even the severest critic, of the mismanagement or lack of management
which characterized that disastrous day. The result was most
demoralizing to the army. Officers of every grade were unreserved in
their condemnation. The newspaper criticism was wide-spread and
continuous.
It was with special reference to the useless slaughter at Cold Harbor
that the gallant and invincible Upton, then coming to be widely
recognized as the best practical soldier of his day, immediately wrote
in confidence to his sister.
"I am disgusted with the generalship displayed. Our men have
in many instances been foolishly and wantonly sacrificed.
Thousands of lives might have been spared by the exercise of
a little skill; but as it is, the courage of the men is
expected to obviate all difficulties. I must confess that so
long as I see such incompetency, there is no grade in the
army to which I do not aspire."
Later referring to the same battle, he adds:
"On that day [at Cold Harbor] we had a murderous engagement.
I say murderous, because we were recklessly ordered to
assault the enemy's entrenchments knowing neither their
strength nor position. * * * I am very sorry to add that I
have seen but little generalship during the campaign. Some of
our corps commanders are not fit to be corporals. Lazy and
indifferent they will not even ride along their lines, yet
without hesitancy they will order us to attack the enemy, no
matter what their position or numbers."
As the assault on Cold Harbor was a general one, it follows of course
that it must have been ordered by someone higher in authority than
either Smith of the Eighteenth or Upton of the Sixth Corps.
It was doubtless in allusion to this and to similar instances that the
veracious and outspoken Humphreys, at that time Meade's Chief of Staff,
and afterwards the peerless commander of the Second Army Corps, wrote:
"The incessant movements day and night for so long a period,
the constant close contact with the enemy during all that
time, the almost daily assaults upon intrenchments having
entanglements in front and defended by artillery and musketry
in front and flank, exhausted both officers and men."
Although all the orders which brought about this unfortunate condition
of affairs must have passed through Humphreys himself, it is obvious
that they could not have originated with him, but must have come from
higher authority.
If the imperturbable and painstaking Smith, fresh from the triumphs and
confidences of Chattanooga, should have lost his patience under these
distressing circumstances, and declared to General Grant, frankly and
fearlessly as he did as was clearly his duty, that "there had been a
fearful slaughter at Cold Harbor," surely it should not have been
brought up against him later as one of the reasons for relieving him
from the command of the troops of the Department of the James, to which
he had been assigned after this criticism had been made. If in the same
interview Grant acknowledged, as it is credibly stated he did, "that
there had been a butchery at Cold Harbor, but that he had said nothing
about it, because it could do no good," his remembrance of the
circumstance to the prejudice of Smith, must be regarded as an
afterthought which had its origin in some cause not yet fully
explained.
It is altogether likely that Smith's criticism was repeated to others
less entitled to speak than himself and that it was exaggerated into a
direct attack upon both Meade and Grant, which could not be passed over
lightly. Be this as it may, it must be apparent that it was fully
justified as a mere matter of military criticism and quite independent
of both Smith and Upton, it was generally approved both by the army and
the country at large.
It was shortly after the assault in question, while I was commanding a
division of cavalry, that I visited Grant's headquarters. During the
conversation which followed the Lieutenant General asked me: "What is
the matter with this army?" To which I replied:
"It will take too long to explain, but I can tell you how to
cure it. Give Parker [the Indian Chief] a tomahawk, a supply
of commissary whiskey and a scalping knife and send him out
with orders to bring in the scalps of general officers."
During this same visit and frequently afterwards Rawlins, in a white
rage, inveighed against the desperate practice of blindly assaulting
fortified lines, and denounced in unmeasured terms all who favored them
or failed to make adequate preparation for success, where any just
excuse could be found for resorting to them. It is worthy of remark,
without reference to the origin of the practice, or to the persons who
were responsible for it, that General Grant alone had the power to stop
it, and that later there was a noticeable change in the Army of the
Potomac in regard to that practice, although it should be noted that
Sherman followed it as an example in his desperate, but unsuccessful
assault of the enemy's impregnable fortifications on Kenesaw Mountain,
for the purpose, as he frankly explained, of showing that his army
could also assault strongly fortified lines.
