Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1883-07-26

GRANT As A GREAT GENERAL.
Me Virginia Campaign Criticised.
end Pronounced a Failure
Hditor N. Y. Tribue, Sir: The
attitude In which General Grant
has 90 lon z been posed before
the world 10 likely to receive .
severe blow from the the publi-
cation Of General Humphreys
last volume of The C4mpai6ns of
! the Civil war;" Of which the Tri-
bune contained q review yester-
day. Most people who read
Gen. Humphreys book, will be
satisfied frOin it4 frankness OF
tone, clearhess accuracy of dc.
tail, that he has reached some
where near the truth Of his sub
ject. His statements are indeed
tacitly admitted by other wri-
ters on the last year Of the war,
in Virginia, but have been, eth.
er clouded over, or not brought
forward to the importaliSe they
properly deserve. Neither do !
understand that he reflects on
the mistakes or failures Of the
Union General with the severity
he might we'll employ, but
leaves the reader to draw an
evident conclusion for himself.
Col. Humbley, of the British
army, in his great work on the
Art of War, a work which l
have never seen seriously ques-
toned, speaks of Gen. Grant rs
one who twas successful on a
moderate terrain like vicksburg
but whose Virginia campaign
was a failure" and elsewhere OF
GRANTS useless sacrafice of ten
Thousand men at. Gold Harbor.
This Judgment is acitly sup,
ported In Gen. Humphreys book
by what would seem to be a
tcolumn Of indisputable facts. ]
understand from him that Gen
Craft was at least seven times
conspicously aud with enormous
loss defeated by Gen, Lee be
fore the exhaustion of HIS war
materials and the universal col
lapse of, the COnfederacy com
PEELED the latter to surrender
These were not reported as de
feats in the bulletins of the day
and some Of them were even
supposed to be victorious. as in
the case Of Hancock's magnifi
cent attempt to break through
Lees center at Spottsylvania
Courthouse. but they were de
feats nevertheless. When a
commander assumes the often
sive aud is repulsed by the ene-
my with severe loss. it is a de.
feat for him and a victory for
his antagonist, although it may
not be a decisive one. Many
things conspired to prevent
Gen. Lees victories from being
decisive, the overwhelming SUI
peTiority of the Union army in
numbers and munitions of war,
his own lack of absolutely nee
essary war material-for which
we can thank the blockade-the
determined bravery of the I'm
ion forces. and the lack of an
able coadjutor like Stonewall
Jackson. One can well believe
that had jackson lived year
longer, Grant would not only
have been defeated, but, as a
cons quence Of his stubborn
adhesion to a single military
idea, pretty nearly destroyed.
Grant possessed an advantage
over all his predecessors in Vir-
ginia. that he never was forced
to contend with Jackson. With
Jackson taken from one side
and Sheridan added to the 9th.
er, it ought not to have been SO
difficult to get the better of Lee.
AS it happened Sheridan's brill
ant victory at Cedar Run, q bat
tie gained with equal forces and
the most decisive ever fought
in Virginia, was all that saved us
at that period. The dry truth
of it is that Grant lost more bat
ties In Virginia than he won
elsewhere.
Gen. Grants tactics evidently
succeeded in the West on ac-
count of their simplicity. They
were not too good for the then
undisciplined forces which he
He said to Gen.
Sherman, l think it was after
the capture of Fort Donelson, Il
may not give his exact wordsl ):
II notice at certain point in
our battles that both sides are
defeated, but if we only hold on
a little after that, we whip them
awfuliy." There can be no
question as to Grants one quail
tiles as a soldier. The man who
could make such an observation
and act upon it with GOODNESS
and decision, was born for the
battlefield, to possess those quail
tiles of mind which constitute
the great strategist and tactician
in short, the qualities ofa great
General, is an entirely different
thing. In The tenaeity With
which Grant followed out a de-