General Thomas's Indorsement on the Report of the Battle of Franklin
--Courtesies to Him in Washington--Peculiarities of the Official
Records in Regard to Franklin and Nashville--Documents Which Have
Disappeared from the Records--Inconsistencies in General Thomas's
Report--False Representations Made to Him--Their Falsity Confirmed
by General Grant.
After I parted from General Thomas in Tennessee, having at our last
meeting there congratulated him on his well-deserved promotion to
the highest permanent grade, that of major-general in the regular
army, I had no further official intercourse with him, and, so far
as I can recollect, did not see him until after June 1, 1868, when
I entered the War Department. During the intervening time--more
than three years--my attention had been absorbed by important
duties, including a mission to France in defense of the then violated
"Monroe doctrine," and command in Virginia during a part of the
period of "reconstruction." I had not even seen the official
reports of the campaign in Tennessee, they having been made public
while I was in Europe.
GENERAL THOMAS'S INDORSEMENT
Some time in 1868-9 a staff officer in the War Department brought
to my notice the indorsement made by General Thomas on my report
of the battle of Franklin, and of the preceding operations from
the time when, by his order, I assumed command of the army in the
field, as follows:
"Headquarters, Department of the Cumberland, Nashville, Tenn.,
December 7, 1864.
"Respectfully forwarded to the adjutant-general of the army,
cordially recommending the gallantry and skill of Major-General
Schofield to the commendation of the War Department.
"Geo. H. Thomas,
"Major-General U. S. Volunteers, Commanding."
Of course I was much gratified by this high commendation, of which
I had never before seen the text, though I had known the substance.
I was also shown the telegram from General Thomas to Secretary
Stanton recommending that I and Stanley be brevetted one grade in
the regular service for our conduct at Franklin. As I received,
a short time after that recommendation was made, the appointment
of brigadier-general in the regular service, I supposed that General
Thomas had based his recommendation for brevet upon his knowledge
or belief that I had been, or soon would be, appointed brigadier-
general. Hence I had the great satisfaction of believing that I
owed my brevet of major-general in the regular army, at least in
part, to General Thomas's recommendation.
I cannot now recollect whether or not I saw at that time General
Thomas's report of the operations in Tennessee. If I did, there
was nothing in it to attract my special attention, as I was too
much occupied with the important affairs of the time to think or
care very much about anything that was already three years old.
My relations with General Thomas during that time--the winter and
spring of 1868-9, when he was, by my selection, president of a very
important military court, with General Hancock and General Terry
as the other members, and General Holt as the judge-advocate--were
very cordial, at least on my part. He was my guest at a large
dinner given to the members of the President's cabinet and the
Diplomatic Corps, to which the only other gentlemen invited were
Generals Thomas and Hancock, as a special mark of distinction to
two of my brother officers in the army. When General Grant was
inaugurated President I went with General Sherman in person to ask
the President to give General Thomas command of the Division of
the Pacific, which I had before proposed for him, but which the
President had designated for me, under the impression that General
Thomas did not want it.
A few days after that we went to our respective commands--General
Thomas to San Francisco, and I to Fort Leavenworth. From that time
we had no official or personal relations or correspondence during
the short remainder of his life.
In respect to what was made public during that brief period, I long
since refused to believe that the superior officer whom I had always
so highly respected could possibly have been capable, in his own
mind and heart, of doing me the grievous wrong which I at one time
believed he had done. I now add, as the result of calm and
dispassionate judgment, that any criticism at that time, even under
great provocation, that could seem unkind, not to say unjust, to
that noble, patriotic, and brave soldier, from any source, not
excluding myself, was wholly unjustifiable and worthy only of
condemnation. His great services had entitled him to the kindest
possible consideration of any imperfections, either real or supposed,
in his military operations.
PECULIARITIES OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS
Now, in this winter of 1896-7, I have made a careful examination,
for the first time since the events, of all the published records
of the campaign of 1864 in Tennessee, for the purpose of doing
exact justice to the principal actors in that campaign, so far as
it is possible for me to do so. In this examination I have discovered
some things that have surprised me, but they have not altered my
deliberate judgment of the character of the great soldier under
whom I had the honor to serve in that campaign. I refer to them
only for the consideration of others.
