The sun., 1909-02-14

Johnston was a great captain he did no
prove 1t on the field Of Shiloh His troop
were pushed In wherever the eSigenc,
Of the occasion demanded. His lieuten
ants Beauregard. Bragg, Hardee anc
Polk-were trained soldiers, and the delay
OF the day before had given them chsno,
TO make every needful preparation. yet
on the night OF Sunday. April Q. the rebe
army was nearly as much disorganizec
as Grants. The troops Of all the corpi
were intermingled and we're with diff.
Guilty disentangled. In other words, the
battle OF Sunday was like an old fashioned
country wrestling match. where each
combatant uses any method he chooses
or can bring TO bear to force his adver-
sary to the ground. Johnston showed
great courage and gallantry as well az
| hrmness OF will, but he had little oppor-
tunity for the exercise Of the high mill
tary ability with which he is credited.
That he had such ability 10 an inference
rather than a proved conclusion In
fine. according ts Col Stone, such an
engagement as Shiloh 10 neither mag
nifcent nor is it war in any civilized and
scientific meaning OF the term. II ID
merely the display Of brute force which
makes no account OF human life or suffer
ing in the struggle for supremacy.
That the first days battle at Shiloh
ended in a disastrous defeat to Grant and
that the repulse OF the Confederates on
the second day was due solely to Gen.
Buell., except for the aid which he derived
ftbm Gen. Lew Wallaces division Of
Grants force, il the verdict in which all
three Of the writer's who deal with the sub
ject in this volume concur.
The writer Of the paper on the Chicks-
mauga campaign 10 Gen. H. V. Boyn-
ton, who personally took part in the
operations which he depicts. He con-
tends that Chiokamauga was for each
side. in proportion to the numbers en-
gagged and the time Of their fighting. the
deedliest battle not only Of our civil war
but Of all modern wars from the day Of
the first Napoleon TO that OF Won Moltke.
He AYERS that "the strategy Of the cam
paign which led up to the battle-a STRAIT
egy for which the credit belongs to Gen.
a
and is not surpassed in the story Of any
war;" 1t was a campaign successfully
prosecuted through over a hundred miles
OF formidable mountains, far within the
enemy's lines and directed against one OF
the most important Confederate centres.
which was at the same time the most
notable natural stronghold in the South.
Yet although this stronghold was secured
as the direct result of the battle Of Chick
amauga and was thereafter permanently
held. very general impression has pre-
vailed throughout subsequent years that
this engagement ended in serious defeat
Grams was justly relieved Of command.
After recalling the tremendous losses
suffered by the various divisions and
brigades Of the army Of Rosecrans during
the battle Gen. Boynton submits that
according TO the statistics the percentage
OF losses very much exceeded those Of
any battle Of the modern world from
Waterloo to Sedan. At Chckamauga
the aggregate losses on each side for
those troops which fought through the
two days were fully So per cent, while
for many portions OF each line the losses
reached 80 per cent. On the other hand
Wellington lost but II per cent. at Water
loo. Napoleon only liii per cent. at
Austerlitz and II per cent. at Marengo.
The average losses OF both the French
and the Austrian armies at Magenta and
Solferino in 1889 represented less than Q
per cent. At koniggratz in 1866 the
aggregate loss in each army was q per
cent. At Worth. Mars la Tour. Grave |
lotte and Sedan in 1870 the average loss !
was 12 per cent. The marvel Of German |
lighting in the Franco Prissian war was |
displayed by the Third Westphalian In !
fantry at Mars Ia Tour. 1t took 5000 |
men into action and lost 49.4 per cent. !
Next to this record was that OF the Garde- |
SchuetZen battalion, 1000 strong. which |
at Metz lost ie.1 per cent. Gen. Boynton |
shows that here were several hrigades
At Chickamauga and very many regi-
nents whose Losses exceeded these latter
igures.
What were the respective numbers Of
he forces which faced each other on
September 1920, 1853? The figures have
been very differently stated. Cen Boyn-
on says that Gen. Rosecrans had crossed
he Tennessee River with few hundred
more than 10000 electives. OF these
Nagner's brigade. comprising ?.Oei effec-
ives, was detached to hold Chattanooga.
he Union force left in front Of Bragg being
hus slightly less than 5000. On the
,ther hand Gen. Lee in a letter to Presi-
lent Davis dated September II, 1893,
iefnes Bragg's actual and prospective
strength as follows. 'If the report sent
o me by Gen. Cooper since my return
rom Richmond is correct Gen. Bragg
lad on the goth Of August s., ,loI effective
men; Gen. Buckner, lo,lis. Bragg was
o receive from Gen. Johnston 1900.
lis total force will. therefore, be 70, e,2Is.
This is independent Of tbe local troops,
which, you may recollect. he reported
N exceeding his expectations. Gen.
,oynton points out in connection with
hese offcial figures that Bragg after
he battle reported as having been present
force OF 1900. which was not
Included by Lee. This. according 10 the
CURES furnished Gen. Lee. gave Bragg
1 ,2is. According TO Gen Johnstons
after he had sent 1900
o Bragg he subsequently despatched
wo small brigades. which latter reached
i'm the day before the battle Evidently
'osecrans fought the battle Of Chicka- ,
nauga against considerable odds. ,
The failure at Washington to discover
he movement Of the 5000 men under
Is pronounced in the book be- I
ore US one Of the remarkable incdents 3
the camnaiqn On Sentamher "A Han 1