SHILOH RECEIVED.

509

the official map , as it is called, and second, the personal statements andassumptions of General Grant and General Sherman. I shall examine thesedata upon the evidence of the official reports and my own observation.

The official map was prepared, after the arrival of General Halleck at Pitts-burg Landing, by his topographical engineer, General George Thom. The topo-graphical part of it was made from an approximate survey, and, though notstrictly accurate, is sufficiently so for an intelligent study of the battle. Forthe errors in the location of the troops General Thom cannot be supposed tobe responsible, since he could have no knowledge of the facts except what hederived from the statements of others; but in what is given and what iswithheld they are of a very misleading nature. They consist, first, in theextension of Grant’s line on the evening of the 6th a full half-mile to the westof its true limit—placing Hurlbut’s division on the front actually occupiedby McClernand, McClernand on and four hundred yards beyond Sherman’sground, and Sherman entirely on the west side of Tillman’s Hollow on theright of the camping-ground of McClernand ’s division, and within the linesoccupied by the Confederates. On the morning of the 7th they place fromleft to right, McClernand, then Sherman, then Lew Wallace , along the bluffbordering Owl Creek bottom, all west of Tillman’s Creek, and on groundwhich we did not possess until after four hours of fighting; followed on theleft by Hurlbut’s division; thus occupying a solid front of a mile and a third,in comparison with which the undeveloped front of my army presents a verysubordinate appearance. They give no account of the positions during thebattle, in which the right of that army was substantially in contact withWallace ’s division on the extreme right. They give two of its positions,— onein the first formation before its front was developed, and the other at theclose of the day, when Grant’s troops had taken possession of their campsagain, and mine had been withdrawn from the ground on which they fought.These two positions are taken from my official map, but not the intermediatepositions shown on that map. Below the copy of the Thom map, as publishedwith General Grant’s article in the February number of “The Century” (1885),it was stated that “the positions of the troops were indicated in accordance withinformation furnished at the time by Generals Grant, Buell, and Sherman.”It would be presumed that Grant and Sherman, the latter especially, in con-sequence of his intimate relations with Halleck’s headquarters, were consultedabout the location of the troops; and it is not to be doubted that their infor-mation was the guide. If any information of mine was adopted, it was onlythrough the map that accompanied my report, and with reference to theposition of my own troops.

Nineteen years after the battle General Sherman revised the official map,and deposited his version with the archives of the Society of the Army ofthe Tennessee for historical use. Ostensibly it accepts the topography ofthe Thom map, but modifies the positions of the troops in the most radicalmanner. On the Thom map the line of battle Sunday evening is representedas being along the right-hand road leading west from the landing, with thereserve artillery and Nelson’s and Crittenden’s divisions on the left, and