The enthusiasm that swept through the army when the announcement was

made that it had reached the chosen battlefield possessed anew the

hearts of these veterans; the cheers that went up from each command as

"Old Joe's" ringing battle order was read to the troops reverberated

again in their ears; the embers of their deep emotions of elation

and disgust that so rapidly succeeded each other on that eventful day

burned afresh within them for a while. And naturally the oft-debated

question of the amount of blame attaching to Gen. Johnston's

subordinates for this failure to fight came up as of old, and the

measure of it, if any, appertaining to Gen. Polk was stated as follows

by one of the group, Maj. Douglas West, who, as adjutant general,

attended Gen. Polk on the night of the conference when Johnston felt

compelled to forego the battle and retreat across the Etowah river.

He said that after Polk's Corps had taken the position assigned to it

on the left of Hood's Corps and in the rear of Cassville, Gen. S. G.

French, one of the division generals of the corps, sent a message to

Gen. Polk that his position was enfiladed, and that he could not hold

it.

Gen. Polk thereupon sent his inspector general, Col. Sevier, to

ascertain about it. This officer reported back that in his opinion Gen.

French was warranted in his apprehension.

Gen. Polk requested Col. Sevier to proceed to Gen. Johnston's

headquarters, and place the facts before him, which this officer did.

Gen. Johnston was loath to believe in the impossibility of holding

that part of the line; for, though exposed, it could be made tenable

by building traverses, and retiring the troops some little to the rear.

He instructed Col. Sevier to have Gen. French to build traverses. This

general considered them useless, and persisted in his inability to hold

his position.

Col. Sevier reporting this back to Gen. Polk, in the absence of Capt.

Walter J. Morris, engineer officer of Gen. Polk's Corps (off on some

duty), the General sent Maj. Douglas West to the position of Gen.

French's Division to have his opinion also, and to have him talk over

the situation with this general. When Maj. West reached there, there

was no firing from the enemy, and he could not form an opinion in

that way. However he conversed with Gen. French on the subject, and

returned, reporting Gen. French as highly wrought up about the exposure

of his division. Gen. Polk then sent Maj. West to Gen. Johnston to

state the result of his visit to Gen. French's position, and Gen.

Johnston reiterated his opinion about the feasibility of holding the

position with the use of traverses.

Upon reporting back the remarks of Gen. Johnston, Maj. West found that

Capt. Morris had reached Gen. Polk's headquarters, and the captain in

turn was sent to French's position to make a thorough survey and report

of it. He made a very thorough one, and reported the position as very

exposed for the defensive, but as admirable for the offensive. Gen.

Polk, since the first report from Gen. French, appeared much annoyed

at this unexpected weakness in his line, which, from the pertinacity of

Gen. French, was growing into an obstacle to the impending battle, for

which Gen. Polk shared the enthusiasm and confidence of the troops.

That evening about sunset Gen. Hood rode up to Gen. Polk's headquarters

with Maj. Gen. French, and at his suggestion Gen. Johnston was asked

to meet the three lieutenant generals at Polk's headquarters for the

purpose of consulting that night on the situation.

At the appointed hour Gens. Johnston, Hood, and Polk met at the

latter's headquarters. Gen. Hardee was not present, he not having

been found in time, after diligent search. Gen. Hood arrived at the

rendezvous accompanied by Gen. French, whose division rested upon his

left in the line of battle. Gen. Polk had not asked Gen. French, who

was of his corps, to be present at headquarters for the occasion,

and Gen. Hood's action in bringing him was altogether gratuitous.

Upon arriving with French, Gen. Hood excused his action by stating

that he considered the situation so vital to himself and French that

he had taken the liberty to ask Gen. French to come with him to the

conference. After awaiting Gen. Hardee's arrival for a good while,

Gens. Johnston, Polk, and Hood retired to the rough cabin house where

Polk had established his headquarters, and Gen. French and the staff

officers of the different generals remained outside, beyond earshot.

It was past midnight when the meeting broke up and the generals stepped

out and called their escort and attending staff.

Gen. Polk immediately instructed Maj. West to issue orders to his

division generals to move as soon as guides would be furnished them.

Capt. Morris was ordered to procure these immediately. Gen. Polk

communicated detailed instructions, but appeared deeply absorbed. In

silence everything was carried out, and the corps had taken up the

march and moved some distance before Maj. West was aware that the army

was in retreat. He had been by the General's side or close in the rear

of him from the moment of the termination of the conference, and the

General had not spoken about it. Thus they had ridden a good while. The

Major, respecting the General's silent mood, had not thought proper

to inquire about the destination of the column. An officer of Gen.

Hardee's staff, Capt. Thomas H. Hunt, was the first to inform Maj.

West that the army was retreating because Gen. Polk at the conference

had insisted that he could not hold his position in the line of battle

selected by Johnston. Stung by this statement, Maj. West denied it

emphatically, and as his informant insisted on its correctness, Maj.

West rode up to Gen. Polk, and asked him where the column was marching

to. Gen. Polk said they were retreating to beyond the Etowah river.

Maj. West then told him of the report that had reached him, and asked

him if he was the cause of the abandonment of the intended battle at

Cassville. Gen. Polk asked who had made the statement, and when told

that it was a staff officer of Gen. Hardee, who also added that the

impression prevailed along the column, and Maj. West asking that he be

authorized to deny the report, Gen. Polk was silent for a moment, and

then said to Maj. West: "To-morrow everything will be made as clear as

day."

Gen. Polk never again spoke of this matter to the Major, although with

him day and night during that long and terrible campaign, in which

he lost his life at Pine Mountain on the 14th of July, 1864; but the

impression left upon his staff officers was that the failure to give

battle at Cassville was not due to any representations made by Gen.

Polk, but to the objections made by Lieut. Gen. Hood, the left of whose

line joined French's Division.

Gen. Polk had so little confidence in the representations of the

weakness of the line at the point referred to that he did not go there

in person.

But for Gen. Hood's invitation, Maj. Gen. French would not have been

called to the conference, and consequently when Gen. Hood urged the

untenability of his line, and supported it by bringing one of Polk's

division commanders (French) to confirm him, although Polk's other

division commanders (Loring and Walthall) offered no objection, and in

the absence of Lieut. Gen. Hardee, Gen. Polk could _only_ reply upon

the report of his chief topographical engineer, Capt. Morris, and Maj.

Gen. French, and _sustain_ Lieut. Gen. Hood in his opinion that the

line could not be held after an attack.

Gen. Polk was too noble and patriotic to care for his personal fame,

and made no effort during his life to put himself properly on record

for his connection with the abandonment of the line at Cassville, for

he was always ready to give battle or to take any responsibilities of

his position. He fought for his cause, not for his reputation.

Another of this group of veterans had been of Hardee's Corps on that

occasion. He recounted that his battery had been assigned by "Old Joe"

to an important post on Hardee's line, the angle at which the left

flank deflected back. Vividly he described his position--the knoll

upon which his guns were planted, the open fields around, that gave

promise of great slaughter of the foe when he undertook to carry the

point. This prospect, and the pride arising from the very danger of

their post, stimulated the men in their labors of entrenching, which

was necessary at this end of the line of battle, where there were none

of the natural advantages the troops of Polk and Hood derived from the

hills on which they were posted. But all worked with an energy that

arose to enthusiasm; for confidence in "Old Joe," confidence in the

"Old Reliable," and confidence in themselves inspired the men of this

company as it did those of the whole corps. The redoubt was nearly

completed when about two o'clock in the morning Capt. Sid Hardee, of

Gen. Hardee's staff, rode up and ordered the work to cease and the

battery made ready to move. This officer then stated that the intention

to fight a battle there was abandoned; that Polk and Hood had insisted

that they could not hold their position in the line. He added that Gen.

Hardee had objected to the retreat, and had offered to change positions

with either of the other corps rather than forego giving battle.

In deep disappointment and disgust Hardee's men moved off, blaming Polk

and Hood for compelling the abandonment of a field which seemed to be

pregnant with a glorious victory.

The impressions of that night had remained ineffaceable, and the

unfought battle had been a deep source of regret during the war,

and of deep interest since; so much so since that it had led to a

correspondence between one of the officers of the company and Gen.

Johnston.

ONE OF HARDEE'S CORPS.

REPLY OF GEN. FRENCH TO "REMINISCENCES OF THE WAR."

WINTER PARK, FLA., December 12, 1893.

Editor _Picayune_.

A few days ago a friend sent me a copy of the _Weekly Picayune_ of

October 26 last, containing an article headed "Reminiscences of the

War," that contains a number of errors, which I desire to correct so

far as they relate to me, and I will refer to them in the order they

are related in the paper. I quote:

1."After Polk's Corps had taken the position assigned to it on the left

of Hood's Corps and in the rear of Cassville, Gen. S. G. French, one of

the division generals of the corps, sent a report to Gen. Polk that his

position was enfiladed and that he could not hold it."

Any line can be enfiladed if the enemy be permitted, undisturbed, to

approach near enough and establish batteries on the prolongation of

that line. Therefore before any person can report a line enfiladed,

the guns must be near enough to sweep it with shells. To report that

a point near the center of a long line of battle cannot be held before

the issue is made is mere conjecture, and not justifiable, and I have

no recollection of having made such a report, and deem the writer is in

error in his statement. A man would not cry out, "Help me, Cassius, or

I sink," before entering the water.

2. The next assertion is that Gen. Polk "sent Col. Sevier to ascertain

about it, and this officer reported back that, in his opinion, Gen.

French was warranted in his apprehension. Gen. Polk thereupon requested

Col. Sevier to proceed to Gen. Johnston's headquarters and place the

facts before him, which that officer did. Gen. Johnston was loath to

believe in the impossibility of holding that part of the line, etc.,

... and instructed Col. Sevier to have Gen. French build traverses.

This general considered them useless, and persisted in his inability to

hold the position."

In answer to this, I repeat that I have no recollection of having made

to any human being the remarks here attributed to me. How, in the name

of common sense, could any division officer report, much less persist,

as stated? How would he know but that, if necessary during the battle,

ample support would be sent him? I had one brigade and a half in

reserve at that point of the line. As for traverses, I never heard them

mentioned before, in reference to this line. And now, after your writer

has sent Col. Sevier to me twice, he sends to me Maj. West, and it was

before any firing had taken place, and he (West) could, very properly,

"form no opinion unless he could witness the fire of the enemy's guns."

West returned to Gen. Polk, reporting Gen. French highly wrought up

about the exposure of his division, and Gen. Polk is made to send this

officer likewise to hunt up Gen. Johnston, and after "reporting back

the remarks of Gen. Johnston, Maj. West found that Capt. Morris had

reached Gen. Polk's headquarters," and the Captain in turn "was sent to

French's position to make a thorough survey and report of it." He made

a very thorough one, and reported the position very exposed for the

defensive, but as admirable for the offensive.

I have Capt. Morris's report, but I do not find in it where he reported

the line as admirable for the offensive. I will have occasion to refer

to this report after a while. I merely wish to remark that when we find

Capt. Morris at Col. Polk's headquarters we have something tangible in

regard to time.

3. And the article goes on to state that "Gen. Polk, since the first

report from Gen. French, appeared much annoyed at this unexpected

weakness in his line, which from the pertinacity of Gen. French was

growing into an obstacle to the impending battle, for which Gen. Polk

shared the enthusiasm and confidence of the troops."

