The National tribune., 1906-07-19
OHIO MONUMENTS AT SHILOH
The Positions md Inscriptions Were Al.
proved BY the Communications.

proved BY the Commission.
In The National Tribune OF June q
tnere Is an article signed by r. 3.
Brown. OF GAINESVILLE o., In which is An
attempted criticism on the inscriptions
on the monuments of the Army Of the
Ohio at Shiloh.
1 served in that battle. and was se-
verely wounded on the second day, have
visited the field since the war, and al
ways take a great interest in ANYTHING
concerning Shiloh.
Brown was formerly member Of the
Ohio Shiloh Commission, but resigned
Jan. 1, 1901
The record shows that in October,
1900, committee Of the Commission
went to Shiloh to select and fix positions
TOT the monuments which were to be
placed on the park by the State. On
oct. II, 1900, the committee made their
report, and the positions fixed by them
were unanimously approved by the
The inscriptions OF the monuments
relate only to the position where they
stand; other positions before and after
the time named in the inscription are
marked by metal tablets put up by the
National Commission.
Comrade Brown says: "There is an
utter absence OF information as to the
time the Army OF the Ohio moved TO
the attack on Monday morning. the
It'll" It he will consult the Official map
made at the time under the direction OF
Gen. Buell.. and adopted by the War
Department as the official map of Shi-
loh, and from which the time given in
the inscriptions was taken, he will gain
some Information on that point: also.
the official reports in Vol. 10. War Rec
ords. Of Gen. Buell.. Cox VIM. Grose.
goth Ind; Capt. JOS. Bartlett, Battery
g. Ohio L. A.; Col w, c. Whitaker, 9th
KY; Col. Geo. s. Mygatt, 41st Ohio, and
NAL VIM. Wallace, 18th Ohio. he will
ind additional information on the point
In question. All the officers quoted were
OF the Army OF the Ohio.
He says he was powerless to secure
corrections in the Inscriptions" The
facts are. the inscriptions were not writ
ten and were not considered by the
commission until nearly two months
alter Brown had ceased to be q mem.
Der, and he never saw them until the
report of the Ohio Commission was pub
rished in June. 1903
The facts are that WhiteIaw Reid.
under the impression that the monu.
ments were the only markers that des-
ignate the time that the different or
the War Department. through the So
ctety OF the Army Of the Cumberland,
70 investigate the matter, which was
done, and the report OF the War Depart
ment was made on Oct. II. 1894, q copy
OF which I have seen. and the conten-
ton of Mr.. Reid and others was not
sustained. Gen. Ainsworth, In his re-
port. says that "Ar. Reds complaint
resulted from q lack Of Information on
his part regarding the regulations pre-.
scribed by the War Department for the
government Of the Shiloh National Mill
tary Park Commission In the erection
OF State monuments at positions where
the regiments did notable fighting"
The fact Is. the monuments were an
placed where the regiments did notable
fighting and sustained their greatest
loss, and the inscriptions refer only to
the position occupied by the monument.
other locations being marked by tab
lets.-Henry Hildebrant. Washington c.
H., O.