(1) In the report of General Thomas dated January 20, 1865, covering
the entire period of the campaign, including both the battles of
Franklin and Nashville, in his commendation of subordinates he made
no distinction between the corps commanders who had served immediately
under him and only in the battle of Nashville, and the army commander
who, besides the like service at Nashville, had commanded the army
in the field, in the absence therefrom of General Thomas, up to
and including the battle of Franklin, where signal victory had
prepared the way for the less difficult but brilliant success of
General Thomas at Nashville.
(2) In the first letter from General Thomas recommending promotions
for service in the campaign, containing the names of a large number
of officers, no mention was made of my name or that of General
Stanley, who had been conspicuous for gallantry at Spring Hill and
at Franklin, where he was wounded.
(3) In a telegram from the Secretary of War calling for recommendations
for promotion, General Thomas had been informed that while there
was no vacancy in the grade of major-general (the last having, in
fact, been given to General Thomas himself), there were then two
vacancies in that of brigadier-general; and it was after the receipt
of that information, and in view of all it might be understood to
imply, that General Thomas sent his telegram to the Secretary of
War recommending that Stanley and I be brevetted one grade in the
regular service, not, as he had said in his indorsement on my report
of the battle of Franklin, for "skill," but for "good conduct."
As General Thomas well knew, I was then only a captain in the
regular army. Hence he recommended me for the brevet of major--
that is, of commander of a single battalion of four companies--for
my services in command of an army of thirty thousand men, including
artillery and cavalry.
(4) The telegram from General Thomas to Secretary Stanton recommending
those brevets for Stanley and me was dated December 31, 1864, 5 P. M.,
while my general report including that of the battle of Nashville
bears the same date without hour, but may have been, and probably
was, received by General Thomas before he sent his telegram
recommending my promotion.
(5) Neither the report of General Thomas nor of any of his corps
commanders made any mention of order for "pursuit" in the morning
of December 16, and General Thomas himself in his report took no
notice whatever of the glaring discrepancy between my report and
some of the others, nor of any facts demonstrated or suggested by
the correspondence which was made a part of my report, nor made
any mention of the change in his plan of battle for December 15,
which was made the day before.
(6) In the publication of my report in the War Records there is a
foot-note which says that the orders and correspondence referred
to are not found with the report filed in the War Department--a
fact similar to that which I had found in respect to my own retained
copies of orders and correspondence, which I understood had been
carefully locked up in a strong leather trunk ever since I left
Washington in March, 1869, but which had nevertheless mysteriously
disappeared.
In that report of mine was a reference to the modification made in
General Thomas's published plan of battle for December 15, though
no intimation that it was made at my suggestion; also the statement
that I had, after the close of the battle of December 15, "waited
upon the commanding general and received his orders for the pursuit,"
but no mention of the previous written orders to the same effect,
which had become obsolete by operation of the subsequent orders
received in person. There were attached to my report, and made a
part thereof, copies of all the orders and correspondence in my
possession relating to the battles of Franklin and Nashville, and
to the preceding operations of that campaign, including those about
the false position of the troops at Pulaski, those about the
concentration of the troops in Thomas's department, that about the
need of a pontoon bridge at Franklin, that about punishing the
telegraph-operator by whose desertion I was deprived of communication
with General Thomas during the most critical part of the campaign,
and, probably, the order in writing which I had received from
General Thomas after the battle of December 15. But of course
there were no copies of orders or despatches which I had _not_
received; and the desertion of my telegraph-operator and the
operations of Forrest's cavalry in my rear had made it probable
that there must have been some such despatches sent but not received.
There were no annotations or other suggestions as to their significance
attached to any of those copies at that time. They were simply
included, without comment, as an essential part of the report.
The explanations found in this volume were made many years
afterward.
In respect to the appendix to my report, I am now compelled to call
attention to the fact that it was an absolute necessity. I could
not possibly have made a truthful and rational report which would
have stood the test of a just criticism without reference to the
documents in that appendix; and it was far more respectful to
General Thomas simply to attach the documents, leaving him to make
any explanations he might think necessary, then to call attention
myself to the necessity for any such explanations. It would have
been impossible to give any rational explanation of the false
position occupied by the troops at Pulaski up to the very last
moment of safety except by reference to Thomas's orders to Stanley
and me, and the subsequent correspondence on that subject. Stanley,
with the blunt frankness justified by comradeship, had pointed it
out to me the moment we met at Pulaski, while I was governed by
the utmost delicacy in discussing the question with General Thomas,
so as to avoid suggesting to him that he had made a mistake. Yet
so evident was the mistake that I stopped the advance of the Twenty-
third Corps some miles north of Pulaski, and no part of that corps
actually went to that place. Cox was sent back to a point where
he could interpose between Hood and Columbia, and Ruger was stopped
at Columbia.
