Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts

Sunday, December 17, 2006

The Mourners for the Dead

Unhappy with General Don Carlos Buell, on October 24, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln elevated Major General William S. Rosecrans to the command of the Army of the Cumberland in the war's western theater. In the more politically sensitive east, he would wait another two weeks, just after the mid-term elections, to replace another General with whom he had expressed his displeasure. Major General George B. McClellan "had the slows" Lincoln had said, and so he placed McClellan's subordinate Major General Ambrose E. Burnside at the head of the grand Army of the Potomac. President Lincoln expressed to both Rosecrans and Burnside his dissatisfaction with what he viewed as both armies’ previous lack of aggressiveness. He expected a more vigorous campaign.

Fredericksburg's Reconstructed Stone Wall

Uncomfortable with having been ordered to accept overall command of the East's Army of the Potomac, its new leader began to move on Richmond. On December 13, 1862, General Burnside launched assault after bloody assault on the entrenched Confederate positions outside of the historic Virginia town of Fredericksburg. The slaughtered blanketed the cold December ground. The vast number of Union casualties appalled even some of their southern counterparts. Of the estimated 17,929 total for both sides, the Union lost about 13,353 men to the Confederates 4,576. Nine days after the battle, President Lincoln would write to his General and the men of his army.

"Executive Mansion,
Washington
December 22, 1862.

To the Army of the Potomac:

I have just read your commanding general's report of the battle of Fredericksburg. Although you were not successful, the attempt was not an error, nor the failure other than accident. The courage with which you, in an open field, maintained the contest against an intrenched foe, and the consummate skill and success with which you crossed and recrossed the river, in the face of the enemy, show that you possess all the qualities of a great army, which will yet give victory to the cause of the country and of popular government.

Condoling with the mourners for the dead, and sympathizing with the severely wounded, I congratulate you that the number of both is comparatively so small.

I tender to you, officers and soldiers, the thanks of the nation.

A. Lincoln."

About one month after accepting command of the Army of the Cumberland, General Rosecrans received a telegram from the General-In-Chief of all Union armies. It read in part, "If you remain one more week in Nashville, I cannot prevent your removal." Washington again found itself dissatisfied with a perceived lack of resolution. A few weeks later, shortly after the Union disaster at Fredericksburg, General Rosecrans would fight the bloody Battle of Stones River or Murfreesboro. This contest would see a higher percentage of casualties than any other battle during the entire war. Of the just over 80,000 men involved, almost 24,000, about one-third, were killed, wounded, or missing.

Like he had with General Burnside, President Lincoln would express his thoughts to General Rosecrans. "I can never forget, if I remember anything, that at the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard earned victory, which had there been a defeat instead, the country scarcely could have lived over."

Sincerely,

Randy

Please visit my primary site at www.brotherswar.com

All original material Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved

Sources:
eHistory
American Battlefield Protection Program
NPS: Stones River Aftermath
NPS: The Battle of Stones River
Wikipedia: William Starke Rosecrans

Sunday, September 10, 2006

One Other Note on General McClellan

Along with his shaky rapport with President Lincoln, Major General George McClellan also had a testy relationship with his immediate commander. This exchange (below) between General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck and General McClellan clearly shows the tension which existed between the two men. General McClellan received the correspondence noted from General Halleck three days after the Battle of Antietam.

WASHINGTON, September 20, 1862 2 p.m.

Maj. Gen. GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN:

We are still left entirely in the dark in regard to your own movements and those of the enemy. This should not be so. You should keep me advised of both, so far as you know them.

H. W. HALLECK,
General-in-Chief.

General McClellan responded:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
Near Sharpsburg, September 20, 1862 8 p.m.

Major-General HALLECK
General-in- Chief, Washington:

Your telegram of to-day is received. I telegraphed you yesterday all I knew, and had nothing more to inform you of until this evening. Williams' corps (Banks') occupied Maryland Heights at 1 p.m. to-day. The rest of the army is near here, except Couch's division, which is at this moment, engaged with the enemy in front of Williamsport. The enemy is retiring via Charlestown and Martinsburg on Winchester. He last night reoccupied Williamsport by a small force, but will be out of it by morning. I think he has a force of infantry near Shepherdstown.

I regret that you find it necessary to couch every dispatch I have the honor to receive from you in a spirit of fault-finding, and that you have not yet found leisure to say one word in commendation of the recent achievements of this army, or even to allude to them.

