Year: 1874




From well-written article by.a Lon
don critic on Colonel Chesney's Military
Biographies of the prominent Generals,
on both sides, in the war between the
United States and the Confederate
States, we take the following interesting
extract. Colonel Chesney is an English
man of high reputation, and is regarded
as being thoroughly competent as
military writer. The London reviewer
OF the essays remarks:


The essays on Generals Grant and
Lee are most valuable and exhaustive
studies. His structures on Grants reek-
the impossible by fighting the battle of
Cold Harbor, after he should have learn
ed by the experience of the long and
butchering battles of the Wilderness and
Spottsylvania, that the continuous
hammerlng in which he had somewhat
boastfullv trusted might break the in
strument while its work was yet un6n
ished, are both severe and were well
founded He calls the battle Of Cold
Harbor the darkest spot on the career
Of Grant as commander;
Itrequires he continues, more excuse
than has anywhere been offered for the
sacrifice. 1t may be that Grants usually
imperturbable temper was ruffled by the
continued readiness in which his adver-
sary met him; or that he believed the
Confederates already so worn down by
their unsupplied losses as to be unable
to man their works; or that he Judged
that his new command had not been
sufficiently put to the proof by the stern
doings OF the month just past; or that
all these causes acted together. Pos
sibly he was influenced more than all by
the uneasy consciousness that he had
brought the criticism of the whole world
upon his strategy by his famous dis
patch, !" / propose to fight i out on this
line, if ittakes all summer" for had not
this line been already abandoned, and
no result wen2 Colonel Chesney accu-
rately apportions between Grant and
Sheridan the merit of the final effort
which forced Lee to surrender, of which
merit Americans are becoming more and
more prone 10 assign an undue share to
the subordinate commander"


His sketch of General Lee cannot be
condensed; Like Napoleon, his troops
soon learnt to believe him equal to
every emergency which war could bring.
Like Ragland, he preserved q sweetness
of temper that no person or circum-
stances could rufle. Like Caesar, he
mixed with the crowd of soldiery freely,
and never feared that his position would
be forgotten. Like Blucher, his one
recognized fault was that which the
soldier readily forgives, a readiness to
expose his life beyond the proper limits
permitted by modern war to the COM
mander-in-chief. What wonder, then, if
be commanded an army in WHICH each
man would die for him; an army from
which his parting wrung tears more
bitter than any the fall of their cause
could extort; an army which followed
him after three years of glorious
yicissitudes into private life without
one thought Of further resistance
against the fate TO which their
adored chief yielded without q muir
mus." But with all this warm eulogy
he impartaliy po.nis ont the faults aud
failipGs of Lee-how he made no at
.empt to check indiscipline; never used
his sathority to purge his command oil
inea;eient officers; failed to enforce on
the government vital necessity OF bring
inc ths furnishing OF supplies more
d;Tectly under his own control, so that
his army starved in Richmopd while |
snnnIes were available had proper
energy been used by the War Depart
ment: and lastly, how he so marched his
cavalry of their legs, that in their last |
campaign the Confederates were LETT
almost destitute Of that NEST necessary /
arm. But these shortcomings, although
the military critic must notice them, arc
but the inevitable specks on the bright
surface Of an illustrious military char
acter; on Lees personal character there