Weekly commercial herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1884-18??, 1886-02-05
FLAT CONTRADICTION,

OF An Alleged Correspondence Be-
tween Gems. Hallsok and me-
Clellan IN Regard to Grant.
NEW York, Jan. 30.-The Tribune
this morning publishes the following:
ITO the Editor Of the Trbanei
"Sir-In the New York Sun Of the
2lst inst. appears the following state.
ment:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.-Army
officers who know the secret Of the
bitter feeling existing between Gems
Grant aud Halleek. say that when
Gen. McClellan's war papers are made
public a profound sensation will be
created, and the hatred Of Grant for
Halleck will be no longer a mystery.
An officer who has seen the documents
preserved by Gen. Mcclellan says: ION
Feb. Is, 1862, Gen. Grant sent his ia
nous unconditional surrender letter
to Gen. Buckner at Fort Donelson.
The news Of the surrender had thrilled
the North from one end to the other,
and the name Of Grant was upon every
ones lips. Gen. Halleck, commander
in the West. was at st. Louis. He was
troubled at the great renoWn so sud-
denly won by a subordinate officer, and
on February Is. two days after the
surrender Of Donelson, Mcclellan tele-
graphed as follows to Halleck:
ST. LOUIS, Mo.
Where is Grant?
GEO. B. MCCLELLAN,
Maj. Gen. COm'dg.
The same day Mcclellan received
the following
Gen. Geo. B.. Mcclellan. Washington:
In answer to your question l would
say Grant is some where in the ear of
his army drunk.
H. w. HALLECK, Maj. Gen1.
General Mcclellan kept all originals
Of his dispatches, and certified copies
were made for the wal department.
These dispatches are said not to be
among the dispatches certified and in
the records of the war department
but the originals are among Gen. Nc
Clellan's papers.
Believing the above cited kilograms
to be forgeries, 1 addressed a note to
Mr.. w. G. Prime, custodian Of Gen.
McClellan's official papers, to which
the following is his courteous reply
NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 1856.
Gen. Geo. W. Cullum:
Dear sir:-I have to acknowledge
the receipt of yours Of the 25th inst,
inclosing an article from the New
York Sun Of January 81, and asking
me for the copies of the dispatches, in
that article said to have passed between
Generals Mcclellan and Halleck, if any
such are among the papers of General
Mcclellan in my possession. / have
had no occasion before this to examine
Gen. McClellan's papers with reference
to the relations of Generals Grant and
Halleck, to which you refer in your
letter, and again to-day at your request
examined them. l found no such dis
patches as those published 10 the ar
ticle, nor any which resemble them.
You are of couse familiar with the
dispatches published in the North
American Review for December last,
in connection with the subject. l am
yours with great respect,
w. q. PRIME.
Thus the triumphant refutation of
another vile SANDER against Gen. Hal
leck quickly follows the ~inglorious re-
treat of Gen. Lew Wallace from the
infamous charge made by him, with
out a particle Of evidence, that Hal
leck was willing to betray his country
and permit Washington to be captured,
knowing that such a thing would de-
stroy Grant. The last paragraph of
Mr.. Primes letter refers to Col. Fred.
Grants contribution to the North
American Review, entitled "Halleck's
Injustice to Grant" That this title is
a misnomer, is clear from Halleck's
dispatches in the 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 Ealleck refrained
to arrest him, though fully authorized
to do SO by the general-in-chief with
the approval of the secretary Of war.
Col. Grants article concludes with the
same statement made by Gen. Grant in
his Memoirs, that Gen. Halleck I'M
questionably regarded Gen. G. F.
Smith as the much filter officer for the
command Of the forces in the military
district than he Grant and to render
Smith available for sucn command de-
sired his promotion over other COM
manders. That both father and son
are inexcusably in error is conclusive
ly proven by the official records, which
show that Halleck recommended Grant
for a major.generalship before he pro-
posed Smiths promotion. Grants COM
mission is dated February 10th, 1862,
while that of Smith is not until March
2lst, 1862, more than q month later.
GEO. W. CULLUM,
Byt. M~ajOr-General U. S. A. Chief OF Gen.
halleck's Stah, 1S61-1S72,