Now, contrast this with what the writer says farther on when he tells

us: "Gen. Polk had so little confidence in the representations of the

weakness of his line at the point referred to that he did not go there

in person."

It is not always safe to divine what is passing through a man's

mind from appearances, and, having "little confidence in the

representations," the deduction of "annoyance" may not be correct which

is attributed to Gen. Polk. Now, inasmuch as Gen. Polk was present

(when Gen. F. A. Shoupe "pointed out the fact to Gen. Johnston that his

line would be enfiladed before the troops were posted, and suggested

a change of position) and strongly supported Shoupe's objections,"

he must have been early apprised of the general condition of the

line before he received the alleged report from me, which the writer

explicitly affirms was sustained by Cols. Sevier, West, and Morris;

hence the weakness of his line was not unexpected, and should not "have

grown into an obstacle to the impending battle." Gen. Shoupe's letter

will be found in Hood's book, page 105.

4. In writing about the conference I find the account thus:

"That evening about sunset Gen. Hood arrived at the rendezvous,

accompanied by Gen. French, whose division rested on his left in

line of battle. Gen. Polk had not asked Gen. French--who was of his

corps--to be present for the occasion, and Gen. Hood's action in

bringing him was altogether gratuitous. On arriving with French, Gen.

Hood excused his action by stating that he considered the situation so

vital to himself and French that he had taken the liberty to ask Gen.

French to come with him to the conference."

This shows that Polk and Hood had decided (at a consultation

in advance) to hold a conference before I went with Hood to the

rendezvous, to which they invited Johnston. About my being there,

I have this to say, and the facts are these: The little firing

that had taken place almost ceased awhile before dark; so, taking a

staff officer with me, we went to our wagon to get dinner, and while

returning to my command we met Gen. Hood on his way to Gen. Johnston's.

We halted, and while conversing he told me that his line was enfiladed

by the batteries of the enemy in position, and that he was going to

see Gen. Johnston at Gen. Polk's, and asked me to ride with him to get

supper, etc. His meeting me, therefore, was purely accidental, and this

place where we met was near by Polk's quarters.

So I went with him, socially, without any special object in view. He

said nothing to me about a conference to be held on the situation,

called by him and Gen. Polk.

Soon after supper Gens. Johnston, Polk, and Hood went to Gen. Polk's

office, and Gen. Johnston asked me to go with them.

The matter presented to the meeting was: "Can we win the battle on

the morrow? Can we hold our line?" Hood said he thought not, for if

attacked in the morning he would not be able to hold his line, because

it was enfiladed by the guns of the enemy, now in position, and that

Gen. Polk's line was also enfiladed, and could not be held against a

vigorous attack, or words to that effect.

Gen. Polk confirmed Hood's statement in regard to his line. Gen.

Johnston maintained the contrary. Of course I took no part in the

discussion. When asked, I explained how my line curved, near the end,

to the left, sufficient to be enfiladed by one battery on the extreme

left of the enemy's line. I have no recollection of being asked if I

could hold my part of the line, but had the question been asked me, I

am quite sure it would have been suppositively in the affirmative.

As the whole includes all the parts, so, the discussion being on Polk's

and Hood's lines in their entirety, the parts were embraced therein,

and not specifically referred to, being minor considerations.

Gen. Johnston argued for the maintenance of his plans very firmly. When

a silence occurred in the discussion, I arose and asked permission

to leave, stating that I wished to go to my line and fortify it. On

reaching my division, I set every one to work strengthening the line

and getting ready for the impending battle, that I felt sure would

begin in the morning. While we were thus busily at work, and at about

the hour of 11 P.M., an officer riding along my line stopped and told

me that the work would be useless, and "intimated" (that is the word

written in my diary) "that the army would be withdrawn or fall back

to-night!" Soon after, the order came to move back on the Cartersville

road. The receipt of the order was a surprise to me, notwithstanding

the intimation that had been made to me.

5. Toward the conclusion of the article it reads:

"Gen. Polk had so little confidence in the representations of the

weakness of the line at the point referred to that he did not go there

in person. But for Hood's invitation, Gen. French would not have been

called to the conference, and, consequently, when Gen. Hood urged the

untenability of his line, and supported it by bringing one of Polk's

division commanders--French--to confirm him, Gen. Polk could only rely

upon the report of his chief engineer--Capt. Morris--and Maj. Gen.

French, and _sustain_ Lieut. Gen. Hood in his opinion that the line

could not be held after an attack."

This paragraph is adroitly constructed, and apparently not intended

to be clear. It first accuses Gen. Polk of having little confidence

in the representations of Sevier, West, and French, as alleged to have

been made to him; but when Gen. Hood brings French to the conference,

his testimony is so potent as to make Polk _change his opinions_ and

_sustain_ Hood, who urged the untenability of his (Polk's) line.

This is all wrong. Hood did not take me to the conference. I did not

support or confirm Hood in his representations. I have never said I

could not hold my part of the line, and it would have been presumption

to do so. The commanding general would see that the line at that point

was defended.

This paragraph also represents Gen. Polk as going to the conference

apparently prepared to defend his line; but when he listens to Hood's

arguments he changes his mind and sustains Hood; and thus, with two of

his corps commanders opposed to defending their lines, Johnston deemed

it better to decline the impending battle.

6. On page 110 in Hood's book you will find the beginning of a letter

from Capt. W. J. Morris, Gen. Polk's chief engineer, from which I will

make some quotations, abbreviating them as much as possible. He says he

arrived at Cassville station about 3:30 or 4 P.M., May 19, 1864. Col.

Gale was there to meet him and to tell him that Gen. Polk wanted to see

him as soon as he arrived. He had half a mile to go to Polk's quarters.

He met Gen. Polk at the door. He says it took him about half an hour

to examine a map that Polk placed before him and make notes of the

General's wishes, and fifteen minutes to ride from Polk's headquarters

to the line that was reported to be enfiladed. When he left Polk's

headquarters he thinks Gen. Hood was there. It took him about two

hours to examine the lines, angles, elevations, and positions of the

batteries of the enemy established on their line in front of Hood, and

his opinion and conclusions were:

"(1) That the right of the line of Polk's command could not be held.

(2) That traverses would be of no avail, etc. (3) That it was extremely

hazardous for Gen. Polk to advance his line to make an attack upon the

enemy while the batteries held the positions they then occupied."

"Having made the reconnoissance, he returned to Gen. Polk's

headquarters just after dark. Gen. Polk immediately sent for Gen.

Johnston. Gen. Hood was at Gen. Polk's."

You will thus perceive that the conference to be held was determined on

between Polk and Hood, before Morris made his report to Polk, because

Hood was already there, for I rode with him to the "rendezvous."

7. On the 8th of May, 1874, Gen. Hood wrote me a letter to know what

I knew about the "vexed question" of retiring from Cassville. He had

forgotten that he had met me in the road; that he had invited me to

ride with him to see Gen. Johnston, or that I was at the conference,

and said he "only learned that I was at the conference from Johnston's

narrative," etc.

I answered his letter from New York, where I then was, from

recollection, without reference to my diary. I have both his letter

and my answer. Gen. Hood and I had talked this matter over at length at

the Allegheny Springs, Va., in the summer of 1872, differing, however,

about not remaining at Cassville and the defensive strength of the

lines.

8. Without endeavoring to recall to mind pictures of scenes through the

mist of thirty years in the past, or to revive recollections of words

used in the long, long ago, I will refer to my diary, and what was

written day by day therein.

After we had formed a line of battle east of Cassville, and maneuvered

with Hood with a view to attacking the enemy, our troops began in

the afternoon to fall back to a line of hills south of Cassville.

Cockrell's Brigade, that was in reserve, had been ordered to a hill

there early. The diary says: "I received orders at 4 P.M. to fall back

from the line east of Cassville and form behind the division of Gen.

Canty and Cockrell's Brigade, which I did. As there was an interval

between Hood's line (Hindman) and Canty, I placed there, in position,

Hoskins's Battery and the half of Ector's Brigade. This left Sears's

Brigade and the half of Ector's in reserve, Cockrell being on Canty's

left in line.

"About 5 P.M. our pickets from the extreme front were driven in toward

the second line by the enemy's cavalry. Hoskins's Battery opened on

them and checked the advance. About 5:30 P.M. the enemy got their

batteries in position and opened fire on my line. One battery on my

right enfiladed a part of my line." The diary then refers to my going

to dinner, meeting Gen. Hood and riding with him over to Gen. Polk's,

leaving the conference, believing we would fight, etc.

9. We are now, Mr. Editor, getting beyond the hypothetical, for we have

determined certain facts pretty accurately--viz.:

The hour I received the order to fall back from east of Cassville, the

time our skirmishers were driven in, and when the firing commenced;

also the hour that Capt. Morris arrived.

Capt. Morris declares that he arrived between 3:30 and 4 P.M. If he be

correct, I was at that time with my troops east of Cassville, and it is

certain no report could have been made by me until after the enemy's

artillery commenced firing. Now mark what is declared to have taken

place after the alleged report was said to have been received by Gen.

Polk.

It would take an officer certainly fifteen minutes to ride from Polk's

headquarters to Hoskins's Battery--a mile and a half distant--examine

the lines, the position of the enemy, the effects of the fire, and

discuss the situation; then the same length of time to return to Gen.

Polk and confer with him. Then it would require the same length of

time to go in quest of Gen. Johnston, report to him and explain the

situation of affairs minutely; then to return to Gen. Polk and report

it to him; then to come to my line a second time, and return to Gen.

Polk. These two trips to my line and one to Gen. Johnston would have

occupied one hour and a half. Next Maj. West received instructions to

go and examine the line, and as there was no firing, he could form no

opinion, but only talk with me. Then he went back to Gen. Polk and made

his report; thence he too was ordered to go in quest of Gen. Johnston,

and found him somewhere, reported to him, and returned. This would have

required about one hour. So the line from Polk's to my extreme right

was ridden over six times, examined and discussed, and four times from

Gen. Polk's to where Gen. Johnston was, consuming not less than two

hours and a half. Capt. Morris was not yet at Gen. Polk's quarters when

Maj. West went in quest of Gen. Johnston, but he found he had arrived

when he returned from Gen. Johnston's.

Now, it is plain that, if my alleged report to Gen. Polk put all this

in motion, it must have been received by him at 1:30 P.M., because

we know that it terminated soon after the arrival of Capt. Morris at

Polk's quarters at 4 P.M. Soon after this Capt. Morris was ordered down

to examine the line, which he did, and we have his report.

The question of time may be determined in another way: If I sent

a report to Gen. Polk, it was carried a mile and a half to him by

courier. Next, consider Col. Sevier and Maj. West in the light of one

person. That person must have traveled about thirteen miles, received

seven separate sets of instructions from Gens. Polk and Johnston, made

five carefully matured reports on the situation, and what was said by

me and Gen. Johnston, and made at least two careful examinations of

our line, noted the position of the enemy, watched the firing and noted

the effect of the same, and it could not physically have been performed

under two hours and a half; and yet your published article says that it

was all performed during the interval between receiving my report and

the departure of Morris to make his survey, which was about 4 P.M.

If I made a report, as stated, it was done after the firing commenced,

and hence it must have been dark when Maj. West returned from his

interview with Gen. Johnston.

