SHILOH REVIEWED.

53 1

In the usual extravagant newspaper dispatches from the field of battle,there was a statement of charges led by General Grant and his staff, whichwere assumed to have decided the fate of the day on Monday, or at least tohave given a crowning touch to the victory. It would be a satire to repro-duce that statement in its original form at this time. Its adoption, however,by various books and sketches, and especially the reference to such an inci-dent by General Grant in his recent “ Century” article [see page 465], makesit properly an object of inquiry. Such an act as leading a charge is a con-spicuous incident rarely resorted to by the commander of an army. GeneralGrant in some former newspaper interview is made to assume that GeneralSidney Johnston lost his life under such circumstances, from which heargues the failing fortune of the Confederate attack on Sunday. GeneralJohnston ’s conduct in that affair is described in the Confederate reports.It was an outburst of impatient valor not caused by any crisis in the battle,though an attack by his troops at a certain point had been repulsed. He didnot lose his life in the attack, and the most substantial successes of the Con-federates were achieved at a later hour. We likewise naturally look in theofficial reports for a circumstantial account of the charge said to have beenled by General Grant, for no colonel of a regment is likely to overlook thehonor of having been led in a charge by the commander of the army.

In the report of Colonel Yeatch of Hurlbut’s division, there occurs the fol-lowing passage: “ Maj.-Gen. Grant now ordered me forward to charge theenemy. I formed my brigade in column of battalions, and moved forwardin double-quick through our deserted camps and to the thick woods beyondour lines in pursuit of the retreating enemy, following until we were inadvance of our other forces, and were ordered to fall back by General Buell.”It is proper to remark that I witnessed this movement. I was in advance onthe line toward which it was made, and understand its bearing. It does notanswer the description of a charge led by General Grant, since he is not saidto have been present in it.

In the report of General Rousseau occurs the following:

“ When thus repulsed, the enemy fell back and his retreat began; soon after which I sawtwo regiments of Government troops advancing in double-quick time across the open fields inour front, and saw that one of them was the 1st Ohio , which had been moved to our left to waitfor ammunition. I galloped to the regiment and ordered it to halt, as I had not ordered themovement, but was informed that it was advancing by order of General Grant, whom I thensaw in rear of the line with his staff. I ordered the regiment to advance with the other, whichit did some two or three hundred yards farther, when it was halted, and a fire was opened uponit from one of our camps, then occupied by the enemy. The fire was instantly returned, andthe enemy soon fled, after wounding eight men of the 1st Ohio.”

There is in the official reports no other mention of such an occurrence.This must have been the charge referred to, though it does not satisfy thedescription, since it appears that General Grant was not taken into theenemy’s fire; and there is nothing in it which fills the definition of a charge.The professional soldier at least understands that the term implies somethingmore serious than a movement of troops upon the field of battle, even at arapid pace, in the presence of an enemy. But putting out of the question all