Grant messed up, and Buell saved the Union army.
From Buell's report <ar10_292>: "As we proceeded up the river groups of soldiers were seen upon the west bank, and it soon became evident that they were stragglers from the army that was engaged. The groups increased in size and frequency, until, as we approached the Landing, they amounted to whole companies, and almost regiments, and at the Landing the banks swarmed with a confused mass of men of various regiments. The number could not have been less than 4,000 or 5,000, and later in the day it became much greater....The throng of disorganized and demoralized troops increased continually by fresh fugitives from the battle, which steadily drew nearer the Landing, and with these were mingled great numbers of teams, all striving to get as near as possible to the river. With few exceptions all efforts to form the troops and move them forward to the fight utterly failed."
Ambrose Bierce: "On the morning of the
memorable 6th of April, at Shiloh, many of Grant's men when spitted on
were as naked as civilians; but it should be allowed that this was not
of any defect in their picket line. Their error was of another sort:
had no pickets."
From Grant's mendacious preliminary report of 9 April 1862 to Halleck (ar10_109): " On Sunday morning our pickets [there were no pickets] were attacked and driven in by the enemy. Immediately the five divisions stationed at this place were drawn up in line of battle [there was no line of battle], ready to meet them [they weren't ready]."
One of the saddest affairs in the Civil War was the battle of Shiloh. True, there were lots of other battles with high casualties and missed opportunities, but at Shiloh the basic error was so egregious, its commander so fortunate, and his excuse for the error so lame, that this battle deserves even more critical attention than it already gets.
To the west in Corinth was the CS Army of Mississippi under Albert S. Johnston and Beauregard. At Pittsburg Landing on the Tennessee River was the army of the Tennessee under Grant. Between them were lots of woods and a log church named Shiloh. Buell (commander of the army of the Ohio, later to be called Army of the Cumberland) was on the way with reinforcements.After the Confederate defeat at Mill Springs and the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, A.S. Johnston fell back to Murfreesboro, Tenn., and then to Corinth, Miss. which was a major railroad and transportation hub. He thus temporarily abandoned Kentucky and most of Tennessee.
Aside from dodging the question, because trenches are only one kind of fortification (breastworks made of logs will do nicely in a pinch), the statement simply was not true. As he repeatedly refers to the Confederate intrenchments in Corinth, he knew it wasn't true. On page 186 he wrote the following statement which demonstrates that, 23 years later, he still couldn't come to terms with his failure to carry out his duty to care for his men:
"Besides this, the troops with me...needed discipline and drill more than they did experience with the pick, shovel and ax."In the same vein Sherman wrote in his Memoirs (Vol. I, pg. 229) that intrenchments "would have made our raw men timid."
On the morning of Sunday, 6 April the Union camps thus were
unprepared for the Confederate attack. The effect of this surprise
have been even worse if rain hadn't delayed the Confederate arrival by
day, and if Johnston hadn't arranged his forces in a very clumsy
in rows rather than columns. As it was, the attack was devastating
costing the lives of about 1000 Union troops on the first day (Do they
matter to you?). Forrest
within 200 yards of reaching the river and breaching the Federal left.
However, the situation on the first day was stabilized for the Federals
stubborn efforts of McClernand and Sherman, but especially through the
of Prentiss who, for hours and against repeated attacks by Bragg, held the salient at the "hornet's
thus permitting the other Union forces to make a stand almost with
to the river. In addition, the coordination of the Confederate forces
suffered when early that afternoon A.S. Johnston bled to death
an apparently minor wound in the leg, and command passed to Beauregard.
That morning Grant sent the following telegram to Buell:
"The attack on my forces has been very spirited from early this morning. The appearance of fresh troops in the field now would have a powerful effect, both by inspiring our men and disheartening the enemy. If you will get on the field, leaving all your baggage on the east bank of the river, it will be more to our advantage, and possibly save the day to us. The rebel forces are estimated at over 100,000 men."
That afternoon the advance forces of Buell under Nelson arrived and took part in stopping the Confederate offensive. That evening much of the rest of Buell's army arrived and crossed, bringing effective Union forces for the next day to about 40,000 against about 30,000 Confederates. As the above dispatch shows, Grant was happy to see them. Afterward, however, Grant wasn't so happy. In his Memoirs (pg. 189) he wrote that he was "disappointed that reinforcements so near at hand did not arrive at an earlier hour." You see, kind readers, Buell, upon arrival, witnessed an extraordinary scene of disorder and confusion due to the thousands of Union troops who had fled the battle and congregated at the landing, hoping and trying to get to the other side of the river. By some coincidence Grant was even there in person, along with his staff, to greet Buell. How nice. This was the second time that day that Grant was absent from the battlefield. According to Piatt, Grant was getting ready to cross the river himself. In some way Buell expressed his disapproval of this situation and even tried to put these panicked soldiers back into the battle, right under Grant's nose. In his Memoirs (pg. 179) Grant profers the following astounding explanation: "I have no doubt that this sight impressed General Buell with the idea that a line of retreat would be a good thing just then [note the aspersion!]....The distant rear of an army engaged in battle is not the best place from which to judge correctly what is going on in front." To the end of his days Grant never forgave Buell, the unfortunate witness to Grant's unfitness for higher command.
On the 7th the fresh troops Buell brought with him inspired Grant's men and disheartened the enemy, thus contributing substantially to driving the now outnumbered Confederates from the field. Estimated Casualties: 23,746 total (US 13,047; CS 10,699).
Thomas with his division had been
placed at the end of Buell's column because he had fought at Mill
Springs in January. Thomas therefore did not arrive on the battlefield
until 9 April. His troops were fresh and ready, but Grant wasn't up to
pursuit. He wrote in his Memoirs
"I wanted to pursue, but had not the heart [italics added] to order the men
who had fought desperately for two days, lying in the mud and rain
whenever not fighting, and I did not feel disposed to positively order
Buell, or any part of his command, to pursue....I did not meet Buell in
person until too late to get troops ready and pursue with effect; but
had I seen him at the moment of the last charge I should have at least
requested him to follow."
Gosh, gee whiz, if only....Grant would have remembered this when
he later faulted Rosecrans for not pursuing Price vigorously enough
after Iuka, or when he criticized Thomas for being slow during the
longest and most successful pursuit of a defeated army of the entire
war after the battle of Nashville. Heartwarming to see how Grant in
retrospect cared so much for his tired and muddy men.
At least Rawlins, Grant's chief of staff, was able to admit the
truth, as the following passage from his letter of 8 April to his
"Just when they were needed, and not a moment too soon,
Buell's advanced forces, ten thousand strong, arrived on the opposite
side of the river, were quickly crossed to our side of the confict, and
checked the enemy."
An aside: Any time I need evidence to expose Grant as the coarse
adventurer that he was, I need only open his Memoirs. Now I realize
that I thus open myself to being called a carping critic, naysayer, and
all of the other terms people fleeing the truth employ to discredit
disinterested observers. But I have company. At this point I will not
belabor the reader with the analysis and corrosive language of Donn
Piatt, but content myself with this quote from
the scholarly Wilbur Thomas:
"It is a source of wonderment that two men in such positions
of reponsibility as Grant and Sherman would be so indifferent to facts
disprove their own distorted versions of the battle. These men, with
many supporters, but these two in particular, are basically to blame
the attempts to down the fact of their overwhelming surprise, and to
proper credit to Buell and his men for saving them from complete
destruction." (General George H. Thomas - The Indominitable Warrior,
1963, pg. 207)
That Grant and Sherman, time and time again, were to succeed in
foisting bloody failures or, at best, semblances of victory on the
Thomas attributes to the protection of Elihu Washburne, congressman
Illinois, and of John Sherman, senator from Ohio and the general's
brother. In my opinion, these two politicians were, alone, not powerful
to account for the rise of mediocrities like Grant and Sherman. There
to be more people, and more powerful people behind all of them -
Grant, Sherman general and Sherman senator, Washburne, and even Lincoln
calling the tune, and that leaves only the financiers of the war and
government. But they were too careful to leave behind documents
their transactions to be included in the Official Records. Many more
could have died without touching their insulated sensibilities.
Anyway, Halleck, the recently named commander of the Union forces in the West, arrived at Pittsburg Landing on 11 April to take direct command. Under him were Grant's Army of the Tennessee, Buell's Army of the Ohio, and Pope's Army of the Mississippi. Grant was made a supernumerary second in command, and Thomas was put in command of Grant's Army of the Tennessee. While Halleck spent most of his time at Thomas's HQ on the right wing, Grant grew despondent, and he was dissuaded from resigning from the army only by Sherman.
Most authors state that Halleck was punishing Grant because he
approve of Grant's handling of his forces at Shiloh. However, Halleck
been covering for Grant all along, as the following quote from
report of 15 June 1862 to Stanton illustrates:
"It is not my object in this communication to offer any comments on the battle, beyond the remark that the impression which at one time seemed to have been received by the Department that our forces were surprised in the morning of the 6th is entirely erroneous. I am satisfied from a patient and careful inquiry and investigation that all our troops were notified of the enemy's approach some time before the battle commenced." [italics added]
Grant didn't understand, however, that Halleck was only
until the fuss about the carnage died down, and he complained loudly
his being relegated to an inactive role in the subsequent first Corinth
campaign. This came to Halleck's attention who on 12 May 1862 took the
gloves off and
wrote Grant the following admonition:
"Your position, as second in command of the entire forces here in the field, rendered it proper that you should be relieved from the direct charge of either the right wing or the reserve, both of which are mainly composed of your forces. Orders for movements in the field will be sent direct from these headquarters to commanders of army corps, divisions, brigades, or even regiments, if deemed necessary, and you will have no more cause of complaint on that score than others have.
I am very much surprised, general, that you should find any cause of complaint in the recent assignment of commands. You have precisely the position to which your rank entitles you. Had I given you the right wing or reserve only it would have been a reduction rather than increase of command, and I could not give you both without placing you in the position you now occupy.
You certainly will not suspect me of any intention to injure your feelings or reputation or to do you any injustice; if so, you will eventually change your mind on this subject. For the last three months I have done everything in my power to ward off the attacks which were made upon you. If you believe me your friend you will not require explanations; if not, explanations on my part would be of little avail [emphasis added]."
Grant must have calmed down after reading this, for his complaints in public ceased. During the war Halleck intervened repeatedly in various ways in order to protect or further the careers of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, and later Schofield. And he would again, after Chickamauga and Chattanooga, write exquisitely crafted reports about battles at which he had not been present. Of course, he did all of this not out of kindly pedagogic impulse, but only to further his own career. It may seem hard to believe, but Halleck also thought he might become president some day. At the beginning of the war he needed Grant's semblances of victories, for that was all he had to work with, and Grant needed him. Toward the end of the war when they didn't need each other so much their paths would diverge.
Starting on 29 April 62 Halleck demonstrated how he would do battle, intrenching 7 times while taking six weeks to cover the 20 miles to Corinth, suffering minimal casualties. When Halleck arrived before Corinth, he found it empty. True, Beauregard had escaped. Also true was the fact that the Federals now sat on the South's main railroad trunk line from Virginia to Memphis. Control of this line was to be hotly contested for another year and a half until the Union finally definitively occupied Chattanooga, further east on this same line. This was the prerequisite for the subsequent Atlanta campaign when Union forces demonstrated that they could go wherever and do as they pleased in the Deep South, in effect outflanking Lee's army at Richmond and Petersburg. This fact, and not one battle or another, was what finally decided the Civil War, and Halleck had also made his contribution to this outcome.
At the end of the Corinth campaign, Thomas requested that the
of the Tennessee be restored to Grant, a magnanimous gesture which
was lost on Grant, judging from his behavior toward Thomas during the
of the war and, indeed, as long as Grant lived. There is, however,
possibility, namely that Thomas preferred to build on his own division
didn't want anything more to do with Grant's riotous soldiers and
officers. Now that would really have got under Grant's hide.
* On 8 Jan. 1815, at the battle of New
5000 men under Andrew Jackson faced more than 10,000 British-led
of whom had been part of Wellington's army which had defeated a
of French marshals in Spain. Jackson lost 71 men, whereas the
lost more than 2000 men. Why the imbalance? You guessed it, the
were behind fortifications. I guess this was some sort of ancient
to Grant and Sherman.
1. Halleck US
2. Grant US
3. Buell US
4. Sherman US
5. Beauregard CS
6. Bragg CS
Other articles on these battles:
1. Thomas van Horne on the battle of Shiloh and Corinth campaign, taken from his "Life of GHT"
2. Excerpt from Shiloh Revisited by Don Carlos Buell, perhaps the definitive treatment of this battle by a participant
Amman's diary of march to and battle at Pittsburg Landing, Tenn.
In the movement of the Army of the Ohio from Nashville to Savannah, Tennessee, General Thomas with his division was in the rear, and consequently did not participate in the battle of Shiloh.
After that battle, General H. W. Halleck united the three armies of
department and the detached forces on the field before Pittsburgh
Landing, and partially re-organized them before advancing against the
enemy at Corinth, Mississippi. In the main he preserved the identity of
his armies; but his changes tended to complexity rather than unity in
the relations of his immense
forces as a whole. Under the semblance of a general army organization,
divided his forces into five parts, designated, "Right Wing," "Centre,"
Left Wing," " Reserves," and "Cavalry," each comprising two or more
divisions. General Grant was relieved from the command of the Army of
the Tennessee, and announced as second in command. The "Right Wing,"
comprising four divisions of the Army of the Tennessee and the First
divisions of the Army of the Ohio,
was given to General
Page 64 - LIFE OF GENERAL GEORGE H. THOMAS.
Thomas; the "Centre," including four divisions of the latter army, to General Buell; the "Left Wing," or Army of the Mississippi, with additional divisions, to General Pope; the "Reserves" to General McClernand, and the "Cavalry" to General Gordon Granger. General Thomas had been appointed a major general of volunteers April 25th at the solicitation of General Halleck, who had urged his promotion, that he might assign him to the command of his "Right Wing." His division commanders were Major General W. T. Sherman, Brigadier Generals Hurlbut, T.W. Sherman, Davies, and McKean.
The advance of General Halleck's immense army towards Corinth was very slow, and the plan of movement gave no opportunity to Thomas or any other commander to display ability in handling a large force. The commanding general studiously avoided a general engagement by advancing cautiously by parallels. There was heavy skirmishing from day to day, and occasional reconnoissances in force with resultant combats of trifling importance. Each forward step was marked by an additional line of entrenchments. Prior to the battle of Shiloh, there were no defenses before the isolated camps of the Army of the Tennessee; but now in striking contrast, the united armies passed each night behind entrenchments all the way to Corinth.
The enemy, being too Weak to accept battle or siege at Corinth, retreated without serious loss in men, munitions or supplies.
At Corinth General Thomas requested General Halleck to relieve him
from the command of the "Right Wing," or Army of the Tennessee, and
with his old division to the Army of the Ohio in order that General
might be restored to his former position. He did this because he had
that General Grant had been deeply hurt by his removal from the
of that army. In this case, as in many others during the civil war, he
against his own interests, from regard for
Page 65 - CORINTH.
justice. He was the junior in rank of General Grant, General Buell and General Pope, and in consequence of rank and former relations to the Army of the Tennessee, he considered General Grant's claim to its command superior to his own.
In consequence of this singular request General Thomas descended from the command of an army of five divisions and resumed his former position under General Buell in command of one. This was a long step downward for a general who was anxious to hold a large independent command, but on the score of rank it was legitimate, and as corps organizations had not then been instituted in our armies, there was no place for a general between an army and a division. It is true, however, that military history seldom records such an act of self-renunciation and generosity, and if General Thomas had not made himself prominent in history by great achievements, he still would have deserved a high place for virtues which rarely dominate the ambition and jealousies of men devoted to war and the attainment of personal glory.
On June 5th. General Thomas, by General Halleck's order, was placed
command of Corinth and vicinity. He was relieved from the command of
"Right Wing," on the l0th, and on the 22nd was re-transferred to the
of the Ohio.
Originally published in 1887 by Robert Underwood Johnson and
Clarence Clough Buell, editors of the "The Century Magazine".
[scanned, reformatted and corrected; the maps and most of the
illustrations are ommitted]
Excerpt from SHILOH REVIEWED.
BY DON CARLOS BUELL, MAJOR-GENERAL, U. S. V., June 1885
TWENTY-THREE years ago the banks of the Tennessee witnessed a remarkable occurrence. There was a wage of battle. Heavy blows were given and received, and the challenger failed to make his cause good. But there were peculiar circumstances which distinguished the combat from other trials of strength in the rebellion: An army comprising 70 regiments of infantry, 20 batteries of artillery, and a sufficiency of cavalry, lay for two weeks and more in isolated camps, with a river in its rear and a hostile army claimed to be superior in numbers 20 miles distant in its front, while the commander made his headquarters and passed his nights 9 miles away on the opposite side of the river. It had no line or order of battle, no defensive works of any sort, no outposts, properly speaking, to give warning, or check the advance of an enemy, and no recognized head during the absence of the regular commander. On a Saturday the hostile force arrived and formed in order of battle, without detection or hindrance, within a mile and a half of the unguarded army, advanced upon it the next morning, penetrated its disconnected lines, assaulted its camps in front and flank, drove its disjointed members successively from position to position, capturing some and routing others, in spite of much heroic individual resistance, and steadily drew near the landing and depot of its supplies in the pocket between the river and an impassable creek. At the moment near the close of the day when the remnant of the retrograding army was driven to refuge in the midst of its magazines, with the triumphant enemy at half-gunshot distance, the advance division of a reenforcing army arrived on the opposite bank of the river, crossed, and took position under fire at the point of attack; the attacking force was checked, and the battle ceased for the day. The next morning at dawn the reenforcing army and a fresh division belonging to the defeated force advanced against the assailants, followed or accomplished by such of the broken columns of the previous day as had not lost all cohesion, and after ten hours of conflict drove the enemy from the captured camps and the field.
Such are the salient points in the popular conception and historical record of the battle of Shiloh. Scarcely less remarkable than the facts themselves are the means by which the responsible actors in the critical drama have endeavored to counteract them. At society reunions and festive entertainments, in newspaper interviews and dispatches, in letters and contributions to periodicals, afterthought official reports, biographies, memoirs, and other popular sketches, the subject of Shiloh, from the first hour of the battle to the present time, has been invaded by pretensions and exculpatory statements which revive the discussion only to confirm the memory of the grave faults that brought an army into imminent peril. These defenses and assumptions, starting first, apparently half suggested, in the zeal of official attendants and other partisans, were soon taken up more or less directly by the persons in whose behalf they were put forward; and now it is virtually declared by the principals themselves, that the Army of the Ohio was an unnecessary intruder in the battle, and that the blood of more than two thousand of its members shed on that field was a gratuitous sacrifice.