The conclusion, therefore, must be that from the length of time the

writer's, or relator's, memory has failed to recall events as they were

thirty years ago.

There was only a small part of my line enfiladed, and that was caused

by its curving to the left near the ravine, where Hoskins's Battery

was.

If Hood's line was enfiladed, I did not discover it, and Capt. Morris's

plan, published in the War Records (plate 62), would be faulty, for

the enemy's line is nearly parallel with his. To conclude, I have shown

that if all this passing to and fro of officers took place between me

and Gen. Polk, and between Polk and Johnston, it must have commenced

about 1:30 P.M., to have ended at 4 P.M., which could not be,

for I was then east of Cassville. On the other hand, if a report was

carried to Gen. Polk about my line being enfiladed, it must have been

done after 5:30 P.M.; and this going to and fro, with examinations

and discussions, could not have been accomplished before 8 P.M.,

whereas it is stated to have been done before Capt. Morris left Polk's

headquarters, at 4:30 P.M., either of which is incredible.

Very respectfully,

S. G. FRENCH.

P. S.--The result of the two hours' shelling of my line in casualties

was one officer and nine men wounded--none killed. Horses, three

killed. A small matter to create any apprehension, as described in your

article. The order placing me in command of _Canty's Division_ has no

hour date.

Your readers will perceive that it was not I who influenced Gen. Polk

in this affair. In fact, I was in reserve and had no troops in line

of battle except Cockrell's Brigade--and that was about the center of

the line--until I was ordered to take command of Canty's Division. How

absurd, then, all this rigmarole about my saying I could not hold my

line, and my testimony influencing Gen. Polk.

S. G. F.

From the foregoing papers it is evident that I was left alone east of

the village of Cassville. After Gen. Johnston had placed the troops

of his right wing in position, an order was sent, and received by me

at 4 P.M., directing me to fall back and form my troops in the _rear_

of Cockrell's Brigade and Canty's Division. This put my division in

_reserve_, except Cockrell's Brigade, which was on Canty's left. Thus I

found myself in _reserve_ in rear of the line of battle. This could

not have been done before 4:30 P.M. Now, could I report that I could

not hold my line when I had none, or only one brigade, and that in the

center of a line of battle several miles in length? However, soon an

order was received (without an hour date) for me to take command of

Canty's Division, and to put or leave Cockrell's Brigade in Loring's

Division. I was now in command of two divisions, less one brigade.

On going to the right of Canty's Division, I found a gap, a dry water

gully, and its approaches unoccupied. From necessity I had to take a

part of a brigade (Ector's), so as to connect with Hood's left. Then

Hoskins's Battery was put in position about fifty yards in advance on

an eminence in front of a gap. Soon the enemy's cavalry appeared in

front of the gap, and were dispersed by the fire of Hoskins's guns.

The enemy now began to establish their batteries on the ridge in

front of Hood's line, especially near his right, and soon they opened

fire on Hoskins's Battery. About sunset the fire slackened, when Maj.

Shingleur, of my staff, and I went to our wagon in the rear to get

our dinner. Up to this time I heard never a word about not holding the

line. I knew nothing about horsemen or couriers or aids dashing about

hunting Gens. Johnston and Polk and me on the line, and I never heard

it mentioned until I read it in the newspaper sent to me one month

after it was published, and thirty years after we left Cassville.

It was perhaps 2 P.M. when Gen. Johnston lost all hope that Hood, with

the two corps as his command, would engage the detached forces of the

enemy marching to our right, and crush them before Sherman could aid

them. So no alternative was left him but to form a line of battle on

selected ground, and act on the defensive. What followed after this has

been already sketched.

I am sorry this article, so replete with errors, was ever published

on account of Gen. Polk--a noble, kind-hearted man, ever practicing

the amenities of life--for it makes him appear rather contumacious in

joining Gen. Hood, and making arrangements to invite their commander

to meet them at their "rendezvous" to listen to their complaints,

and almost dictating what should be done after the failure of the

contemplated morning attack. The writer was evidently aware that both

Hood and Polk were almost disobedient in their acts at Cassville.

Thirty years had rolled by, and the incidents were almost forgotten,

when this writer, to smooth the matter over, maladroitly seizes the

fact that I went with Hood to Polk's headquarters, and tries to make

it appear that I had influenced Gen. Polk by representations to change

his opinion, and join Hood in the statement that their lines were

untenable. I never saw Gen. Polk after he left the position east of

Cassville until I met him at his quarters where I went to supper, and

I do not remember ever sending a message or report to him that day.

He says: "Gen. Polk was too noble and patriotic to care for his

personal fame, and made no effort during his life to put himself

properly on record for his connection with the abandonment of the

line at Cassville, for he was always ready to give battle or take any

responsibilities of his position. He fought for his cause, and not for

his reputation."

The writer did not even know that I was present at the council of the

commanders, and heard both Hood and Polk give their opinions on their

side, and Johnston on the other. Therefore, as I differed from both

Hood and Polk, I could not have influenced Gen. Polk to "sustain Gen.

Hood." Furthermore, in justice to myself and for the truth of history,

I desire to correct the many erroneous statements made in the article

published. Because a line is enfiladed it does not follow that it

cannot be held. During the battle of Atlanta twice I was obliged to

hold enfiladed lines nearly an entire day. Gen. Polk did not examine

his line of battle after my division arrived. It is the duty of a

soldier to obey an order, and not to discuss it, and any soldier who

before a battle commences reports that he cannot hold a position when

a whole army is drawn up should be relieved from command.

JACKSON, MISS., January 15, 1894.

Gen. S. G. French, Winter Park, Fla.

_My Dear General_: I have read carefully your letter of the

8th instant; also the newspaper article, "_Vox Populi_,"

and find your statement in this article perfectly correct.

I was the staff officer who accompanied you to Gen. Polk's

headquarters.... Hood said that he would ride with you

to Polk's headquarters, as he was to meet Gen. Johnston

there.... We rode along leisurely, you and Hood in front,

myself and one or two of Hood's staff in the rear. This was

possibly an hour after dark. Arriving at Gen. Polk's, we

found there, besides Gen. Polk, Gens. Johnston and Hardee.

[This is an error. Neither was there when we arrived.--S. G.

F.]

Of what happened at the consultation room of course I know

nothing. I am sure that you came from the room between 10 and

11 o'clock, followed by Gen. Johnston, who, standing on the

steps, told you when you went back to your command to have

the word passed through your division that we would fight in

the morning, and prepare for it....

About 1 A.M. I was waked up by some one inquiring for Gen.

French's headquarters.... A courier said that he had an

order for you, which we read by making a light. It was the

order for us to move, with instructions to leave a few men at

the _breastworks_ to hammer and make a noise to conceal our

retreat. I am sure this order fell upon us like a bombshell.

If you uttered a word about having a position that you could

not hold, I never heard of it; and if you had thought so, I

am sure that you would have mentioned it to me. On the other

hand, I remember clearly that we discussed the situation, and

both concluded that we held a very strong position, and could

hold it against all odds....

Now all this Cassville affair is as clear to my mind as on

the night that it happened. There is no doubt upon my mind

that Gen. Hood, and he alone, was responsible for our retreat

from Cassville. It is all a mistake about French and all

staff officers being sent beyond earshot.... When we left

Gen. Polk's headquarters you and I went alone. Hood remained.

I hope you will be able to put this matter right, and let the

responsibility rest where it properly belongs.

Very glad to hear from you. With best wishes, etc.

Yours very truly,

J. A. SHINGLEUR.

* * * * *

SAVANNAH, August 8, 1874.

Gen. S. G. French.

_Dear General_: Long absence prevented my receiving and

acknowledging your very clear and satisfactory reply to

my question on the subject of small arms. It is all that I

could desire. I wish only to meet such of Hood's assertions

as impugn the _truth_ of my statements. If he goes on, and I

understand that he intends to do so, I shall avail myself of

your kind offer.

Can you not sometimes take Savannah in your way from

Mississippi to New York, and _vice versâ_? It would be very

pleasant to me to see you in my house, where there is always

ample room for you and cordial welcome.

Yours truly,

J. E. JOHNSTON.

* * * * *

SAVANNAH, June 13, 1874.

Gen. S. G. French.

_Dear General_: You may have observed that Gen. Hood has

renewed his attacks on me in his report of 1865. His last

shot is in the form of a letter signed by poor old Oladowski,

the ordnance officer, in which it is asserted that the army

lost 19,000 small arms in the part of the campaign in which

I commanded. As I have no ordnance returns, I can only

refute this calumny by the testimony of the most prominent

officers, and in that connection beg you to write me (for

publication) about the number of muskets your division lost

in the campaign, if any. Certainly the enemy took none,

for you never failed to hold the ground intrusted to you.

You probably have some idea of the probable losses of arms

by your corps, or if it had any losses. And can you say,

perhaps, if those losses could have been great enough to

correspond with Col. Oladowski's statement? You will oblige

me very much by giving me whatever information you can in

relation to this matter.

Very truly yours,

J. E. JOHNSTON.

Slavery Proclamation and Confiscation Act.

The act of confiscation, and the President's proclamation setting free

the slaves in the Confederacy, could not abolish slavery, because it

existed under the laws of the _States_. It altered no State law, but it

did affect slavery in this way: it caused many slaves to leave their

owners, and thus diminished their property and their wealth, but they

could buy others under the law.

The President has no legislative power; he cannot declare martial law,

for it overthrows the constitution, and his will would become the law;

how can the President, an executive officer, nullify laws and condemn

and punish at his pleasure?

The great latent power in the constitution is, in Art. I., Sec. 8, to

provide for the common defense and general welfare. Under this section

almost all the outrages of the war were committed, restrained only by

international rules of war; but these were utterly ignored under the

plea that this war is only a rebellion, a family affair. Under this

article resides the power to imposes _taxes_ to any amount for the

common defense and public welfare.

The confiscation act of Congress was declared by the United States

Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, and, in truth, it was passed as

a punishment against the "rebels," without an indictment, trial, or

conviction. The constitution declares that the _trial_ of all _crimes_,

except in cases of impeachment, shall be by _jury_.

As the slave owners were called the only _privileged_ class in the

United States, it is pertinent to inquire if they did not exist in all

the States when the Union was formed, and if the North did not sell

their title to be yet a privileged class for a mess of pottage; and

then howled at the purchasers for being a privileged people!

Who demanded the continual enlargement of slavery by making it legal

to steal or purchase negroes from Africa until the year 1808, to give

employment to the six hundred slave ships owned in the North? for the

statement is that toward the close of the slave trade there were about

that number belonging to New England and New York engaged in that pious

enterprise. We know the town of Newport, R. I., had one hundred and

seventy ships employed in this money-making trade in the year 1750,

and undoubtedly the number increased largely in after years, when made

legal; so, on the whole, no doubt six hundred ships were in the trade.

The question here presents itself--and it is a proper one to ask--who

first owned these slaves; how did they obtain them; how did they treat

them; and to whom did they sell these human beings for money; and then,

with the price of blood in their pockets, begin to preach against the

sin of slavery? Ye hypocrites! who thank God "we are not slave owners,

we got rid of them long ago."