The great tenacity with which I held on at Columbia and on the
north bank of Duck River could not have been justified except by
reference to the despatches showing Thomas's wishes and his assurance
of reinforcements at those points. If I had been free to do so,
nothing could have been plainer than my duty to have fallen back
behind the Harpeth when I found that Thomas could not or would not
reinforce me on the line of Duck River, and before Hood could
endanger my retreat. Hence I was compelled to include in the
history of that retreat the entire record of facts relating to it.
Again, necessity was the only possible excuse for fighting the
battle of Franklin on the south side of the Harpeth, where defeat
would have been disastrous; and that necessity had arisen absolutely
and solely from the want of a bridge across that river, which I
had suggested that General Thomas place there. It was not possible
for me, without utter disregard for the truth of history as well
as for my own military reputation, to attempt to conceal those
facts.
DOCUMENTS WHICH DISAPPEARED FROM THE RECORDS
It must seem remarkable that in my report, dated December 7, of
operations from November 14 to December 1, 1864, including the
battle of Franklin, on which General Thomas placed his indorsement
commending my "skill," no mention whatever was made of any orders
or instructions from General Thomas. The simple fact was that I
could not have quoted the orders and instructions General Thomas
had given me for my guidance during those operations without implied
criticism of General Thomas; hence it was then thought best to omit
any reference to any such orders or instructions, and to limit the
report to a simple recital of the facts, thus making the report
strictly truthful so far as concerned my own action and that of
the troops under my command, without any reference whatever to my
superior at Nashville, under whose orders I was supposed to be
acting; and that report of December 7 appeared to be entirely
satisfactory to General Thomas in that respect as well as in all
others. But when the time came to make my final report of the
entire campaign, which must go upon the public records as my full
and exact contribution to the history of military operations in
which I had taken an important part, truth and justice to all
required me to make the records complete so far as lay in my power;
and if there was anything in the record, as submitted by me to
General Thomas, to which he took exception, it was as plainly his
duty to truth and justice to place those exceptions also on the
public records. So far from suggesting in my final report any
possible criticism of General Thomas, I put the best possible
construction upon all the despatches I had received from him, by
accepting them together as showing me that his object was "to hold
the enemy in check" until he (Thomas) could concentrate his
reinforcements, and not to fight Hood at Pulaski, as he (Thomas)
had at first ordered. I simply submitted to him the plain record,
with the best possible construction I could put upon it, and that
only so far as it was necessary for me to construe it to give the
general basis of my action. If any official duty remained to be
done in that regard, that duty devolved on General Thomas, not on
me.
In my final report, dated December 31, 1864, I said, as above
indicated, that my instructions from the major-general commanding
were embraced in a telegram to General Stanley (dated November 8),
in which General Thomas said, "Should the enemy overpower them [the
cavalry] and march on Pulaski, you must hold that place," "a copy
of which was furnished with the order to assume command at Pulaski,
and subsequent despatches, explaining that the object was to hold
the enemy in check, should he advance, long enough to enable General
A. J. Smith's corps, then expected from Missouri, to reach Nashville,
other troops in the Department of the Cumberland to be concentrated,
and General Wilson's cavalry to be remounted and fitted for the
field. The reinforcements thus expected were about equal to the
force we then had in the field, and would make our entire force,
when concentrated, equal, or somewhat superior, to that of the
enemy. To effect this concentration was therefore of vital
importance, a consideration to which all others were secondary.
This required that the enemy's advance should be delayed as much
as possible, and at the same time a decisive battle avoided, unless
it could be fought on favorable terms."
I refrained from quoting either of the despatches from General
Thomas,--that dated November 8 to Stanley, or that dated 19,
repeating in substance that of the 8th,--or my reply of November
20 pointing out the reasons by the position at Pulaski was a false
one to occupy under the circumstances; and I still think, as I then
thought, that that was done as delicately as possible so as to
avoid suggesting to General Thomas that I thought his order a
blunder. His reply of the same date shows that he so appreciated
it. This despatch last referred to from General Thomas, and all
the other correspondence after I reached Pulaski, fully justified
to me in the statement made in my report, above mentioned, as to
whence I derived my information of his plans.