With the origin of the animadversions that were current at the time upon the conduct of the battle, the Army of the Ohio had little to do, and it has not generally taken a willing part in the subsequent discussion. They commenced in the ranks of the victims, and during all the years that have given unwonted influence to the names which they affected, the witnesses of the first reports have without show of prejudice or much reiteration firmly adhered to their earlier testimony. It does not impair the value of that testimony if extreme examples were cited to illustrate the general fact; nor constitute a defense that such examples were not the general rule. I have myself, though many years ago, made answer to the more formal pleas that
concerned the army which I commanded, and I am now called upon in the same cause to review the circumstances of my connection with the battle, and investigate its condition when it was taken up by the Army of the Ohio.
WHEN by the separate or concurrent operations of the forces of the Department of Missouri, commanded by General Halleck, and of the Department of the Ohio, commanded by myself, the Confederate line had been broken, first at Mill Springs by General Thomas, and afterward at Fort Henry and at Fort Donelson by General Grant and the navy, and Nashville and Middle Tennessee were occupied by the Army of the Ohio, the shattered forces of the enemy fell back for the formation of a new line, and the Union armies prepared to follow for a fresh attack. It was apparent in advance that the Memphis and Charleston railroad between Memphis and Chattanooga would constitute the new line, and Corinth, the point of intersection of the Memphis and Charleston road running east and west, and the Mobile and Ohio road running north and south, soon developed as the main point of concentration.
While this new defense of the enemy and the means of assailing it by the Union forces were maturing, General Halleck's troops, for the moment under
the immediate command of General C. F. Smith, were transported up the Tennessee by water to operate on the enemy's railroad communications. It was purely an expeditionary service, not intended for the selection of a rendezvous or depot for future operations. After some attempts to debark at other points farther up the river, Pittsburg Landing was finally chosen as the most eligible for the temporary object; but when the concentration of the enemy at Corinth made that the objective point of a deliberate campaign, and the cooperation of General Halleck's troops and mine was arranged, Savannah, on the east bank of the river, was designated by Halleck as the point of rendezvous. This, though not as advisable a point as Florence, or some point between Florence and Eastport, was in a general sense proper. It placed the concentration under the shelter of the river and the gun-boats, and left the combined force at liberty to choose its point of crossing and line of attack.
On the restoration of General Grant to the immediate command of the troops, and his arrival at Savannah on the 17th of March, he converted the expeditionary encampment at Pittsburg Landing into the point of rendezvous of the two armies, by placing his whole force on the west side of the river, apparently on the advice of General Sherman, who, with his division, was already there. Nothing can be said upon any rule of military art or common expediency to justify that arrangement. An invading army may, indeed, as a preliminary step, throw an inferior force in advance upon the enemy's coast or across an intervening river to secure a harbor or other necessary foothold; but in such a case the first duty of the advanced force is to make itself secure by suitable works. Pittsburg Landing was in no sense a point of such necessity or desirability as to require any risk, or any great expenditure of means for its occupation. If the force established there was not safe alone, it had no business there; but having been placed there, still less can any justification be found for the neglect of all proper means to make it secure against a superior adversary. General Grant continued his headquarters at Savannah, leaving General Sherman with a sort of control at Pittsburg Landing. Sherman's
rank did not allow him the command, but he was authorized to assign the arriving regiments to brigades and divisions as he might think best, and designate the campaign-grounds. In these and other ways he exercised an important influence upon the fate of the army.
The movement of the Army of the Ohio from Nashville (which I had occupied on February 25th) for the appointed junction was commenced on the night of the 15th of March by a rapid march of cavalry to secure the bridges in advance, which were then still guarded by the enemy. It was followed on the 16th and successive days by the infantry divisions, McCook being in advance with instructions to move steadily forward; to ford the streams where they fordable, and when it was necessary to make repairs on the roads, such as building bridges over streams which were liable to frequent interruption by high water, to leave only a sufficient working party and guard for that purpose; to use all possible industry and energy, so as to move forward steadily and as rapidly as possible without forcing the march or straggling; and to send forward at once to communicate with General Smith at Savannah, and learn his situation.
When the cavalry reached Columbia the bridge over Duck River was found in flames, and the river at flood stage. General McCook immediately commenced the construction of a frame bridge, but finding, after several days, that the work was progressing less rapidly than had been expected, I ordered the building of a boat bridge also, and both were completed on the 30th. On the same day the river became fordable. I arrived at Columbia on the 26th. General Nelson succeeded in getting a portion of his division across by fording on the 29th, and was given the advance. Most of his troops crossed by fording on the 30th. The other divisions followed him on the march with intervals of six miles, so as not to incommode one another - in all 5 divisions; about 37,000 effective men. On the first day of April, General Halleck and General Grant were notified that I would concentrate at Savannah on Sunday and Monday, the 6th and 7th, the distance being ninety miles. On the 4th General Nelson received notification from General Grant that he need not hasten his march, as he could not be put cross the river before the following Tuesday; but the rate of march was not changed.
After seeing my divisions on the road, I left Columbia on the evening of the 3d, and arrived at Savannah on the evening of the 5th with my chief of staff, an aide-de-camp (Lieutenant C. L. Fitzhugh), and an orderly, leaving
the rest of my staff to follow rapidly with the headquarters train. Nelson had already arrived and gone into camp, and Crittenden was close in his rear. We were there to form a junction for the contemplated forward movement under the command of General Halleck in person, who was to leave St. Louis the first of the following week to join us. General Grant had been at Nelson's camp before my arrival, and said he would send boats for the division "Monday or Tuesday, or some time early in the week." "There will," he said, "be no fight at Pittsburg Landing; we will have to go to Corinth, where the rebels are fortified. If they come to attack as we can whip them, as I have more than twice as many troops as I had at Fort Donelson." I did not see General Grant that evening -- probably because he was at Pittsburg Landing when I arrived, but he had made an appointment to meet me next day.
We were finishing breakfast at Nelson's camp Sunday morning, when the sound of artillery was heard up the river. We knew of no ground to apprehend a serious engagement, but the troops were promptly prepared to march, and I walked with my chief of staff, Colonel James B. Fry, to Grant's quarters at Savannah, but he had started up the river. I there saw General C. F. Smith, who was in his bed sick, but apparently not dangerously ill. He had no apprehension about a battle, thought it an affair of outposts, and said that Grant had sixty thousand men. This would agree approximately with the estimate which Grant himself made of his force, at Nelson's camp.
As the firing continued, and increased in volume, I determined to go to the scene of action. Nelson only waited for the services of a guide to march by land. The river bottom between Savannah and Pittsburg Landing was a labyrinth of roads from which the overflows had obliterated all recent signs of travel, and left them impassable except in certain places, and it was with great difficulty that a guide could be obtained. The artillery had to be left behind to be transported by water. After disposing of these matters and sending orders for the rear divisions to push forward without their trains, I took a small steamer at the landing and proceeded up the river, accompanied only by my chief of staff. On the way we were by a descending steamer which came alongside and delivered a letter from General Grant addressed to the "Commanding Officer, advanced forces, near Pittsburg, Tenn.," and couched in the following words:
PITTSBURG, April 6, 1862.
"GENERAL: The attack on my forces has been very spirited since early this morning. The appearance of fresh troops on the field now would have a powerful effect, both by inspiring our men an disheartening the enemy. If you will get upon the field, leaving all you baggage on the east bank of the river, it will be a move to our advantage, and possibly save the day to us. The rebel forces are estimated at over one hundred thousand men. My headquarters will be in the log-building on the top of the hill, where you will be furnished a staff-officer to guide you to your place on the field. Respectfully, &c.,
U. S. GRANT, Maj.-Gen."
About half-way up we met a stream of fugitives that poured in a constantly swelling current along the west bank of the river. The mouth of Snake Creek was full of them swimming across. We arrived at the landing about 1 o'clock. I inquired for General Grant and was informed that he was on his headquarters boat, nearly against which we had landed. I went on
board, and was met by him at the door of the ladies' cabin, in which there were besides himself two or three members of his staff. Other officers may have entered afterward. He appeared to realize that he was beset by a pressing danger, and manifested by manner more than in words that he was relieved by my arrival as indicating the near approach of succor; but there was nothing in his deportment that the circumstances would not have justified without disparagement to the character of a courageous soldier. Certainly there was none of that masterly confidence which has since been assumed with reference to the occasion. After the first salutation, and as I walked to a seat, he remarked that he had just come in from the front, and held up his sword to call my attention to an indentation which he said the scabbard had received from a shot. I did not particularly notice it, and after inquiring about the progress of the battle and requesting him to send steamers to bring up Crittenden's division, which was coming into Savannah as I left, I proposed that we should go ashore. As we reached the gangway I noticed that the horses of himself and his staff were being taken ashore. He mounted and rode away, while I walked up the hill; so that I saw him no more until the attack occurred at the landing late in the evening. I state these particulars of our meeting with so much detail because a totally incorrect version of the place, manner, and substance of the interview has been used to give a false impression of the state of the battle, and a false coloring to personal traits which are assumed to have had the issue in control*
* About two weeks after the battle of Shiloh there appeared in some newspaper that was shown to me a report of a conversation assumed to have taken place between General Grant and myself soon after the battle, in which I was represented as rallying him upon the narrowness of his escape, and saying that he had not transports enough to carry off ten thousand men; to which he was reported as replying, in substance, that when it came to retreating transportation would not have been required for more than ten thousand.
The story had been colored for popular effect, but was traceable to a conversation in a vein of pleasantry that occurred at my camp, after the battle, among a party of officers in which I had taken but little part.
Some time afterward it took on a modification which suited the alleged conversation, to my meeting with General Grant on my arrival at Pittsburg Landing during the battle. This changed materially the character of the report, but I continued to treat it with the indifference which I thought it deserved, though the story has been freely circulated. I never knew until within a few months past, through the publication of the "War Records," that in its modified form it had the indorsement of an official authorship.
From that publication it appears that a year after the battle General Grant called upon three of his staff-officers to make reports concerning the movements of General Lew Wallace's division on the day of the battle, in answer to a complaint of the latter officer that injustice had been done him in General Grant's reports. Two of the officers, namely, General McPherson and Captain Rowley, in their replies confined themselves to that subject. The third, Colonel Rawlins, on the other hand, made it the occasion of a specific defense, or explanation, or commendation, or whatever it may be called, of General Grant's relation to the battle. Among other things that have since been more or less disputed, he said:
"General Nelson's division of the Army of the Ohio reached Savannah on the afternoon of the 5th of April, but General Buell himself did not arrive... . You [General Grant] then rode back to the house near the river that had been designated for headquarters, to learn what word if any had been received from General Nelson, whose division you expected soon to arrive at the landing on the opposite side of the river; and you there met Maj.-Gen. D. C. Buell, who had arrived at Savannah and taken a steamer and come up to see you, and learn how the battle was progressing in advance of his force. Among his first inquiries was: 'What preparations have you made for retreating?' To which you replied, 'I have not yet despaired of whipping them, general'; and went on to state to him your momentary expectation of the arrival of General Wallace, to whom orders had been timely and repeatedly sent, and that General Nelson's division might soon be expected by the wagonroad from Savannah," etc.
This statement, ridiculous and absurd in its principal feature, is incorrect in every particular.
It is well known, that I arrived at Savannah on the 5th of April; General Grant did not, as might be inferred, find me at the landing at Pittsburg - I found him there; we did not meet at "the house near the river," but on his headquarters steamer.
I mention these points only to show the tendency of the statement to error, and I aver that no such conversation as is described ever occurred, and that the contingency of a retreat was not brought forward by General Grant or by me.
My attention has within a few days been called to
that an article, in a recent number of "The Century" magazine [General
Badeau's paper on "General Grant," in the number for May, 1885], has
fresh circulation to the story, and has combined the official and the
phraseology of it. I have regarded it as a trivial question, of little
to either General Grant or myself; but perhaps the value attached to it
others makes it proper for me to give it an attention which I have not
chosen to bestow upon it. - D. C. BUELL.
AIRDRIE, Kentucky, July 10th, 1885.
On the shore I encountered a scene which has often been described. The face of the bluff was crowded with stragglers from the battle. The number there at different hours has been estimated at from five thousand in the morning to fifteen thousand in the evening. The number at nightfall would not have fallen short of fifteen thousand, including those who had passed down the river, and the less callous but still broken and demoralized fragments about the camps on the plateau near the landing. At the top of the bluff all was confusion. Men mounted and on foot, and wagons with their teams and excited drivers, all struggling to force their way closer to the river, were mixed up in apparently inextricable confusion with a battery of artillery which was standing in park without men or horses to man or move it. The increasing throng already presented a barrier which it was evidently necessary to remove, in order to make way for the passage of my troops when they should arrive. In looking about for assistance I fell upon one officer, the quartermaster of an Ohio regiment, who preserved his senses, and was anxious to do something to abate the disorder. I instructed him to take control of the teams, and move them down the hill by a side road which led to the narrow bottom below the landing, and there park them. He went to work with alacrity and the efficiency of a strong will, and succeeded in
clearing the ground of the wagons. It proved before night to have been a more important service than I had expected, for it not only opened the way for Nelson's division, but extricated the artillery and made it possible to get it into action when the attack occurred at the landing about sunset.
It is now time to glance at the circumstances which had brought about and were urging on the state of affairs here imperfectly portrayed.
UPON learning on the 2d of April of the advance of the Army of the Ohio toward Savannah, General Sidney Johnston determined to anticipate the junction of that army with General Grant's force, by attacking the latter, and at once gave orders for the movement of his troops on the following day. It was his expectation to reach the front of the army at Pittsburg Landing on Friday, the 4th, and make the attack at daylight on Saturday; but the condition of the roads, and some confusion in the execution of orders, prevented him from getting into position for the attack until 3 o'clock P. M. on Saturday. This delay and an indiscreet reconnoissance which brought on a sharp engagement with the Federal pickets, rendered it so improbable that the Union commander would not be prepared for the attack, that General Beauregard advised the abandonment of the enterprise, to the success of which a surprise was deemed to be essential. General Johnston overruled the proposition, however, and the attack was ordered for the following morning. The army was drawn up in three parallel lines, covering the front of the Federal position. Hardee commanded the first line, Bragg the second, and Polk and Breckinridge the third, the latter being intended as a reserve.
The locality on which the storm of battle was about to burst has often been described with more or less of inaccuracy or incompleteness. It is an undulating table-land, quite broken in places, elevated a hundred feet or thereabout above the river; an irregular triangle in outline, nearly equilateral, with the sides four miles long, bordered on the east by the river, which here runs nearly due north, on the north-west by Snake Creek and its tributary, Owl Creek, and on the south, or south-west, by a range of hills which immediately border Lick Creek on the north bank, two hundred feet or more in height, and sloping gradually toward the battle-field. In these hills rise the eastern tributaries of Owl Creek, one of them called Oak Creek, extending half-way across the front or south side of the battle-field, and interlocking with a ravine called Locust Grove Creek, which runs in the opposite direction into Lick Creek a mile from its mouth. Other short, deep ravines start from the table-land and empty into the river, the principal among them being Dill's Branch, six hundred yards above the landing. Midway in the front, at the foot of the Lick Creek hills, start a number of surface drains which soon unite in somewhat difficult ravines and form Tillman's Creek, or Brier Creek. It runs almost due north, a mile and a quarter from the river, in a deep hollow, which divides the table-land into two main ridges. Tillman's Creek empties into Owl Creek half a mile above the Snake Creek bridge by which the division of Lew Wallace arrived. Short, abrupt ravines break from the main ridges into Tillman's Hollow, and the broad surface of the west ridge
is further broken by larger branches which empty into Owl Creek. Tillman's Hollow, only about a mile long, is a marked feature in the topography, and is identified with some important incidents of the battle.
Pittsburg Landing is three-quarters of a mile above the mouth of Snake Creek, and two and a quarter miles below the mouth of Lick Creek. Shiloh Church is on Oak Creek two miles and a half south-west of Pittsburg Landing. The table-land comes up boldly to the river at the landing and for a mile south. Beyond those limits the river bends away from the high land, and the bottom gradually widens.
The principal roads are the River road, as it will here be called, which crosses Snake Creek at the bridge before mentioned, and running a mile west of Pittsburg Landing, obliquely along the ridge east of Tillman's Creek, crosses Lick Creek three-quarters of a mile from the river at the east end of the Lick Creek hills; the Hamburg and Purdy road, which branches from the River road a mile and two-thirds in a straight line south of Pittsburg Landing, and extends north-west 400 yards north of Shiloh Church; and two roads that start at the landing, cross the River road two-thirds of a mile apart, and also cross or run into the Hamburg and Purdy road nearly
opposite the church. In the official reports these various roads are called with some confusion, but not altogether inaccurately, Crump's Landing road, Hamburg road, Corinth road or Purdy road, even over the same space, according to the idea of the writer. The Corinth road from the landing has two principal branches. The western branch passes by the church, and the eastern passes a mile east of the church into the Bark road, which extends along the crest of the Lick Creek hills. The military maps show many other roads, some of them farm-roads, and some only well-worn tracks made in hauling for the troops. In some places the old roads were quite obliterated, and are improperly represented on the maps, as in the case of the River road, which is not shown on the official map between McArthur's and Hurlbut's headquarters, immediately west of the landing. It is shown on Sherman's camp map, and its existence is not doubtful. At
the time of the battle, much the largest part of the ground was in forest, sometimes open, sometimes almost impenetrable for horsemen, with occasional cleared fields of from 20 to 80 acres; and these variations operated in a signal manner upon the fortune of the combatants. There was not a cleared field within the limits of the battle that has not its history.
We may now locate the troops in their encampments, for there is where the battle found them, and its currents and eddies will frequently be discovered by the reference to certain camps in the official reports. The camp map which I received from General Sherman will serve as a useful guide, subject to some necessary modifications, to make a field sketch agree with an actual survey. But the regimental camps did not always conform to the lines laid down for the brigades and divisions. Sometimes they were in front, sometimes in rear of the general line. I have not pretended generally to introduce these variations into the map which I have prepared to accompany this article.
Starting at the landing, we find the Second Division, commanded by W. H. L. Wallace, in the space bounded by the river, Snake Creek, the River road, and the right-hand road leading west from the landing. Along that road are, in this order, the camps of the 12th, 7th, 14th, and 2d Iowa, and the 52d and 9th Illinois. At the point where that road crosses the River road, in the south-west angle of the intersection, are the headquarters of General McArthur. On the east side of the River road, north of McArthur are, first, the 14th Missouri, called "Birge's sharp-shooters" (not on the Sherman camp map), and next the 81st Ohio. The 16th Wisconsin has been assigned to Prentiss's division since the Sherman map was made, and the 13th Missouri has probably taken that ground. All these points are particularly mentioned in the reports of the battle and have been verified.
