routed.
The facts upon. which 10y" lays so much
lfied orders which had been issued by Gen.
Beauregard to the troops under his own Inn,
mediate command before junction had been
that no change WAS made in the or
gard was entrusted with the duty Of arrang-
ing the "Order Of march and of battIe'' and
the "fninor details and preparations" referred
to-Were all matters OF course, II the second
IN command enjoyed the confidence of fiks
chief. An uniformed reader might infer
from some passages of 'fCy's" articles that
The "order Of march" Was the main thing in
military strategy. 1t is important enough,
oattle, but it appears from the accounts of the
movement from Corinth to Shiloh That this
order OF march" was the very thing that
vent all wrong, and caused a delay of twenty
our hours III the attack. [ do not assume
his to have been from any fault of Gen.
8eauregard. It is mentioned only as show
ng that the order Of march" was not the
Jital and central thing III the matter.
II this article, / have for the first time come
nto possession OF the "Life of Gen. Albert
sidney Johnston" just published by his
ion, Col. ". 2. Johnston Ia this volume the
history OF the battle Of Shiloh, and the events
which preceded it, are given In detail, with
arge quotations from the original authorities.
They are too voInninous for reproduction In
newspaper article, but may be studied to-
lnder discussion. shall refer to only a feW
passages