The History of the Confederate War, Its Causes and Its Conduct, Volume 1 (of 2): A Narrative and Critical HistoryEggleston, George Cary
History
The History of the Confederate War, Its Causes and Its Conduct, Volume 1 (of 2): A Narrative and Critical History
Eggleston, George Cary
United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
On the other side, Benjamin F. Butler, a criminal lawyer, who knew
nothing whatever of the military art, was a major-general by virtue of
political influence alone, and as such outranked and dominated officers
immeasurably his superiors. Think of Lee banished to the coast of South
Carolina, while Beauregard and Johnston were needlessly fortifying
at Centreville against an absurdly impossible advance of McClellan's
forces. Think of McClellan himself in command of the most important
Union army, while Grant and Sherman and George H. Thomas remained in
subordinate positions!
And in the navy a similar discrimination against demonstrated capacity
and in favor of mere "rank" equally prevailed. Farragut, with all his
already and abundantly proved capacity, waited for the best part of
a year before he could get permission to bring his great powers into
play, and when at last he got such permission from the ignorant and
arrogant civilians who dominated the navy department at Washington,
it came to him with an insulting suggestion of doubt as to his
courage, his patriotism and his capacity. That is a sad story to be
told hereafter. Our present purpose is merely to show how lamely and
incompetently the war was carried on on both sides during the first
year of its progress. He who considers the simple facts is well nigh
forced to the conclusion that had either side conducted its contest
with half the brains and energy that came later into play it must have
won at once.
CHAPTER XX
THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF GRANT
The "pepper box" policy of employing small bodies of troops everywhere
for the accomplishment of ends of no strategic consequence prevailed
at Washington during all those early months of the war. The results of
that policy are the despair of the historian who would intelligently
trace the progress of the conflict from its beginning to its end. In
very truth there was no progress. So far as the outcome of the war
was concerned those events had no part to play; so far as the history
of the war is concerned, any attempt to relate their insignificant
stories would serve only to confuse the reader's mind, and to distract
his attention from events and operations that bore directly upon the
ultimate outcome of a struggle which involved the fate of the nation.
Let us leave them aside as inconsiderable incidents and trace instead
those significant happenings that served to determine the ultimate
results.
The outcome of all great wars is determined in the end by the
personality of the men who conduct them to a conclusion. Circumstances
and even accidents have their part to play, but in the main it is
personality that determines the event.
So at this point it becomes necessary to consider General Grant as a
factor in the war, "a stone rejected of the builders," but destined to
become the chief cornerstone, nevertheless, of Federal success.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account