On the left-hand road where it crosses the River road, three-quarters of a mile from the landing, is the Fourth Division (Hurlbut's), its Third Brigade between the road and the river, and the line of the two other brigades bearing off to the north-west. I have located the 3d Iowa, of that division, on the ground just in front of which Crittenden's division was first formed in line Monday morning, because it was stated to me at the time that General Prentiss was killed at that camp; the fact being that near that point Prentiss was captured and W. H. L. Wallace mortally wounded.
At the fork of the River road and the Hamburg and Purdy road, is the camp of Sherman's Second Brigade, commanded by Colonel Stuart, two miles from the division to which it belongs, and one mile from Hurlbut's division. On both sides of the eastern Corinth road, half a mile south of the Hamburg and Purdy road, is Prentiss's division (the Sixth) of 2 brigades. It is not shown on the Sherman map. Stretching across the western Corinth road at the church, along Oak Creek, are the other three brigades of the Fifth Division (Sherman's) - Hildebrand's brigade being on the east side of the road, Buckland's next on the west side, and John A. McDowell's next on Buckland's right. Only one regiment (the 6th Iowa) of McDowell's brigade is shown on the Sherman map.
The official reports and other authority locate the First Division (McClernand's) as follows: The right of the Third Brigade is at the point where the western Corinth road crosses the Hamburg and Purdy road, 500 yards from the church, and the left is 200 yards from Hildebrand's brigade, which is thus obliquely in its front. The other 2 brigades, on a general line starting from the right of the Third, form an obtuse angle with the Third, and are along the ridge nearly parallel with Tillman's Creek, the extreme right being not far from the bluff overlooking Owl Creek bottom. The First Brigade is on the east side of the adjacent field instead of the west side, as the Sherman map, according to the road, would seem to place it, though that map does not show the field. It remains to be added that 3 of the 5 divisions were for that period of the war old and experienced troops. Hurbut's Third Brigade belonged to the Army of the Ohio, and had been sent to reenforce Grant before Donelson. Eight other regiments were furnished by me for the first movement up the Tennessee, and remained with Grant's army. Sherman's division, one of the newest, had been under his command more than a month, and ought to have been in a tolerably efficient state of discipline. Prentiss's division, composed largely of raw regiments, had only been organized a few days; yet it was posted in the most exposed and assailable point on the front. The effective force at the date of the battle, exclusive of Lew Wallace's division, which was at or near Crump's Landing, 6 miles below, is stated by General Sherman at 32,000 men; by General Grant at 33,000. General Wallace left 2 regiment of his division and a piece of artillery at Crump's Landing, and joined the army Sunda as he sthan 5000 men.
I proceed now, in the light of the official reports and other evidence, to explain briefly what happened: the object being not so much to criticise the manner of the battle, or give a detailed description of it, as to trace it to its actual condition at the close of the first day, and outline its progress during the second. With this object the question of a surprise has little to do. I stop, therefore, only to remark that each revival of that question has placed the fact in a more glaring light. The enemy was known to be at hand, but no adequate steps were taken to ascertain in what force or with what design. The call to arms blended with the crash of the assault, and when the whole forest on the rising ground in front flashed with the gleam of bayonets, then General Sherman, as he reports, "became satisfied for the first time that the enemy designed a determined attack." Yet among the more watchful officers in the front divisions, there was a nervous feeling that their superiors were not giving due heed to the presence of hostile reconnoitering parties, though they little imagined the magnitude of the danger that impended. On Saturday General Sherman was notified of these parties. He answered that the pickets must be strengthened, and instructed to be vigilant; that he was embarrassed for the want of cavalry; his cavalry had been ordered away, and the cavalry he was to have instead had not arrived; as soon as they reported he would send them to the front and find out what was there. In one of his brigades the regimental commanders held a consultation, at which it was
determined to strengthen the pickets. These are curious revelations to a soldier's ear.
Prentiss's vigilance gave the first warning of the actual danger, and in fact commenced the contest. On Saturday, disquieted by the frequent appearance of the enemy's cavalry, he increased his pickets, though he had no evidence of the presence of a large force. Early Sunday morning one of these picket-guards, startled no doubt by the hum of forty thousand men half a mile distant, waking up for battle, went forward to ascertain the cause, and soon came upon the enemy's pickets, which it promptly attacked. It was then a quarter past 5 o'clock, and all things being ready, the Confederate general, accepting the signal of the pickets, at once gave the order to advance. Previously, however, General Prentiss, still apprehensive, had sent forward Colonel Moore of the 21st Missouri, with five companies to strengthen the picket-guard. On the way out Colonel Moore met the guard returning to camp with a number of its men killed and wounded. Sending the latter on to camp and calling for the remaining companies of his regiment, he proceeded to the front in time to take a good position on the border of a cleared field and opened fire upon the enemy's skirmishers, checking them for a while; but the main body forced him back upon the division with a considerable list of wounded, himself among the number. All this occurred in front of Sherman's camp, not in front of Prentiss's. This spirited beginning, unexpected on both sides, gave the first alarm to the divisions of Sherman and Prentiss. The latter promptly formed his division at the first news from the front, and moved a quarter of a mile in advance of his camp, where he was attacked before Sherman was under arms. He held his position until the enemy on his right passed him in attacking Sherman, whose left regiment immediately broke into rout. He then retired in some disorder, renewing the resistance in his camp but forced back in still greater disorder, until at 9 o'clock he came upon the line which Hurlbut and W. H. L. Wallace were forming half a mile in rear.
Upon the first alarm in his camp, which was simultaneous with the attack upon Sherman, McClernand rapidly got under arms, and endeavored to support Sherman's left with his Third Brigade, only two hundred yards in rear, while he placed his First and Second Brigades in inverted order still farther to the rear and left, to oppose the enemy's columns pouring in upon his left flank through the opening on Sherman's left; but his Third Brigade was forced back with the fugitives from Sherman's broken line by the advancing enemy, and endeavored with only partial success to form on the right of McClernand's line, which at first was formed with the left a little south, and the center north of the Corinth road. Before the formation was completed the line was compelled to retire by the pressure on its front and left flank, with e, but it re-formed 300 yards in rear.
Hildebrand's brigade had now disappeared in complete disorder from the front, leaving three pieces of artillery in the hands of the enemy. Buckland formed promptly at the first alarm, and in order to keep the enemy back endeavored by Sherman's direction to throw a regiment beyond Oak Creek,
which covered his front at a distance of two hundred yards, but on reaching the brow of the low hill bordering the stream the enemy was encountered on the hither side. Nevertheless the brigade resisted effectively for about two hours the efforts of the assailants to cross the boggy stream at last. Before being quite forced back, Buckland received orders from Sherman to form line on the Purdy road four hundred yards in rear, to connect with McClernand's right. Orders were also given to McDowell, who had not yet been engaged, to close to the left on the same line. These orders were in effect defeated in both cases, and five pieces of artillery lost by faults in the execution and the rapid advance of the enemy. Sherman's division as an organized body disappeared from the field from this time until the close of the day. McDowell's brigade preserved a sort of identity for a while. Sherman reports that at "about 10:30 A. M. the enemy had made a furious attack on General McClernand's whole front. Finding him pressed, I moved McDowell's brigade against the left flank of the enemy, forced him back some distance, and then directed the men to avail themselves of every cover - trees, fallen timber, and a wooded valley to our right." It sounds like the signal to disperse, and a little after 1 o'clock the brigade and regiments are seen no more. Some fragments of the division and the commander himself attached themselves to McClernand's command, which now, owing to its composite and irregular organization, could hardly be denominated a division.
The contest which raged in McClernand's camp was of a fluctuating character. The ground was lost and won more than once, but each ebb and flow of the struggle left the Union side in a worse condition. In his fifth position McClernand was driven to the camp of his First Brigade, half of his command facing to the south and half to the west, to meet the converging attack of the enemy. His nominal connection with the left wing of the army across the head of Tillman's Hollow had been severed, by the dispersion or defeat of the detached commands that former it. Another reverse to his thinned ranks would drive him over the bluff into Owl Creek bottom, and perhaps cut him off from the river. He determined, therefore, between 2 and 3 o'clock to retire across Tillman's Hollow in the direction of the landing. That movement was effected with a good deal of irregularity, but with the repulse of a small body of pursuing cavalry, and a new line was formed on the opposite ridge along the River road, north of Hurlbut's headquarters. I shall have occasion farther along to remark upon the display of force on the right of this line in the vicinity of McArthur's headquarters. The movement must have been completed about 3 o'clock. Leaving the right wing, as it may be called, in this position prior to the attack of 4 o'clock, which drove it still farther back, we will return to the current of events in the left wing.
With Stuart on the extreme left, as with the other commanders, the presence of the enemy was the first warning of danger. He was soon compelled to fall back from his camp to a new position, and presently again to a third, which located him on the prolongation and extreme left of the line formed
Page 502 and page 503
Detailed map. Refer to the similar modern maps above, or to the original volumes.
by Hurlbut and W. H. L. Wallace, but without having any connection with it. As soon as the first advance of the enemy was known, these two commanders were called upon by those in front for support. In the absence of a common superior it was sent forward by regiments or brigades in such manner as seemed proper to the officer appealed to, and after that was left to its own devices. It seldom formed the connection desired, or came under the direction of a common superior. Indeed, the want of cohesion and concert in the Union ranks is conspicuously indicated in the official reports. A regiment is rarely overcome in front, but falls back because the regiment on its right or left has done so, and exposed its flank. It continues its backward movement at least until it is well under shelter, thus exposing the flank of its neighbor, who then must also needs fall back. Once in operation, the process repeats itself indefinitely. In a broken and covered country which affords occasional rallying-points and obstructs the pursuit, it proceeds step by step. On an open field, in the presence of light artillery and cavalry, it would run rapidly into general rout.
This outflanking, so common in the Union reports at Shiloh, is not a
excuse of the inferior commanders. It is the practical consequence of
absence of a common head, and the judicious use of reserves to
counteract partial reverses and preserve the front of battle. The want
of a general direction
is seen also in the distribution of Hurlbut's and Wallace's divisions.
sent a brigade under Colonel Veatch to support Sherman's left; Wallace
one under General McArthur to the opposite extreme to
support Stuart; and the two remaining brigades of each were between the extremes -- Wallace on Veatch's left but not in connection with it, and Hurlbut on McArthur's right, also without connection. Stuart himself with his brigade was two miles to the left of Sherman's division to which he belonged. When the three Confederate lines were brought together successively at the front, there was, of course, a great apparent mingling of organizations; but it was not in their case attended with the confusion that might be supposed, because each division area was thereby supplied with a triple complement of brigade and division officers, and the whole front was under the close supervision of four remarkably efficient corps commanders. The evils of disjointed command are plainly to be seen in the arrangement of the Federal line, but the position of the left wing after the forced correction of the first faulty disposition of Hurlbut's brigades was exceedingly strong, and in the center was held without a break against oft-repeated assaults from 9 o'clock until 5 o'clock. From 12 until 2 it was identical with the second position taken by Nelson and Crittenden on Monday, and it was equally formidable against attack from both directions. Its peculiar feature consisted in a wood in the center, with a thick undergrowth, flanked on either side by open fields, and with open but sheltering woods in front and rear. The Confederates gave the name of "Hornets' Nest" to the thicket part of it on Sunday, and it was in the open but sheltering woods in front and rear. The Confederates gave the name of "Hornets' Nest" to the thicket part of it on Sunday, and it was in the open ground on the east flank that General Sidney Johnston was killed.
On this line, between and under the shelter of Hurlbut and W. H. L. Wallace, Prentiss rallied a considerable force, perhaps a thousand men, of his
routed division at 9 o'clock, and fought stubbornly until near the close of the day. By 3 o'clock the withdrawal of the right wing, accompanied by Veatch's brigade, exposed W. H. L. Wallace's right flank, which also partially crumbled away; and the retirement of Stuart about the same hour before the strong attack brought against him, and of Hurlbut at 4 o'clock under the same powerful pressure upon his left flank, left Prentiss and Wallace with his remaining regiments isolated and unsupported. Still they held their ground while the enemy closed upon each flank. As they were about being completely enveloped, Wallace endeavored to extricate his command, and was mortally wounded in the attempt at 5 o'clock. Some of his regiments under Colonel Tuttle fought their way through the cross-fire of the contracting lines of the enemy, but 6 regiments of the 2 divisions held fast until the encompassment was complete, and one by one with Prentiss, between half-past 5 and 6 o'clock, they were forced to surrender. This gallant resistance, and the delay caused by the necessary disposition of the captives, weakened the force of the attack which McClernand sustained in his seventh position on the River road at 4 o'clock, and retarded the onward movement of the enemy for nearly 3 hours after the retirement of the right wing from the west side of Tillman's Creek.
Before the incumbrance of their success was entirely put out of the way the Confederates pressed forward to complete a seemingly assured victory, but it was too late. John K. Jackson's brigade and the 9th and 10th Mississippi of Chalmers's brigade crossed Dill's ravine, and their artillery on the south side swept the bluff at the landing, the missiles falling into the river far beyond. Hurlbut had hurriedly got into line in rear of the siege-guns, as they are called in the official reports posted half a mile from the river, but for five hundred yards from the landing there was not a soldier in ranks or any organized means of defense.* Just as the danger was perceived, Colonel Fry and myself. The idea of getting the battery which was standing in park into action was expressed simultaneously by the three, and was promptly executed by Colonel Webster's immediate exertion. General Grant came up a few minutes later, and a member of his escort was killed in that position. Chalmers's skirmishers approached to within one hundred yards of the battery. The number in view was not large, but the gunners were already abandoning their pieces, when Ammen's brigade, accompanied by Nelson, came into action. The attack was repelled, and the engagement ended for the day.
In his report of April 9th, to Halleck, General Grant says of this incident:
"At a late hour in the afternoon a desperate effort was made by the enemy to turn our left and get possession of the landing, transports, etc. This point was guarded by the gun-boats Tyler and Lexington, Captains Gwin and Shirk, U. S. Navy, commanding, four 20-pounder Parrott guns, and a battery of rifled guns. As there is a deep and impassable ravine for artillery or cavalry, and very difficult for infantry, at this point, no troops were stationed here, except the necessary artillerists and a small infantry force for their support. Just at this moment the
* In studying the Official Reports these "siege-guns" must not be confounded with the battery of rifle field-guns nearer the river; to all of these the term "Reserve Artillery" has been given on the map (page 503).- D. C. B.
advance of Major-General Buell's column (a part of the division under General Nelson) arrived, the two generals named both being present. An advance was immediate made upon the point of attack and the enemy soon driven back. In this repulse, much is due to the presence of the gun-boats Tyler and Lexington, and their able commanders, Captains Gwin and Shirk."
My own official report is to the same effect. In a calm review of the battle, not unfriendly to General Grant, and written some years after the occurrence, General Hurlbut said:
"About 6 P. M. this movement (for a final attack at the landing) was reported to General Hurlbut. He at once took measures to change the front of 2 regiments, or parts of regiments, of which the 55th Illinois was one, and to turn 6 pieces of artillery to bear upon the point of danger. At that instant, he being near the head of the Landing road, General Grant came up from the river closely followed by Ammen's brigade of Nelson's division. Information of the expected attack was promptly given, and two of Ammen's regiments deployed into line, moved rapidly forward, and after a few sharp exchanges of volleys from them, the enemy fell back, and the bloody series of engagements of Sunday at Pittsburg Landing close with that last repulse."
The reports of all the officers who took part in the action at the landing, Nelson, Ammen, and the regimental commanders, fully sustain the main point in these accounts, and are totally at variance with General Grant's statement in his "Century" article [see page 465]. I have myself never described the attack at the landing as "a desperate effort" of the enemy; but I have said that the condition of affairs at that point made the occasion critical. We known from the Confederate reports that the attack was undertaken by Jackson's and Chalmers's brigades as above stated; that the reserve artillery could effect nothing against the attacking force under the shelter of Dill's ravine; that the fire of the gun-boats was equally harmless on account of the elevation which it was necessary to give the guns in order to clear the top of the bluff; and that the final assault, owing to the show of resistance, was delayed. Jackson's brigade made its advance without cartridges. When they came to the crest of the hill and found the artillery supported by infantry, they shrank from the assault with bayonets alone, and Jackson went in search of cooperation and support. In the meantime the attack was superseded by the order of the Confederate commander calling off his troops for the night. The attack was poorly organized, but it was not repelled until Ammen arrived, and it cannot be affirmed under the circumstances that the action of his brigade in delaying and repelling the enemy was not of the most vital importance. Had the attack been made before Nelson could arrive, with the means which the enemy had abundantly at hand, it would have succeeded beyond all question.
As fast as Nelson's division arrived it was formed in line of battle in front of Grant's troops, pickets were thrown across Dill's ravine, and the dawn of another day was awaited to begin the second stage in the battle; or, speaking more correctly, to fight the second battle of Shiloh. Let us in the meantime examine more in detail the condition in which the first day had left General Grant's command, and its prospects unaided for the tomorrow.
THE evidence relied upon the refute the accepted belief in the critical condition of general Grant's command on Sunday evening is of two sorts: first,
[The "official" map of the battle.]
the official map, as it is called, and second, the personal statements and assumptions of General Grant and General Sherman. I shall examine these data upon the evidence of the official reports and my own observation.