INCONSISTENCIES IN GENERAL THOMAS'S REPORT
But in the report of General Thomas dated January 20, 1865, appears
the following: "Directions were then sent to General Schofield to
leave a sufficiently strong force for the defense of that point,
and with the balance of his command proceed to carry out the
instructions already given him, viz., to join the Fourth Corps at
Pulaski, and assume command of all the troops in the vicinity,
watch the movements of Hood, and retard his advance into Tennessee
as much as possible, without risking a general engagement, until
Maj.-Gen. A. J. Smith's command could arrive from Missouri, and
Maj.-Gen. J. H. Wilson could have time to remount the cavalry
regiments dismounted to furnish horses for Kilpatrick's division,
which was to accompany General Sherman in his march through Georgia.
. . . My plans and wishes were fully explained to General Schofield,
and, as subsequent events will show, properly appreciated and
executed by him."
Thus, General Thomas, being fully satisfied with the operations of
the troops while under my immediate command in the field, asserted
that those operations were based upon his "plans and wishes," which
had been "fully explained" to me _before I went to Pulaski_, and
"properly appreciated," instead of upon what I had gathered from
General Thomas's orders to Stanley and subsequent orders to me
about fighting Hood at Pulaski, absolutely contradictory to that
stated in his report, "without risking a general engagement," and
his assent to my _radically different_ suggestions made _after I
assumed command at Pulaski_, as stated in my report. It is not
incumbent upon me to try to reconcile this statement in General
Thomas's report with the correspondence, above referred to, found
in the official records; and I see no reason for desiring any
further corroboration of the strict accuracy of the contrary
statement made by me in my report. I am entirely willing to leave
any discussion of that subject to others.
In view of the fact that I was not one of General Thomas's corps
commanders, but an army commander, holding the same grade of command,
by special assignment of the President under the law, as General
Thomas himself, he might without military impropriety have left to
me in his report, as he had before done in fact, whether intentionally
or not, the entire responsibility of the operations of the army
under my immediate command from Pulaski to Nashville. The record
shows that, from the necessities of the case, I was compelled to
act, and did act, upon my own judgment from the beginning to the
end, not only without any timely orders, but generally without
timely or accurate information from General Thomas; and that he
approved, from time to time and finally, all that I had done. The
question as to why he afterward claimed that all had been done in
pursuance of his plans and wishes, fully explained to me _in
advance_, I must leave to others. He was certainly under no official
obligation to take upon himself any such responsibility. It may
be true, as General Sherman said and General Thomas admitted, that
it was his duty to take command in the field himself. But it was
not his duty, being in the rear, to hamper the actual army commander
in the field with embarrassing orders or instructions, nor to take
upon himself the responsibility of failure or success. If I had
failed in those hazardous operations, nobody could have held General
Thomas responsible, unless for neglect of duty in not commanding
himself in person, or in not sending me possible reinforcements.
No obedience to any erroneous orders or instructions of his, sent
from a distance whence the actual situation could not be seen as
clearly as at the front, could have justified me in case of failure.
The actual commander of an army in the field must act upon his own
judgment and responsibility, though with due deference to the plans
and wishes of his superior, so far as they are made known to him,
having in view the general object of a campaign. This sound military
principle appears to have been fully recognized by General Thomas
when he made his report. He only claimed that his "plans and wishes
were fully explained" and "properly appreciated and executed," not
that he had given any specific orders or instructions. Why, then,
did he assert, in contradiction of my statement previously made to
him, and in contradiction of the official record I had submitted
to him with that statement in my report, that those "plans and
wishes" of his had been "fully explained" to me _before_ instead
of _after_ I went to Pulaski? What possible difference could it
have made to General Thomas, personally or officially, whether the
records showed that his plans and wishes were made known to me
before or after I assumed command, provided they were received by
me in due time for my action? What possible motive could General
Thomas have had in putting on the public records what was in
substance a flat contradiction of an official statement I had made
to him with full documentary evidence to support it, and that in
the absence of any possible ground for his own contradictory
statement, except his own recollection of some conversation we may
have had more than two months before, in which he might have
explained to me his "plans and wishes"? I cannot believe that
General Thomas ever consciously did any such thing. That feature
of the report must have had some other author besides George H.
