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
It was the story of Manassas over again, except that it was reversed
in its application. As after Manassas Washington lay an easy prey to
the Confederates, which by reason of incapacity they did not grasp, so,
and in like measure, the central strongholds of the Confederacy lay,
after the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson, within the easy grasp
of Grant's army. The only difference was that in the one case it was
the inexperience of the general in the field that forbade, while in
the other it was the paralyzing prohibition of the general in a secure
headquarters that stood in the way of achievement.
In the one case it was the predestined men of action who faltered
and failed of their opportunity. In the other the man of action was
restrained by "orders" which he dared not disobey.
Thus by the paralysis of Halleck's official hand, Grant was restrained
from pushing the war to results--possibly even to a conclusion--prompt,
certain and immediate.
General Halleck, who never in all his life commanded an army in battle,
was by the pure unreason of military law and etiquette officially
authorized to restrain the military impulse of Grant toward manifestly
right ends.
Grant had neglected, or was accused of having neglected, some technical
formality as to details in making his report of the actions which had
made him master of the forts. To ordinary common-sense it would seem
that the only important facts which he was called upon to report on
that occasion were that he had certain forces under his command; that
after three days of hard fighting in rain and sleet and indescribable
mud his enemy had surrendered the forts with 14,623 men, 65 pieces of
artillery and 17,000 stands of small arms; that he had made himself
master of the two strongholds and now completely commanded both rivers,
having thus opened a double river route into the heart of the Southern
Confederacy, which he proposed to make still further available by
an immediate advance upon Nashville and other strategic points the
possession of which would give him an open pathway to the Gulf itself.
This was all that common-sense required Grant to report for the
information of his superiors, and he reported precisely that. But those
office-housed superiors held him guilty of neglect in that he had not
given in detail the position of every regiment and brigade and battery
that had helped to win the victory. In punishment of this neglect of
infinitely petty detail--and also in emphasis of the fact that Grant
was after all only a general of volunteers who had presumed to win
unauthorized victories in no way assigned to him to win--Grant was
called back from his advance for the conquest of those strategic points
that lay so easily within his grasp and ordered instead to remain where
he was and to let slip from his hands the ripe fruits of his victory.
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