The official map was prepared, after the arrival of General Halleck at Pittsburg Landing, by his topographical engineer, General George Thom. The topographical part of it was made from an approximate survey, and, though not strictly accurate, is sufficiently so for an intelligent study of the battle. For the errors in the location of the troops General Thomas cannot be supposed to be responsible, since he could have no knowledge of the facts except what he derived from the statements of others; but in what is given and what is withheld they are of a very misleading nature. They consists, first, in the extension of Grant's line on the evening of the 6th a full half-mile to the west of its true limit - placing Hurlbut's division on the front actually occupied by McClernand, McClernand on and four hundred yards beyond Sherman's ground, and Sherman entirely on the west side of Tillman's Hollow on the right of the camping-ground of McClernand's division, and within the lines occupied by the Confederates. On the morning of the 7th they place from left to right, McClernand, the Sherman, then Lew Wallace, along the bluff bordering Owl Creek bottom, all west of Tillman's Creek, and on ground which we did not possess until after four hours of fighting; followed on the left 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 very subordinate appearance. They give no account of the positions during the battle, in which the right of that army was substantially in contact with Wallace's division on the extreme right. They give two of its positions,--one in the first formation before its front was developed, and the other at the close of the day, when Grant's troops had taken possession of their camps again, and mine had been withdrawn from the ground on which they fought. These two positions are taken from my official map, but not the intermediate positions shown on that map. Below the copy of the Thom map, as published with 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 with information furnished at the time by Generals Grant, Buell, and Sherman." It would be presumed that Grant and Sherman, the latter especially, in consequence of his intimate relations with Halleck's headquarters, were consulted about the location of the troops; and it is not to be doubted that their information was the guide. If any information of mine was adopted, it was only through the map that accompanied my report, and with reference to the position 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 of the Tennessee for historical use. Ostensibly its accepts the topography of the Thom map, but modifies the positions of the troops in the most radical manner. On the Thom map the line of battle Sunday evening is represented as being along the right-hand road leading west from the landing, with the reserve artillery and Nelson's and Crittenden's divisions on the left, and
Hurlbut, McClernand, and Sherman in the order mentioned, toward the right. The modification of this position of the troops by the Sherman edition, may be described as follows [see map, page 470]: Looking west over the map, we see a line on the east bank of the river marked "Buell." No part of my army is represented on the west bank. On the west side of the river, 400 yards back from the landing and parallel with the river, is a line on the east bank of the river marked "Buell." No part of my army is represented on the west bank. On the west side of the river, 400 yards back from the landing and parallel with the river, is a line 100 yards long marked "Grant." Extending back from the river along Dill's Branch, is a line half a mile long marked "Detachments." This might mean the reserve artillery. From the outer extremity of the "Detachments" is a line two-thirds of a mile long running west, but swelling in the center well to the south, with its right resting on Tillman's Creek, and marked "Hurlbut." On the right of Hurlbut extending in the same west course, and entirely on the west side of Tillman's Creek, is a double line one-eighth of a mile long marked "McClernand." The commencing one hundred yards north-west of McClernand's right and extending due north, along the edge of the field in front of the camp of McClernand's First Brigade, is a line two-thirds of a mile long marked "Sherman." On the right of this line are three houses covered in front by a sort of demi-lune and wing, between which and the main Sherman line is a bastion-like arrangement. The demi-lune figure Sherman designates as a "strong flank," and says it was occupied by Birge's sharp-shooters. Off to the right is seen Lew Wallace's division crossing Snake Creek bridge, and marching toward the demi-lune by a road which had no existence in fact or on the original Thom map. At the angle between Sherman and McClernand is a
ravine which extends into the camp of McClernand's division, and along the sides of this ravine from the right and left respectively of McClernand and Sherman are two dotted lines terminating in a point at the head of the ravine. In his speech submitting his map to the society, Sherman explains how that horn-like projection was formed, with other particulars, as follows:
"In the very crisis of the battle of April 6, about 4 o'clock P. M., when my division occupied the line from Snake Creek bridge to the forks of the Corinth and Purdy road, there occurred an incident I have never seen recorded. Birge's sharp-shooters, or "Squirrel Tails," occupied a double line from it along what had once been a lane with its fences thrown down, and the blackberry and sassafras bushes still marking the border of an open cotton-field in front, and the left was in a ravine near which Major Ezra Taylor had assembled some ten or twelve guns. This ravine was densely wooded and extended to the front near two hundred yards, and I feared it might be occupied by the enemy, who from behind the trees could drive the gunners from their posts. I ordered the colonel of one of my regiments to occupy that ravine to anticipate the enemy, but he did not quickly catch my meaning or comprehend the tactics by which he could fulfill my purpose. I remember well that Colonel Thomas W. Sweeny, a one-armed officer who had lost an arm in the Mexican War and did not belong to my command, stood near by and quickly spoke up: "I understand perfectly what you want; let me do it." "Certainly," said I, "Sweeny, go at once and occupy that ravine, converting it into a regular bastion." He did it, and I attach more importance to that event than to any of the hundred achievements which I have since heard "saved the day," for we held that line and ravine all night, and the next morning advanced from them to certain victory."
And yet it will be seen that this new line, prepared with such elaboration of detail and introduced with such richness of anecdotal embellishment, was
a thorough delusion; that Birge's sharp-shooters were not there, and that General Sherman was in a different place! Setting aside historical accuracy, however, the advantage of the revised arrangement is obvious. It extended General Grant's territory a half-mile to the south, fully as much to the west, taking in Tillman's Hollow, one-third of McClernand's captured camp, and a large part of the Confederate army, giving a battle front of two miles and a half instead of one mile, and requiring no greater power of imagination to man it than to devise it. In presenting his map to the Society, Sherman said: "The map as thus modified tells the story of the battle!"
There can be no doubt that General Sherman's position will carry unhesitating credence to his naked assertion in the minds of a considerable number of persons; while the more cautions but still unsearching readers will say that until the accuracy of the official map is disproved, it must be accepted as the standard representation of the battle. It is proper, therefore, to cite the proof which rejects both, and establishes a materially different version. The investigation may be confined, for the present, to the location of the Federal line of battle on Sunday evening. The other errors in the maps will be developed incidentally as the general subject progresses. Moreover, the inquiry will be directed specifically to the Sherman map, as that includes the faults of the Thom map as well as its own peculiar errors.
It is unnecessary to remark upon the exclusion of Nelson's leading brigade from the west bank of the river on the Sherman map. Its presence there at the time in question is as notorious as the battle itself. The distance from the landing to Dill's Branch is six hundred yards. Sherman places his "Detachments," i. e., the "Reserve artillery," exactly on the line of that branch, whereas they were five hundred yards north of it. During the engagement the Confederates passed the ravine and reached the crest of the hill on the north side. After the engagement Nelson's division occupied the ravine, and his pickets held ground beyond it during the night. None of Grant's troops were ever in that position.
In adducing evidence from the official reports to determine the further position of the Union line, the extracts will be somewhat extended when the context is pertinent,w the number and condition of the troops occupying it. The reader will be spared the impression of some irrelevancy if he will keep these additional objects in mind.
Of the position of General Hurlbut's division, the next on the right of the "Detachments," that officer says in his official report:
"On reaching the 24-pounder siege-guns in battery near the river, I again succeeded in forming line of battle in rear of the guns."
That brought his division on the line of the right-hand road leading back from the river, but not entirely to the right of the artillery where the Thom map places it. He adds:
"I passed to the right and found myself in communication with General Sherman, and received his instructions. In a short time the enemy appeared on the crest of the ridge, led by the 18th Louisiana," etc... "General Sherman's artillery also was rapidly engaged, and after an artillery contest of some duration, the enemy fell back." ... "About dark the firing
ceased. I advanced my division one hundred yards to the front, threw out pickets, and officers and men bivouacked in a heavy storm of rain. About 12 P. M. General Nelson's leading columns passed through my line and went to the front, and I called in my advance-guard."
The next division in the regular order is McClernand's, thought the reader will not have failed to observe the presence of General Sherman, with at least a portion of his command, in communication with Hurlbut's right. General Sherman, it will be remembered, locates this division (McClernand's) on the west side of Tillman's Creek. We trace its retrogression step by step, from its permanent camp, across Tillman's Hollow, at the close of the day, by the following extracts from General McClernand's report:
"Continuing this sanguinary conflict until several regiments of my division had exhausted their ammunition, and its right flank had been borne back, and it was in danger of being turned, the remainder of my command ... also fell back to the camp of the First Brigade. Here the portion that had first fallen back re-formed parallel with the camp, and fronting the approach of the enemy from the west, while the other portion formed at right angles with it, still fronting the approach of the enemy from the south... . It was 2 o'clock when my fifth line had been thus formed... . Deterred from direct advance, he (the enemy) moved a considerable force by the right flank, with the evident intention of turning my left. To defeat this purpose, I ordered my command to fall back in the direction of the landing, across a deep hollow, and to re-form on the east side of another field, in the skirts of a wood. This was my sixth line. Here we rested a half-hour, continuing to supply our men with ammunition, until the enemy's cavalry were seen rapidly crossing the field to the charge. Waiting until they approached within some thirty paces of our line, I ordered a fire, which was delivered with great coolness and destructive effect. First halting, then wavering, they turned and fled in confusion, leaving behind a number of riders and horses dead on the field. The 29th Illinois Infantry, inspired by the courageous example of their commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Ferrell, bore the chief part in this engagement... . In the meantime, under cover of this demonstration strengthened by large additions from other portions of the field yielded by our forces, the enemy continued his endeavors to turn the flanks of my line, and to cut me off from the landing. To prevent this I ordered my left wing to fall back a short distance and form an obtuse angle with the center, opposing a double front to the enemy's approach. Thus disposed, my left held the enemy in check, while my whole line slowly fell back to my seventh position. Here I re-formed the worn and famished remnant of my division, on favourable ground along a north and south road, supported on my right by fragments of General Sherman's division, and on my left by the [14th Illinois and 25th Indiana] under command of Colonel Veatch, acting brigadier-general."
The identify of this seventh position of McClernand is determined by the following extracts. Colonel Marsh, commanding McClernand's Second Brigade, says:
"At this time, my command having been reduced to a merely nominal one, I received orders to fall a short distance to the rear and form a new line, detaining all stragglers, portions of commands, and commands which should attempt to pass. In obedience to this, thought with some difficulty as regarded portions of some commands, whose officers seemed little inclined to halt short of the river, ... I had gathered quite a force, and formed a line near the camp of the Second Division, concealing my men in the timber facing an open field. I here requested Colonel Davis, of the 46th Illinois, to take position on my right. He promptly and cheerfully responded... . In a short time General McClernand, with portions of the First and Third Brigades of his own division, and two regiments of Ohio troops, came up and formed on the left of the line I had already established."
Colonel Davis, of the 46th Illinois, says:
"It being now 1 o'clock, my ammunition exhausted, the men tired and hungry, and myself exhausted, having lost my horse in the first engagement, and compelled to go on foot the
balance of the time, and finding myself within one-half mile of my regimental encampment, I marched my men to it and got dinner for them. Calling my men into line immediately after dinner, I formed them upon the right of the brigade commanded by Colonel C. C. Marsh, at his request, in front and to the left of my camp, where we again met the enemy on Sunday evening."
Colonel Engelmann, of the 43d Illinois, whose report in many respects is a remarkably clear and interesting one, says:
"We now fell back by degrees [from McClernand's sixth position], and anew line being formed, we found ourselves posted between the 46th Illinois and the 13th Missouri, our position being midway between the encampments of the 46th and 9th Illinois."
Colonel Wright, 13th Missouri, of McArthur's brigade, Second Division, but attached during the battle to Sherman's division, says:
"After advancing and falling back several times, the regiment was forced to retire, with all the others there, to the road which crosses the Purdy road at right angles near General McArthur's headquarters. We here took up quarters for the night, bivouacking without fires within four hundred yards of our regimental camp."
The "Purdy road" here mentioned is the continuation of the right-hand road leading from the landing. The camp of the 9th Illinois was in the north-east angle of the intersection of that road with the River road, and General McArthur's headquarters were in the south-west angle of the same intersection. The camp of the 46th Illinois was located in the south-east angle of the intersection of the River road and a middle road leading west from the landing, about five hundred yards from McArthur's headquarters. These reports plainly identify General McClernand's seventh position, of which General Sherman formed part, with the River road between McArthur's and Hurlbut's headquarters. It is a full half-mile in rear of the position given to Sherman's division on the Thom map, and of the position which
General Sherman assigns to himself on his edition, with the deep hollow of Tillman's Creek intervening.
The struggle which drove General McClernand from his seventh position is described by that officer as follows:
"The enemy renewed the contest by tying to shell us from our position... . Advancing in heavy columns led by the Louisiana Zouaves to break our center, we awaited his approach within sure range, and opened a terrific fire upon him. The head of the column was instantly mowed down; the remainder of it swayed to and fro for a few seconds, and turned and fled. This second success of the last two engagements terminated a conflict of ten and a half hours' duration, from 6 o'clock A. M. to 4:30 o'clock P. M., and probably saved our army, transports and all, from capture. Strange, however, at the very moment of the flight of the enemy, the right of our line gave way, and immediately after, notwithstanding the indignant and heroic resistance of Colonel Veatch, the left, comprising the [14th Illinois and 25th Indiana] was irresistibly swept back by the tide of fugitive soldiers and trains seeking vain security at the landing... . Left unsupported and alone, the 20th and 17th Illinois, together with other portion of my division not borne back by the retreating multitude, retired in good order under the immediate command of Colonel Marsh and Lieutenant-Colonel Wood, and re-formed under my direction, the right resting near the former line, and the left at an acute angle with it. A more extended line, comprising portions of regiments, brigades, and divisions, was soon formed on this nucleus by the efforts of General Sherman, myself, and other officers. Here, in the eighth position occupied by my division during the day, we rested in line of battle upon our arms, uncovered and exposed to a drenching rain during the night."
This last position would locate McClernand, excepting his First Brigade, perhaps three hundred yards south of, and obliquely with reference to the right-hand road leading from the landing, facing a little to the west. His First Brigade is traced to within half a mile of the river, where it was rallied by its commander "in front of the camp-ground of the 14th Iowa," on the road to the landing. It did not join the division again until after the battle, but acted in connection with my troops. Colonel Veatch, who was on McClernand's left with the 14th Illinois and 25th Indiana in the seventh position, fell back and took "position on the road leading to the landing near the heavy siege-guns," and became reunited there with Hurlbut's division, to which he belonged. The space along the road in read of McClernand was filled in with various fragments which constituted Sherman's command, including at last Buckland's two regiments. General Sherman says that Colonel Sweeny was with him. No doubt some of Sweeny's men also were there. It was the camp-ground of his brigade - the camp of his own regiment, the 52d Illinois, being immediately on the road. Two of his regiments were captured with Prentiss, and the remainder had been driven back from W. H. L. Wallace's right and virtually broken up. One of his regiments, the 50th Illinois, was sent in the morning to support Colonel Stuart on the extreme left, and shared the fate of the sufferers in that quarter. The space along the road between Sherman and Hurlbut was occupied by the remnant of Colonel Tuttle's brigade and a portion of McClernand's First Brigade which united itself to Tuttle. It was Tuttle's camp-ground. Two of his regiments had been captured with Prentiss.
From the reports of the 13th Missouri and 43d Illinois it is inferred that those two regiments did not move from their position on the River road in the last falling back. But that, if certain, is not important. They were at
any rate substantially on the general line above indicated. The same, in a careless reading, might be presumed of the 46th Illinois, which was immediately on the left of the 43d. The report of that regiment says: "The regiments both on my right and left fell back, but my line did not waver under the fire of the enemy." But it evidently fell back at last, for the report continues: "After breakfast on Monday morning, still retaining my position on the right of Colonel Marsh's brigade, I moved with him until I reached and went beyond the ground of our last engagement of Sunday, where our pickets were driven in," etc. It remains now to determine the question of the extreme right of the general line.
General Sherman says, and his statement on that point is sustained by the reports, that Birge's sharp-shooters were immediately on his right and constituted the extreme right of the line. The official report of that regiment shows that during the afternoon it occupied a "position near Colonel McArthur's headquarters" in an open field. Its camp was in its rear along the opposite or east side of the River road. This would fix General Sherman's right at the cross-roads near McArthur's headquarters. It is more than a mile from the Snake Creek bridge. Other evidence confirms these positions. The official reports of Lew Wallace's division show that he marched along the River road from the bridge, and formed in line of battle, facing Tillman's Creek in front of the camp of Birge's sharp-shooters and the 81st Ohio, the right of the division being in front of the latter, and the left in front of the former; and that it came in actual contact with the "sharp-shooters," who occupied their camp the night and received the new-comers with cheers. This is clearly and more circumstantially explained by General Force in his book entitled "From Fort Henry to Corinth," page 163. He was present and commanded the right regiment of Lew Wallace's division on that occasion. The position thus assigned to Wallace must have taken his left well up to the cross-road at McArthur's headquarters, and covered the entire field toward the north; for the distance from the cross-road to the right of the camp of the 81st Ohio was only half a mile.
It is particularly to be observed that in no report, either from Sherman's division or from Lew Wallace's, is there any mention of actual contact or of any definite proximity of these two divisions on the evening of the 6th, of earlier then 10 o'clock on the morning of the 7th. The inference is, that at the time of Wallace's arrival and subsequently, no part of Sherman's division was on the River road, or anywhere along the heights of Tillman's Creek north of McArthur's headquarters. General Sherman, in his report, says: "General Wallace arrived from Crump's Landing shortly after dark and formed his line to my right and read." That relative position could only exist by assuming that Sherman's command was on the road leading to the landing east of McArthur's headquarters, and nearly at right angles with Wallace, - a supposition which is strengthened by the condition indicated in Sherman's revised map, that Birge's sharp-shooters were on his right - not entirely in his front, as they would have been if his front had been on the River road. It is also sustained by General Buckland's statement in the
"Journal of the Society of the Army of the Tennessee" for 1881, p. 82. "About dark," he says, "General Wallace's division commenced arriving, and formed to the right of my brigade." Buckland states in his report and in the "Journal" that he lay "on the road." If he had been on the River road, Wallace would have come in contact with him, and when he formed in line would have been entirely in his front - not in rear or on his right. Buckland seems to know nothing about Birge's sharp-shooters. The probable explanation is that when he came along the road from the bridge they were on the west side of the road, in the field near McArthur's headquarters. After Lew Wallace arrived and formed in front of them, they probably retired to their camp on the east side of the road. The explanation of Buckland's position is that, after the retreat across Tillman's Creek from the west side, he found himself, as he says, near Snake Creek bridge "late in the afternoon, after the repulse of the right of the line," entirely apart from the rest of the army, and that to reestablish is connection with it he started on the road to the landing, where one of his regiments actually went and remained overnight; and that he came upon the outer flank of the new line where General Sherman soon after found him, east of McArthur's headquarters, and thus placed himself where he is described by Sherman as being, between Birge's sharp-shooters and the rest of the line.