I have abstained from giving the number of guns, colors, small-arms, prisoners, &c., captured until I could do so with some accuracy. I hope by to-morrow evening to be able to give at least an approximate statement.

GEO. B. McCLELLAN,
Major-General, Commanding.

Respectfully,

Randy

Please visit my primary site at www.brotherswar.com

All original material Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved

Sources:

Official Records – Ohio State University

Saturday, September 09, 2006

General McClellan's Horses

In the interest of openly stating my biases, I thought I should mention the following before I continue. Neither have I heard nor read a discussion of Union Major General George Brinton McClellan without encountering an almost immediate treatise on his perceived faults. While not believing in his perfection as a field commander, I have always felt that his shortcomings received more emphasis than perhaps his service merited. I offer the following in that spirit.

Major General George B. McClellan

In late October 1862, President Lincoln continued to urge Major General George B. General McClellan to cross the Potomac and move on the enemy. Over a month had passed since the Battle of Antietam and Washington again grew impatient as the Army of the Potomac sat on the opposite side of its namesake’s river from the Confederate forces. To one of General McClellan’s reasons for not yet advancing, President Lincoln famously replied, "I have read your dispatch about sore-tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?"

In early October 1862, after Antietam and before the President sent his somewhat rhetorically flavored question, Confederate Cavalry Commander JEB Stuart had again ridden around the Army of the Potomac, as he had once previously on the Peninsula. Aware of this movement, McClellan sent the Union Cavalry in pursuit. Although unsuccessful in stopping Stuart, the bluecoats rode up into Pennsylvania through Hanover Junction and Gettysburg. On October 14, 1862, while reporting to General McClellan, Major General John E. Wool stated, "General Pleasonton, who was in pursuit of the rebel cavalry reports that they have been driven back, into Virginia, crossing the Potomac near the mouth of the Monocacy, and having marched 90 miles in the previous twenty-four hours, while Pleasonton, in pursuit, marched 78 miles in the same time." General McClellan wrote of this incident, " General Pleasonton ascertained, after his arrival at Mechanicstown, that the enemy were only about an hour ahead of him, beating a hasty retreat toward the mouth of the Monocacy. He pushed on vigorously, and near its mouth overtook them with a part of his force, having marched 78 miles in twenty-four hours, and having left many of his horses broken down upon the road." The Confederates, while at Chambersburg, also reportedly "supplied themselves on their route with 1,000 fresh horses" now unavailable to the Union Army.

General McClellan kept Washington informed of Stuart's raid and their pursuit. On October 12, he reported to General-in-Chief Henry Halleck, "The rebel cavalry under Stuart, which left Chambersburg yesterday morning in the direction of Gettysburg, reached the Potomac, near the mouth of the Monocacy, at about 9 a.m. to-day, having marched about 100 miles in twenty-four hours. General Stoneman, who was at Poolesville, near where the rebels passed, was ordered by telegraph, at 1 o'clock p.m. yesterday, to keep his cavalry well out on all the different approaches from the direction of Frederick, so as to give him time to mass his forces to resist their crossing into Virginia..." He would also report, "Six regiments of my cavalry had been sent to Cumberland to prevent the rebel depredations upon the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which left us very deficient in cavalry here. As soon as Stuart's approach was known, however, one of these regiments was ordered back, but has not yet arrived."

On October 13, McClellan’s Chief-of-Staff (and Father-in-law) stated, "Governor Curtin reports that he has been informed that a force of rebels were within 8 miles of Concord, in Franklin Country, this morning, and that they stole 1,500 horses last night." Confederate General JEB Stuart would mention in his report to General Lee after the raid into Pennsylvania, " During the day a large number of horses of citizens were seized and brought along." and " We seized and brought over a large number of horses."

Given the above, the Government in Washington knew of the capture of horses available to the Union Army and of the activity of the Union Cavalry in pursuit of the Confederate forces. Multiple sources had also reported to Washington the concerns both with supplying remounts for the Army of the Potomac and with delivering supplies for their horses and mules. In mid-October, Union Quartermaster General Mongomery Meigs would write, "All the power of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and of the Cumberland Valley Railroad has been used, under the direction of Brig.-Gen. Haupt, invested by the Secretary with special and full powers to do anything necessary to expedite the forwarding of supplies to the army under Gen. McClellan. It is nearly impossible to supply such an army, having over 30,000 animals to feed, by means limited to two railroads. The canal will be repaired and ready for use in a few days. It was hoped that water could have been admitted to it to-day. This, if boats can be found to navigate it, will increase the power of this department to forward supplies considerably. I understand, however, that everything called for has gone forward. What has been intercepted and destroyed by the rebel cavalry in rear of the army at Chambersburg and on the railroad I have not yet learned."