Thomas. It is true that the orders telegraphed to me by General
Thomas, November 19, "to fight him [Hood] at Pulaski, if he advances
against that place," were inconsistent with the statement in his
report that he had fully explained to me his plans and wishes as
specified in that report, and in plain disregard of the general
principle recognized in his report, as well as likely to lead to
disastrous results if obeyed. But those orders were on the records,
and could not be expunged, even if such a man as General Thomas
could possibly have wished to expunge anything from his official
record. Hence, I repeat, that feature of the report signed by
General Thomas could not have been his.
INCONSISTENCIES IN GENERAL THOMAS'S REPORT
In this connection it is to be observed that General Thomas had
not, at the time I went back to report to him in Tennessee, any
anxiety about his inability to cope with Hood after the arrival of
the Twenty-third Corps. He had assured General Sherman of his
entire confidence.( 1) He had ordered me to march, as Stanley had
done, from Tullahoma to Pulaski; but the action of Forrest at
Johnsonville about that time caused General Thomas to change his
orders and hurry me by rail to Nashville, and thence to Johnsonville,
with the advance of my troops, he wishing to see me in person as
I passed through Nashville.( 2) It would not be an unreasonable
presumption that the burden of conversation in that brief interview
was in respect to the alarming condition of Johnsonville at that
time, rather than in respect to some future defensive operations
against Hood, then hardly anticipated. Indeed, the entire
correspondence of that period, including that which occurred between
General Thomas and General Sherman, about which it is important to
note that I knew nothing at that time, shows that General Thomas
then expected to concentrate his troops at Columbia or Pulaski, or
both, in a very short time, take command in the field in person,
and begin aggressive operations against Hood. It seems extremely
probable that General Thomas had given very little thought at that
time to the subject of defensive action, except as against what
that troublesome cavalryman Forrest might do. It seems far more
probable from the record that General Thomas's "plans and wishes"
in respect to defensive action against Hood's advance into Tennessee,
which I had so "properly appreciated and executed," were, like the
plans of the battle of December 16 at Nashville, matured after the
event, or at least after Hood's advance into Tennessee had actually
begun, and after I had, in my telegram to General Thomas of November
20, pointed out to him the dangers of his previous plan, telegraphed
to me the day before.
I do not think much importance is generally to be attached to what
any man may or may not recall to memory after the lapse of many
years, although the recollection of a recent event, repeated in
the memory, for good and sufficient reasons, very frequently during
a long time, may continue to be very accurate. However this may
be, perfect candor compels me to say here that I have never been
able to recall any conversation with General Thomas at any time in
respect to his plans or wishes in the event of Hood's advance from
the Tennessee before Thomas was ready to assume the offensive. I
now believe, as I always have done, that the only information I
ever received from General Thomas on that subject was that contained
in the telegraphic correspondence quoted in this volume. There is
now no doubt in my mind, and, so far as I can recall, never has
been any, that when I met General Thomas at Nashville, on my way
to Johnsonville, he expected A. J. Smith to arrive from Missouri
very soon, when he intended to concentrate all his available troops
at Columbia and Pulaski, take command in person, and move against
Hood; and that he considered his orders of November 8 to Stanley,
to fight Hood at Pulaski or Columbia, as Hood might elect, until
he (Thomas) could get there with reinforcements, all the orders
that could be necessary, even if Hood did get a little the start
of him. The records seem to show, still further, that even after
Hood's plans of aggression had developed so long in advance of
Thomas's preparations to meet him, Thomas did not then see the
great danger that might result from obedience to his orders of
November 8 to Stanley, and even went so far as to repeat those
orders to me on the 19th; but that he promptly corrected that
mistake when I pointed it out to him, and then authorized me to
act upon my own judgment.
Now, at this late day, when I am so much older than General Thomas
was at the time of these events, I feel at liberty to discuss them
without reserve. I am not criticizing the acts of my official
superior. In my mature judgment, General Thomas was not justifiable,
in 1864-1865, in claiming the credit for what had been done by his
inferior in rank in actual command of the army in the field while
General Thomas himself was absent.
INCONSISTENCIES IN GENERAL THOMAS'S REPORT
So, in respect to the battle of Nashville, it would have been
utterly impossible to have given any rational explanation of the
action of my troops on December 15 under the published orders for
that battle. Hence I alluded, as lightly as possible, to the
modification in those orders which accounted for what I had done,
but gave no hint of the fact that I had suggested that modification.