It has been said by a Northern writer that "indirectly, and for the

purpose of a more equal distribution of direct taxes, the framers

of the constitution tolerated while they condemned slavery; but they

tolerated it because they believed it would soon disappear. They even

refused to allow the charter of their own liberties to be polluted by

the mention of the word _slave_; but take heed, did not this convention

give way to the clamor of the owners of slave ships to continue for

twenty years the increase of slavery? They could not, consistently with

honor or self-respect, transmit to future ages the evidence that some

of them had trampled upon the inalienable rights of others."

"Though slavery was thus tolerated by being ignored, we should not

dishonor the memory of those who organized the government to suppose

that they did intend to bestow upon it the power to maintain its own

authority, the right to overthrow or remove slavery or whatever might

prove fatal to its permanence or destroy its usefulness."

The answer is: _Yes_, but not by making war and laying waste the

country; burning dwellings, public buildings, towns; sinking shipping,

blockades; capturing, killing, imprisoning innocent people; nor by

creating enormous debts, nor yet by cruel war, but by removing the evil

by _compensation_ "for the _term of service_" of the slaves to their

owners.

The government is under obligation to compensate _parents_, masters

of _apprentices_, masters of _slaves_ for _loss of service_ and labor

of their subjects who are enlisted in the army and navy, for the

constitution recognizes slaves as "persons held to labor or service."

England compelled the abolition of slavery in her colonies, and she

paid in compensation to the slave owners one hundred million dollars.

Out of this, the Cape Colony, in Africa, obtained fifteen million

dollars, which was about four hundred dollars per slave.

If, then, slavery was believed to be fatal to the permanence of the

constitution, it could have been abolished as it was in England, or in

some equitable way without the clash of arms.

Indenture.

This indenture is here presented for no other purpose than to evidence

the mode of manumitting slaves by the Abolition Society in the City of

Brotherly Love about four years after the constitution of the United

States was framed.

From this instrument of writing it appears that "Betty" was set free

(so called) on the 14th of September, 1792, on condition that she

should become a bond servant by contract for seven years. Her signature

to the indenture (original) is made on the left-hand corner, and not

covered by the photograph.

From the wording of her indenture to her master Bordley, it would

appear that verily her second condition was worse than her first,

and her last worse than all; for in her fifty-seventh year she was

to be turned adrift in her old age, possessed of only two suits of

apparel--"one of which is to be new"--to struggle with adversity.

She was now, however, free to play cards and dice, go to alehouses,

taverns, and playhouses, and dance and contract marriage, etc.

[Illustration]

It would be interesting to know how she passed the remaining years of

her life. That is buried in oblivion. Had she remained a slave--"held

to a service of labor," which was her first condition--she would have

had a home for life. To depend on the benevolence of the Northern

people was to be in a worse condition than that of a slave, for the

slave did know that he had a friend and a home for life.

How little is known, even at this day, at the North of the general

relation between the owner and the slave in the latter days of

slavery's existence! and I hope it will not shock the sensibility or

puritanical feelings of ye scribes and Pharisees when I state that

in the family graveyard near Columbus, Ga., where my wife's father

and mother and some of her brothers and sisters rest, there repose

the remains of _their_ Aunt Betty, who nursed all the children of

the family. She was, in name, a slave; in reality, she had all the

privileges of a member of the family, and when she died the children

declared she should sleep beside them in death, as she had lived with

them in life and would rise with them at the resurrection.

I could tell where a slave, after her death, was carried near fifty

miles to sleep in the family graveyard, with her master and mistress,

who had preceded her to the sacred spot where dust returns to dust.

These, and other instances I know, speak of kind feelings, and are

significant of the ties that existed between the master and the slave;

and this intimacy between master and slave, and almost companionship

of children and servant, were more common than any harsh behavior

toward them. A man who abused a slave was held in contempt, and was,

I suppose, shunned by his neighbors. I had no experience with such

men. Once the overseer on our place was going to punish a man for

persisting in annoying another. The alleged offender sent for me, and

I investigated the case. He was charged with being too gallant with

another man's wife, an accusation very prevalent in high society now,

when my lady can get a divorce in the morning and marry her admirer in

the evening, or the husband do so, as the case may be. No punishment

was given the negro in this matter, for the want of evidence; and I

here state that no whipping of a negro ever occurred on the plantation.

The difference between the wage earner and the slave is, the _right to

change residence_. The former, with his family of wife and children,

is too often, for want of means, unable to avail himself of his right,

and is therefore practically on a level in this respect with the

bondsman, and he becomes reduced to the slavery of wages, which in this

age--howling for wealth--becomes a pitiful condition, from which he

seeks relief in strikes, so often in vain. He cannot succeed against

the money power of the great trusts and monopolies, the power of the

State and military interference of the United States forces; so in the

end he is only steeped deeper in poverty. From all this the slave was

free and happy, if his laughter, song, and dance indicate contentment.

I do dislike egotism, and yet to establish the fact that slaves did

possess the power to change masters and homes--and you will admit that

practical experience is better than any theory--I will tell you plainly

what occurred to me touching this matter.

As administrator of an estate where the land and servants had to be

sold, the heads of the families were given notice, months in advance,

that they could visit or otherwise see the owners of the neighboring

plantations and other persons with whom they would like to live, and

induce them to buy the family at the sale: and when the sale was made

I think all had selected homes. In this case, at the sales many were

informed that they would be bid in by the heirs. I never knew a family

to be separated.

I believe it was in the autumn of 1856 I wished to obtain a good cook,

and went to New Orleans. Beard & May, cotton brokers, informed me that

the German Vice Consul was going home, and had the best cook in the

city. I called on Mr. Kock at his office, and he gave me a note to

his wife, stating the object of my calling. Madame sent for the cook,

and she came into the drawing room and was introduced to me, and my

business made known to her. She was a fine-looking woman. She asked me

the usual questions--such as "Biddy" in the intelligence office asks

persons in quest of a cook--about where I lived, number in the family,

if there was a church near by, nearest town, etc. Obtaining the desired

information, she told her mistress she did not wish to leave the city,

and she was directed to retire. Mrs. Kock said she wished the servant

to be satisfied with her new home, etc.

Next Beard & May sent me to a French family. Madame came in, and sent

for the cook she wished to sell. This one varied the questions, she

asked even as to hot dinners on Sundays, and then she said she would

not like to live on a plantation; and so the visit was fruitless.

Then Beard & May told me to question the servants they held for sale,

and there I found a woman about thirty years old, of fine personal

appearance, who was willing to accept a position in the country, and I

bought her.

A few days after, Beard & May called on me and said my cook, Maria,

wanted to see me; so I went to her, and she then told me she wished

I would buy her husband Jim. I expressed my displeasure that she had

not told me she was married before I bought her. However, I bought Jim

to satisfy her, and took them both home with me. Maria was installed

in the kitchen, and proved to be a good cook. Jim had charge of the

horses, etc. At the beginning of summer we went North. Jim was put to

work in the field. He soon ran away, stayed in the woods by day, came

home often at night, and told the overseer that he would come home

when I did. When we returned in the autumn, Jim came to see me and

explained that he had never worked in the field; so he worked again at

the stables and ginhouses. I now learned that Maria and Jim had never

been married. When spring came, I told Jim I would take him back to

New Orleans, and he was willing to go. I left him with Beard & May to

be sold. When we returned in the fall Jim had not been sold. In the

winter I visited New Orleans. The steamer arrived during the night.

In the morning as I was going on shore I saw a number of fine hacks on

the levee awaiting passengers; among them the driver of a fine carriage

cried out: "O Master Sam, here is your carriage; ride with me. Don't

you know Jim? Mighty glad to see you, Master Sam." He drove me to the

St. Charles Hotel. Soon Jim came to see me, and I told him if he did

not find a home for himself before I left the city I would have him

sold to some one out in the country without consulting him. The result

was, Jim got the owner of the livery stable to buy him, and that was

the last I saw of Jim. No one would purchase Jim because he told every

one who wanted him, "If you buy me, I will run away;" and so he hired

himself out for about nine months, at twenty dollars per month, as a

hack driver, which supported himself free of expense to me.

[Illustration]

And now about Maria: In the spring she got in the habit of having fits,

and would foam at the mouth, and the old cook would have to come over.

This continued over two weeks.

One morning I saw my neighbor Courtney riding up to my gate rather

rapidly. He was excited and said: "Capt. French, I want you to buy my

man Parker or sell me Maria." Parker had the main charge of some one

hundred and thirty servants on Courtney's place. As I had no use for

Parker, I would not entertain buying him, and replied that I would sell

him Maria. When he became more composed, he told me that "Parker had

become stupid, thoughtless, and could not remember what was told him,

and when I called him to account he informed me that he was so much in

love with Maria that his mind was all 'up-sot,' but if I would only buy

Maria he would be so happy, and be the best hand on the place if she

were his wife." And so Maria became Parker's wife, and never feigned

having fits any more. Marriage cured them. Her fits were all "put on"

to get a new home at Courtney's.

I was now quite tired and wearied with cooks, but nevertheless, being

in New Orleans, I made another venture. Beard & May said they had a

good cook. She was a woman of about twenty, with a jolly round face,

and said she was a fine cook, and I bought her. Her name was something

like Amanda, as I remember it. She was a willing, good-natured

creature, but so careless that half the dishes were spoiled; so

during the summer I took her to New Orleans and left her with Beard &

May (early in the morning), then drove to the hotel. I had finished

my breakfast and was smoking in the rotunda, when I saw Amanda

approaching, accompanied by a tall, elderly gentleman, to whom I was

introduced, naming him "my new master." He was from one of the parishes

of the State. He asked me some questions about his new servant, and

said he thought her a good cook, and honest, from what she told him.

He apologized for the early call, as he had to leave on the morning

steamboat. Bidding Amanda good-by, I concluded to abide with our old

cook again.

I have briefly sketched these, some of my experiences with slaves,

to establish the fact that bondsmen on the Mississippi did have the

privilege of selecting very often the persons with whom they wished to

live, as well as the place, which is by poverty denied the poor white

men when in the iron grip of the rich corporations, where they are held

by the relentless "slavery of wages."

A man acting for himself and in the interest of his family must have

feelings of humanity for his servants. Their welfare and happiness are

indissolubly linked with his, aside from his accountability for his

acts to his God. Corporations have no souls, and no God to worship

except Mammon. They have no ear for the misfortunes or ills of an

employee, no physician for sickness, no priest for the dying, nor

coffin for the dead. All these the slave has.

Truly the relentless thirst for gold over the road to wealth crushes

to death like a worm the poor laborer beneath its tread. There is no

provision in the charter of a trust company for care of life or soul

of a laborer, and his condition is disguised in the (unknown to him)

glorious privileges of independence, liberty, and freedom. What a

mockery are all these human rights to a family perishing in a hut by

a coal mine for want of clothing and food, with no ministering hand!

And yet all the wealth in the world was obtained from the earth by the

miner and farmer.

God in the beginning proclaimed the relations and the obligations

between master and bond servant in Holy Writ, and he will judge them

by their deeds; but God hath not, nor hath man defined the humanities

inseparable between a trust company and its employee, except by

injunctions and courts and bayonet rule.

Bad as it is, some may be inclined to believe that Betty, under her

indenture, had more privilege and enjoyment than most of the white

laborers in the employment of many monopolies.

In connection with this indenture is presented the picture of the Rev.

Henry Ward Beecher selling slaves on his theatrical pulpit stage in

Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, to raise money, and fire the Northern hearts

against the South.