General Meigs would later in the month relay other concerns. "A case is reported in which horses remained fifty hours on the (railroad) cars without food or water, were taken out, issued, and put to immediate service. The horses were good when shipped, and a few days' rest and food would have recruited them, but the exigencies of the service, or perhaps carelessness and ignorance, put them to a test which no horses could bear."

After the Battle of Antietam, General McClellan would write, " This overwork had broken down the greater part of the horses; disease had appeared among them, and but a very small portion of our original cavalry force was fit for service. To such an extent had this arm become reduced, that when General Stuart made his raid into Pennsylvania on the 11th of October with 2,000 men, I could only mount 800 men to follow him."

Although not written until February 17, 1863, Chief Quartermaster Colonel Rufus Ingalls also discussed the condition of the army's horses after the Battle of Antietam in his official report.
    "Immediately after the battle of Antietam, efforts were made to supply deficiencies in clothing and horses. Large requisitions were prepared and sent in. The artillery and cavalry required large numbers to cover losses sustained in battle, on the march, and by diseases. Both of these arms were deficient when they left Washington. A most violent and destructive disease made its appearance at this time, which put nearly 4,000 animals out of service. Horses reported perfectly well one day would be dead lame the next, and it was difficult to foresee where it would end or what number would cover the loss. They were attacked in the hoof and tongue. No one seemed able to account for the appearance of this disease. Animals kept at rest would recover in time, but could not be worked. I made application to send West and purchase horses at once, but it was refused on the ground that the outstanding contracts provided for enough; but they were not delivered sufficiently fast nor in sufficient numbers until late in October and early in November. I was authorized to buy 2,500 late in October, but the delivery was not completed until in November, after we had reached Warrenton."


The above by no means represents a comprehensive literature search concerning this one seemingly small issue. My intent in posting this includes noting that, although frequently quoted, the statement from President Lincoln questioning the condition of McClellan’s horses, and by inference the General himself, could include a brief statement or two concerning at least the partial legitimacy of his concerns. We may then view the oft-maligned General in perhaps a somewhat more sympathetic and debatably more accurate light.

Respectfully,

Randy

Please visit my primary site at www.brotherswar.com

All original material Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved

Sources:

CivilWarHome.com
Official Records – Ohio State University
US National Park Service
Virginia Center for Digital History

Photographs from the National Archives & Records Administration and the Library of Congress respectively.
 

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Heart of a Soldier

While researching information for my last blog entry "Manhood", I stumbled upon this segment from "The Heart of a Soldier, As revealed in the Intimate Letters of Genl. George E. Pickett C.S.A." Assembled by the wife he treasured, LaSalle Corbell Pickett, this incredibly moving collection of letters offers a window into the heart of one of the war's tragic figures. Of the many gems found in the writings, the portion below surprised more than the rest. The person speaking is LaSalle "Sally" Pickett.

**********

"I was in Richmond when my Soldier fought the awful battle of Five Forks, Richmond surrendered, and the surging sea of fire swept the city. News of the fate of Five Forks had reached us, and the city was full of rumors that General Pickett was killed. I did not believe them. I knew he would come back, he had told me so. But they were very anxious hours. The day after the fire, there was a sharp rap at the door. The servants had all run away. The city was full of northern troops, and my environment had not taught me to love them. The fate of other cities had awakened my fears for Richmond. With my baby on my arm, I answered the knock, opened the door and looked up at a tall, gaunt, sad-faced man in ill-fitting clothes. who, with the accent of the North, asked:

"Is this George Pickett's place?"

"Yes, sir," I answered, "but he is not here."

"I know that, ma'am," he replied, "but I just wanted to see the place. I am Abraham Lincoln."

"The President!" I gasped.

The stranger shook his head and said:

"No, ma'am; no, ma'am; just Abraham Lincoln; George's old friend."

"I am George Pickett's wife and this is his baby," was all I could say. I had never seen Mr. Lincoln but remembered the intense love and reverence with which my Soldier always spoke of him.

