708

OPERATIONS IN NORTH ALABAMA.

in Pittenger’s book an express assumption notadopted in the Mitchel biography, that this projectwas a part of a comprehensive plan of invasion de-vised by Mitchel, but it rests on no evidence what-ever. In moving upon Huntsville Mitchel wastotally unprepared for the supposed enterprise, andinstead of turning his column to the east to takeadvantage of the occasion promptly, as he musthave done if he would have availed himself of it atall, he at once spread his force to the right andleft to secure both flanks — on his left destroyingbridges which would have been necessary for theexecution of the alleged plan; and on the righttaking steps to open communication with the armybefore Corinth. It is not improbable, however,that he hoped that Andrews’s work would givegreater security to an advance upon Huntsville .

The military portion of the Mitchel biographyshows on his part an unhappy misconception of hisofficial functions, and breathes a general accent ofcomplaint that his ability was fettered and hisusefulness thwarted by the faults of his superiors.He was continually falling under hindrancesand vexations which were the fruit of his vagueimpulses and erroneous notions of the militarysituation and of his relations to it. To SecretaryChase he chafes that he had hoped he “would beallowed to march on Chattanooga and Knoxville, ”and now fears that his line is to be abandoned;but his propositions, if they may be so called, arenever submitted to his commanding officer, withinformation and reasons that might bring themto fruition if they deserved it. Having openeda direct correspondence with the Secretary ofWar, he uses the privilege to criticise the meas-ures of his commanding officer, nominates amilitary governor for North Alabama, and wantsauthority to send rebel citizens to Northern pris-ons. He complains to Secretary Stanton that his“is the first instance in the history of war wherea general has been deprived of the command ofhis own lines of supply and communication,”never, apparently, realizing that in the independ-ent sense he is not a general at all, but only thecommander of a detachment for a specific subor-dinate duty. The demoralizing effect of hissurreptitious intercourse with Washington, en-couraged by Secretary Stanton, and some of itwithheld from the official files but brought to lightafter twenty-five years in the biography, is to beseen in the whole of Mitchel’s career in NorthAlabama, and it followed him after his departure.

In a long report evidently suggested by con-versations and called for by the Secretary ofWar, Mitchel makes the statement, July 7th, thatone month before, evidently referring to Negley’sexpedition, he could have been “ permanentlyestablished in Chattanooga .” His dispatches fromJune 7th to the 22d explain the importance heattached to the occupation of Chattanooga andthe difficulties which prevented him from seiz-ing it. No censure is meant to be applied toGeneral Mitchel for not seizing Chattanooga at any time, but his dispatches alluded to aboveand his report of July 7th show that his action

was not consistent with his profession, and thathis representations misled the Government andthe public with reference to the responsibility ofothers, and the feasibility of an operation whichupon his own judgment he had abandoned.

I have no recollection of ever having been atGeneral Mitchel’s quarters at Huntsville . It isnot improbable, however, that on my arrival Iwas met by him and invited to his quarters. Hisson and biographer describes a scene as havingoccurred there on the day of my arrival: A mapupon a pine-table under a tree, and on oppositesides “the two commanders,” as he expresses it,one being the commander of the army and theother a subordinate officer belonging to it, consult-ing over a plan of campaign — “ the one having thepower for decision, the other being simply ad-viser.” After many hours, during which one talkedmuch, and the other “was, as usual, uncommunica-tive,” no conclusion was reached. The commanderof the army “rolled up his maps and withdrew.”The next day, says the biographer, “the consulta-tion was renewed at General Buell’s headquarters,and the next for three successive days.” “ GeneralMitchel pleaded with General Buell for a quickoccupation of the territory east.” “At length,” saysthe biographer, ‘ ‘ Mitchel induced Buell to go toBridgeport” to look over the ground, saying, “Iwill have a train ready for you to-morrow morningat 7 o’clock,” “ but Buell declined to go so soon.”Whereupon, Mitchel gave up the struggle, andreturning to his tent telegraphed to the Secretaryof War: “ Finding it impossible to serve iny countrylonger under my present commander, I have to-day forwarded through him my unconditional res-ignation, and respectfully solicit leave of absencefor twenty days.” A copy of this dispatch, the bi-ographer adds, he sent to General Buell. The biog-rapher then quotes “ two documents,” written, ashe says, “within a day or two of each other,” “ toshow how differently two men can look upon thesame subject.” The second in citation, though thefirst in date, is the report called for by SecretaryStanton and made by General Mitchel on the 7thof July, probably the next day after his arrival inWashington. It does not appear among the pub-lished war records, and I learn of its existencethrough the biography for the first time. It givesa so-called plan of campaign which it states thatthe writer, General Mitchel, had urged upon me.No plan of campaign was proposed to me by Gen-eral Mitchel, and no such controversy, or discus-sion, or series of consultations as w'ould be inferredfrom the biography, ever occurred between us.

General Mitchel failed to obtain from the WarDepartment the recognition which he desired.The official records show in part, and a study ofhis son’s publication will indicate more fully, bywhat means and with what effect his influenceentered, as it nevertheless did, into the channelsof public opinion and the councils of the Govern-ment. They may also explain the true cause ofhis many disappointments. The merely individualbearing of the inquiry, however, is now of littleconsequence.— D. C. Buell.