The Confederate reports mention a considerable appearance of force in a camp opposite their extreme left in the afternoon, evidently referring to McArthur's camp. The student of the reports will not be misled by this appearance; it was the force that clustered with Sherman on McClernand's right near McArthur's headquarters; but the 9th Illinois, 81st Ohio, and Birde's sharp-shooters, all belonging to McArthur's brigade; and by the movement of Buckland's regiments from the bridge as already explained. The sharp-shooters and the 81st Ohio had been posted at the bridge, and returned to their camps probably at the time of the retreat from the west side of Tillman's Creek. The 9th Illinois had during the morning been engaged on the extreme left under its brigade commander. It had lost 250 men out of 550, and was ordered to its camp "to replenish cartridge-boxes, clean guns, and be ready for action." While there at 3 o'clock it was ordered "to support the right wing of General Sherman's division," as the report expresses it, and in the subsequent engagements retired to within half a mile of the landing. Birge's sharp-shooters retained their position at or in front of their camp. The movements of the 81st Ohio are not very clearly defined, but in the advance next morning it is found on McClernand's left. The "10 of 12 guns" mentioned by General Sherman in his map-presentation speech as being near a ravine on his left, Sunday afternoon, were Taylor's battery, as it was called, though commanded by Captain Barrett, and Bouton's battery. The former had retired for ammunition from McClernand's camp, probably to near McArthur's headquarters, but afterward evidently went near the river, where it received "1 lieutenant and 24 men with 3 horses" from Fitch's battery. Bouton's battery was taken into action in the field in front of McClernand's right about 4 o'clock, and was forced to retire,
its support helping to drawn off its guns. Both the battery and the support went back toward the river, for in the advance next morning the support is found on McClernand's left, and the battery was brought into service with McCook in the afternoon. Sherman had no artillery with him on Monday until about 10 o'clock. Major Taylor then brought up three pieces of an Illinois battery under Lieutenant Wood, not belonging to Sherman's command. The final retreat from McClernand's seventh position, Sunday evening, undoubtedly carried with it all of the fragments connected with Sherman near McArthur's headquarters, along the road toward the river, where I found him about dark, excepting Birge's sharp-shooters, the 13th Missouri, and the 43d Illinois. The latter belonged to McClernand's Third Brigade, but remained with the 13th Missouri Sunday night. After crossing Tillman's Creek next morning, both were brought into line on McClernand's left, and did not form with Sherman, though the 13th Missouri subsequently joined him.
My own observation as to the position and extent of General Grant's line accords substantially with the evidence of the reports. In the dusk of the evening after the close of the engagement on Sunday, I walked out with my chief-of staff, following the road and the line of the troops. My object was to gain information by which to determine the formation of my divisions, and I not only observed all that I could see at such an hour, but I made inquiry as I passed along. I came to Hurlbut's left five hundred yards from the river; I passed along its front and came to troops that answered as McClernand's, and which I supposed at the time to constitute his division, but which were probably his First Brigade only; I passed to the front of these troops, and when I turned in toward the road again, I came upon Sherman's line, as it happened not far from where he was, and I was conducted to him. It was then growing dark. I judge the distance to have been about three-quarters of a mile from the river - less than half a mile from Hurlbut's
left, and I think now that it was near the camp of Colonel Sweeny's regiment, the 52d Illinois, that I found General Sherman.
The impression made upon my mind by that interview has remained as vivid the circumstances were peculiar. I had no thought of seeing General Sherman when I set out, but on every score I was glad to meet him, and I was there to gain information. By what precise words I sought and he gave it, I would not pretend at this day to repeat. It is sufficient for the present to say that I learned the nature of the ground in front; that his right flank was some three hundred yards from us; and that the bridge by which Lew Wallace was to cross Snake Creek was to his right and rear at an angle, as he pointed, of about forty degrees. I do not know now that it was a mile and a quarter from his flank, and that he did not cover it in any practical sense, though in advancing Wallace would approach by his right and rear. I also see now that I was mistaken in supposing that these several commands retained a regular organization and had distinct limits; where was they were in fact much intermixed.
Of course we talked of other incidental matters. In all his career he has, I venture to say, never appeared to better advantage. There was the frank, brave soldier, rather subdued, realizing the critical situation in which causes of some sort, perchance his own fault chiefly, had placed him, but ready, without affection or bravado, to do anything that duty required of him. He asked me what the plans were for the morrow. I answered that I was going to attack the enemy at daylight, and he expressed gratification at my reply, though apparently not because of any unmixed confidence in the result. I had had no consultation with General Grant, and knew nothing of his purpose. I presumed that we would be in accord, but I had been only a few hours within the limiity, and I did not look upon him as my commander, though I would zealously have obeyed his orders. General Sherman allowed me to take with me the map of which a fac-simile accompanies this article [page 496]. I never imagined that in the future it would have the interest which now attaches to it, and after the battle it was laid aside and forgotten.
Within two years after that meeting, quite contrary opinions developed themselves between General Sherman and myself concerning the battle of Shiloh, and his Memoirs give a different account of the interview above described. He says that he handed the map to my engineer-officer, Captain
Michler, who, in fact, was not present, and complains that it was never returned to him. He says that I grumbled about the stragglers, and that he feared I would not bring my army across the river. One would suppose that his fears would have been allayed by the fact that, at that very moment, my troops were arriving and covering his front as fast as legs and steamboats could carry them. In the execution of the retreat described in the reports of McClernand and Sherman, from the west to the east side of Tillman's Creek, there was a quite thorough disintegration of divisions and brigades, lacking nothing but the pressure of a vigorous pursuit to convert it into a complete rout. In its seventh position, McClernand's division recovered some force and preserved a recognized organization occurred, as has already been stated, at an earlier period. In Hildebrand's brigade it was almost coincident with the enemy's first assault. With McDowell's it commenced with the unsuccessful attempt to form line of battle along the Purdy road, and was complete very soon after 1 o'clock; and these two brigades never recovered their aggregation again until after the battle. With Buckland's brigade also it occurred at the miscarriage at the Purdy road about 10 o'clock, but it was not so thorough as in the other brigades - at least it was afterward partially repaired during the first day, as his report explains. He says, after the retreat from his camp about 10 o'clock:
"We formed line on the Purdy road, but the fleeing mass from the left broke through our lines, and many of our men caught the infection and fled with the crowd. Colonel Cockerill became separated from Colonel Sullivan and myself, and was afterward engaged with part of his command at McClernand's camp. Colonel Sullivan and myself kept together, and made every effort to rally our men, but with very poor success. They had become scattered in all directions. We were borne considerably to the left, but finally succeeded in forming a line, and had a short engagement with the enemy, who made his appearance soon after our line was formed. The enemy fell back, and we proceeded to the road where you [General Sherman] found us. At this point I was joined by Colonel Cockerill, and we there formed line of battle and slept on our arms Sunday night. Colonel Sullivan, being out of ammunition, marched to the landing for a supply, and while there was ordered to support a battery at that point."
It is only after a close examination of the records that we can understand the full significance of the following passage in General Sherman's report:
"In this position we rested for the night. My command had become decidedly of a mixed character. Buckland's brigade was the only one with me that retained its organization. Colonel Hildebrand was personally there, but his brigade was not. Colonel McDowell has been severely injured by a fall from his horse, and had gone to the river, and the three regiments of his brigade were not in line. The 13th Missouri, Colonel Crafts J. Wright, had reported to me on the field, and fought well, retaining its regimental organization, and it formed part of my line during Sunday night and all of Monday; other fragments of regiments and companies had also fallen into my division, and acted with it during the remainder of the battle."
It thus appears that from about 1 o'clock until the time when General Sherman found Colonel Buckland with two regiments on the road from the bridge to the landing, not a single regiment of his division excepting Cockerill's, and not one prominent individual representative of it excepting that officer and
Colonel Hildebrand, was present with him. The only body of troops besides Cockerill's regiment having any recognized organization was the 13th Missouri, which belonged to another division. All the rest were squads or individual stragglers. In all the official reports, not a regiment or part of a regiment is described as being with him at this juncture or for several hours before. Of the 9 regiments that composed the 3 brigades under his immediate command at the church, only 5 rendered reports, and 3 of these were from Buckland's brigade. The division did not exist except in the person of its commander. Such is the story of the official reports.The number of men present could not have been large. Less than 1000, including Buckland's 2 regiments after they were found, would have told the number that lay on their arms in Sherman's ranks on Sunday night.
This explains the close relation of McClernand and Sherman during the last five hours of Sunday, and the identitiences. General Sherman has nothing to report of his own command distinctively. Everything is conjunctive and general as between McClernand and himself. "We held this position, General McClernand and myself acting in perfect concert." "General McClernand and I, on consultation, selected a new line." "We fell back as well as we could." "The enemy's cavalry charged us, and was handsomely repulsed." General McClernand's account of this incident has been quoted on a preceding page. When Colonel Hildebrand lost his brigade, it is not with General Sherman that he is identified, but with McClernand, on whose staff he served part of the day. Hildebrand seems to have been active, but not under the direction of his division commander. "About 3 o'clock," he says, "I assumed command of a regiment already formed of fragmentary regiments. I marched in a north-western direction, where I aided a regiment of sharp-shooters in defeating the enemy in an attempt to flank our rear." This movement was evidently made from McClernand's and Sherman's seventh position, and the troops assisted were Birge's sharp-shooters. General Sherman makes no mention of this significant if not important occurrence. His right flank was threatened, and the regiment if sharp-shooters posted in the field near McArthur's headquarters met, and, in conjunction with Hildebrand's temporary regiment, repelled the danger.
We have in the official reports a good clew to the condition of McClernand's division also. It was in a far better state. It was shattered and worn, but it was represented by at least some recognized following of regiments and brigades. One of the brigades had five hundred men, and another, the commander reports, was "merely nominal," not long before McClernand took up his seventh position. In the last collision, on of the brigades became entirely separated from the division, and did not return to it until after the battle. Fifteen hundred, exclusive of that brigade, would cover the number of men that rested that night under McClernand's colors.
Hurlbut's division was in a somewhat better condition than either of the others. Its loss in killed and wounded was greater than McClernand's, but it had not, like the latter, been affected in its organization by oft-repeated shocks sustained in a cramped and embarrassing position, and his command
had received some accessions from the driftings of other divisions. The estimate which he makes of his force is wholly fallacious. It could not have stood on the space which he occupied. There may have been two thousand me in his line on the night of the 6th. The three divisions, if they may be so called, and Tuttle's command, with Birge's sharp-shooters on the extreme right,and the reserve artillery on the left, which, according to General Grant's report, consisted of "four 20-pounder Parrott guns and a battery of rifled guns," constituted the line of battle, which extended a mile from the river. Five thousand men occupied it. Other partially organized fragments were crowded together about the river and the camps on the plateau, and with proper effort could have been fitted for good service; but no steps to that end were taken. The defect in the command that opened the way for the disaster, facilitated its progress at every step - the want of a strong executive hand guided by a clear organizing head. Some of these fragmentary commands sought places for themselves in the advance next day. The remnant of the Second Division under Colonel Tuttle was one of these. Indeed, it deserves a higher name. It presented itself to me on the field without orders, and rendered efficient service with my divisions. There may have been 1500 or 2000 men of these unrecognized commands that went to the front on Monday without instructions. Seven thousand men at the utmost, besides Lew Wallace's 500, were ready Sunday night to take part in the struggle which was to be renewed in the morning. Of the original force, 7000 were killed or wounded, 3000 were prisoners, at least 15,000 were absent from the ranks and hopelessly disorganized, and about 30 pieces of artillery were in the hands of the enemy.
The physical condition of the army was an exact type of its moral condition. The ties of discipline, not yet of long enough duration or rigidly enough enforced to be very strong, were in much the largest part of the army thoroughly severed. An unbroken tide of disaster had obliterated the distance between grades, and brought all men to the standard of personal qualities. The feeble groups that still clung together were held by force of individual character more than by discipline, and a disbelief in the ability of the army unaided to extricate itself from the peril that environed it, was, I do not hesitate to affirm, universal. In my opinion, that feeling was shared by the commander himself. A week after the battle the army had not recovered from its shattered and prostrated condition. On the 14th, three days after Halleck's arrival, he instructed Grant: "Divisions and brigades should, where necessary, be reorganized and put in position, and all stragglers returned to their companies and regiments. Your army is not now in condition to resist an attack." We are told that the enemy had stragglers too. Yes, every cause which demands effort and sacrifice will have them; but there is a difference between the straggling which is not restrained by the smile of fortune, and that which tries to elude the pursuit of fate - it is the difference between victory and defeat. The Confederates in their official reports make no concealment of their skeletons, but when the time for action arrived they were vital bodies, and, on Sunday, always in sufficient force to do the work at last.
General McClernand, it will have been observed, ascribes the breaking up of his seventh position to a panic among the troops, but the other reports show a different reason. Colonel Veatch on McClernand's left says:
"Our men were much encouraged by the strength of our position, and our fire was telling with terrible effect. Our forces were eager to advance and charge him [the enemy], when we were surprised by his driving back the whole left wing of our army, and advancing close to our rear near General Hurlbut's headquarters. A dense mass of baggage wagons and artillery crowded upon our ranks, while we were exposed to a heavy fire of the enemy both in front and rear."
General Hurlbut thus describes the crisis at that stage of the battle:
"I had hoped to make a stand on the line of my camp, but masses of the enemy were pressing rapidly on each flank, while their light artillery was closing rapidly in the rear. On reaching the 24-pounder siege-guns in battery near the river, I again succeeded in forming line of battle in rear of the guns."
We see here that there was a stern cause for the falling back. It was the tide of defeat and pursuit from the left wing of the army, and was compulsory in the strictest sense. How fortunate that it did not set in an hour earlier, and strike in flank the disorganization material of the right wing as it struggled across the ravines of Tillman's Creek! How more than fortunate that the onward current of the victor was obstructed still an hour longer by the unyielding tenacity of the remaining regiments of Wallace and Prentiss! From the self-assuring interview in which, according to one of General Sherman's reminiscences, it was "agreed that the enemy had expended the furor of his attack" at 4 o'clock, and General Grant told the "anecdote of his Donelson battle," that officer was aroused by the renewal of the din of the strife, and made his way to the river through the disorganized throng of his retreating army. While those mutual felicitations were in progress, the enemy, a mile to the left, was disarming and marching six captured regiments to the rear. Thus disembarrassed, his furor revived, and manifested itself at last at the very landing. What worse state of affairs then this could have existed when at noon General Grant wrote: "If you will get upon the field, leaving all your baggage on the east bank of the river it will be a move to our advantage, and possibly save the day to us"?
Under the circumstances here described, General Grant and General Sherman have said that reenforcements other than Lew Wallace's division were in nowise necessary at the close of the first day, and that, without reference to them, General Grant would have assumed the offensive and defeated the Confederate army next morning. Those who study the subject attentively will find no ground to accept that declaration as regards either the purpose or the result. The former indeed presents an intangible question which it would seem to be useless to discuss. At the time it is alleged to have been entertained, the reenforcements were actually at hand, and their presence gives to the announcement the semblance of a vain boast, which could never have been put to the test of reality. That with the reenforcements from my army, General Grant confidently expected that the enemy would be defeated the following day, it is impossible to doubt; but it was not known, Sunday night, that the enemy had withdrawn from our immediate front, and the
evidence establishes that General Grant had not determined upon or had not promulgated a plan of action in the morning. Not an order was given or a note of preparation sounded for the struggle which, with or without his assistance, was to begin at daybreak. To my certain knowledge, if words and actions were not wholly misleading, General Sherman, when I saw him for battle, and if he had such instructions he did not obey them. His report sustains the impression which I derived from our interview. "At daylight on Monday," he says, "I received General Grant's orders to advance and recapture our original camps." Then only it was that he dispatched several members of his staff to bring up all the men they could find. Is that the way in which General Sherman would have acquitted himself of the obligation of orders received the day before to engaged in battle? I answer unhesitatingly, No! The reports of the other division commanders are to the same effect. General McClernand says: "Your [General Grant's] order of the morning of the 7th for a forward movement," etc. The hour of the delivery of this order is indicated approximately by the following passage in the report of Colonel Marsh:
"At daylight on Monday morning the men in line were supplied with some provisions. While this was being done firing opened on our right, afterwards ascertained to come from a portion of General Lew Wallace's command. Directly afterwards, firing commenced to our left and front, both artillery and musketry, supposed by me to be a portion of General Buell's command, who, I had been informed during the night, had taken position on our left and considerably in advance. I now received orders from General McClernand to throw out skirmishers and follow with my whole command."
We must presume that General McClernand proceeded to the execution of General Grant's order as soon as it was received, which must then have been after the commencement of the battle in front of Nelson.
General Hurlbut says: "On Monday, about 8 A. M., my division was formed in line close to the river-bank, and I obtained a few crackers for my men. About 9 A. M. I was ordered by General Grant to move up to the support of General McClernand." Colonel Tuttle, commanding the Second Division, acted without any orders. He says: "On Monday morning I collected all of the division that could be found, and such other detached regiments as volunteered to join me, and formed them in column by battalion closed in mass as a reserve for General Buell." The action of General Lew Wallace was not the result of orders, but proceeded from his own motion on discovering the enemy in his front at daylight across Tillman's Hollow. While that action was in progress, General Grant came up and gave Wallace "the direction of his attack." Nelson had been in motion an hour, and was sharply engaged before these orders were given.
General Grant's official reports of the battle are in accord with the subordinate reports upon this question. In his first telegraphic announcement of the battle to General Halleck, he says:
"Yesterday the rebels attacked us here with an overwhelming force, driving our troops in from their advanced position to near landing. General Wallace was immediately ordered up
from Crump's Landing, and in the evening, one division of General Buell's army and General Buell in person arrived. During the night one other division arrived, and still another to-day. This morning, at the break of day, I ordered an attack, which resulted in a fight, which continued until late this afternoon, with severe loss on both sides, but a complete repulse of the enemy. I shall follow tomorrow far enough to see that no immediate renewal of an attack is contemplated."
In his more detailed report of April 9th he says:
"During the night [Sunday] all was quiet, and feeling that a great moral advantage would be gained by becoming the attacking party, an advance was ordered as soon as day dawned. The result was a gradual repulse of the enemy at all parts of the line from morning until probably 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when it became evident that the enemy was retreating. Before the close of the action the advance of General T. J. Wood's division arrived in time to take part in the action. My force was too much fatigued, from two days' hard fighting and exposure in the open air to a drenching rain during the intervening night, to pursue immediately. Night closed in cloudy and with heavy rain, making the roads impracticable for artillery by the next morning. General Sherman, however, followed the enemy, finding that the main part of the army had retreated in good order."
Several points worthy of note present themselves in these dispatches
General Grant. There is still, at the close of the second day, the
impression of the enemy's overwhelming force, which the day before he
"estimated at over
one hundred thousand men." He felt on Monday, after the arrival of
to the number of 25,000 fresh troops, that "a great moral advantage
be gained by becoming the attacking party." There was, then, a question
his mind, namely, to attack, or to await attack; it was necessary to
all the advantages, moral and physical; he concluded to secure the
at least, and accordingly gave the order, not on Sunday, but on Monday
break of day," to attack. The severity of the contest on Monday is
in both dispatches; it was of such a nature as to prevent an immediate
which at any rate he would only make the next morning after the battle,
enough to see that no immediate renewal of the attack was contemplated.
pursuit was made on that plan, and found "that the main part of the
had retreated in good order." If the fact were not duly authenticated,
would wonder whether these dispatches were actually written by an
years afterward, said with boastful assurance over his own signature, "Victory was assured when wallace arrived with his division of 5000 effective veterans, even if there had been no other support!"
