New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-12-01
NTTHORS. Publ ISHFRS~ NEWS: REVIEWS: COMMENTS
J. F. Rhodes New History
Book News and Miscellany

selection of Pope rs McClellan's sue
cessor7 Or the selection OF hailech
as the head Of all the ,armies7 Mr.
Rhodes saws of these promotions: 1T
is remarkable that there was appar-
emily no thought Of three really able
generals in the West-Grant, William
T. Sherman and George II. Thomas
whose achievements at the time were
greater than Pope's or Hallecks."
Burnside's career as com nln1er OF
the Army of tie Potomac was
tragedy So was Hooker's. What can
be said in defence Of their appoint
ments when in the same army there
were available men of the quality oil
Reynolds and Meade? Lincoln once
offered the command to Reynolds, but
the latter declined 1t. II is a pity mat
he was not drafted for the post.
Lincoln always successfully defend
ed himself against the charge that he
selected generals on political grounds.
lie did so only in rare cases. That
being his rule, why should he have
PASSED over Thomas for a second time
when Rosecrans was put in command
of the Army of the Cumberland! AZ
last the right man was found to lead.
Grants Vicksburg campaign could not
be ignored. And after Grant came IN
Lincoln dropped strategy and went
back to politics.
Mr.. Rhodes recognizes McClellan's
temperamental failings and his inca
pacity TO handle large army against
a first class opponent like Lee. But he
is not very severe on him, quoting with
approval Grants judgment after the
war: IF ne did not succeed, it was be-
cause the conditions of success were
so trying. If Mcclellan had gone into
the war as Sherman, Thomas or Meade,
had fought his way along and up, |
have no reson to suppose that he would
not have won as high distinction as
any of u.s."
OF Pope's campaign the author says.
with charity, that it consisted OF a
series of blunders on his part, aggra-
waited by the INDIGESTION Cf Halleck, who
evinced an utter incapacity for direct
ing the movement of the two armies
(the Army of Virginia and the Army
of the Potomac). Halleck, Pope, the
President, Stanton, Chase and McClel-
Ian all had hand in TIE management
of the troops. Against these contended
one able head, who had two powerful
arms in Longstreet and Jackson" The
I
result was inevitable.
The author draws literally on Meade's
letters and gives Meade full credit for
his generalship at Gettysburg. He does
not sympathize much with Lincoln's
| impotence at Lees subsequent "es-
cape" into Virginia. At Gettysburg for
the first time in its existence the Army
of the Potomac was handled with COM
potency, excepting, perhaps, on the last
days of McClellan's retreat from the
| Chickahominy to the James. Meade had
won what was soon seen to be the deci-
sive battle of the war. Yet Lincoln was
| at first highly dissatisfied. mo one"
says Mr.. Rhodes, Should accept this
| judgment of Lincoln's without consid-
, ering Meade's defence" Subsequently,
however, as an independent command
er, Meade developed a lack of initiative
similar to McClellan's.
The authors treatment of Grant is
not clear-cut. This is not surprising.
Grant is an enigma. AS soldier his
superiority to most of his associates
was moral. He was not a student Of
war. He took little interest in the tech
nical side Of the military art. But he
was always imperturbable, always will
ing and ready to fight. He never
! doubted that the North would win in
the end. He had his ups and downs.
He was brilliant at Donelson, Vicks-
burg and Chattanooga, but extraordi-
narily careless at Shiloh. and below the
mark in the Virginia campaign Of
1864. His unevenness is disconcerting.
Mr.. Rhodes admits it, but does not ex-
plain it, or, indeed, offer anything to
explain it except some references to
Grants drinking habits. The more one
studies Grant the more difficult it is to
define in military terms his superiority
as a soldier.
There is hardly page of this book
which does not contain some fruitful
suggestion. II is a clear distillation of
the present sum of knowledge about
( the Civil War-a concise summary al
most beyond praise for its mastery
of the subject matter. its sense of pro-
portion and its literary effectiveness.