536

SHILOH REVIEWED.

the rudeness of the unexpected attack and the wreck of the division in his front,before he had time well to establish his line, he struggled gallantly and longwith varying fortune to keep back the columns of the enemy; and though hefailed in that, he was still able to present an organized nucleus whichattracted the disrupted elements of other divisions: of Hurlbut, that he postedthe two brigades under his immediate command, not in the strongest mannerat first, but with judgment to afford prompt shelter to the defeated divisionof Prentiss, and maintained his front with some serious reverses to his leftflank, for 7 hours and until his left was turned, with a greater list of mor-tality than any other division sustained: of W. H. L. Wallace, that, neverdislodged, he sacrificed his life in a heroic effort with Prentiss to maintain hisfront between the enemy and the landing: of Prentiss, that with the rawesttroops in the army his vigilance gave the earliest warning of the magnitudeof the danger, and offered a resolute resistance to its approach; that, thoughoverwhelmed and broken in advance, he rallied in effective force on the lineof Hurlbut and Wallace, and firmly held his ground until completely sur-rounded and overpowered: and of Sherman, that he, too, strove bravely, butfrom an early hour with a feeble and ineffective force, to stay the tide of dis-aster for which his shortcoming in the position of an advanced guard waslargely responsible; but it discloses no fact to justify the announcement ofGeneral Halleck that he “saved the fortune of the day on the 6th.” On thecontrary it shows, that, of all the division commanders, not one was less enti-tled to that distinction. This will be a strange and may seem like a harsh utter-ance to many readers, but it is the verdict of the record. The similar indorsementof General Grant a year later, that “he held the key-point to the landing,” isequally alien to the evidence, and still further without intelligent meaning.If the key-point was any other than the landing itself, it was on the leftwhere the attack was strongest and the resistance longest maintained.

Into the list of brave men in the inferior grades — captains and even lieu-tenants who for the moment led the wrecks of regiments and brigades, andfield-officers who represented brigades and divisions, and who poured outtheir lives on the field or survived its carnage — I cannot here pretend toenter, though it is a most interesting chapter in the battle.

And of Grant himself — is nothing to be said ? The record is silent andtradition adverse to any marked influence that he exerted upon the fortuneof the day. The contemporaneous and subsequent newspaper accounts ofpersonal adventure are alike destitute of authenticity and dignity. If hecould have done anything in the beginning, he was not on the ground intime. The determining act in the drama was completed by 10 o’clock. FromSherman’s report and later reminiscences we learn that he was with thatofficer about that hour, and again, it would seem, at 3 and 5 o’clock, and hewas with Prentiss between 10 and 11; but he is not seen anywhere else infront. We read of some indefinite or unimportant directions given withouteffect to straggling bodies of troops in rear. That is all. But he was one ofthe many there who would have resisted while resistance could avail. Thatis all that can be said, but it is an honorable record.

Airdrie, Kentucky, June, 1885.