The audience is large, and their countenances express delight at this

fine scene of buffoonery, which was then considered _one of the "eight

great personal events_ of the _nineteenth century_," and hence worthy

of preservation. When passion shall have subsided, and calm judgment

presides, it will perhaps be regarded as an act of charlatanry unworthy

of so great a man. These great personal events are said to be:

When Jenny Lind sung in Castle Garden.

When Henry Ward Beecher sold slaves in Plymouth pulpit.

When the Prince of Wales was in America.

When Henry Clay bade farewell to the Senate.

When Grant went around the world.

When Lincoln was first inaugurated.

When Kossuth rode up Broadway.

When Mackay struck the great bonanza.

[Illustration]

I regarded Mr. Beecher an orator, and have listened to his discourses

on theology to his congregation with admiration; but his attacks on

slavery were made perhaps with as little knowledge of the condition

of the bondsmen as that distinguished kinswoman of his, Mrs. Harriet

Beecher Stowe, has shown in her ideal novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin." They

produced a diseased state of public sentiment, and Demos, turned loose,

strained the ties of love and kindred relations that bound the States

by the compact, and precipitated secession and war on the South.

If slavery be considered a wrong, and no doubt it was, then, in justice

to all concerned in its establishment in the United States and to the

condition of the slaves in 1861 and the means resorted to for their

liberation, it becomes a matter of impartial consideration, and when

that day comes, the South will stand before the world vindicated, and

the verdict will be both parties guilty, as will be shown hereafter.

Slavery was only made _possible_ by bringing in ships negroes from

Africa; and that was mainly done by the people of Old England, New

England, and New York City. They were large ship owners. They sent

their vessels for slaves, and obtained them by theft, by capturing them

in the midnight glare of burning villages, or by purchase. _They owned

them all._ They were indeed inhuman slave dealers. They sold some of

them to all the thirteen colonies, and to the several States formed

of them under the constitution, and they continued this slave trade

_legally_ until 1808, and illegally until 1862. (See "American Slave

Trade," by J. R. Spears.)

In Old England the question of slavery was discussed calmly,

with justice and common sense, and they arrived at an equitable

decision--viz., that the government should compensate the owners

for their property rights in persons held to labor or (in language

undisguised) in slaves, and, as I have already stated, $100,000,000 was

appropriated to purchase them and set them free, an act of justice to

the owners.

In this land of freedom the pious people of the North (I speak plainly)

sold their slaves to the planters in the South, and, with the slave

money in their pockets, rejoiced that they were not like the people

South, and as Pilate did (figuratively) they took water and washed

their hands before the people, saying: "We are innocent of the sin of

slavery now!"

Next, from causes already stated, like the crusaders to the Holy Land,

the fanatical crowd came down South, and took the slaves that they once

owned and sold from the purchasers, and forced the States to set them

free without compensation. By this act they took over $3,000,000,000

worth of private property from the owners--the greatest robbery ever

committed on earth.

In the common courts of the country it has been adjudged, I believe,

that the thief is a greater criminal than the receiver of the stolen

property; but when the thieves steal the same property a second time,

what should the sentence of the court be? Of that crime the North

stands convicted.

There is a higher power than any established by man.

"God moves in a mysterious way

His wonders to perform."

In days of old he arraigned nations before his august court, and

they lived or perished at his will. The day is not far distant when

the South, at his command and in his own way, will arise from their

down-trodden condition, to the surprise of their oppressors. Her fields

will blossom as the rose, the busy hum of industry will be heard in the

land, and the commercial sails of the world will ride on the waters of

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, plying to South America and

the Orient through the canal that will connect the two great oceans.

What position then will the New England States hold in the general

prosperity of the States? Then it will be seen, "Vengeance is mine; I

will repay, saith the Lord." And even now along the Atlantic seaboard

great steamers go North mainly laden with articles made from wood,

lumber, pig iron, cotton goods, fruit, and the great metropolitan

hotels and the people generally depend on the fields and gardens of

the South for their vegetables half the year; and so it goes on in

arithmetical progression of increase.

Leaving out the negroes, the South has a homogeneous population;

the solidarity of the nation will rest on her. In 1861 there was

less than _one_ foreigner to the hundred in the population of North

Carolina, while in the West it ranged from _thirty_ to _sixty_ per

cent. (See census reports.) The cities of Chicago and New York contain

a population which will be found to be a conglomeration of all the

peoples on the face of the earth--with their political ideas, their

morality, their vices, their language, and their religion--and on no

question will they agree unless purchased for a price, as a business

transaction, for money, and "the love of money is the root of all

evil," and the history of Rome will be repeated.

Historians estimate the number of slaves carried from Africa to the

Americas and the West Indies Islands to have been from eight to twelve

millions, out of which number about five hundred thousand died or were

killed at sea, and their bodies were thrown overboard. And now let the

_sin_ of slavery rest on the North or the South, as it will finally

be declared by the consensus of public opinion, when investigation

discloses and proclaims the horrible cruelty of the Northern slave

owners who brought them here, and contrast it with the amelioration

of their condition and their advancement in intelligence and morality

acquired by the teaching of the best men and women in the South. This

opinion will be recorded.

The negro, as sold by his first owner, was a stupid animal speaking

a jabbering lingo; he was now taught and trained in civilization

until he was adjudged by the North, when set free, capable to perform

all the duties pertaining to the high official positions to which

the United States government did appoint him or his brother negroes

elected him. Yes, under the teachings and training of their owners on

the plantations and in the cities, while slaves, they were converted

from fetichism to Christianity, and from cannibalism to gentility

of living, and their beastly nature curbed by moral surroundings

and force of example; and now, to humiliate the Southern people,

who were disfranchised, political plans were arranged to have negro

Senators elected instead of whites, and from Mississippi two negroes

were occupying at different periods seats in the United States Senate

chamber. Their names were Revels and Bruce. The latter I have seen

riding through my plantation. From Senator he became Register of the

Treasury of the United States, a position long held by my friend, Gen.

W. S. Rosecrans, United States army.

Out of the three million soldiers that were in the United States army,

there were not as many discharged soldiers holding office in the South

in 1869 as there were ex-slaves out of the four hundred thousand negro

men eligible to office. This indicates either the soldiers' unfitness

for office, or that the selection of negroes was made to humiliate the

people of the South.

It may be asked: Whence came Christianity among the slaves? Did it

come by nature? No, nature is uniform in her laws, and developed no

Christianity among the negroes in Africa, or elsewhere when left to

themselves; hence it came by teaching, for on Sundays the master and

mistress, nurse and children, in the carriage were always escorted to

church by the young men on horseback, dressed in their clean and best

attire, where all worshiped together in the Lord's house. Also, on many

plantations, clergymen were maintained with ample compensation by two

or three neighboring planters to preach the gospel to their people.

Whence came qualifications for business, unless taught by their owners?

Reading, writing, and arithmetic do not come by birth, and the peasant

and the prince alike have to study to comprehend even "the rule of

three."

It is not pleasant to refer to the want of information among the common

people in the North and West in regard to the real relation of the

bondsmen to their owners, or to the ignorance of the masses of the

nations of Europe on this question. In Europe they had a foretaste

of freedom in 1848; but slavery in the United States was a sealed

letter to them all. For the North there is this excuse: the almost

nonintercourse between the North and the South precluded personal

observation, and they were taught in the schools, in the lecture

room, from the rostrum and the pulpit, by the press in every village,

town, and city all over the land, to believe the fabulous accounts

of the ills of slavery to be true, and that the slave owners were

cruel, illiterate, uncultured, and had "plantation manners," unfit for

association with the immaculate people of the North. The populace of

the North learned nothing from the utter failure of the advent of John

Brown in Virginia, where slaves fled from him with horror and left him

to his deserved fate; on the contrary, he was by the North held up as

a saint who gave his life for freedom's cause.

Far and wide the abolition and free-soil party preached a crusade

against the people of the South to liberate the slaves, and Mr.

Beecher's picture shows to what low means they stooped to awaken

enthusiasm for their cause. It spread to Europe, and when they

commenced the war the illiterate masses there joined in the crusade

against the South, as they did to rescue the holy sepulcher from the

hands of the infidel, on which occasion, Proctor in his "History of

the Crusades" says, "the Welshman forgot his hunting, the Scot his

companionship with vermin, the Dane his carouse, and the Norwegian his

raw fish," in their fanatical desire to reach Jerusalem; and so again

the Welshman, the Scot, the Norwegian, the Dane, the German, and the

rest of Europe came over here to enlist as substitutes in the Federal

army in its crusade against the institution of slavery which was

founded by their ancestors.

Herod the Great, an Idumean, to secure the throne of Jerusalem to the

Idumean line of Jews, murdered his wife, the beautiful Mariamne, and

his two sons by her. They were handsome, had been educated in Rome,

were very accomplished, and beloved by the Jewish people; but as

they were, through their mother, of the Asmonean line of Jews, Herod

condemned them to death to secure the succession as he desired. When

the war between the States ended, the white people of the Confederacy

were in the way of the line of succession of the radical party to

maintain office; so they were disfranchised, and a new race was made

citizens to take their place: they were the late negro slaves, the pets

and "wards of the nation!"

Now, when it was told to Augustus Cæsar that Herod had murdered his

two sons by Mariamne, he said that "it was better to be one of Herod's

_pigs_ than one of his sons;" and so when the white people of the South

were politically murdered, many of their friends said: "It were better

to be a '_ward of the nation_' than a son of the Confederacy." These

cruel proceedings have been condemned by all the civilized nations of

Europe, and will be condemned by the impartial historians of the North

when passions shall have subsided.

The enslaving of the negro race in the colonies--and which was largely

confined to those called Southern, and almost entirely to them after

the ending of the slave trade--placed the white people of the colonies

on a higher and broader plane and released them from the daily struggle

after the "almighty dollar."

The busy minds of the Northern people were constantly more and more

given to trade and traffic, while those of the South turned to the

enjoyment of a home life; freed from restraint and care, they practiced

the amenities of social life, with honor, truth, and charity to all.

Strange as it may appear, a civilization--based on slave labor, that

was tolerant in religion, that encouraged freedom of thought, led their

minds to the contemplation of the rights given man by his Creator

when he breathed the breath of life into his body as he came into

this world--resulted in prompting these men to embody their views on

this question of divine right in the Mecklenburg Declaration, made in

Mecklenburg County, N. C., May 20, 1775, and which was substantially

expressed again, July 4, 1776, in the Declaration of Independence, read

in Philadelphia.

And so it was from the thoughtful minds of these quiet slave owners

came these two proclamations: that man was indued, or born, with

certain "inalienable rights" derived from his Maker--namely, "life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These were some of the

developments of a _civilization_ based on slavery.

To secure these rights unto themselves, after the Confederation, they

framed the Constitution of the United States, but unfortunately it was

established on a compromise that was left for futurity to interpret;

and disagreement on this matter led to secession as a solution and last

resort.

[Illustration: JOSEPH E. BROWN.]

Passing by the particular events of the war between the States, it

may not be unprofitable to inquire what was the difference in the

developments of the two civilizations that followed the formation and

establishment of the Constitution; the North by itself, free, and the

South with her peculiar institutions. By their fruits ye must judge

them.