That such a costly practice could spring up and obtain imitation in our
army is a striking commentary upon the lack of intelligent supervision
over the essential details of its daily operations. It affords ample
justification for again calling attention to the fact that in this
respect the Confederate Army was much better off and more fortunate
than the Union Army. Its generals, although not without fault, were
much more careful in the management of their military details than ours
were. Jefferson Davis was himself an educated soldier of great
capacity, and selected none but educated and experienced military men
for high command. While Lee's staff was far from faultless in
organization, he had supreme authority in the field, with no army or
independent corps commanders between him and the troops. His army corps
were led by generals of the first rank, who took their orders directly
from him, and no unnecessary time was lost in their transmission or
execution, nor was there any uncertainty as to whose duty it was to
work out and superintend the details of attack and defence. But
whatever may be said in further elucidation of this important subject,
I cannot help expressing regret that General Smith, who had shown such
rare talents in another field, for planning and executing the most
complicated movements, should not have had in this an opportunity to
add to his fame, instead of being sent out as a subordinate to a
general who, however great his talents as a lawyer and a militiaman,
had developed no special aptitude as an army commander. In this
connection the important fact should he recalled that Generals Barnard
and Meigs, officers of the highest training and distinction, at the
request of General Grant, shortly after the fiasco of Bermuda Hundred,
had been sent by the Washington authorities to make an investigation of
General Butler's fitness for command in the field, and had with due
deliberation reported that while "General Butler was a man of rare and
great ability, he had not had either the training or experience to
enable him to direct and control movements in battle." It was doubtless
the verification of this report to Grant's satisfaction that caused him
finally to relieve that General from duty in the field, and in doing so
to incur both his active and his covert hostility.
Meanwhile however valid and important, in either a military or a
political sense, the considerations may have been which sent Butler out
in command of an army with such men as Smith and Gilmore, both
professional soldiers of the highest standing, as his subordinates, the
arrangement was unfortunate from beginning to end, and from its very
nature it was foredoomed to failure. It is to be observed that while
these admirable soldiers were constantly with their troops moving
against or confronting the enemy, Butler was generally at Fortress
Monroe, or at a more central point some distance in the rear, and when
his orders were not ill-timed or inapplicable to the case in hand, they
were not infrequently deemed impracticable, or at cross purposes with
the convictions of the generals whose duty it was to carry them into
effect. The simple and incontrovertible fact is that General Butler's
presence with that army was from the start embarrassing if not
absolutely unnecessary. It interposed an intermediate commander between
the generalissimo and two entire army corps, and however good the
intentions of that commander or great his abilities, his principal
influence was necessarily to derange and delay the orderly conduct and
development of the campaign. It was productive of no good whatever, and
was besides in direct violation of the rule of experience which teaches
that better results are to be expected with one poor commander in full
authority than with two or more good ones liable to pull against each
other.
The chief conclusion to be reached from these considerations, and from
a study of the records, in connection with the writings and unpublished
memoirs of General Smith, is that his conduct during the continuance,
of the arrangement was not only natural and blameless, but that the
failure of Butler's army to play an important and decisive part, was
due primarily, if not entirely, to Butler's own misunderstanding or
mismanagement of what was entrusted to him, or the inherent defects in
the organization and staff arrangements of the Union forces operating
in Virginia. Under the conditions as they actually existed, effective
co-operation and control, it has been shown, could not have been
reasonably expected, and for this the verdict of the military critic
and historian must be that the Lieutenant General who had ample power,
if he chose to exercise it, was primarily responsible. Under the
incontrovertible facts of the case it is difficult to see how this
conclusion can be avoided.