My baby pushed away from me and reached out his hands to Mr. Lincoln, who took him in his arms. As he did so an expression of rapt, almost divine, tenderness and love lighted up the sad face. It was a look that I have never seen on any other face. My baby opened his mouth wide and insisted upon giving his father's friend a dewy infantile kiss. As Mr. Lincoln gave the little one back to me, shaking his finger at him playfully, he said:

"Tell your father, the rascal, that I forgive him for the sake of that kiss and those bright eyes."

He turned and went down the steps, talking to himself, and passed out of my sight forever, but in my memory those intensely human eyes, that strong, sad face, have a perpetual abiding place—that face which puzzled all artists but revealed itself to the intuitions of a little child, causing it to hold out its hands to be taken and its lips to be kissed."

**********

Before becoming President, before hostilities tore the nation apart, Abraham Lincoln helped a young George Pickett obtain an appointment to West Point.

You can find the entire publication at the Project Gutenberg Website.

Sincerely,

Randy

Please visit my primary site at www.brotherswar.com.

All original material Copyright © 2005. All Rights Reserved

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Taking the hard right instead of the easy wrong.

Having never served in the military, I cannot approach understanding how it feels to withstand enemy fire or to order others into harms way. Perhaps because of this, I struggle with the concept of "Moral Courage" as applied to military figures in American Civil War literature.

With the mention of 19th century moral courage, Abraham Lincoln easily comes to mind. His desire towards war's end to "let 'em up easy" certainly contradicted the fate many wished for the defeated Rebels. Had he lived, proposing this stance risked his own political harm as he sought to better the future of the Southerners in his care.

General Robert E. Lee's choice to serve Virginia and sacrifice the status and reputation gained through decades of United States military service certainly qualifies, doing so to avoid the prospect of taking arms against his own family. The opposite approach, taken by Major General George H. Thomas, a Virginian who chose Union but lost his Southern family, fits too. Confederate General Patrick Cleburne's proposal to free and arm slaves, the first from a major Confederate commander, also applies. General Lee's choice to surrender his command at Appomattox and seek peace, thus avoiding the brutality of guerrilla warfare, certainly deserves its place on the list as well.

Other examples include Colonels Strong Vincent and Patrick O'Rorke at Gettysburg, who risked possible court martial when they opted to defend Little Round Top without approval from their immediate superiors. Both paid with their lives. Saying "Damn your orders", Lieutenant Stephen F. Brown of the 13th Vermont, defied his commander and filled canteens of water for his parched men as they marched the hot, dusty roads towards Gettysburg. For his defiance, he was put in arrest. On varying scales, these are instances of such courage.

Other examples are less clear. Do Lieutenant General James Longstreet's protests against Lee's plans at Gettysburg fit? If not, perhaps his generalship once the fighting began on Day 2 was such an example. Putting aside his own objections, he did his duty.

What about Sherman's March to the Sea? Would the label of moral courage have been applied had his tactics been used against Northern cities? Had a Southern commander replicated Sherman's ruthlessly efficiency, Northerners who viewed Uncle Billy as heroic would now have demanded retribution.

The absence of moral courage allegedly contributed to Union Major General George B. McClellan's failings at Antietam. On the single bloodiest day of the war, critics state that McClellan lacked the moral courage to commit even more men to potentially end the war. Having the courage then, the explanation goes, may have avoided the long lists of casualties which necessarily stem from prolonged conflicts. His opposite in determination and temperament, General Ulysses S. Grant allegedly had the requisite degree of moral courage to pursue necessary ends. Grant's supporters valued his willingness to take the responsibility of ordering others to into harms way for a cause bigger than any one soldier. Sometimes described as butchery, his single-mindedness contributed immeasurably to the formation of the Union as it continues to exist today. Slavery, which may have died a slower more lingering death, would have continued with millions more paying the price. Instead of these millions, thousands bought their freedom with human currency, committed to this effort by those with the courage to do so.

Lincoln and Lee may provide the most accepted and comfortable examples of moral courage because of the ease with which many agree with the sentiments behind their actions. Federals and Confederates alike can respect them in spite of their divided loyalties. Debatably fewer accept Grant's and Sherman's actions. But that may perhaps say more about our own discomfort with accepting the gift of the re-United States which we know to have been purchased at such a high and bloody price. Yet how many who argue that the cost was too high would today have the moral courage to consider returning this gift already given?

Respectfully,

Randy

All original material Copyright © 2005. All Rights Reserved