With this tedious but necessary review of the results of the first day, I take up the story of the second.
THE engagement was brought on, Monday morning, not by General Grant's order, but by the advance of Nelson's division, along the River road in line of battle, at the first dawn of day, followed by Crittenden's division in column. The enemy was encountered at 5:20 o'clock, and a little in advance of Hurlbut's camp Nelson was halted while Crittenden came into line on his right. By this time the head of McCook's division came up and was formed on the right of Crittenden. Before McCook's rear brigade was up the line moved forward, pushing back the enemy's light troops, until Nelson and Crittenden reached the very position occupied by Hurlbut, Prentiss, and W. H. L. Wallace at 4
o'clock the previous day, where the enemy was found in force. McCook was on the north side of the western Corinth road, and eventually swept across half of McClernand's camp and released his headquarters from the grasp of the enemy. The "Hornets' Nest" was in front of Crittenden's left brigade,and "the peach orchard" and the ground where Albert Sidney Johnston fell were in front of Nelson.
Without following the vicissitudes of the struggle in this part of the field, I enter with a little more detail, but still cursorily, upon the operations of Grant's troops, which have not been connectedly explained in any official report. The action here was commenced by Lew Wallace, one of whose batteries at half past 5 o'clock opened fire on the enemy, who was discovered on the high ground across Tillman's Hollow. There is some diversity of statement among the official reports as to the priority of artillery firing in front of Nelson and Wallace. Colonel Hovey, who was in immediate firing in front of Nelson and Wallace. Colonel Hovey, who was in immediate support of Wallace's battery, gives the priority to Nelson, while Colonel Marsh, who was half a mile farther to the left, gives it to Wallace. But this is unimportant. Nelson was in motion three-quarters of an hour before that time, and had been engaged with the enemy's light troops. The first artillery fire was from the enemy, Nelson at first having no artillery. Wallace's action was not yet aggressive, no orders having been given for his advance; but while the firing was in progress General Grant cam up, and gave him his "direction of attack, which was formed at a right angle with the river, with which at the time his line ran almost parallel." The enemy's battery and its supports having been driven from the opposite height by the artillery of Wallace, the latter moved his line forward about 7 o'clock, crossed the hollow, and gained the crest of the hill almost without opposition. "Here," he says, "as General Sherman's division, next on my left, had not made its appearance to support my advance, a halt was ordered for it to come up." Wallace was now on the edge of the large oblong field which was in front of the encampment of McClernand's right brigade.
The next of Grant's commands to advance was McClernand's. The orders to that effect have already been cited, and their execution is explained by Colonel Marsh, into whose brigade what was present of McClernand's division seems to have merged. He says:
"Moving steadily forward for half a mile, I discovered a movement of troops on the hill nearly a quarter of a mile in front. Dispatching scouts to ascertain who they were, they were met by a message from Colonel Smith, commanding a [the left] brigade of the Third Division [Wallace's], informing me that he would take position on the right and wait my coming up."
Sherman, it thus appears, was not yet in motion. Hurlbut moved out about 9 o'clock, and formed one brigade on McClernand's left.
When Lew Wallace advanced across Tillman's Hollow, followed next on the left by McClernand, the force opposed to him fell gradually back upon reenforcements beyond the field on the edge of which was the encampment of McClernand's First Brigade; the enemy's left then clinging a little to the bluffs of Owl Creek in that quarter, but yielding without a very stubborn resistance, chiefly because of McCook's vigorous pressure along the western Corinth road, until it fell into a general line running through the center of McClernand's camp, and nearly parallel with the Hamburg and Purdy road. This swinging back of the enemy's left, and the direction of the Own Creek bluffs, naturally caused a change in the direction of Wallace's front, until about 10 o'clock it faced south, at right angles to its direction in the beginning. A sharp artillery contest and some infantry fighting had been going on all the time. It was at 10 o'clock, according to Sherman's report, that McClernand formed line obliquely in rear of the camp of his First Brigade, to advance against the enemy's position. Here for the first time Sherman's division appears in the movement, from which its absence at an earlier period is mentioned by both McClernand and Wallace. The statement in General Sherman's report, in regard to its movements, is as follows:
"At daylight I received General Grant's orders to advance and recapture our original camps. I dispatched several members of my staff to bring up all the men they could find,
and especially the brigade of Colonel Stuart, which had been separated from the division all the day before; and at the appointed time the division, or, rather, what remained of it, with the 13th Missouri and other fragments, marched forward and reoccupied the ground on the extreme right of General McClernand's camp, where we attracted the fire of a battery located near Colonel McDowell's former headquarters. Here I remained patiently waiting for the sound of General Buell's advance upon the main Corinth road. About 10 A. M. the heavy firing in that direction and its steady approach satisfied me, and General Wallace being on our right flank with his well-conducted division, I led the head of my column to General McClernand's right, formed line of battle, facing south, with Buckland's brigade directly across the ridge, and Stuart's brigade on its right in the woods, and thus advanced slowly and steadily under a heavy fire of musketry and artillery."
The contest thus inaugurated in and around McClernand's camp involved the whole of Grant's available force and McCook's division of the Army of the Ohio, and continued with great violence form 10 until 4 o'clock. The significant facts connected with it are, the narrowness of the space covered by the interior divisions, - McClernand's, Hurlbut's, and Sherman's, - the lapping over them by McCook, so as to form, in fact, a connection with the division of Wallace on the extreme right, and the decisive part ascribed to McCook's division in that part of the field in the reports of McClernand, Wallace, and Sherman. General McClernand says:
"Here one of the severest conflicts ensued that occurred during the two days. We drove the enemy back ... to the edge of a field ... where reserves came to his support. Our position at this moment was most critical, and a repulse seemed inevitable; but fortunately the Louisville Legion, forming part of General Rousseau's brigade, came up at my request and succored me. Extending and strengthening my line, this gallant body poured into the enemy's ranks one of the most terrible fires I ever witnessed. Thus breaking its [his] center, it [he] fell back in disorder, and thenceforth he was beaten at all points."
Wallace mentions particularly an important service rendered to the left of his division at a crisis in its operations, by one of McCook's regiments.
Colonel McGinnis, of the 11th Indiana, whose regiments was on Wallace's extreme left, describes this incident as follows:
"At 2:30 o'clock I discovered that the Federal forces on our left were falling back and the rebels advancing, and that they were nearly in rear of our left flank. I immediately notified you [the brigade commander] of their position, changed front with our left wing, opened our fire upon them, and sent to you for assistance. During this the most trying moment to us of the day, I received your order to fall back if it got too hot for us... . Fortunately and much to our relief, at this critical moment the 32d Indiana, Colonel Willich, came upon our left, and with their assistance the advancing enemy was compelled to retire."
General Sherman says:
"We advanced until we reached the point where the Corinth road crosses the line of McClernand's camp, and here I saw for the first time the well-ordered and compact columns of General Buell's Kentucky forces, whose soldierly movements at once gave confidence to our newer and less-disciplined forces. Here I saw Willich's regiment advance upon a point of water-oaks and thicket, behind which I knew the enemy was in great strength, and enter it in beautiful style. Then arose the severest musketry fire I ever heard, which lasted some twenty minutes, when this splendid regiment had to fall back. This green point of timber is about five hundred yards east of Shiloh Meeting House, and it was evident that here was to be struggle. The enemy could be seen forming his lines to the south... . This was about 2 o'clock P. M. Willich's regiment had been repulsed, but a whole brigade of McCook's division advanced beautifully, deployed, and entered this dreaded woods... . Rousseau's division advanced beautifully, deployed, and entered this dreaded woods... . Rousseau's brigade moved in splendid order steadily to the front, sweeping everything before it."
This occurred in front of Sherman, who was between McClernand and Wallace, for he says: "I ordered my Second Brigade ... to form on its right, and my Fourth Brigade, Colonel Buckland, on its right, all to advance abreast with this Kentucky brigade." Of the action of McCook's division, General Sherman further says; "I concede that General McCook's splendid division from Kentucky drove back the enemy along the Corinth road, which was the great central line of this battle."
The conclusion to be drawn from these several reports is that at this stage of the battle McCook's division reached across and practically connected the Army of the Ohio with Wallace's division, which formed the extreme right of Grant's force, and that its steady valor and effective service, not without the cooperation of McClernand's, Hurlbut's, and Sherman's commands, decided the issue of the conflict on that portion of the field. The result, however, was not brought about without the concurrence of decisive action at other points.
While the battle was going on in McClernand's camp, it raged with great fury from an earlier hour in front of Nelson and crittenden on the left, and vigorously but with less destin front of Wallace on the right. As soon as the enemy's right began to yield, the splendid batteries of Mendenhall and Terrill directed an enfilading fire upon the Confederate batteries playing fiercely upon McCook, and they were soon silenced. General Sherman ascribes that result to the action of two pieces of artillery to which he says he gave personal direction, but it is probable that he mistook the principal cause. A Confederate view of the contest in front of Nelson and Crittenden is seen in the report of Colonel Trabue, whose brigade at a certain stage of the battle (about 1 o'clock) was moved with Anderson's brigade to their right, in front of Crittenden. The report describes the conflict at this point as terrific, the ground being crossed and recrossed four times in the course of it. I refer to it, in some accounts of the battle it has erroneously been identified with McCook's front, where Trabue's brigade was first engaged.
Without going further into details in which the official reports abound, it may be sufficient to add briefly, that at 4 o'clock the flag of the Union floated again upon the line from which it had been driven the previous day, and General Grant's troops at once resumed their camps.
What more need be said? Must I sketch the scenes with twenty thousand of the soldiers of the Army of the Ohio left out of their place in the combat, as it is described by General Grant and his own officers? Shall I not, indeed, already have wearied the reader with the citation of evidence to substantiate a view of the case which unbiased intelligence is forbidden the deny?
But if the Army of the Ohio had not arrived, and General Grant had remained on the defensive, what then? Some of those who frankly acknowledge the reality of their discomfiture on Sunday, like now to believe with natural pride, the difficulties that beset them then being far in the past, that they would have been more successful the second day; and it has been argued that the withdrawal of the Confederates from their as on the night of the 6th threw doubt upon the final result. A newspaper interviewer has even said for General Grant that they were then
preparing to retreat. The inconsistency of that observation is evident. A general who stops to fight a fresh army is not likely to have had it in contemplation to flee before one that he had already defeated on the same ground. The published reports show that the withdrawal on Sunday night did not proceed from any faltering of the Confederate commander. On the contrary, he believed the victory to have been substantially won, and that the fruit would certainly be gathered the following day. His confidence in that respect was shared in the fullest manner by his entire army, backed by a particularly able body of high officers. All demanded to be led against the last position: not one doubted the result. We can imagine the effort such an army would have put forth when animated by such a spirit.
With the usual apologies for defeat on Monday, they rated their strength at 20,000 men, but, with the fruits of victory in view, it will be safe to say they would have brought at least 25,000 into action; and it has been claimed that 25,000, according to the Confederate method of computation, would have been equal to about 28,000 according to the Federal method. Their relative strength would have been materially increased by the large accession of captured cannon. They had also improved their condition by having exchanged their inferior arms for better ones which they had captured. Comparatively, the enemy was in a more efficient state then before the battle.
The Union ranks might have been swelled to 15,000 - not more. That force on such ground could not have ventured to cover a line of more than a mile - its left at the river, and its right near the ravines of Tillman's Creek. The high ground beyond the creek would have enfiladed it, and the ravines would have afforded a lodgment and shelter for the enemy. Dill's ravine on the left might also have proved an element of weakness, and though that flank could not be turned, the peculiar advantage of position that aided the Union troops on the left so much on Sunday, would not have existed on Monday - the field of action in front was a uniform wooded surface.
Nowhere in history is the profane idea that, in a fair field fight,
is on the side of the strongest
battalions, more uniformly sustained than in our Civil War. It presents no example some of the triumph of 15,000 or even 20,000 men against 25,000. If affords some such instances where the strongest force was surprised by rapid and unexpected movements, and still others where it was directed with a want of skill against chosen positions strengthened by the art of defense; but nowhere else. The weaker force is uniformly defeated or compelled to retire. In this case the missiles of the assailant would have found a target in the battle-line of the defense, and in the transportation and masses of stragglers crowded together about the landing. The height of the bluff would have rendered the gun-boats powerless; the example of Belmont could only have been partially repeated, if at all; the bulk of the defeated force must have laid down its arms. There are those who argue that General Grant's personal qualities were a guarantee for his triumph. That is a poor sort of logic, and thousands of patriotic citizens, not unfriendly to General Grant, would draw back in alarm from the contemplation of any contingency that would have deprived the Union cause of its superior numbers at more than one period of his career.
IN the usual extravagant newspaper dispatches from the field of battle, there was a statement of charges led by General Grant and his staff, which were assumed to have decided the fate of the day on Monday, or at least to have given a crowning touch to the victory. It would be a satire to reproduce that statement in its original form at this time. Its adoption, however, by various books and sketches, and especially the reference to such an incident by General Grant in his recent "Century" article [see page 465], makes it properly an object of inquiry. Such an act as leading a charge is a conspicuous incident rarely resorted to by the commander of an army. General Grant in some former newspaper interview is made to assume that General Sidney Johnston lost his life under such circumstances, from which he argues the failing fortune of the Confederate attack on Sunday. General Johnston'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 did not lose his life in that attack, and the most substantial success of the Confederates were achieved at a later hour. We likewise naturally look in the official reports for a circumstantial account of the charge said to have been led by General Grant, for no colonel of a regiment is likely to overlook the honor of having been led in a charge by the army.of Colonel Veatch of Hurlbut's division, there occurs the following passage: "Maj.-Gen. Grant now ordered me forward to charge the enemy. I formed my brigade in column of battalions, and moved forward in double-quick through our deserted camps and to the thick woods beyond our lines in pursuit of the retreating enemy, following until we were in advance 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 on the line toward which it was made, and understand its bearing. It does not answer the description of a charge led by General Grant, since he is not said to 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 saw two regiments of Government troops advancing in double-quick time across the open fields in our front, and saw that one of them was the 1st Ohio, which had been moved to our left to wait for ammunition. I galloped to the regiment and ordered it to halt, as I had not ordered the movement, but was informed that it was advancing by order of General Grant, whom I then saw in rear of the line with his staff. I ordered the regiment to advance with the other, which it did some two or three hundred yards farther, when it was halted, and a fire was opened upon it from one of our camps, then occupied by the enemy. The fire was instantly returned, and the 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 the description, since it appears that General Grant was not taken into the enemy's fire; and there is nothing in its which fills the definition of a charge. The professional soldier at least understands that the term implies something more serious than a movement of troops upon the field of battle, even at a rapid pace, in the presence of an enemy. But putting out of the question all
appropriate distinctions in the use of terms, there was nothing in the occasion or in these simple movements which promised any advantage, or entitled them to the slightest prominence. The enemy had retired from the last line, and was believed to be in retreat; but he had withdrawn in good order, and it is known that he halted a half-mile beyond, fully prepared to repel a careless pursuit. The topographical feature of larger fields and intervening woods, made the left and left-center of the battle-field more difficult for attack than the ground about McClernand's camp, as was illustrated by the battle of the previous day. The antagonists, except when in immediate contact, were kept at a greater distance apart, and were more screened from the observation of each other. The resistance, quelled for the moment, would be renewed unexpectedly by reenforcements or on a new line with increased vigor, and did not always allow the assailant to retain the advantage he had gained.
Nelson and Crittenden were working their way step by step over this difficult ground, when the cheers of victory commenced on the right where the enemy could be better observed. It was my misfortune to know nothing about the topography in front, and when at that moment the enemy on the left was found to be yielding readily to our advance, it was my mistake to suppose that the retirement was more precipitate and disordered than proved to be the case. On that supposition Nelson was ordered rapidly to the lower ford of Lick Creek, by which I supposed a part of the enemy had advanced and would retreat, and was thus out of position for the state of the case as it turned out. The last attack of Crittenden was made through thick woods, and his division had become a good deal scattered; but a brigade of Wood's division came up just then and was pushed forward on the eastern Corinth road. It soon came upon and engaged the enemy's skirmishers, and was attracting a flank fire from a battery a considerable distance off on the right. The orderly withdrawal of the enemy was now discovered, and indicated that a single brigade unsupported would be insufficient for a pursuit. Wood's brigade was therefore halted while its skirmishers occupied the enemy's cavalry, and orders were sent to McCook and Crittenden to form on the new line. Just at that moment a feeble column was seen to the right and rear of Wood's brigade, moving in a direction which would bring it into the flank fire of the enemy's artillery on the right. I therefore ordered it to order, or deeming perhaps that enough had been done for one day, it withdrew altogether, and, like the rest of Grant's troops, retired to its camp. Following the same example, and most probably with General Grant's authority, McCook's division had started to the river. Before these misconceptions could be corrected, and my divisions got into position, night came on, and the time for a further forward movement passed for the day. Indeed, while my troops were being called up, I received from General Grant, who had retired to the landing, the following letter:
"HEADQUARTERS DIST. OF W. TENN., PITTSBURG, April 7,
MAJOR-GENERAL D. C. BUELL, GEN.:
When I left the field this evening, my intention was to occupy the most advanced
position possible for the night, with the infantry
engaged through the day, and follow up our success with cavalry and
fresh troops expected
to arrive during my last absence on the field. The great fatigue of our
- they having been engaged in two days' fight, and subject to a march
and a fight to-day - would preclude the idea of making any advance
without the arrival of the expected reenforcements. My plan, therefore,
be to feel out in the morning, with all the troops on the outer lines,
our cavalry force can be organized (one regiment of your army will
crossing soon), and a sufficient artillery and infantry support to
them are ready for a move. Under the instructions which I have
received, and a dispatch also of to-day from Major-General Halleck, it
not then do to advance beyond Pea Ridge, or some point which we can
and return in a day. General Halleck will probably be here himself
Instructions have been sent to the division commanders not included in
command, to be ready in the morning either to find if an enemy was in
or to advance.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
U. S. GRANT, Major-General Commanding."
This letter implies the hypothesis expressed also in General Grant's dispatch of the same evening to General Halleck, that the enemy might still be in our front with the intention of renewing the attack. I make no comment on that point further than to contract it with the latter pretensions with which the battle has been reviewed by General Grant and his friends. The idea is again indicated in his orders to his division commanders on the 8th:
"I have instructed Taylor's cavalry to push out the road toward Corinth to ascertain if the enemy have retreated... . Should they be retreating, I want all the cavalry to follow them."
