Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1914-11-06
New News Of Yesterday
Why Sheridan Removed
Gen. Warren

From time to time after Gen. Fred /
d. Grant returned from his service in !
the Philippines / had interesting and
always pleasant conversations with
him and was gratihed to know that
he welcomed suggestions which led
TO "reminiscences on his part Of his
association with his father and of
comments made by his father to him
respecting some of the higher Off
GERS Of the Union as we'll as the
Confederate army.
happened TO mention to Gen.
Grant one day that Gen. Fitz-John
Porter told me that he knew Of no
case in which q greater display OF
moral courage was made than that
of Gen. Grant when he published an
article Ia which hej asserted that he
had become convinced that Gen.
Porter had been unjustly convicted
by courtmartial on account of char
ges made against him for conduct in
the second battle Of Bull Run.
well" said Cen Fred Grant, II
don't think my father ever looked
upon his action as one that involved
moral courage. Father was the
most just man I ever knew in the
sense that he always tried 70 be 30
and no one could make swlfter ac-
I Acknowledgement of an error after he
was persuaded that he had erred.
/ especially In any matter relating TO
/ the conduct of an officer.
You may remember that there
we're many criticisms of my father
because he would not aid Gen. Gou-
verneur X. Warren in securing a
court of investigation which would
have authority to pass upon the fact
associated with the removal of Gen.
Warren by Gen Sheridan at the bat
tic OF Five Forks, Va, which COM
PEELED Gen. Lee rapidly to abandon
Richmond
~ have often heard my father
speak of Gen. Warren. and he always
spoke with admiration OF his sol
dierly qualities. of his devotion TO
duty and Of his fine personal charac-
ter. ! have also heard father say
why Il was that he would not re-
commend the appointment of the
court Of Investigation for which War
rem asked Father knew that Gen.
Warren was grievously hurt because
he was removed by Gen. Sheridan
and believed that the action was
reflection upon his military ability
and cOnscientiousness.
but father told me what the rea-
son was And IL was a reason which
would have made a court OF inquiry
useless He said that the general
who was IN command Of an army Is
responsible. in the end, for its man.
| agoment. He must therefore know
what the peculiar ability as well as
the peculiar limitations of a subor-
dinate officer are. No man could
have spoken in higher terms of Gen.
Warren's ability than father always
did On the other hand. be felt that
there We're certain limitations. due
perhaps to disposition, to procras.
innate, TO take excessive care, which
in certain contingencies would affec
Gen. Warrens ability to carry on
certain orders. The battle of Fiv'
Forks was to be an important one
since upon IL father depended TO
success to divide or break through
Gen. Lees lines He therefore au
thorized Sheridan, I'm case he though
the exigencies of the situation JUST
fed It. 10 displace Gen. Warren be
cause he was apprehensive that thos
peculiar limitations might impair tn
movement.
Now, a generals Judgment OF hi
subordinate Is not a matter for
court Of inquiry. Furthermore, ha'
there been a court of inquiry fatho
> would have been compelled to testif
that Warren was removed because
in fathers opinion. the situation wa
a one which compelled a kind Of lead
ership in which Warren was wanting
4 Therefore father thought a court q
a inquiry would be useless, alth0ug
4 he fully appreciated Gen. Warren
Y feelings. The time would come, h
said, when explanation for the actio
q could be given. But il did not com
& until father reached the descriptio
Of the battle of Five Forks in III
N latter part of his book"
II Copyright. 1914, by f. J. Edward
All rights reserved.