It will he recalled by those who have read "Butler's Book," that in
addition to a number of trivial derelictions of duty, General Smith was
charged with the more serious one of having failed through negligence
and an untimely cessation of operations, to capture Petersburg, when it
was claimed that all the conditions were favorable to success. It
should also be recalled that several weeks after this failure had taken
place and all the necessary explanations had been made and considered,
the President had, on Grant's recommendation, relieved Butler from
further service in the field and had assigned General Smith to the
command of the Eighteenth Corps which was composed of the troops from
Butler's department, serving with the Army of the Potomac. It should be
remembered at the same time that before General Smith received this
order he had applied for and been granted leave of absence on account
of illness, or as he explained, "because of his old trouble with his
head," and that while he was absent, the Lieutenant General was by some
means never fully or satisfactorily explained, induced to restore
Butler to his former command and to dispense entirely with the services
of General Smith. In reply to a letter from Smith, he authorized
Colonel Comstock of his staff to inform him that he had been relieved
"because of the impossibility of his getting along with General
Butler," who was his senior in rank. But General Grant assured me about
this time that it was with great regret that he had taken this action;
that he had tried in vain to utilize Smith's great talents; that he had
been too free in his criticisms, and that Smith himself had made it
necessary that either he should be relieved or that Meade, Burnside and
Butler should he deprived of command and sent out of the army. Some
conversation followed, in which it was suggested that he should have
given the preference to the alternative as a means of simplifying the
organization and increasing the efficiency of the army, and it is a
singular coincidence at least, that this suggestion was partly carried
into effect, with most excellent results, by the relief of both Butler
and Burnside, shortly afterwards, from the command of troops in that
theatre of operations. It has besides long been a question among
military men whether still better results would not have been obtained
if Grant had at the same time relieved Meade, who was certainly a most
competent and loyal general, from the immediate command of the Army of
the Potomac and placed him instead at the head of an army corps.
It may not be out of place here to call attention to the fact that
while no specific limitations were ever put upon the responsibilities
of Meade as an army commander, Grant thenceforth took upon himself a
closer supervision of the details of the campaign, while upon many
occasions during the final operations, he gave his orders directly to
the corps commanders, instead of sending them through the regular
official channels. The result of this practice after it became
confirmed, was in every case beneficial, though it should he observed
that it was far from increasing the cordial relations between Grant and
Meade or between their respective headquarters.
But to return to the breach between Grant and Smith, to the exact state
of facts which led up to it, and to the immediate pressure which
finally brought about Smith's relief from further command in the field.
Much that is as well forgotten, has been written about this unfortunate
episode. Smith felt to the day of his death that he had been
misrepresented to Grant and unjustly injured by his action. He always
contended that the whole truth had not been told, and it must be
confessed that no consecutive and exhaustive analysis of the case has
ever been made. Perhaps none can be made. But from such information as
I have been able to gather, I have always supposed that Grant's action
was based upon Smith's criticisms, exaggerated reports of which were
made by certain officers of Butler's staff with whom Smith dined and
spent the night at Fortress Monroe on his way home, that Butler
presented these reports in person to General Grant, without the
knowledge or concurrence of Meade or Burnside, and made them the basis
of a demand for Smith's immediate relief. Exactly what took place at
the interview must for reasons which will appear hereafter, always
remain a matter of conjecture. It however seems to be probable that had
General Smith deferred his leave of absence till he had seated himself
firmly in his new command, or had he been sent for and allowed to make
his own explanation, he would have been spared the humiliation, which
ended his military career, while the country would have continued to
receive the assistance of one of its greatest military minds.
General Smith, by his military writings, has not only refuted the
unjust criticisms of General Butler's Book, but he has modestly and
conclusively set forth his own military services during the various
campaigns in which he took part. He points out with pardonable pride
the friendship which sprang up during the Chattanooga campaign, between
himself and General Grant. He makes it clear that his failure to
capture Petersburg was due to a number of causes more or less potential
and altogether beyond his control. First among them was the physical
exhaustion of himself and his troops; second, an order which was sent
to him through the signal corps from General Butler, who was all day
June 15 at Point Lookout Signal Station, to stay his advance; and,
third, the failure of General Hancock, who was with the Second Corps
within supporting distance, to take up the movement and give the
finishing stroke to the day's work. To these should be added the
defective staff arrangements by which the various forces in the field
of operations were controlled, the inadequate strength of Smith's
command, which was inexcusable where such a vast force was within call,
the lack of engineer officers and of exact information as to the
character of the ground over which the troops were compelled to
operate, and the total absence of proper support and co-operation on
the part of the Army of the Potomac. Above all, it should be kept in
mind that the enemy held the defensive and had interior lines upon
which he could throw his troops from point to point on his threatened
front, with greater celerity than the attacking force could be
concentrated by outside lines and across wide rivers against him.
