The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-01-31
GEN. HALLECK'S DEFENSE.
A LETTER FROM HIS FORMER
CHIEF OF STAFF.
What Gen. CullOm Says Of the Al
legged kilograms Quoted by Wal.
lace-Sherman's Memory.


secret of the bitter hostility that ex-
listed between Gen. Grant and Gen,
Halleck say that when Gen. McClel.
lan's war papers are made public q
profound sensation will be created,
and the hatred of Grant for Halleck
will be no longer a mystery. An
officer whe has seen the documents
preserved by Gen. Mcclellan says:
On February l6, 1862, Gen. Grant
sent his famous unconditional sur
render" letter to Gen. Buckner at
Fort Dsnelson. The news Of the
surrender had thrilled the North
from one end to the other, and the
name OF Grant was upon all lips.
Gen. Halleek, the commander in the
West, was at st. Louis. He was
troubled at the great renown 30 sud
denly attained by his subordinate
officer. On February 18th, two days
after the surrender of Donelson,
Mcclellan telegraphed as follows to
Halleck:
Gen. II W Halleck, st. Louis, No:
Where is Grant,
GEO. d. MCCLELLAN,
MNor-General commanding.
The same day Gen. Mcclellan re
ceiyed the following:
Gen. Geo. D. Mcclellan, Washington, D. @. :
In answer to your question, would
soy Grant is somewhere in the rear
of his army, drunk.
INV. HALLEcK, Majsr-G sneral.
Gen. Mcclellan kept the originals
of all his dispatches, and certified
copies were made for the War De-
partmept. These dispatches are said
not to be among the dispatches cert.
fed and in the records at the War
Department, but the originals are
among Gen. McClellau's papers.
They are carefully pasted into one of
the large volum,s in which his war
dispatches are preserved. Three or
four years ago Gen. Grant read these
original dispatches, which was the
FIRST intimstion that he had ever had
that they were in existence.
Believing the above cited tele-
grams to be forgsriss, l addressed q
note to Mr.. W. G. Prime, the ousto-
dian Of Gen. hcClellan's official
papers, to which the following is his
courteous reply:
No. IS EAsT TwHHvY-THaD BTRruT,l
ksW YORK, January 70, 1855. J
Gen. George W. Cullen;
DEAR SIR have to acknowledge
the receipt of yours OF the 18th in
slant inclosipg article from the New
York Sun of 2lst January and ask
ing me for copies of dispatches in
that article said to have passed be-
tween Gems. Mcclellan and Halleck,
if any such are among the papers Of
Gen. Mcclellan now in my posses
sion. l have had occasion before
this to examine Gen Mcclellan s
papers with reference to the rela-
tions Of Gems. Grant and Halleck to
which you refer in your letter, and
have again, at your request, exam
ined them. fiud no such dispatches
as those which are published in the
article, nor any which resemble them.
You are, of course, familiar with the
dispatches published in the North
American ReUiep for December last,
in connection with this subject. l
am, with great respect, yours,
Thus the triumphant refutation of
another vile SANDER against Gen.
Hslleck quickly follows the inglori-
Gus retreat of Gen. Lew Wallace
from the infamous charge made by
him, without particle of evidence,
that Halleck was willing to betray
his country aad permit Washington
to be captured, knowing that such q
thing would destroy Grant. The
last paragraph of Mr.. Primes letter
refers to Col Fred Grants contribu-
ton to the North american Repie,o,
entitled "Halleck's Injustice TO
Grant" That this title is misno-
mer is clear from Halleck's dis
patches in this same article, wherein
he shows the highest confidence in
Gen. Grant after the latter had ex-
planned all alleged irregularities in
his command, for which Halleck re-
Trained to arrest him, though fully
authorized to do so by the general in
chief with the approval of the Secre-
tary of War. Col. Grants article
concludes with the same statement
made by Gen. Grant in his memoirs,
that Gen. Halleck unquestionably
regarded Gen. G. +. Smith as a much
filter officer for the command of all
the forces in the military district
than he (arant), and to render
Smith available for such command,
desired his promotion to antedate
the promotion of the other CON-
mapders. That both father and SON
are in inexcusable error is conclu-
sively proven by the official records,
which show that Halleck recon-
mended Grant for a major general
ship before he proposed Smiths
promotion. Grants commission is
dated February 16, 1862, while that
Of Smith is not till March q, 1862,
more than a month later.
GEORGE W. CULL0M,
Brevet Major General, United States Army,
Chief Of Gen. Hallock's staff, lS6l-62.
NEW YoRK, January %, 1886.
Gen ahermnn'a TreaeherOua N eun.