I cannot now recollect whether I had any expectation at that time
in respect to what General Thomas would say on that subject in his
report; but, in my opinion, his well-known character would have
been fully justified the expectation that he would say in substance
that the foregoing plan of battle, which had been previously
prepared, was so far modified, upon the suggestion of General
Schofield and with the concurrence of other commanders, as to order
the Twenty-third Corps to a position in rear of our right, from
which it could reinforce the main attack on the enemy's left,
instead of to the reserve position on the left of the Fourth Corps.
It does not seem to me that a veteran general could have suffered
in his own estimation or in that of the world by such an act of
justice or generosity to a young subordinate. But the plain,
unavoidable truth is that General Thomas said in his report, besides
his statement about the "few alterations": "Finding General Smith
had not taken as much distance to the right as I expected he would
have done, I directed General Schofield to move his command (the
Twenty-third Corps) from the position in reserve to which it had
been assigned over to the right of General Smith . . ."--leaving
it necessarily to be inferred that "the position in reserve" referred
to was that to which it had been assigned in the published orders,
and that the Twenty-third Corps moved "over" from that position
"to the right of General Smith" after General Thomas gave directions
to that effect in the afternoon of December 15. Whereas, in fact,
that corps had moved over to the right at daylight in the morning,
so as to be ready for the action which General Thomas finally
ordered; otherwise it could not possibly have moved over to Smith's
right before dark. In fact, one of the divisions (Couch's) of the
Twenty-third Corps advanced with Smith's corps, "keeping within
supporting distance," as stated in my report, so that Couch was
able to take a very important part in the attack that day; while
Cox, though much nearer than General Thomas indicated, could not
reach the right till near the close of the day's operations, though
in time to take part in the final engagement in repelling the
enemy's attempt to regain lost ground. When it is remembered that
General Thomas was at the rear of our right, where all this could
be distinctly seen, no comment seems to be necessary on this feature
of his report.
In respect to the statement in my report that I had in the night
of December 15 "waited upon the commanding general and received
his orders for the pursuit," that was simply a fact without which
there was possible no rational explanation of what occurred, or
did not occur, the next day. I must have taken it for granted that
General Thomas would make some frank and candid explanation of all
those matters in his own report, and I could not have imagined that
I might incur his displeasure by telling the simple truth. My
opinion of his character forbade the possibility of any supposition
that he would desire to conceal anything, even if concealment were
possible, of facts to which there were so many witnesses. Hence
my astonishment at the discovery of so much that I cannot even
attempt to explain.
It was publicly stated, soon after the death of General Thomas,
that his mortal stroke occurred when he was trying to write something
in regard to the use made of the Twenty-third Corps in the battle
of Nashville. If he then saw, as it would seem he must have done,
the wrong into which he had been betrayed, his sudden death is
fully accounted for to the minds of all who knew his true and honest
and sensitive nature. He had been betrayed by some malign influence
into an outrage upon his own great reputation which it was not
possible to explain away, while the slight wrong he had done to
me, even if he had intended it, had already proved utterly harmless.
His own great record could not possibly suffer from my discussion
of the facts, unless those facts themselves proved damaging to him;
and he had been too much accustomed to such discussion to be
disturbed thereby. There seems no possible explanation of the
great shock General Thomas received but the discovery that he had
apparently done an irreparable injury to himself. But I do not
believe General Thomas himself was the author of those acts which
were so foreign to his nature.
FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO GENERAL THOMAS
At Nashville, in December, 1864, and afterward, General Thomas
appears to have been made the victim of a conspiracy to poison his
mind by false accusations against his senior subordinate. A press
report of a conversation said to have taken place in San Francisco
in the year 1869, between General Thomas and General Halleck, gave
some indication of the effect which had been produced on the mind
of General Thomas. From that time forward there appeared frequent
indications of the secret operations of that conspiracy; but no
public knowledge of its character or authors came to my knowledge
until 1881, when there appeared in the "New-York Times" of June 22
an article, copied from the Toledo "Northern Ohio Democrat," which
disclosed the character of the false accusations which had been
made to General Thomas at Nashville, and the name of their principal,
if not sole, author. That publication gave me for the first time
the means of refuting a vile slander which had been doing its deadly
work in secret for nearly seventeen years. The following correspondence
with General Grant shows the character of that slander, and its
complete refutation:
"London, England, July 12, 1881.