There were seventeen Presidents anterior to President Grant, out of

which number eleven were Southern born, and six the product of free

soil, if we include John Adams. In jurisprudence, the South gave us a

Marshall; in the forum they need no mention, as statesmen they have but

few peers; among diplomats, John Laurens, of South Carolina, a member

of Washington's staff, special Minister to France, stands preëminent;

in the darkest hour of our struggle, at the court of Louis XIV., he

saved the colonies and turned the tide of war in our favor.

In the field we have Washington, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Forrest.

For an honest opinion of Gen. Lee and his soldiers, see Theodore

Roosevelt's life of T. H. Benton: there he stands _peerless_. Those

who desire to learn more about Col. John Laurens may read the December

number of _McClure's Magazine_ (1899).

Such are some of the fruits of a civilization that has passed away.

When I survey the past, and from it make prophecy of the future,

I am as candid in saying I rejoice that slavery is no more as I

am in condemning the brutal manner in which it was abolished; and

nevertheless I am as sincere in my love of my whole country as I

am imbued with dislike to that class of people who out of hatred

precipitated that war on the Southern people out of envy because

they imagined that the planters were a more favored people than they

themselves were.

A Roman consul was never accorded a triumph for a victory in civil

war, nor were the spoils of war his. But after this civil war, as it

is termed, ended, the emblems of victory have waved in triumph in our

faces, and are carefully preserved instead of being hidden away, and

the universal looting has enriched the soldiers' homes with the spoils

of war. Senator Charles Sumner wanted the captured flags returned.

War is not barbarous, nor is it "hell;" it is just what parties choose

to make it. When confined to the enlisted troops it is seldom cruel.

Hell is an expression adopted to silence argument on the cruel manner

in which the United States government prosecuted the war: when this

subject is mentioned we are silenced by the declaration, O well, "war

is hell any way."

To cover up his own iniquities, Gen. Sherman said: "_War is hell._"

During the war with Mexico I was with Gen. Taylor from Corpus Christi

to Buena Vista, and during that period heard of but one case of

robbery, and that was at Papagallos, on the march to Monterey. There

a soldier stole a chicken. Seeing a crowd of officers in the street, I

rode up to ascertain the cause.

Gen. Taylor had dismounted. There was the offender; he was severely

reprimanded and placed under guard. Turning to the accuser--an old

woman--the General gave her some silver coin in payment for her

chicken. That war was not hell.

When Richard Cœur de Lion was ill in Palestine the Islam commander,

Saladin, "sent him the choicest fruits and refreshment of snow during

the burning heat of summer; and at the siege of Jaffa, Saphadan, the

Mohammedan chief, observing Richard dismounted, sent him two Arabian

horses, on one of which he continued the conflict until nightfall. He

further solicited and obtained from Richard the honor of knighthood for

his son." This was not much like hell.

Again, Richard promulgated, like Gen. W. T. Sherman, regulations for

the government of his troops. "A _thief_ was to have his head shaved,

to be tarred and feathered." Had Sherman issued and enforced an order

like this, the sight of his troops would have frightened all the

inhabitants out of Savannah.

Our Unknown Dead.

EXTRACT FROM AN ADDRESS OF GEN. S. G. FRENCH MADE TO THE U. C. V. CAMP,

NO. 54, ORLANDO, FLA., JUNE 8, 1893.

_Comrades_: The solemn ceremony of Decoration Day has been performed.

The few graves, alike of the Confederate and the Union soldiers that

rest in our cemetery, have been decorated with floral offerings,

and the cause that so few of the Confederate dead sleep where loving

kindred can care for them inclines me to say a few words in regard to

the unknown dead.

From Dalton down to Atlanta, and around that city, there was one

continuous conflict for one hundred days, and not a day passed without

some troops being engaged, and so the dead were left throughout a

hundred miles on either side, resting where they fell.

If we turn to the east again, we find that Gen. Grant crossed

the Rapidan May 4, 1864, and, taking the direct line to Richmond,

immediately the battle of the Wilderness followed, and he announced

that he was going "to fight it out on that line if it took all summer."

A few days after came the battle of Spottsylvania, and June 1 that of

Cold Harbor, where the Federal troops refused to make a second attack.

In these three great and sanguinary battles the commander of the Union

forces did not meet with success, and so on the first day of summer

he left that line and swung around, as McClellan did, to the James

river. After Cold Harbor it seems as if there was no desire for another

general engagement, and the hammering away mode of war commenced on

Lee. On July 18, 1864, President Lincoln called for five hundred

thousand more men, and so the detrition process went on for nine

months, mainly on and near the picket line, being in all nearly eleven

months and a half that Lee confronted Grant's hosts of men, and over

all this extent of country lay the blue and the gray side by side in

death. Devastation, as in the Palatinate, had done its work.

Now when the war ended, the Federal government, with commendable zeal,

very humanely collected most of its dead and had their remains removed

to its beautiful cemeteries, and there keeps green the sod and fresh

the flowers on their graves.

There was no Confederate government to collect and care for the

remains of the Confederate dead. Along the banks of the "Father of

Waters" for more than a thousand miles the inhabitants tread unawares

over the unknown graves of those who battled for the South. Along the

shores of the Potomac, the Rappahannock, and the James wave the golden

harvests on soil enriched by their blood and moldering dust. There

the grapes grow more luscious and the wine is redder. From the capes

of the Chesapeake adown the stormy Atlantic, and trending around the

Gulf, rest thousands of our dead; or go to the heights of Allatoona,

to Lookout's lofty peak, or Kennesaw Mountain's top, and you may seek

in vain where the dead rest. Time, with the relentless force of the

elements, has obliterated all traces of their graves from human eye;

they are known only to Him who can tell where Moses sleeps in "a vale

in the land of Moab." So the forgotten are not forgot, the Hand that

made the thunder's home comes down every spring and paints with bright

colors the little wild flowers that grow over their resting places,

and they are bright on Decoration Day. The rosy morn announces first to

them that the night is gone, and when the day is past and the landscape

veiled with evening's shade, high on the mountain top the last ray of

the setting sun lovingly lingers longest, loath to leave the lonely

place where the bright-eyed children of the Confederacy rest in death.

And wherefore did they die? They fell in defense of their homes, their

families, their country, and those civil rights arising from that

liberty God gave man as a heritage in the beginning. They furnished to

their country much that will be noble in history, wonderful in story,

tender in song, and a large share of that glory which will claim the

admiration of mankind. We can today place no wreaths of immortelles

on their unknown graves, yet we can rest assured that the echoes of

posterity will render their deeds illustrious.

And now, as I look back on the past and recall to mind your trials

and sufferings--which will be forgotten--I am sure the world will not

forget that your valor MERITED A SUCCESS which is better now than to

have achieved it.

FOOTNOTES

[1] A fête given by Maj. André in Philadelphia, May, 1778, in

honor of Sir William Howe.

[2] "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the

inhabitants thereof." (Lev. xxv. 10.)

[3] Newspaper cuttings.

[4] August 31, 1898. Raynolds and Auger are now at rest, and

four remain. April, 1899, Gen. J. J. Reynolds has passed over

the river.

[5] It is also reported that the first message over the

line, sent by a young lady, was: "What hath God wrought!" The

Professor did not mention this, and this dispatch was sent

over the ocean cable years later.

[6] In the celebrated Dred-Scott case (see Howard's "Supreme

Court Reports," Vol. XIX., page 404) you will find that

Justice Taney, in describing the _condition_ of the negro

more than a hundred years _before_ the Declaration of

Independence, said: "It is difficult at _this day_ (1856)

to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that

unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized portions

of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence,

and when the Constitution of the United States was framed

and adopted.... They had, for more than a century before,

been regarded as a being of an inferior order, and altogether

unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or

political relations; and so far inferior that they had no

rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the

negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his

benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary

article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could

be made by it. The opinion was, _at that time_, fixed and

universal in the civilized portions of the white race."

The above is merely a historical fact as regards the status

of the negro about _two hundred years before_ the judge

rendered his decision. And now behold! For political party

purposes; by the abolitionists; from the pulpit; by college

professors; by _all_ who have hated the South, it is to

this day tortured into a _decision_ made by Chief Justice

Roger B. Taney, which is not true. Furthermore, and before

this case was in court, Judge Taney had manumitted his own,

inherited, slaves; and as a lawyer had defended a man in

court for publicly uttering abolition sentiments. In fact he

regarded slavery as an evil, and proclaimed it by deeds. (See

"American Authors' Guild Bulletin" for April, 1898.)

[7] Col. Harney was annoyed by the number of blackbirds that

would feed with the horses, eating the grain; so while the

horses were out grazing I asked an officer for a gun to kill

some of the birds. He handed me a long single-barreled one

with a bore about the size of a half dollar. From the powder

flask I put in two charges of powder and shot. The ground was

covered with birds. I fired and killed none; the charge was

too small. The doctor (I think he was a doctor) said he would

load it for me, so I took another shot. This time I thought

my arm dislocated at the shoulder. I did not count the

number of birds, but the ground was covered with the dead and

wounded. I played indifference while meditating revenge for

a sore shoulder. Going to the top of the observatory, I saw

perhaps a hundred deer grazing close by; so I was taken with

a desire to kill one, and again asked the doctor for his gun.

He proposed loading it for me. I told him I preferred doing

it myself. I put in three charges of powder, or three drams,

and about forty small buckshot, and off I went for a deer.

The herd grazed along before me up the slope of a ridge, and

passed over it. I crawled on hands and knees to the crest,

and such a sight! A number of single deer were within twenty

yards of me. At once I became covetous. Shoot a single deer?

No. I wanted four or five (remembering "all things come to

those who wait"), so presently five or six were nearly in

a line, but more distant; and when I pulled the trigger the

gun said "fush," and the smoke came in my face. As I looked

over the field I was amazed. There were all the deer standing

facing me, their heads high, ears spread out wide, and their

large, soft, mild eyes looking at me imploringly; and not

alarmed. Probably they had never heard a gun (and I am quite

sure they did not hear this one), for the Indians then were

armed only with bows and arrows.

I sat down on the green grass and looked at the deer, and

felt that experience must be a good teacher. But the days

came when I did kill many; but the first one fell dead from

a shot from my pistol.

I make mention of these little events that belong to the

past to show how great is the change made in a few passing

years. Where now is all this game, and where are the Indians?

Alike they have disappeared before the advance of avaricious

civilization. From San Antonio to Corpus Christi and to El

Paso the country was as God made it, unchanged by Indians,

and over the plains and on a thousand hills roamed deer, wild

turkey, partridges, and the waters swarmed with swan, geese,

and ducks unmolested by sportsmen.

[8] The inference is that Gen. Taylor ordered May up on the

receipt of Ridgely's first message.

[9] Gen. John Bankhead Magruder was known in earlier days as

"Prince John." When stationed on the Canadian frontier the

British officers and ours were on good social terms. John was

indeed a princely fellow, and the officers at his mess dined

always in a rich, gay dinner jacket. His servant was Irish

and a jewel, and knew well "Prince John's" foibles. One day

at dinner, to which some English officers were guests, there

was a considerable display of taste, and one of them had the

temerity to ask his host what was the pay of a lieutenant

of artillery, and obtained for an answer: "Well, bless you,

my dear fellow, I do not remember; my servant always gets

it. What is it, Patrick?" And Pat, well knowing the ways of

Magruder, replied: "Your honor must perceive the captain is

a gintleman, and too ginerous to ask me for it."