Something in the same vein, which I would by no means be understood as dwelling upon censoriously, is seen in a dispatch of the next day to Halleck.
"I do not" [he says] "like to suggest, but it appears to me that it would be demoralizing upon our troops here to be forced to retire upon the opposite bank of the river, and unsafe to remain on this many weeks without large reenforcements."
The passage is chiefly noteworthy as showing that the fault of Shiloh was not in an excess of rashness or contempt for the adversary, and that the lesson of the occasion had not yet pointed out a means of security other than in reenforcements or retreat. The introduction of the evidence is not to be ascribed to any motive of disparagement. It is entirely pertinent to the subject under consideration.
General Grant has recently admitted that a pursuit ought to have been made, and vaguely intimates that somebody else than himself was responsible that it was not done. The reason given in his letter to me is, of course, insufficient. General McCook may have told him that his men were hungry and tired; but if the order had been issued, both McCook and his troops would cheerfully have shown how much tired and hungry soldiers can do when an emergency demands it. If General Grant meant to imply that I was responsible that the pursuit was not made, I might perhaps answer t tot the chief officer in command will determine the course to be pursued at such a juncture, when he is immediately upon the ground; but I inwardly imposed upon myself the obligation of employing the army under my command as though the whole duty of the occasion rested upon it. There was no doubt in my mind or hesitation in my conduct as to the propriety of continuing the action, at least as long as the enemy
was in our presence, as I considered him still to be; and I make no attempt to excuse myself or blame others when I say that General Grant's troops, the lowest individual among them not more than the commander himself, appear commander himself, appear to have thought that the object of the battle was sufficiently accomplished when they were reinstated in their camps; and that in some way that idea obstructed the reorganization of my line until a further advance that day became impracticable.
MUCH harsh criticism has been passed upon General Lew Wallace for having failed to reach the field in time to participate in the battle on Sunday. The naked fact is apt to be judged severely, and the reports made a year afterward by General Grant's staff-officers - the report of Colonel Rawlins especially -- are calculated to increase the unfavourable impression. But some qualification of that evidence must be made, on account of the anxiety produced in the minds of those officers by their peculiar connection with the exciting circumstances of the battle. The Statement of Rawlins is particularly to be received with reservation. They found Wallace on a different road from the one by which they expected him, and assumed that he was wrongfully there. Rawlins pretends to give the words of a verbal order that would have taken him to a different place. Wallace denies that version of the order, and the circumstances do not sustain it. [See page 607.] He was
on the road to and not far from the upper ford of Owl Creek, which would have brought him on the right flank of the Federal line, as it was in the morning, and as he presumed it still to be. It would have been at least an honest if not a reasonable interpretation of the order, that took him to a point where the responsibility and danger were liable to be greatly increased. The impression of Major Rowley, repeated more strongly by General Grant in his "Century" article, that when found he was farther from the battle-field than when he started, the map shows to have been incorrect. The statement of Rawlins, that he did not make a mile and a half an hour, is also not correct of the whole day's march. He actually marched nearly 15 miles in six hours and a half. That is not particularly rapid marching, but it does not indicate any loitering. At the same time it must be said that, under the circumstances, the manner in which the order was given to Wallace is liable to unqualified disapproval, both as it concerned the public interest and the good name of the officer.
To these qualifying facts it must be added that a presumption of honest endeavor is due to Wallace's character. He did good service at Donelson, and at Shiloh on the 7th, and on no other occasion have his zeal and courage been impugned. The verdict must perhaps remain that his action did not respond to the emergency as it turned out, but that might fall far short of a technical criminality, unless under a more austere standard of discipline than prevailed at that, or indeed at any other period of the war. If he had moved energetically after McPherson and Rawlins arrived and informed him of the urgency of the occasion, no just censure could be cast upon his conduct. The reports of those officers imply that he did not do so; but McPherson, who was more likely to be correct, is least positive on that point. It would probably be easy in any of the armies to point to similar examples of a lack of ardent effort which led to grave disappointment without being challenged, and to many more that would have been attend with serious consequences if any emergency had arisen. It was a defect in the discipline which it was not possible at that time to remedy completely.
WHEN this article was urged upon me by the recent revival of the discussion, I was advised by friends in whose judgement I have great confidence, to write an impersonal account of the battle. The idea was perfectly in harmony with my disposition, but a moment's reflection showed me that it was impracticable. It would ignore the characteristics which have made the battle of Shiloh the most famous, and to both sides the most interesting of the war. The whole theme is full of personality. The battle might be called, almost properly, a personal one. It was ushered in by faults that were personal, and the resistance that prolonged it until succor came was personal. This does not pretend to be a history of it, but only a review of some of the prominent facts which determined its character and foreshadowed its result. Even this fragmentary treatment of the subject would be incomplete without a revision of the roll of honor. The task is not difficult, for the evidence is not meager or doubtful. It says of McClernand, that, crippled at the start by
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 gallantry and long with varying fortune to keep back the columns of the enemy; and though he failed in that, he was still able to present an organized nucleus which attracted the disrupted elements of other divisions: of Hurlbut, that he posted the two brigades under his immediate command, not in the strongest manner at first, but with judgment to afford prompt shelter to the defeated division of Prentiss, and maintained his front with some serious reverses to his left flank, for 7 hours and until his left was turned, with a greater list of mortality than any other division sustained: of W. H. L. Wallace, that, never dislodged, he sacrificed his life in a heroic effort with Prentiss, that with the rawest troops in the army his vigilance gave the earliest warning of the magnitude of the danger, and offered a resolute resistance to its approach; that, though overwhelmed and broken in advance, he rallied in effective force on the line of Hurlbut and Wallace, and firmly held his ground until completely surrounded and overpowered: and of Sherman, that he, too, strove bravely, but from an early hour with a feeble and ineffective force, to stay the tide of disaster for which his shortcoming in the position of an advanced guard was largely responsible; but it discloses no fact to justify the announcement of General Halleck that he "saved the fortune of the day on the 6th." On the contrary it shows, that, of all the division commanders, not one was less entitled to that distinction. This will be a strange and may seem like a harsh utterance to many readers, but it is the verdict of the record. The similar indorsement of General Grant a year later, that "he held the key-point to the landing," is equally 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 left where the attack was strongest and the resistance longest maintained.
Into the list of brave men in the inferior grades - captains and even lieutenants who for the moment led the wrecks of regiments and brigades, and field-officers who represented brigades and divisions, and who poured out their lives on the field or survived its carnage -- I cannot here pretend to enter, though it is a most interesting chapter in the battle.
And of Grant himself -- is nothing to be said? The record is silent and tradition adverse to any marked influence that he exerted upon the fortune of the day. The contemporaneous and subsequent newspaper accounts of personal adventure are alike destitute of authenticity and dignity. If he could have done anything in the beginning, he was not on the ground in time. The determining act in the drama was completed by 10 o'clock. From Sherman's report and later reminiscences we learn that he was with that officer about that hour, and again, it would seem, at 3 and 5 o'clock, and he was with Prentiss between 10 and 11; but he is not seen anywhere else in front. We read of some indefinite or unimportant directions given without effect to straggling bodies of troops in rear. That is all. But he was one of the many there who would have resisted while resistance could avail. That is all that can be said, but it is an honorable record.
AIRDRIE, Kentucky, June, 1885.
THE SKIRMISHING IN SHERMAN'S FRONT.
Robert W. Medkirk, of Co. E, 72d Ohio Vols., wrote, March 22d, 1886, from Indianapolis, Ind.:
"On Friday afternoon, April 4th, two days before the battle of Shiloh, while our regiment of Buckland's brigade was drilling on the west side of Rea Creek [see map, page 502], about a mile from our camp, rapid firing was heard from the direction of our brigade pickets, from the 70th Ohio, Colonel Cockerill. Our commander Major Crockett, was conversing with Colonel Buckland, who soon rode rapidly in the direction of the firing. Major Crockett ordered the regiment to double-quick toward the outposts. When we arrived at the picket post, we found that it had been captured. Major Crockett, with part of our regiment, started in pursuit of the enemy. In a little while a soldier came back, out of breath, and asked that the rest of the regiment be sent, to the major's aid. Then we heard the roar of artillery, and felt that the enemy was there in force. Colonel Cockerill sent an orderly back to camp, with orders for the 70th Ohio to hurry out to the front. The remainder of our regiment pushed on to the assistance of Major Crockett. After wandering in the woods for a time, night came on, and we returned to the outpost. There we found the 70th Ohio, and General Sherman with them. The general was enraged at what he designated indiscreet conduct, and ordered us all back to camp. That portion of the 72d Ohio which had been with Major Crockett came straggling in. Then it was that we learned of the capture of the major and eight men.
"The next day, Saturday, my company, "E," and Company "C" constituted the brigade picket. We were stationed on the east side of the Howell farm [see page 502]. All day the enemy kept in our front. We fired on them frequently, but they did not return the fire until toward evening, when they had a brush with a squadron of the 5th Ohio Cavalry. Late Saturday afternoon, a Confederate officer with his staff rode up on a knoll on the west side of the Howell farm, and with his glass began to take observations; in a few minutes we opened fire on them and they rode rapidly away. To show that no serious attack was expected, a detail from Colonel Buckland's brigade worked all day Saturday, April 5th, building two bridges in front of Buckland's brigade, one over the east branch of Oak Creek and one over the west branch of Rea Creek, which bridges were used by the enemy to cross their artillery on Sunday, after our brigade fell back from its first line."
General Sherman's report of the affair of April 4th to Grant's headquarters, written on the 5th, says: "I infer that the enemy is in some considerable force at Pea Ridge," or Monterey, about eight miles from Shiloh Church.- EDITORS.
THE OPPOSING FORCES AT SHILOH.
The composition, losses, and strength of each army as here stated give the gist of all the data obtainable in the Official Records. K stands for killed; w for wounded; m w for mortally wounded; m for captured or missing; c for captured.
THE UNION ARMY.
ARMY OF THE TENNESSEE.- Brigadier-General Ulysses S. Grant.
FIRST DIVISION, Major-Gen. John A. McClernand. Staff loss: w, 2.
First Brigade, Col. A. M. Hare (w), Col. M. M. Crocker: 8th Ill., Capt. James M. Ashmore (w), Capt. William H. Harvey (k), Capt. R. H. Sturgess; 18th Ill., Major Samuel Eaton (w), Capt. Daniel H. Brush (w), Capt. William J. Dillon (k), Capt. J. J. Anderson; 11th Iowa, Lieut.-Col. William Hall; 13th Iowa, Col. Marcellus M. Crocker; Battery D, 2d Ill. Artillery, Capt. James P. Timony. Brigade loss: k, 104; w, 467; m, 9 = 580. Second Brigade, Col. C. Carroll Marsh: 11th Ill., Lieut.-Col. T. E. G. Ransom (w), Major Garrett Nevins (w), Capt. Lloyd D. Waddell, Major Garrett Nevins; 20th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Evan Richards (w), Capt. Orton Frisbie; 45th Ill., Col. John E. Smith; 48th Ill., Col. Isham N. Haynie (w), Maj. Manning Mayfield. Brigade loss: k, 80; w, 475; m, 30 = 585. Third Brigade, Col. C. Carroll Marsh: 17th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Enos P. Wood, Maj. Francis M. Smith; 29th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Charles M. Ferrell; 43d Ill., Lieut.-Col. Adolph Engelmann; 49th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Phineas Pease; Company Ill. Cavalry, Capt. E. Carmichael. Brigade loss: k, 96; w, 393; m, 46 = 535. Unattached: Stewart's Co. Ill. Cav., Lieut. Ezra King; D. 1st Ill. Artillery, Capt. Edward McAllister (w); E, 2d Ill. Artillery, Lieut. George L. Nispel; 14th Ohio Battery, Capt. J. B. Burrows (w). Unattached loss: k, 5; w, 35 = 40.
SECOND DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. W. H. L. wallace (m w), Col. James M. Tuttle. Staff loss: w, 1.
First Brigade, Col. James M. Tuttle: 2d Iowa, Lieut.-Col. James Baker; 7th Iowa, Lieut.-Col. James C. Parrott; 12th Iowa, Col. Joseph J. Woods (w), Capt. Samuel R. Edgington; 14th Iowa, Col. William T. Shaw. Brigade loss: k, 39; w, 143; m, 676 - 858. (A number of the captured or missing were also wounded.) Second Brigade, Brig.-Gen. John McArthur (w), Col. Thomas Morton: 9th Ill., Col. August Mersy; 12th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Augustus L. Chetlain, Capt. James R. Hugunin; 81st Ohio, Col. Thomas Morton; 13th Mo., Col. Crafts J. Wright; 14th Mo. (Birge's Sharp-shooter), Col. B. S. Compton. Brigade loss: k, 99; w, 470; m, 11 = 580. Third Brigade, Col. Thomas W. Sweeny (w), Col. Silas D. Baldwin: 8th Iowa, Col. James L. Geddes (w and c); 7th Ill., Maj. Richard Rowett; 50th Ill., Col. Moses M. Bane (w); 52d Ill., Col. Silas D. Baldwin, Lieut.-Col. F. J. Hurlbut; 58th Ill., Col. William F. Lynch (c). Brigade loss: k, 127; w, 501; m, 619 = 1247. (A number of the captured or missing were also wounded.) Cavalry: C, 2d, and I, 4th U. S., Lieut. James Powell; A and B, 2d Ill., Capt's John R. Hotaling and Thomas J. Larrison. Cavalry loss: k, 1; w, 5 = 6. Artillery: A, 1st Ill., Lieut. Peter P. Wood; D, 1st Mo., Capt. Henry Richardson; H, 1st Mo., Capt. Frederick Welker; K, 1st Mo., Capt. George H. Stone. Artillery loss: k, 4; w, 53 = 57.
THIRD DIVISION, Major-General Lew Wallace.
First Brigade, Col. Morgan L. Smith: 11th Ind., Col. G. F. McGinnis; 24th Ind., Col. Alvin P. Hovey; 8th Mo., Lieut.-Col. James Peckham. Brigade loss: k, 18; w, 114 = 132. Second Brigade, Col. John M. Thayer: 23d Ind., Col. W. L. Sanderson; 1st Neb., Lieut.-Col. William D. McCord; 56th Ohio (at Crump's Landing), Col. Peter Kinney; 58th Ohio, Col. Valentine Bausenwein. Brigade loss: k, 20; w, 99; m, 3 = 122. Third Brigade, Col. Charles Whittlesey: 20th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Manning F. Force; 68th Ohio (at Crump's Landing), Col. S. H. Steedman; 76th Ohio, Col. Charles R. Woods; 78th Ohio, Col. M. D. Leggett. Brigade loss: k, 2; w, 32; m, 1 = 35. Artillery: 9th Ind. Battery, Capt. N. S. Thompson; 1st Mo., Lieut. Charles H. Thurber. Artillery loss: I, 1st Mo., Lieut. Charles H. Thurber. Artillery loss: k, 1; w, 6 = 7. Cavalry: 3d Battalion, 11th Ill., Maj. James F. Johnson; 3d Battalion, 5th Ohio, Maj. C. S. Hayes.
FOURTH DIVISION, Brig-Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut.
First Brigade, Col. N. G. Williams (w), Col. Isaac C. Pugh: 28th Ill., Col. A. K. Johnson; 32d Ill., Col. John Logan (w); 41st Ill., Col. Isaac C. Pugh, Lieut.-Col. Ansel Tupper (k), Maj. John Warner, Capt. John H. Nale; 3d Iowa, Maj. William M. Stone (c), Lieut. G. W.
Crosley. Brigade loss: k, 112; w, 532; m, 43 = 687. Second Brigade, Col. James C. Veatch: 14th Ill., Col. Cyrus Hall; 15th Ill., Lieut.-Col. E. F. W. Ellis (k), Capt. Louis D. Kelley, Lieut., Col. William Cam; 46th Ill., Col. John A. Davis (w), Lieut.-Col. John J. Jones; 25th Ind., Lieut.-Col. William H. Morgan (w), Maj. John W. Foster. Brigade loss: k, 130; w, 492; m, 8 = 630. Third Brigade, Brig.-Gen. Jacob G. Lauman: 31st Ind., Col. Charles Cruft (w), Lieut.-Col. John Osborn; 44th Ind., Col. Hugh B. Reed; 17th Ky., Col. John H. McHenry, Jr.; 25th Ky., Lieut.-Col. B. H. Bristow, Maj. Wm. B. Wall (w), Col. John M. McHenry, Jr. Brigade loss: k, 70; w, 384; m, 4 = 458. Cavalry: 1st and 2d Battalions, 5th Ohio, Col. W. H. H. Taylor. Loss: k, 1; w, 6 = 7. Artillery: 2d Mich. Battery, Lieut. C. W. Laing; Mann's Mo. Battery, Lieut. Edward Brotzmann; 13th Ohio Battery, Capt. John B. Myers. Artillery Loss: 13th Ohio Battery, Capt. John B. Myers. Artillery loss: k, 4; w, 27; m, 56 - 87.
FIFTH DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. William T. Sherman (w).
Staff loss: w, 1.
First Brigade, Col.John A. McDowell: 40th Ill., Col. Stephen G. Hicks (w), Lieut.-Col. James W. Boothe; 6th Iowa, Capt. John Williams (w), Capt. Madison M. Walden; 46th Ohio, Col. Thomas Worthington; 6th Ind. Battery, Capt. Frederick Behr (k). Brigadier loss: k, 137; w, 444; m, 70 = 651. Second Brigade, Col. David Stuart (w), Lieut.-Col. Oscar Malmborg (temporarily), Col. T. Kilby Smith: 55th Ill., Lieut.-Col. Oscar Malmborg; 54th Ohio, Col. T. Kilby Smith, Lieut.-Col. James A. Farden; 71st Ohio, Col. Rodney Mason. Brigade loss: k, 80; w, 380; m, 90 - 550. Third Brigade, Col. Jesse Hildebrand: 53d Ohio, Col. J. J. Appler, Lieut.-Col. Robert A. Fulton; 57th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Americus V. Rice; 77th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Wills De Hass, Maj. Benjamin D. Fearing. Brigade loss; k, 70; w, 222; m, 65 = 356. Fourth Brigade, Col.Ralph Buckland: 48th Ohio, Col. Peter J. Sullivan (w), Lieut.-Col. Job R. Parker; 70th Ohio, Col. Joseph R. Cockerill; 72d Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Herman Canfield (k), Col. Ralph P. Buckland. Brigade loss: k, 36; w, 203; m, 74 = 313. Cavalry: 1st and 2d Battalions, 4th Ill., Col. T. Lyle Dickey. Cavalry loss; w, 6. Artillery, Maj. Ezra Taylor: B, 1st Ill., Capt. Samuel E. Barrett; E, 1st Ill., Capt A. C. Waterhouse (w), Lieut. A. R. Abbott (w), Lieut. J. A. Fitch. Artillery loss: k, 2; w, 22 = 24.