"General U. S. Grant, New York, U. S. A.
"My dear General: For a long time I have been made aware of the
fact that a base falsehood was secretly circulated throughout the
country, to the effect that while General Thomas's army was at
Nashville in December, 1864, I endeavored in some way to influence
you or somebody in Washington to remove him from the command and
to place me in his stead. I have not heretofore been able to defend
myself against this slander because of its secrecy. But now, for
the first time within my knowledge, this falsehood has made its
appearance in public print, in the form of an article in the Toledo
"Northern Ohio Democrat," copied into the "New-York Times" of June
22, of which I send you a slip.
"You, my dear General, are probably the only man now living who is
able to make an authoritative statement of the facts in respect to
this matter, such as must be accepted without question.
"I hope, therefore, it is not asking too much to request you to
give me, in a form which I may use publicly, a full and explicit
statement of the facts in respect to this accusation.
"Perhaps you may also be able to recall the substance of a conversation
between you and me, on the subject of the delay of Thomas to attack
Hood at Nashville, which occurred on the naval steamer on our way
from Hampton Roads to Cape Fear River, when we went down to see
Admiral Porter and General Terry while my troops were delayed by
the ice in the Potomac.
"In that conversation I tried to justify Thomas's delay during the
storm at Nashville, and, I thought, perhaps succeeded in modifying
to some extent your opinion on the subject. If you are able to
recollect the substance of that conversation, a statement of it
would be an effective answer to the malicious charge that I was
not faithful to Thomas as my commanding officer.
"Not knowing where you may be when this letter reaches the United
States, I send it to Colonel Wherry, to be sent you by mail or
handed you by one of my aides, as may be most convenient. Please
do me the great favor to send to Wherry, or the other officer who
may call upon you, an answer which he may use in public refutation
of the malicious charge which has been made against me.
"He can then send it to me. The vipers are taking advantage of my
absence to publish falsehoods and given them a long start of the
truth which must be sent in pursuit. I am, dear General, as ever,
sincerely yours,
"J. M. Schofield."
THEIR FALSITY CONFIRMED BY GENERAL GRANT
"New York, August 1, 1881.
"General J. M. Schofield.
"Dear General: Your letter of the 12th of July has just been handed
me by Colonel Wherry of your staff. I have read it carefully,
together with the article from the Toledo "Democrat." The elapse
of time since the event spoken of in that article is so great that
I feel some hesitation in answering your letter and the article
from the "Democrat" as I might do if I had access to the archives
at Washington; but, writing from memory, I think I can say with
great positiveness there was never any despatch from you to me, or
from you to any one in Washington, disparaging General Thomas's
movements at Nashville. On the contrary, my recollection is that
when I met you on your way to Wilmington, N. C., subsequent to the
battle of Nashville, you explained the situation at Nashville prior
to General Thomas's movement against Hood, with a view of removing
the feeling that I had that Thomas had been slow. I was very
impatient at that time with what I thought was tardiness on the
part of General Thomas, and was very much afraid that while he was
lying there at Nashville and not moving his army, Hood might cross
the Tennessee River either above or below the city of Nashville,
and get between him and the Ohio River, and make a retrograde
movement of our army at Nashville a necessity, and very much
embarrass and delay future operations of the armies. Laboring
under this feeling and impression, I was telegraphing General Thomas
daily, and almost hourly, urging him to move out and attack Hood,
and finally became so impatient that I contemplated his removal
and the substitution of another officer in his place; but this
feeling on my part was not added to by any despatches from any
person from the scene of action, except those from General Thomas
himself. I have certainly no recollection of receiving any despatches
from Nashville, during the time spoken of in the article in the
"Democrat," from any person but General Thomas himself. I feel
very sure that if any despatches had been received from you, I
should now recollect it; and I am free to say that it would have
created a prejudice to your disadvantage if I had received any such
despatches. This much you are at liberty to use in any way you
may deem proper. The other reflections which the author of the
article alluded to [made] against you I of course am not called
upon to say anything in regard to. The fact is, your subsequent
promotions are proof positive that I entertained none of the views
set forth to your disadvantage in this article. Very truly yours,
"U. S. Grant."