When the city of Mexico was captured by Gen. Scott "Prince

John" obtained quarters in the bishop's palace. Sending

for the butler, he asked him: "At what hour does the bishop

dine?" Answer: "Four P.M." "How many courses does he have?"

Answer: "Four." "How many bottles of wine does he order?"

Answer: "Two." To impress the butler that he was an officer

of high dignity, he gave orders that he would dine at 8 P.M.

and require eight courses and four bottles of wine, doubling

the courses, etc.

And here is another story I will relate as I heard it:

After the battles around Richmond had been fought Gen. J.

B. Magruder was sent to command the Department of Texas. As

I have formerly related, he was a _bon vivant_ and rejoiced

in the pleasures of the table, and dined with much ceremony.

To keep this up, as far as he could, he would send, like

the popes of Rome, a courier in advance to arrange for his

comfort. On one occasion a staff officer was sent ahead

as usual. Coming to a good residence, he arranged for

comfortable quarters and a sumptuous supper. When the General

arrived and the usual preliminaries were over he was ushered

into the dining hall, and there sat at the table a ragged

"Reb" helping himself to the supper all alone. Magruder,

however, took his seat at the table, and, eying the "Reb"

demolishing the viands, he exclaimed: "Do you, sir, know

with whom you are eating supper?" "Reb" replied: "No, I don't

know, and I don't care a d--mn; before I went into the army

I was very particular as to whom I ate with, but it makes no

difference now; just help yourself, do."

[10] Riding over the battlefield the day after the fight

we came to the camp where the surgeons were attending to

the wounded. A _German_ prisoner was there _standing up_,

holding on to the limb of a tree resting himself, he had

been shot crosswise in the rear, the ball tearing away the

seat of his breeches, that were very bloody. One of our

_Irish_ soldiers was passing by with canteens filled with

water, and the German asked for a drink. Pat surveyed him,

and replied: "Never a drop of wather will ye get from me, ye

bloody hathen. If ye had stayed in your own counthry, where

you belong, ye would now be well and have a sound seat to sit

down on."

[11] It was understood that Santa Anna was to end the war by

making a treaty of peace, but he deceived President Polk.

[12] "Beautiful View."

[13] The Mexican story is: That a Mexican lieutenant in

the first line got mixed up with our troops and feigned a

_parley_ and was carried to Gen. Taylor. This was followed by

his returning to the Mexican line accompanied by two American

officers to have an interview with Santa Anna. Then our line

stopped firing and theirs did not. If this Mexican officer

bore a flag of truce, it would explain why we stopped firing,

and I am quite sure he did.

[14] Senate Document.

[15] Also to San Francisco, Cal., as was then predicted.

[16] Until charged, tried, and convicted of treason is

confiscation legal?

[17] Maj. Electus Backus went to Fort Defiance, among the

Navajoes, and destroyed the influence of their god--the

dancing man--by a piece of jugglery in making a stuffed

figure to represent their god, and by means of wires making

it dance. Peace followed this exhibition by a treaty.

[18] Pronounced canyon.

[19] When I was stationed in Louisville, Ky., in 1850, on one

occasion Thomas F. Marshall, Dr. Matthews (who was with us

in Mexico), and I were at the Galt House. Marshall and the

Doctor became engaged in repartee. The Doctor was a master

of wit. Marshall acknowledged defeat, and invited us to dine

with him next day at the Louisville Hotel, and we accepted

his invitation. When the morrow came the Doctor was a little

reluctant to go, fearing another encounter. However, at the

hour Marshall was on hand. He was an entertaining host, and

among his many anecdotes he related the treatment he once

received from Henry Clay.

Marshall was opposed to Clay in some local political issue,

and the day after the election many people assembled at

the courthouse in Lexington to get the news. Clay was in

the rotunda surrounded by friends when Marshall entered and

approached the crowd. Clay saluted him with: "Good morning,

Mr. Marshall. What is the news from Woodford County?"

Marshall answered, "We traitors have been defeated;" and

instead of extending his hand to "Tom" and saying, "O come

back to the Whig fold!" he waved his long arm and exclaimed,

"May that ever be the fate of all traitors!" Marshall said

the repulse of his proffered friendship astonished him, but

it was Clay's _imperious_ way.

[20] I give this story as related to me by a naval officer.

[21] Told as related to me.

[22] By this arrangement my quartermaster, Maj. J. B.

Moray, obtained bacon, sugar, coffee, blankets, shoes,

cloth, saddlers' tools, medical supplies, etc., in no small

quantities. He also had hay and fodder baled, by sending a

hay press through the north counties of North Carolina to

bale this forage, and obtain grain. On the arrival of Gens.

D. H. Hill and Longstreet it terminated, for Longstreet took

the teams.

The following letter from the Hon. James A. Seddon relates to

this matter:

WAR DEPARTMENT, C. S. A., }

RICHMOND, February 20, 1863. }

Gen. S. G. French, Commanding, Etc.

_General_: I have derived much satisfaction from

your letter of the 12th, and am gratified to

see how fully you have realized and understand

the great needs of our army on the Rappahannock

for supplies of forage and subsistence, and the

difficulty of meeting them. The scarcity in this

State is really great, and without distressing

exactions from the people, and much consequent

suffering, there is no prospect of drawing any

large supplies from them.

Our great reliance must be on the large producing

counties of North Carolina, and, unfortunately, the

richest are in the hands of, or under the control

of, the enemy. Great efforts must be made to draw

all that can forced or tempted from that quarter,

and there can be no better employment of our forces

in North Carolina than in protecting and aiding

such operations. Even illicit dealings with persons

of doubtful position, or mercenary natures, might

be encouraged to the extent of procuring supplies,

particularly of meat. But with the clear views

and convictions you have on this whole subject

it is unnecessary to urge the adoption of special

means. You will, I doubt not, adopt all that can be

made available, and in so doing you will have the

sanction of the department.

Very truly yours,

JAMES A. SEDDON, _Secretary of War_.

[23] This was a violation of military usages that both Gens.

Andrew Jackson and Z. Taylor denounced. Here is an extract

from the order of Gen. Jackson:

HEADQUARTERS DIVISION OF THE SOUTH,}

NASHVILLE, April 22, 1817. }

The commanding general considers it due to the

principles which ought and must exist in an army

to prohibit the obedience of any order emanating

from the _Department of War_ to officers of this

division ... unless coming through him as the

proper organ of communication. The object of this

is to prevent the recurrence, etc.

Here we see Jackson forbidding obedience to any order to

troops or officer in his command unless it was communicated

to him first for his action.

[24] Longstreet reiterates the story of the capture of

the battery in his book, but is silent about the garrison

or the capture of the redoubt. Therefore I will append a

statement handed to me by George Reese, an honored citizen

of Pensacola, Fla. My account is from my diary; his is from

memory. He writes:

"I was a lieutenant in Company A, Forty-Fourth

Alabama Infantry, Law's Brigade, Hood's Division,

Longstreet's Corps, and was with my command at the

investment of Suffolk in 1863. On the 18th day of

April, while in line, Companies A and K received

orders, about 8 P.M.., to move. I think we numbered

fifty men, all told. We were marched about two

miles to the left of Longstreet's army.

We arrived at an old fort, or rather redoubt,

exposed on the land side, but protected by a high

embankment on the river side. In this fort we

found two guns of Stribbling's battery, with their

complement of gunners. This whole force, with the

two guns, was captured on the 19th of April, near

6 P.M. About 1 P.M. the enemy opened a terrific

fire on the fort from a great number of guns massed

on the opposite side of the river and from the

gunboats and infantry. Under cover of this fire

a transport landed about a thousand men behind a

point of land extending into the river just above

the fort, concealed by thick undergrowth. They

were within one hundred yards of the fort when

discovered. It was natural that the infantry should

blame Gen. Longstreet for thus placing so small a

force so far away from support, and loud complaints

were heard from both men and officers. We were

taken to Suffolk the same night and next morning to

Norfolk, and two weeks after exchanged.

GEORGE REESE, _Lieut. Co A, Forty-Fourth Alabama_.

"Pensacola, Fla., March 1897."

[25] See Vol. LI., Part 11. Serial No. 108, War Records, page

692.

[26] From War Records, page 692, Serial No. 108.

[27] Mr. Joseph M. Brown, of Marietta, Ga., has a letter

from Col. Martin's brother, who was aware of his conduct at

the battle of Kennesaw, and relates the circumstances of his

death as above written by Mr. Brown.

[28] See Tytler's "History," and War Office Records.

[29] This is the road to New Hope Church over which we

marched.

[30] It is proper that I should here state that my official

report (page 816, War Records, Vol. 39) contains an error.

When I saw the Fiftieth and Twelfth Illinois leave the east

side of the railroad and join the force on the west side, I

believed that all were on that side, and wrote, "The Federal

forces were now confined to one redoubt (fort 'C'), and we

occupied the ditch." I did not discover this error until

after it was too late to correct it. It must be remembered

that the battle was fought on a mountain ridge, some of the

sides inaccessibly steep, and covered with timber obstructing

the view.

[31] Vauban--A French marshal, the greatest of military

engineers; born 1633. Inigo Jones--An eminent architect; born

in London 1572.

[32] See S. P. Lee's "Brief History of the United States." It

confirms my diary. Also book of Gen. J. D. Cox, United States

army, and War Records, and Maj. Sanders's letter, on page

340. Also letter of Rev. Thomas R. Harkham, page 342.

[33] Gen. John Adams, of Loring's Division, was killed

about two hundred yards east of the ginhouse, and his body

was removed to near the ginhouse by order of Col. Casement,

United States army, who put a guard over it. So after the

battle it was not found where he fell. This led to the belief

that Loring's Division extended to near the ginhouse.

It has been a source of regret to me that I was unable

to write an official report of the battle of Franklin

immediately after it was ended, but on account of the

condition of my eyes it was put off; and now I wonder why I

did not have my chief of staff write it under my dictation,

but so it is: amidst the confusion following the battle it

was neglected. I might add here that it was years before my

eyes were well, though treated by a specialist.

[34] The following is an extract from a letter dated August

18, 1864, written at City Point by Gen. U. S. Grant to Gen.

B. F. Butler, agent of exchange at Fortress Monroe, Va.:

"It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to

exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the

ranks to fight our battles. Every man released on parole

or otherwise becomes an active soldier against us at once,

either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of

exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to

fight on until the whole South is exterminated. If we hold

those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this

particular time to release all Rebel prisoners North would

insure Sherman's defeat, and would compromise our safety

here." (See War Records, page 606, Series II., Vol. VII.,

Serial No. 120.)

[35] Gen. J. D. Cox, Union army, who commanded most of the

troops engaged in the battle of Franklin, in his volume

published describing this battle (on page 15) states that

_our killed_--1,750--exceeded "Grant's at Shiloh, McClellan's

in the seven days' battle, Burnside's at Fredericksburg,

Rosecrans's at Stone's river or at Chickamauga, Hooker's

at Chancellorsville, and were almost as many as Grant's at

Cold Harbor, and nine less than the British loss at Waterloo

out of 43,000 men." The killed, as I have shown at Buena

Vista, is very great compared with the wounded; more than at

Franklin.

