New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-25
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
GRANT IN THE WILDERNESS.
HIS LOSSES N MAKING FRONTAL ATTACKS ON
LEES ARMY.

TO the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: Mr. E c williams controverts my state
r,ent that Grant took into the wilderness an
army fully three times large that which sub
5ected him TO series OF such terrible defeats that
in the course OF one month he lost more men than
Lee had begun the campaign with" and for this
purpose be quotes the statement OF General Grant.
that the Army Of the Potomac numbered about
1lsOoa while Lee had less than $4,000 He also
quotes statement OF losses from May to June Il
as So IS He denies that Grant net any defeats IN
the Wilderness.
respectfully submit that Mr. williams has made
the common mistake Of comparing statements made
about one thing with different statements made
about another. took all my statements from the
remarkably accurate history Of James Forbes
Rhodes and they can all be verified by reference
70 Volume ", pages 40. AL Al Mr.. Rhodes's
statements are supported by conclusive authorities
Il IS true that the Army Of the Potomac alone
entered the wilderness with about 1900 But it
was reinforced while fighting, by $4,000 or 10000
more. Grant therefore took into the Wilderness
about ITO.eOe men.
Il may be true that Lee had under his command
altogether 5000 although evidence OF this
can be found As he detached enough Of this force
10 defeat the Army OF the James, with loss Of
over 60oe & is clear that he could possibly have
used more than 5000 men directly IN front Of
Grant. since less than 25eo9 could never have in
disted a loss Of 5000 gRon their enemies A.
Mr.. Rhodes says: The loss Of Grant from May
equal 70 Lees whole army nv Rhodes. D. Al, 4
Cent " DOOR, 4o-J All4s Statement may DT OS-
pended
Grants campaign in the Wilderness, taken a
whole. with reference 10 his ultimate purpose may
fairy be called victory But detail il consisted
o. q series OF attacks which ne telt himself com
relied make upon his eueuyis front. in every one
of which direct attacks he was defeated He lost
= SIS men II the first days battle, without
gaining position. He lost over 10000 at Spottsy-
VaEia without gaining ground He lost about i-U'S
nan CCid Harbor little more than twenty MN
utes- IN every instance he was compelled 10 anaI-
don MS direct attacks and 70 turn Lee : Halh-
Meanwhile q separate branch OF Grants army,
operating 70 the southwark. was ANONYMOUSLY oe-
ssn ted under Butler with 4 loss Of 5000 men
critiCisiENg General Grants plan OF cam
paign- The very point 70 which attention was
-aigu 6f 1864 and the African campaign OF !sWt IN
both cases the enemy occupied irnpregnable, posi-
lions upon which all front attacks absolutely
failed IN both cases after the failure OF front al
tacks the TANKS OF the enemy We're turned i Was
those t1lrrfnEs Of his flank which compelled Lee 70
-er-zsr and which enabled Grant 10 advance. II IS
rrIre possible that in neither case could the en-
er7w-s tanks have been turned without Z previous
feo-fUl sacrifice OF life in direct attacks 90 not
PRESUME 10 sit Judgment upon Grant alLIouE y
very able and military authorizes nave ..Ss
condemned MS Virginia campaign and az that
-i-7e officers who were engaged al tolC f1aIDOL
told ne that Grant considered Dy me troops
70 be butcher. I never did agree with tnaL opln-
f0r hut there never any DOUBT InaL tTT1Il- :
5sIfherate policy was 20 destroy Lees army by per
must sacrifice Northern men Tor every
sr-er put out Of combat. his was propaD!S lne
C-Iv wav IN which the war could De prousltt 70 q
successful end ans Grant by pursuing, ms %
NJ rEntIy brutal policy, il reality sscIlncto 10 -
lives IN attaining final successful result I-a'
other generals did in attaining no result a az,
THOMAS q. SHEAhMAN-
New-York, Feb. % 1900.