The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-23

General Wilson'S address was eulogy of
the great leaders of the war. the speaker
giving the larger portion of his time to
General Thomas. After tracing his ancestry
and education and stating the attitude he
assumed at the beginning of the great re-
bellion, General Wilson said:
Here it is proper for me to remind you
that Thomas never left the army for an
hour like Grant Sherman, Mcclellan, Burn
side and Stonewall Jackson-''to taste the
Oh 81 experience, ana the vinegar OF a
leave of absence, but welded to the profess
sion of arms as his principal honor, study
and occupation" he grew in wisdom and
years-and when the hour of trial came
was found at his post fully prepared and
ready for the high destiny which awaited
him. 1t is true that he was doubted and
distrusted and perhaps msrepresented at
first because he was Virginian and a
Southerner, but thanks 70 Lincoln who
never long did any man injustice. and
thanks TO his own modest but resolute per-
Torrance of duty, he was duly made
colonel and soon afterwards brigadier gen
eral, and finally major general, and in all
these grades his deeds are part of your i'm
perishable records Transferred to Ken
lucky he was the first to win Union vic
tory, and Mill Spring, which came shortly
after the ignominy of Bull Run, lifted the
country from doubt and depression, and in
spired 1t with hope. if not with enthusi-
asm. The glory of this victory was, how
ever, soon eclipsed by the greater glory of
ture of an entire rebel army. 1t brought
Grant at once into national prominence.
shifted the center of interest to another and
q more advanced theater of operations, and
left Buell. and Thomas for a while to play
a secondary part. The forces of Buell. were
soon welded into the armv of the Cumber-
land, while those of Grant became the
army of the Tennessee. These two mighty
organizations were thenceforth destined to
cooperate closely with each other. till the
end of the war, and they became rivals and
competitors in glory. Although often sepa-
rated by long distances they supplemented
and supported each other IN all their great
campaigns. Each also, upon more than one
occasion. assisted the other in battle. and
each claims to have saved the other from
defeat or destruction. The army of the
Cumberland points with pride and conf
dence to the surprise of Shiloh and the
see to the siege of Chattanooga and the
magnificent victory of Missionary Ridge, as
the sufficient vindication of its claims.
1t is not my purpose here to weigh the
evidence and decide upon the merits of
these honorable contentious. What l wish
TO point out at this time is that those ar
gers, their common tolls and their COM
mon victories. We're never altogether
sentially in the perfection of their organi-
cation. of their discipline and of their adj
ministration. and this difference had its
origin primarily in the difference of the
character of their commanders.
THOMAS NOT TO BLAME.
1t will not be forgotten that shortly after
their junction on the field of Shiloh where
Grant and Thomas met for the first time
during the war. Grant was practically re-
lieved of actual command by Halleck. the
generalissimo, and announced as second in
command of the combined armies while
his divisions were added to that of Thomas,
thus giving the latter actual authority over
about half of the mighty column. Grant
who was really in disgrace, was constantly
ignored and snubbed, and, of course, felt
deeply Nronged and Inundated His only
friend was Sherman, who discouraged him
from resigning and assured him that time
would make all things right for him. Thorn
as IN no way to blame, but having
OF marked favor and confidence, became
thus innocently and unconsciously the in
strument of injustice. if not the object of
jealousy and suspicion. There no rup
ture btwean him and Grant then or after
wards but equally there was no rap
prochement. They treated each other with
dignified reserve throughout that campaign
and never became intimate or confidential
with each other 1t is but proper to say
again, those two charitable men differed
In person, in habit. in idiosyncrasy. in abil-
ity, in professional attainment, in moral
worth and in character almost as much as
any two men on either Side-and ii is, per-
haps. not too much to add that Thomas did
not regard himself as the inferior of his
more fortunate rival in respect to any of
these qualities.
And who can blame him if. looking back