Comparisons often surprise us. An examination of the "United

States Army Dictionary," by C. K. Gardner, Adjutant General

U. S. A., brought down to 1853, shows also that the number

of the killed and wounded in the United States forces during

the war with Great Britain from 1812 to 1815 were; killed,

1,045; wounded, 2,656; total _3,701_. (The Creek Indian war

in Georgia and Alabama omitted.)

Again, the whole number of killed and wounded, from the

firing of the first gun on the banks of the Rio Grande to

Buena Vista, from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico, thence to

the shore of the Pacific and in California, was only 4,808.

And so the facts of history show that out of the 21,800

Confederate soldiers engaged in the battle of Franklin more

were killed, in a few hours, than during either of the two

preceding wars. In the Confederate war the United States

lost, killed, 99,183, and from disease, 171,806.

The dispatch that Hood captured just before the battle, dated

November 29, 1864, 3.30 A.M., will be found in Gen. Cox's

book (page 25). There is no information in it to justify Hood

in making the assault. Thomas merely "tells Schofield to fall

back from Columbia to Franklin, and that Gen. A. J. Smith's

command had _not_ arrived in Nashville," etc.

MAJ. D. W. SANDERS'S LETTER.

May 6, 1897.

Gen. S. G. French, Pensacola, Fla.

_My Dear General_: In answer to your letter of

the 29th ult., in which you say that in recent

correspondence with Gen. A. P. Stewart he says that

he has no recollection of Gen. Hood's order for

the artillery at Franklin to be put in position,

and to open on the enemy about midnight, and when

it ceased the infantry was to charge the lines

over the same ground that they did in the first

attack. In this letter you also ask me to give my

recollections about this matter, and if I remember

the order.

I remember very distinctly that the order was

given, and you communicated it to me as the

adjutant general of your division upon your return

that night--to wit, November 30, 1864--from Gen. A.

P. Stewart's headquarters. This order I delivered

to the officers in command of two of your brigades;

your third brigade, which was Ector's Brigade,

at that time was on detached service guarding the

trains in the rear of the two corps which charged

the enemy's works November 30, 1864, at Franklin,

Tenn.

The artillery had arrived from Columbia, Tenn.,

and was placed in position to execute this order

of Gen. Hood's. Lieut. Col. Llewellyn Hoxton was

in command of the battalions of artillery. At the

time indicated in the order Col. Hoxton's artillery

opened on Franklin with a heavy cannonade, to

which there was no response, and it was therefore

evident that Schofield had successfully withdrawn

his forces and retreated to Nashville.

In September, 1886, I met Col. Hoxton at the

Episcopalian school, four or five miles from

Alexandria, Va., and had a conversation with him,

and he said to me that I was entirely correct in

my recollection of this particular order, and that

he was in command of the artillery, and in the

execution of his order opened upon Franklin, and no

reply from the enemy satisfied him that Schofield

had retreated, and he ceased firing, and scouts

were sent to the works, which they found abandoned,

and penetrated the village of Franklin to the

crossing of the Harpeth river; and immediately

thereafter a great many soldiers, under the command

of their officers, went through the streets and

alleys of Franklin, and it was thus ascertained to

be a fact that the enemy had retreated.

I remember distinctly the comments of the officers

of your division upon the delivery of Gen. Hood's

order to them, that they would obey promptly and

cheerfully, but that it looked to them as the

highest desperation to undertake to charge the

works under cover of this artillery fire, and

carry them at the point of the bayonet. The fact

that this order was given, and the circumstances

surrounding Hood's troops at that time, are

indelibly impressed upon my memory, and I have

no hesitancy whatever in saying distinctly and

unequivocally that the order was given, and that

it was communicated by me to the commanders of the

brigades of your division.*

Yours sincerely,

D. W. SANDERS.

* The only official report I know of, which in any manner

refers to this order, and this inferentially, is that of Gen.

C. L. Stevenson, in which he says:

"During the night (November 30, 1864) this division was put

in position preparatory to an assault which it was announced

was to be made by the entire army at daybreak." (See War

Records, Battle of Franklin.)

D. W. S.

[36] The battle of Alcazar, called the "Battle of the Three

Kings," fought about three hundred years ago between Mulai,

the emperor of Morocco, on the one side, and his nephew,

king of Fez, on the other, assisted by Don Sebastian, king

of Portugal, under whose standard had flocked the nobility

of Christian Europe. Mulai Malek had 40,000 Moorish cavalry.

Fifteen thousand of the allies were left dead on the field,

and the river Machassan ran red with blood.

[37] Gen. Anderson Abercrombie was adjutant of Maj. Freeman's

battalion of Georgia volunteers, U. S. army, in the war of

1812. Again under the command of Brig. Gen. John Floyd, U. S.

A., and was wounded in the battle with the Creek Indians at

Camp Defiance, Ala., January 27, 1814.

In an engagement on the 14th of July, 1864, between the

Confederate troops under Gen. J. H. Clanton and the Federal

forces under Gen. Rousseau, Miss Abercrombie's brother, Capt.

Robert S. Abercrombie, was mortally wounded. He stood in the

road alone, whence all had fled, save one friend beside him

(Albert Hyer), whose life he had saved in battle, and when

surrounded and _begged_ to surrender refused. To capture

him they shot him, designedly in his leg, and then through

thoughtlessness let him bleed to death, notwithstanding there

was a tourniquet in his pocket, and Mr. Hyer had another. He

was buried under a red oak on Mr. D. Carroll's place on the

Talladega road, Calhoun County, Ala., one and three-quarter

miles from Greensport, within a half mile of Ten Island P.

O., on the beautiful Coosa river. He received from the United

States officers every attention to save his life, except

the all-important one of stopping the flow of blood from the

wound, which was _below_ the knee. The great loss of blood

was not noticed by reason of so much water poured on the

wound. Thus perished a brave man whose life might have been

saved.

[38] The name of the Federal commander, and also that of the

Confederate officer who so nobly defended the fort, have been

given in a previous chapter.

[39] Shen-an-do-ah means the "Bright Daughter of the Stars."

[40] Goldwin Smith.

[41] I commend to you an article published in the September

(year 1900) number of _Scribner's Magazine_, page 303, giving

an account of the treatment of slaves by their owners North;

also an account of the last slave ship captured by the United

States navy (_Century Magazine_ for May, 1894).

[42] The question of confiscating property, especially

slaves, and setting them free will be found in the War

Records, Series 2, Vol. I., Serial No. 114, from page 749 to

page 822. This correspondence, and orders, show that in 1861

and part of 1862 "_confiscation by act of Congress limited

the penalty to property actually employed_ in the service of

the rebellion with the knowledge and _consent_ of its owners,

and instead of emancipating slaves thus employed left their

_status_ to be determined either by the courts of the United

States or by subsequent legislation." (See Holt's opinion

to President Lincoln, page 768, etc.) This was legitimate

war. However, the want of success changed all this, and

the proclamation of May 19, 1862, not being complied with,

the war ceased to be confined to the troops in the field,

and degenerated into one of robbery, plunder, destruction

of private property to reduce the South to subjugation.

To this end slaves were told they were free, and 178,975

were mustered into the United States army, armed, and, thus

encouraged, employed to fight their owners. The South did not

arm a slave to kill white men. There was a marked parallel

between the treatment of the noncombatants of the _South_ and

that of the noncombatants of _Cuba_ by the Spaniards.

[43] See War Records, Vol. XLVI., Series I, pages 762, 763,

Part 3.

[44] Col. Augustus Choate Hamlin, U. S. A., in his "Battle

of Chancellorsville" (Bangor, Me., published by the author),

says (page 27), speaking of Blenker's Division: "The men

justly complained of their treatment, and also of the abuse

bestowed upon them during the march across the Shenandoah

Valley for alleged acts of pillage on the way. From what the

inspector saw he was of the opinion that the stories had been

overestimated, and he has thought since that the Second Corps

put in the breastworks at North Anna more valuables, in the

shape of pianos, scientific apparatus, and choice furniture,

than Blenker's Division stole or destroyed during their

march over the mountains to Northern Virginia. Their booty

and destruction, even as exaggerated, was infinitesimal as

compared to that of the army of the Potomac at the capture of

Fredericksburg."

After Gen. Payne, U. S. A., who was stationed at Paducah,

Ky., had been court-martialed, he was relieved, and among

the papers left behind him was one saying: "Don't send any

more pianos, or plated silver, or pictures: all the kin are

supplied; but you can send bed linen and solid silverware."

[45] When Maj. Wiley Abercrombie, Mrs. French's brother, left

college to join the Confederate army, his father sent Rica,

his carriage driver, to wait on him--Wiley being a youth.

Now Rica had never worked on the plantation; from childhood

he had assisted in taking care of the family horses and

carriages, and in due time became the driver of the family

carriage.

At the battle of Gettysburg Rica was captured and carried

nearly to Philadelphia, Pa. One night, however, he made his

escape, traveled on foot to the Potomac, crossed that river,

and finally reached Richmond, Va. Thence the authorities

gave him transportation to Columbus, Ga. When Wiley became a

member of my staff Rica came with him, and continued with us

till the war ended. He and his wife remained in my family in

Columbus; thence they went with us to Winter Park, Fla.

In 1884 Rica made a visit to Columbus, and on his journey

home, becoming short of money to purchase a ticket from

Jacksonville to Winter Park, he obtained work on a railroad.

While thus employed he was accidentally killed by a tree

felled on him by one of the hands.

Poor Rica! His fate was a sad one. A slave in name, he fled

from freedom given him at Gettysburg, and wandered back to

be a bondsman; and next when freedom was imposed on him by

legislative enactment he spurned it, desiring only a home for

life with the family that had treated him almost as one of

their own children. I had almost similar experience with my

own servants before and after the war.

[46] How noble the conduct of this man who had been in the

army contrasted with the citizens who remained at home crying

for vengeance!

[47] Washington Irving.

[48] The confiscation of the slaves by act of Congress is an

acknowledgment of the just decision made by Chief Justice

Taney in the Dred Scott case, that a slave was chattel, or

personal property.

[49] I know a man North who paid $6,000 to a Congressman

for his son's appointment. This was excluding the South from

positions in the army and navy.

[50] Shakespeare's "Tempest," Act I.

[51] Appointed June 15, 1868.

[52] Lincoln's December proclamation says: "Such States shall

be received again into the Union."

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original document have

been preserved.

Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

The writer used several alternate spellings of proper names.

It is not always clear whether or not these refer to one or several

people or places are referenced. These alternate spellings were left

unchanged:

Chadburne/Chadbourne/Chadbourn

Twigg/Twiggs

Torrejon/Torrajon

Tewksbury/Tewkesbury

Reseca/Resaca

Prevost/Provost

MacIntosh/McIntosh

Lombardini/Lombardeni

Cleburne/Cleburn/Clebur

Carteret/Cartaret

Hoskin/Hoskins

On page 41, Matamoras should possibly be Matamoros.

On page 43, matadore should possibly be matador.

On page 133, Penberton should possibly be Pemberton.

On page 26, "Arburthnot and Ambriester" should possibly be

Arbuthnot and Ambrister".

On page 189, Alamucha should possibly be Almucha.

On page 221, Gen. M. Jeff. Thompson should possibly by Gen. M. Jeff

Thompson.

In several places 12 M. should be either 12 P.M. or A.M.