When Smith began his movement against Petersburg, which was to be in
the nature of a surprise, the greater part of Grant's army was still
north of the James River, and both Meade and Hancock allege that they
were not notified that a new effort was to be made to capture
Petersburg by Smith alone, after Butler had tried and failed with his
whole army to isolate and cut it off from Richmond by the movement to
Bermuda Hundred. Both of these able officers declare that if they had
known in time that Petersburg was to have been captured, Petersburg
would have been captured. This simple statement, without reference to
its truth, which has never been questioned, is conclusive evidence that
the staff arrangements and the organization of the machinery of command
were fatally defective, for had it been otherwise, every officer who
could have been called upon to take part in the movement, or could have
been expected to co-operate with it, would have been so clearly
instructed as to make his duty entirely plain.
General Smith, in explanation of why he was relieved from command in
the field, not only reflects strongly upon the conduct of General
Butler, but endeavors to show that General Grant "was forced" by Butler
to restore him to full command, in order to prevent the exposure of his
own conduct, yet even if this were true it necessarily leaves both the
question of fact and the question of motives in the dark. Certain
letters which passed between Smith, Grant, Rawlins and Butler have been
quoted, for the purpose of illustrating the character of the persons
concerned. They will he found in the Records and they throw much light
upon the subject, but they still leave the reason of Smith's removal in
obscurity.
It cannot be denied that Smith was a man of great talents and
conspicuous services, with unusual powers of caustic Criticism, who had
been badly injured by the way in which his connection with the Army of
the James had been severed. His views and conduct had been impugned,
not only then, but afterwards, in both the newspapers and the personal
statements of the day, and hence it was but natural that he should
retort with an appeal to the facts of a private nature more or less
commented upon at the time, to expose the reasons for official action
and to vindicate his own conduct. He strenuously contended that he was
under no obligation to conceal any important facts of the case
connected either personally or officially with those who were using him
unkindly to the prejudice of the public welfare, especially where those
facts were believed to be a potential factor in influencing their
official acts and in shaping history.
It must he confessed that Grant's explanations of his later attitude
towards Smith, and of the reasons for relieving him and restoring
Butler to command, were neither full nor always stated in the same
terms. He ignores the subject entirely in his memoirs, but it so
happens that Mr. Dana, then Assistant Secretary of War, was sitting
with General Grant when Butler, clad in full uniform, called at
headquarters and was admitted. Dana describes Butler as entering the
General's presence with a flushed face and a haughty air, holding out
the order, relieving him from command in the field, and asking:
"General Grant, did you issue this order?" To which Grant in a
hesitating manner replied: "No, not in that form." Dana, perceiving at
this point that the subject under discussion was an embarrassing one,
and that the interview was likely to be unpleasant, if not stormy, at
once took his leave, but the impression made upon his mind by what he
saw while present was that Butler had in some measure "cowed" his
commanding officer. What further took place neither General Grant nor
Mr. Dana has ever said. Butler's Book, however, contains what purports
to be a full account of the interview, but it is to be observed that it
signally fails to recite any circumstance of an overbearing nature. It
is abundantly evident, however, from the history of the times and from
contemporaneous documents published in the Records, that neither the
working arrangements by which Butler commanded an army from his
headquarters at Fortress Monroe or in the field while the major part of
it, under the command of Smith, was co-operating with the Army of the
Potomac, nor his relations with either his superiors or subordinates,
were at all satisfactory. In the nature of the case, they could not be.
Butler was a lawyer and politician accustomed to browbeat where he
could not persuade. He and Smith while starting out as friends, early
came to distrust each other. Smith, who was as before stated on
intimate terms at general headquarters, made his views fully known from
time to time, and especially in a frank and manly letter of July 2,
1884, to both Rawlins and Grant, and from the correspondence of the
latter with Halleck, it is certain that both sympathized with Smith at
first. It was evidently at Grant's request to Halleck, then acting as
chief of staff and military adviser at Washington, that Smith was
assigned to the Eighteenth Corps, and at Grant's request that he was
relieved from it, without explanation. The undisputed fact is that the
countermanding order was issued after a personal interview between
Grant and Butler, the details of which are only partly known, and that
no further explanation consistent with the continuance of friendly
relations between Grant and Smith has ever been given.