The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-30
THE SHERMAN EULoGY.


the great soldier. Senator John Sherman
did his work fairly well, for the late Gen.
eral Sherman was an erratic man, of arbi-
trary temper and reckless speech, and
there was good deal in his career that
was not capable of defense.
Senator John Sherman in his eulogy of
his brother justiies and commends Gen.
eral Sherman's conduct during the episode
of the San Francisco vigilance committee
of 1856. This vigilance committee was not
a mob. for the whole city was behind
them; the whole state was so completely
behind them that the proclamation of the
governor calling for troops to put
them down was treated with con-
tempt by the press and people of
California. Sherman was then a banker
in San Francisco, had been a soldier
twelve years and was So years of age, and
his conduct at this distance of time seems
not only discredita5le to his good sense,
but was an act of bad faith, for when the
gambler Casey murdered King, the fear
less editor of the only incorruptible paper
in the city, Sherman, in common with the
other bankers and business men subscribed
funds for the support of the vigilance
committee. but when made general of the
militia by Governor johnson and placed
at the head of the forces organized for
crushing the committee, he refused to pay
his subscription. General Wool, U. s. A.,
refused to aid Sherman to shell San Fran
cisco, because her citizens had risen
against anarchy stalking about in the
stolen robes of law, and Admiral, then
captain, Farragut, of the United States
navy, expressed himself in similar terms,
and Sherman's general order to the
militia. like the governors proclama-
ton, was laughed at; so Sher-
man finally resigned. Sherman
wrote letter denouncing 5000 of the best
citizens of San Francisco as ''the canailie."
when they included his own business and
social peers reluctantly in arms to save
themselves from the ''canaille." General
Sherman's language and conduct at this
time convict him of bitter prejudice, mex
cusable ignorance or falsehood. for as late
as 1s6s-ls73 he called William T. Coleman
and all his associates upon the vigilance
committee "iiars.".
The TRUTHS that General Sherman all
his days was involved in controversies in
which his own reputation for veracitv and
candor severely suffered. In controversies
with General II. V. Boynton. General
James B. Fry and Editor McCullagh, of the
st. Louis Globe Democrat. General Sherman
was put to utter confusion by
the publication of letters written
by him to General Halleck and
afterwards unearthed from the archives of
the war department. These letters proved
beyond doubt that Sherman paid court
to Halleck as long as Halleck's star was
of the first magnitude, going so far as to
write Halleck letter on the eve of his de-
parture for Washington after the evacu-
ton of Corinth, giving him the credit
of the campaign from Donelson to Shiloh
and lamenting that he left nobody behind
him fit 10 command. After Halleck was
dead Sherman, in his speeches, boosted
that he was the friend of Grant from Dom
olson thence forward and denounced Hal
leck as the author of the greatest blunder
of the war in his Corinth campaign and
his dispersion of his army of 120. men
when he had only to reach out his hand
and take Vicksburg.
At the battle of Atlanta, July %, 1854,
Hoods troops under Hardee penetrated
10 Sherman's rear, broke his center, and
the day was lost but for John Logan, who
ha nh t.1,,
head of it, restored the continuity of our
lines; in short, fought and won the battle
while Sherman anxiously watched it
| more than two miles distant.
After this battle Logan asserted his
| right to succeed to the command of the
Army OF the Tennessee, made vacant
| by the death of Mcpherson. Sher-
man gave the command to Howard.
on the pretense that the contem-
plated movement of the troops was
difficult tactical performance, and that
he preferred to entrust it TO Howard, an
educated soldier. This answer was disin-
| genuous, for Logan proved that he did
command the Army of the Tennessee dur
ing this very tactical movement, and sue
| cessfally executed it without any help
| from Howard. Sherman, in his MEM
olrs," called Logan, and Blair, who, next
to Logan, rendered Sherman inestimable
| services in this critical battle of Atlanta,
mere political generals aetuated by purely
selfish ambition in entering the military
service. Grant declares Logan and Blair
to have been superior in military capacity
| to Howard, and thinks Logan nobly
| earned the command that Sherman gave
| to another.
Sherman always withheld warm praise
from the living. and was the author of the
| letter saying that if "Cha-les F. Smith
! had lived Grant would never have been q
historical figure" \ stupid letter, for
Grant was already the victor of Donelson
before Smiths death. commanded Smith
in that battle and ordered him to make
the charge Of the day. Sherman's over
slsughing of Logan was done 10 please
| himself and his classmate, General
Thomas, who cordially hated Logan, as
only sn old regular" can hate volunteer.
General Sherman was, like Wellington,
great soldier, a patriot. but like
Wellington. he was q selfish rather
than a magnanunous man. In none
OF General Sherman's public utterances
can any word in commendation of Grant