The article above referred to asserted that "General Thomas knew
three days before the battle of Nashville that Schofield was playing
the part of Judas by telegraphing to General Grant, at Washington,
disparaging suggestions about the action of Thomas," and pretended
to quote the language of one of those despatches, as follows: "It
is the opinion of all our officers with whom I have conversed that
General Thomas is too tardy in moving against the enemy . . . "
It is also stated that "it was known to a number of our officers
that . . . Schofield was intriguing with Grant to get Thomas
relieved, in order that he might succeed to the command of our army
as the general next in rank to Thomas, . . . and he was watched
and exposed to Thomas."
This boastful avowal by James B. Steedman of his own crime in making
reports which were false and slanderous to his commanding general
must doubtless be accepted as conclusive proof of his own guilt.
But a statement by such a witness cannot be regarded as proof that
any other officer was guilty of the same crime. So far as I know,
no other has ever made any avowal, public or private, of his own
guilt, or that of any one else. Nor has any other, so far as I
know, denied the truth of my statements, repeated in this volume,
of what occurred in the council held at Nashville on December 9,
1864.
It does not seem probable that one such man as James B. Steedman
could have exerted such a powerful and baneful influence over
General George H. Thomas as that which now appears to have governed
his action. There must, it would seem, have been some others, as
Steedman asserted. If so, it is time for them, if living, to come
to the front and claim their share in the work of falsifying history,
of poisoning the mind and heart of their great and noble commander,
causing his untimely death, and endangering his great reputation
as a man of honor, truth, and justice.
THEIR FALSITY CONDEMNED BY GENERAL GRANT
The complete refutation by General Grant of the falsehood ended
the hostility which had been shown toward me during all that time,
and gradually led to a general recognition of the truth, which had
always been known and maintained by the most ardent friends of
General Thomas, like the late General J. S. Fullerton and General
H. V. Boynton, and the staff officers and the relatives of the
general himself. Finally, when it was proposed in Congress to
recognize my past services by promotion to the grade of lieutenant-
general on the eve of my retirement from active service, not a
voice in opposition was heard from the old Army of the Cumberland;
and when we met, for the first time in many years, by their cordial
invitation, on the historic fields of Chickamauga and Chattanooga,
to dedicate those grounds as sacred to the memory of the Army of
the Cumberland and its great commander, we met again as brother
soldiers, without any trace of the bitterness which malicious
slander had for so many years sunk deep into our hearts.
For my part, I had for many years before refused to believe that
my old commander, whom I had so faithfully served and so highly
respected, could possibly have done me in his own mind and heart
the grievous wrong which he appeared to have done. Not long after
his death, and many years before the public refutation of the
slander which he was said to have accepted and believed, I put on
record my deliberate opinion that of General Thomas's character as
a man and a soldier his warmest eulogists had not spoken too highly.
And now, no matter what injustice General Thomas may have done me
under the malign influence which surrounded him, I refuse to alter
that deliberate judgment. He is to me in memory the same noble
old soldier and commander that he was when he intrusted to me the
command of his army in Tennessee, from Pulaski through Columbia,
Spring Hill, and Franklin to Nashville, and commended all I had
done in that command.
Truthful military history cannot be written without some criticism.
"He who never made a mistake never made war." I am keenly sensible
of the delicacy of my personal relation to the history of General
Thomas, as well as of my obligation to contribute my share to that
history, which no other man could ever do if I neglected it. I
have written it with the greatest possible care. If I have fallen
into error in anything, there are men still living who can correct
my mistakes. It will be more just to the memory of General Thomas
to publish it now than to wait until all who could correct any
errors of mine are silent in death. Thus far none of the several
friends of General Thomas to whom I have applied have been able to
give me any explanation of the record referred to which modifies
that which I have stated. If any one can suggest a more satisfactory
explanation, he will earn my gratitude.
[( 1) See Thomas to Sherman, November 12, 1864, 8:30 A. M.: "Your
despatch of 12 last night received. I have no fear that Beauregard
can do us any harm now; and if he attempts to follow you, I will
follow him as far as possible. If he does not follow you, I will
then thoroughly organize my troops, and I believe I shall have men
enough to ruin him unless he gets out of the way very rapidly.
The country through middle Alabama, I learn, is teeming with supplies
this year, which will be greatly to our advantage.
"I have no additional news to report from the direction of Florence.
I am now convinced that the greater part of Beauregard's army is
near Florence and Tuscumbia, and that you will at least have a
clear road before you for several days, and that your success will
fully equal your expectations."]
[( 2) War Records, Vol. XXXIX, part iii, p. 624.]