SIXTH DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Benjamin M. Prentiss (c). Staff loss; k, 1; m, 2 = 3.
First Brigade, Col. Everett Peabody (k): 112th Mich., Col. Francis Quinn; 21st Mo., Col. David Moore (w), Lieut.-Col. H. M. Woodyard; 25th Mo., Col. Robert T. Van Horn; 16th Wis., Col. Benjamin Allen (w). Brigade loss; k, 113; w, 372; m, 236 = 721. Second Brigade, Col. Madison Miller (c): 61st Ill., Col. Jacob Fry; 16th Iowa, Col. Alexander Chambers (w), Lieut.-Col. A. H. sanders; 18th Mo., Lieut.-Col. Isaac V. Pratt (c). Brigade loss: k, 44; 2, 228; m, 178 = 450. Cavalry: 11th Ill. (8 co's), Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. Cavalry loss: k, 3; w, 3 = 6. Artillery: 1st Minn. Battery, Capt. Emil Munch (w), Lieut. William Pfaender; 5th Ohio Battery, Capt. A. Hickenlooper. Artillery loss: k, 4; w, 27 = 31. Unattached Infantry: 15th Iowa, Col. Hugh T. Reid; 23d Mo., Col. Jacob T. Tindall (k), Lieut.-Col. Quin Morton (c); 18th Wis., Col. James S. Alban (k). Loss Unattached Infantry: k, 71; w, 298; m, 592 = 961. (Some of the captured or missing  of this division were also wounded.]
UNASSIGNED TROOPS: 15th Mich., Col. John M. Oliver; 14th Wis., Col. David E. Wood; H, 1st Ill., Artillery, Capt. Axel Silfversparre; I, 1st Ill. Artillery, Capt. Edward Bounton; B, 2d Ill. Artillery, Capt. Relly Madison; F, 2d Ill. Artillery, Capt. John W. Powell (w); 8th Ohio Battery, Capt. Louis Markgraf. Loss unassigned troops: k, 39; w, 159; m, 17 = 215. The total loss of the Army of the Tennessee was 1513 killed, 6601 wounded, and 2830 captured or missing = 10,944.
ARMY OF THE OHIO - Major-General Don Carlos Buell.
SECOND DIVISION. Brig.-Gen. Alexander McD. McCook. Fourth Brigade, Brig., Gen. Lovell H. Rousseau: 6th Ind., Col. Thomas T. Crittenden; 5th Ky., Col. H. M. Buckley; 1st Ohio, Col. B. F. Smith; 1st Battalion, 15th U. S. (Capt. Peter T. Swaine), and 1st Battalion, 16th U. S. (Capt. Edwin F. Townsend), Major John H. King; 1st Battalion, 19th U. S., Maj. S. D. Carpenter. Brigade loss: k, 28; w, 280; m, 3 = 311. Fifth Brigade, Col. Edward N. Kirk (w): 34th Ill., Maj. Charles N. Levanway (k), Capt. Hiram W. Bristol; 29th Ind., Lieut.-Col. David M. Dunn; 30th Ind., Col. Sion S. Bass (m w), Lieut.-Col. Joseph B. Dodge; 77th Pa., Col. Fred. S. Stubmaugh. Brigade loss: k, 24; w, 310; m, 2 - 346. Sixth Brigade, Col. William H. Gibson: 32d Ind., Col. August Willich; 39th Ind., Col. Thomas J. Harrison; 15th Ohio, Maj. William Wallace; 49th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Albert M. Blackman. Brigade loss: k, 25; w, 220; m, 2 = 247. Artillery: H. 5th U. S., Capt. William R. Terrill. Artillery loss: k, 1; w, 13 = 14.
FOURTH DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Willian Nelson.
Tenth Brigade, Col. Jacob Ammen: 36th Ind., Col. William Grose; 6th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Nicholas L. Anderson; 24th Ohio, Lieut.-Col. Frederick C. Jones. Brigade loss: k, 16; w, 106; m, 8 = 130. Nineteenth Brigade, Col. William B. Hazen: 9th Ind., Col. Gideon C. Moody; 6th Ky., Col. Walter C. Whitaker; 41st Ohio, Lieut.-Col. George S. Mygatt. Brigade loss: k, 48; w, 357; m, 1 = 406. Twenty-second Brigade, Col. Sanders, D. Bruce: 1st Ky., Col. David A. Enyart; 2d Ky., Lieut.-Col. Charles S. Hanson. Brigade loss: k, 29; w, 138; m, 11 = 178. Cavalry: 2d Ind. (not actively engaged), Lieut.-Col. Edward M. McCook. FIFTH DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Thomas L. Crittenden.
Eleventh Brigade, Brig.-Gen. Jeremiah T. Boyl: 9th Ky., Col. Benjamin C. Grider; 13th Ky., Col. Edward H. Hobson; 19th Ohio, Col. Samuel Beatty; 59th Ohio, Col. James P. Fyffe. Brigade loss: k, 33; w, 212; m, 18 = 263. Fourteenth Brigade, Col. William Sooy Smith: 11th Ky., Col. Pierce B. Hawkins; 16th Ky., Lieut.-Col. Cicero Maxwell; 13th Ohio Lieut.-Col. Joseph G. Hawkins. Brigade loss: k, 25; w, 157; m, 10 = 192. Artillery: G, 1st Ohio, Capt. Joseph Bartlett; H and M, 4th U. S., Capt John Mendenhall. Artillery loss: k, 2; w, 8 = 10. Cavalry: 3d Ky. (not actively engaged), Col. James S. Jackson.
SIXTH DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Thomas J. Wood.
Twentieth Brigade, Brig.-Gen. James A. Garfield: 13th Mich., Col. Michael Shoemaker; 64th Ohio, Col. John Ferguson; 65th Ohio, Col. Charles G. Harker. Twenty-first Brigade, Col. George D. wagner: 15th Ind., Lieut.-Col. Gustavus A. Wood; 40th Ind., Col. John W. Blake; 57th Ind., Col. Cyrus C. Hines; 24th Ky., Col. Lewis B. Grisby. Brigade loss: w, 4.
The total loss of the Army of the Ohio was 241 killed, 1807 wounded, and 55 captured or missing = 2103.
The grand total of Union loss was 1754 killed, 8408 wounded, and 2885 captured or missing = 13,047.
The only official statement of Grant's strength at Shiloh is on page 112, Vol. X., "Official Records," which is compiled from division returns of April 4th and 5th, and shows (exclusive of two regiments and one battery not reported), an aggregate, "present for duty," of 44,895. Included, however, in these figures are such non-combatants as medical officers, quartermasters, chaplains, musicians, hospital stewards, buglers, etc., etc. Deducting from the total above given the "present for duty" of Lew Wallace's division (7564), leaves 37,331 as the "present for duty" (combatant and non-combatant) in Grant's army on the morning of April 6th. The actual number of effectives is nowhere officially reported, nor do the "Official Records" afford any information as to the number of effectives is nowhere officially reported, nor do the "Official Records" afford any information as to the number of men brought by Buell to Grant's assistance. General Buell speaks in a general way of "25,000 reenforcemens," including "Lew Wallace's 5000." General Grant says: "At Shiloh, the effective strength of the Union forces on the morning of the 6th was 33,000 men. Lew Wallace brought 5000 more after nightfall... . Excluding the troops who fled, panic-stricken, before they had fired a shot, there was not a time during the 6th when we had more than
25,000 men in line. On the 7th Buell brought 20,000 more (Nelson's, Crittenden's, and McCook's divisions). Of his remaining two divisions Thomas's did not reach the field during the engagement; Wood's arrived before firing had ceased, but not in time to be of much service." General M. F. Force, in "From Fort Henry to Corinth" (Charles Scribner's Sons), says: "The reenforcements of Monday numbered, of Buell's army about 25,000; Lew Wallace's 6500; other regiments about 1400." General Lew Wallace says in his report that his command "did not exceed 500 men of all arms."
THE CONFEDERATE ARMY.
ARMY OF THE MISSISSIPPI.- General Albert Sidney Johnston (k). General G. T. Beauregard.
FIRST ARMY CORPS.- Major Gen. Leonidas Polk.
FIRST DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Charles Clark (w), Brig.-Gen. Alexander P. Stewart. Staff loss: w, 1.
First Brigade, Col. R. M. Russell: 11th La., Col. S. F. Marks (w), Lieut.-Col. Robert H. Barrow; 12th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. T. H. Bell, Major R. P. Caldwell; 13th Tenn., Col. A. J. Vaughan, Jr.; 22d Tenn., Col. T. J. Freeman (w); Tenn. Battery, Capt. Smith P. Bankhead. Brigade loss: k, 97; w, 512 = 609. Second Brigade, Brig. Gen. Alexander P. Stewart: 13th Ark., Lieut.-Col. A. D. Grayson, (k), Major James A. McNeely (w), Col. J. C. Tappan; 4th Tenn., Col. R. P. Neely, Lieut.-Col. Q. F. Strahl; 5th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. C. D. Venable; 33d Tenn., Col. Alexander W. Campbell (w); Miss. Battery, Capt. T. J. Stanford. Brigade loss: k, 93; w, 421; m, 3 = 517.
SECOND DIVISION, Major-Gen. B. F. Cheatham (w). Staff loss: w, 1.
First Brigade, Brig.-Gen. Bushrod R. Johnson (w), Col. Preston Smith (w): Blythe's Miss., Col. A.K. Blythe (k), Lieut.-Col. D. L. Herron (k), Major James Moore; 2d Tenn., Col. J. Knox Walker; 15th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. R. C. Tyler (w), Major John F. Hearn; 15th Tenn. (senior), Col. Preston Smith, Lieut.-Col. Marcus J. Wright; Tenn. Battery, Capt. Marshall T. Polk (w). Brigade loss: k, 120; w, 607; m, 13 = 740. Second Brigade, Col. William H. Stephens, Col. George Maney: 7th Ky., Col. Charles Wickliffe (m. w) Lieut.-Col. W. D. Lannom; 1st Tenn. (Battalion), Col. George Maney, Major H. R. Field; 6th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. T. P. Jones, Col. W. H. Stephens; 9th Tenn., Col. H. L. Douglass; Miss. Battery, Capt. Melancthon Smith. Brigade loss: k, 75; w, 413; m, 3 = 491. Cavalry: 1st Miss., Col. A. J. Lindsay; Miss. and Ala. Battalion, Lieut.-Col. R. H. Brewer. Cavalry loss: k, 5; w, 12; m, 2 = 19. Unattached: 47th Tenn., Col. M. R. Hill.
SECOND ARMY CORPS, Major-Gen. Braxton Bragg. Escort: Alabama Cavalry, Capt. R. W. Smith.
FIRST DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ruggles. First Brigade, Col. Randall L. Gibson: 1st Ark., Col. James F. Fagan; 4th La., Col. H. W. Allen (w), Lieut.-Col. S. E. Hunter; 13th La., Major A. P. Avegno (m w), Capt. S. O'Leary (w), Capt. E. M. Dubroca; 19th La., Col. Benjamin L. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. M. Hollingsworth. Brigade loss: k, 97; w, 488; m, 97 = 682. Second Brigade, Brig.-Gen. Patton Anderson: 1st Fla. Battalion, Major T. A. McDowell (w), Capt. W. G. Poole, Capt. W. C. Bird; 17th La., Lieut.-Col. Charles Jones (w); 20th La., Col. August Reichard; 9th Texas, Col. W. A. Stanley; Confederate Guards Response Battalion, Major Franklin H. Clack; 5th Company Washington (La.) Artillery, Capt. W. I. Hodgson. Brigade Loss: k, 69; w, 313; m, 52 = 434. Third Brigade, Col. Preston Pond, Jr.: 16th La., Ma. Daniel Gober; 18th La., Col. Alfred Mouton (w), Lieut.-Col. A. Roman; Crescent (La.) Regt., Col. Marshall J. Smith; Orleans Guard Battalion, Major Leon Querouze (w); 38th Tenn., Col. R. F. Looney; Ala. Battery, Capt. Wm. H. Ketchum. Brigade loss: k, 89; w, 336; m, 169 = 594. Cavalry: Ala. Battalion, Capt. T. F. Jenkins. Cavalry loss: k, 2; w, 6; m, 1 = 9.
SECOND DIVISION, Brig.-Gen. Jones M. Withers. First Brigade, Brig.-Gen. A. H. Gladden (m w), Col. Daniel W. Adams (w), Col. Z. C. Deas (w): 21st Ala., Lieut.-Col. S. W. Cayce, Maj. F. Stewart; 22d Ala., Col. Z. C. Deas, Lieut.-Col. John C. Marrast; 25th Ala., Col. J. Q. Loomis (w), Maj. George D. Johnston; 26th Ala., Col. J. G. Coltart
(w), Lieut.-Col. William D. Chadick; 1st La., Col. Daniel W. Adams, Maj. F. H. Farrar, Jr.; Ala. Battery, Capt. F. H. Roberston. Brigade loss: k, 129; w, 597; m, 103 = 829. Second Brigade, Brig.-Gen. James R. Chalmers: 5th Miss., Col. A. E. Fant; 7th Miss., Lieut.-Col. H. Mayson; 9th Miss., Lieut.-Col. William A. Rankin (m w); 10th Miss., Col. R. A. Smith; 52d Tenn., Col. B. J. Lea; Ala. Battery, Capt. Charles P. Gage. Brigade loss: k, 83; w, 343; m, 19 - 445. Third Brigade, Brig.-Gen. John K. Jackson: 17th Ala., Lieut.-Col. Robert C. Farris; 18th Ala., Col. Eli S. Shorter; 19th Ala., Col. Joseph Wheeler; 2d Tex., Col. John C. Moore, Lieut.-Col. W. P. Rogers, Maj. H. G. Runnels; Ga. Battery, Capt. I. P. Girardey. Brigade loss: k, 86; w, 364; m, 194 - 644.
THIRD ARMY CORPS, Maj.-Gen. Wm. J. Hardee (w). First Brigade, Brig.-Gen. T. C. Hindman (commanded his own and the Third Brigade), Col. R. G. Shaver: 2d Ark., Col. D. C. Govan, Maj. R. F. Harvey; 6th Ark., Col. A. T. Hawthorn; 7th Ark., Lieut.-Col. John M. Dean (k), Maj. James T. Martin; 3d Confederate, Col. John S. Marmaduke; Miss. Battery, Capt. Charles Swett. Brigade loss: k, 109; w, 546; m, 38 = 693. Second Brigade, Brig.-Gen. P. R. Cleburne: 15th Ark., Lieut.-Col. A. K. Patton (k); 6th Miss., Col. J. J. Thornton (w), Capt. W. A. Harper; 2d Tenn., Col. W. B. Bate (w), Lieut.-Col. D. L. Goodall; 5th Tenn., Col. Benn J. Hill; 23d Tenn., Lieut.-Col. James F. Neill (w); 24th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. Thomas H. Peebles; Ark. Batteries, Capts. J. T. Trigg and J. H. Calvert. Brigade loss: k, 188; w, 790; m, 65 = 1043. Third Brigade, Brig.-Gen. S. A. M. Wood, Col. W. K. Patterson (temporarily): 16th Ala., Lieut.-Col. J.W. Harris; 8th Ark., Col. W. K. Patterson; 9th Ark. (battalion), Maj. J. H. Kelly; 3d Miss. Battalion, Maj. A. B. Hardcastle; 27th Tenn., Col. Chris. H. Williams (k), Maj. Samuel T. Love (m w); 44th Tenn., Col. C. A. McDaniel; 55th Tenn., Col. James L. McKoin; Miss. Battery, Capt. W. L. Harper (w), Lieut. Put. Darden; Ga. Dragoons, Capt. I. W. Avery. Brigade loss: k, 107; w, 600; m, 38 - 745.
RESERVE CORPS, Brig.-Gen. John C. Breckinridge. First Brigade, Col. Robert P. Trabue: 4th Ala. Batt., Maj. J. M. Clifton; 31st Ala., Lieut.-Col. - Galbraith; 3d Ky., Lieut.-Col. Ben. Anderson (w); 4th Ky., Lieut.-Col. A. R. Hynes (w); 5th Ky., Col. Thomas H. Hunt; 6th Ky., Col. Joseph H. Lewis; Tenn. Battalion, Lieut.-Col. J. M. Crews; Ky. Battery, Capt. Edward P. Byrne; Ky. Battery, Capt. Robert Cobb. Brigade loss: k, 151; w, 557; m, 92 = 800. Second Brigade, Brig.-Gen. John S. Bowen (w), Col. John D. Martin: 9th Ark., Col. Isaac L. Dunlop; 10th Ark., Col. T. D. Merrick; 2d Confederate, Col. Lucius L. Rich; Miss. Battery, Capt. Alfred Hudson. Brigade loss: k, 98; w, 498; m, 28 = 624. Third Brigade, Col. W. S. Statham: 15th Miss.; 22d Miss.; 19th Tenn., Col. D. H. Cummings; 20th Tenn., Col. J. A. Battle (c); 28th Tenn.; 45th Tenn., Lieut.-Col. E. F. Lytle; Tenn. Battery, Capt. A. M. Rutledge. Brigade loss; k, 137; w, 627; 45 = 809.
TROOPS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FOREGOING LIST. Cavalry: Tenn. Regt., Col. N. B. Forrest (w); Ala. Regt., Col. James H. Clanton; Texas Regt., Col. John A. Wharton (w); Ky. Squadron, Capt. John H. Morgan. Artillery: Ark. Battery, capt. George T. Hubbard; Tenn. Battery, Capt, H. L. W. McClung.
The total Confederate loss, as officially reported, was 1728 killed, 8012 wounded, and 959 missing = 10,699.
According to a field return for April 3d, 1862 ("Official Records," Vol. X., 398), the effective strength of the Confederate forces that marched from Corinth was as follows: Infantry, 34,727; artillery, 1973; cavalry, 2073; -- or an aggregate of 38,773. The 47th Tennessee Regiment reached the field on the 7th with probably 550 men, making in all 39,323. Another return ("Official Records," Vol. X., 396) gives the following "effective total before the battle": Infantry and artillery, 35,953; cavalry, 4382, -- grand total, 40,335.