Arizona republican., 1906-12-04

nessee, but only remained a short time being returned to Missouri in command of the department. In lS63-4 went to | Knoxville in command of the depart
 ment of Ohio. and from there joined sherman at the beginning of the Att l lanta campaign.
 ''I never served under Grant directly, and never met him in battle. He will always rank among the greatest of commanders. Thomas was one of my | instructors at West Point and the fame he earned was no greater than he deserved. McPherson was my room- mate at the academy. He was a bril- liant soldier, but rash of his own per- { son. It was through his high courage ' he lost his life.
 When the battle of Franklin was fought I was major-general of volun- teers, but had only reached the grade of captain in the regular army. and ] still contemplated retiring from the army at the close of the war, and en- tering upon tle practice of law. After that battle l was made a full brigadier- general in the regular army, and a brevet-major general in the same, jump- ing all the intermediate grades. l be- lieve Sheridan was the only other offi- cer who had a like experience As to the battle of Franklin, that is a dis puted question yet whether it or the subsequent battle of Nashville was the real destroyer of Hoods army. could have avoided that battle had l so desired. In fact my artillery had already been sent across the river, but I I xK-in | thought so too. It was a great risk but Hood was to be met and defeated some time and 1 took the risk Hood had twice as many men as l had. and he was strong and confident When the battle ended he had thirteen gen. eral officers and several thousand men and his army was practically demol- ished. In fact, for future aggressive movements, it was virtually destroyed At the battle of Nashville Thomas was twice as strong as I had been at Frank lin. while Hood was very much weaker Weaker from the great loss of officers and men. and from the resulting de- moraliZation of his forces. Nor were losses of the battle of Nashville as great as those at Franklin. There have been few battles where the loss in gen. eral officers was as great as Hood suf- fered at Franklin.
 "In mentioning the battle of Frank lin it ought not to be forgotten that in the opening of the struggle the advan- tage had been with Hood owing to the mistaken courage of two of my briga- rier-generals stationed at the outposts who clung to their positions long after they ought to have withdrawn. When they were overcome by the tremendous odds Of the Confederates they opened the way into my works for Hood. My line was cut in two but Colonel Op- dycke charged so furiously that he drove them back and restored my line and recaptured the guns that had been lost
 T see by some of the papers that it has lately been charged that Halleck was jealous of Grant, and did not de- sire him to succeed. I think that Is a mistake. Halleck was a man of great intellectually. but without qualification to command in the field. Witness his siege of Corinth. He delighted to sit in his office and command armies tO move. I do not think he was jealous of anybody, for as I have said, he had no desire for glory in the field. In tho beginning, he was wrapped up in Gen. Charles F. Smith, and looked upon him as the coming genius of the war. Smith was the junior of Grant. and Halleck wanted to hold Grant back and give Smith a chance"