<h2>CHAPTER XXV.</h2>
</center>
<center>
<h3>STRUCK BY A BULLET—PRECIPITATE RETREAT OF THE CONFEDERATES—INTRENCHMENTS AT SHILOH—GENERAL BUELL—GENERAL JOHNSTON—REMARKS ON SHILOH.</h3>
</center>
<br/>
<p>During this second day of the battle I had been moving from
right to left and back, to see for myself the progress made. In the
early part of the afternoon, while riding with Colonel McPherson
and Major Hawkins, then my chief commissary, we got beyond the left
of our troops. We were moving along the northern edge of a
clearing, very leisurely, toward the river above the landing. There
did not appear to be an enemy to our right, until suddenly a
battery with musketry opened upon us from the edge of the woods on
the other side of the clearing. The shells and balls whistled about
our ears very fast for about a minute. I do not think it took us
longer than that to get out of range and out of sight. In the
sudden start we made, Major Hawkins lost his hat. He did not stop
to pick it up. When we arrived at a perfectly safe position we
halted to take an account of damages. McPherson's horse was panting
as if ready to drop. On examination it was found that a ball had
struck him forward of the flank just back of the saddle, and had
gone entirely through. In a few minutes the poor beast dropped
dead; he had given no sign of injury until we came to a stop. A
ball had struck the metal scabbard of my sword, just below the
hilt, and broken it nearly off; before the battle was over it had
broken off entirely. There were three of us: one had lost a horse,
killed; one a hat and one a sword-scabbard. All were thankful that
it was no worse.</p>
<p>After the rain of the night before and the frequent and heavy
rains for some days previous, the roads were almost impassable. The
enemy carrying his artillery and supply trains over them in his
retreat, made them still worse for troops following. I wanted to
pursue, but had not the heart 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. Although the senior in rank at
the time I had been so only a few weeks. Buell was, and had been
for some time past, a department commander, while I commanded only
a district. 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.</p>
<blockquote>[NOTE: In an article on the battle of Shiloh which I
wrote for the Century Magazine, I stated that General A. McD.
McCook, who commanded a division of Buell's army, expressed some
unwillingness to pursue the enemy on Monday, April 7th, because of
the condition of his troops. General Badeau, in his history, also
makes the same statement, on my authority. Out of justice to
General McCook and his command, I must say that they left a point
twenty-two miles east of Savannah on the morning of the 6th. From
the heavy rains of a few days previous and the passage of trains
and artillery, the roads were necessarily deep in mud, which made
marching slow. The division had not only marched through this mud
the day before, but it had been in the rain all night without rest.
It was engaged in the battle of the second day and did as good
service as its position allowed. In fact an opportunity occurred
for it to perform a conspicuous act of gallantry which elicited the
highest commendation from division commanders in the Army of the
Tennessee. General Sherman both in his memoirs and report makes
mention of this fact. General McCook himself belongs to a family
which furnished many volunteers to the army. I refer to these
circumstances with minuteness because I did General McCook
injustice in my article in the Century, though not to the extent
one would suppose from the public press. I am not willing to do any
one an injustice, and if convinced that I have done one, I am
always willing to make the fullest admission.]</blockquote>
<p>I rode forward several miles the day after the battle, and found
that the enemy had dropped much, if not all, of their provisions,
some ammunition and the extra wheels of their caissons, lightening
their loads to enable them to get off their guns. About five miles
out we found their field hospital abandoned. An immediate pursuit
must have resulted in the capture of a considerable number of
prisoners and probably some guns.</p>
<p>Shiloh was the severest battle fought at the West during the
war, and but few in the East equalled it for hard, determined
fighting. I saw an open field, in our possession on the second day,
over which the Confederates had made repeated charges the day
before, so covered with dead that it would have been possible to
walk across the clearing, in any direction, stepping on dead
bodies, without a foot touching the ground. On our side National
and Confederate troops were mingled together in about equal
proportions; but on the remainder of the field nearly all were
Confederates. On one part, which had evidently not been ploughed
for several years, probably because the land was poor, bushes had
grown up, some to the height of eight or ten feet. There was not
one of these left standing unpierced by bullets. The smaller ones
were all cut down.</p>
<p>Contrary to all my experience up to that time, and to the
experience of the army I was then commanding, we were on the
defensive. We were without intrenchments or defensive advantages of
any sort, and more than half the army engaged the first day was
without experience or even drill as soldiers. The officers with
them, except the division commanders and possibly two or three of
the brigade commanders, were equally inexperienced in war. The
result was a Union victory that gave the men who achieved it great
confidence in themselves ever after.</p>
<p>The enemy fought bravely, but they had started out to defeat and
destroy an army and capture a position. They failed in both, with
very heavy loss in killed and wounded, and must have gone back
discouraged and convinced that the "Yankee" was not an enemy to be
despised.</p>
<p>After the battle I gave verbal instructions to division
commanders to let the regiments send out parties to bury their own
dead, and to detail parties, under commissioned officers from each
division, to bury the Confederate dead in their respective fronts
and to report the numbers so buried. The latter part of these
instructions was not carried out by all; but they were by those
sent from Sherman's division, and by some of the parties sent out
by McClernand. The heaviest loss sustained by the enemy was in
front of these two divisions.</p>
<p>The criticism has often been made that the Union troops should
have been intrenched at Shiloh. Up to that time the pick and spade
had been but little resorted to at the West. I had, however, taken
this subject under consideration soon after re-assuming command in
the field, and, as already stated, my only military engineer
reported unfavorably. Besides this, the troops with me, officers
and men, needed discipline and drill more than they did experience
with the pick, shovel and axe. Reinforcements were arriving almost
daily, composed of troops that had been hastily thrown together
into companies and regiments—fragments of incomplete
organizations, the men and officers strangers to each other. Under
all these circumstances I concluded that drill and discipline were
worth more to our men than fortifications.</p>
<p>General Buell was a brave, intelligent officer, with as much
professional pride and ambition of a commendable sort as I ever
knew. I had been two years at West Point with him, and had served
with him afterwards, in garrison and in the Mexican war, several
years more. He was not given in early life or in mature years to
forming intimate acquaintances. He was studious by habit, and
commanded the confidence and respect of all who knew him. He was a
strict disciplinarian, and perhaps did not distinguish sufficiently
between the volunteer who "enlisted for the war" and the soldier
who serves in time of peace. One system embraced men who risked
life for a principle, and often men of social standing, competence,
or wealth and independence of character. The other includes, as a
rule, only men who could not do as well in any other occupation.
General Buell became an object of harsh criticism later, some going
so far as to challenge his loyalty. No one who knew him ever
believed him capable of a dishonorable act, and nothing could be
more dishonorable than to accept high rank and command in war and
then betray the trust. When I came into command of the army in
1864, I requested the Secretary of War to restore General Buell to
duty.</p>
<p>After the war, during the summer of 1865, I travelled
considerably through the North, and was everywhere met by large
numbers of people. Every one had his opinion about the manner in
which the war had been conducted: who among the generals had
failed, how, and why. Correspondents of the press were ever on hand
to hear every word dropped, and were not always disposed to report
correctly what did not confirm their preconceived notions, either
about the conduct of the war or the individuals concerned in it.
The opportunity frequently occurred for me to defend General Buell
against what I believed to be most unjust charges. On one occasion
a correspondent put in my mouth the very charge I had so often
refuted—of disloyalty. This brought from General Buell a very
severe retort, which I saw in the New York World some time before I
received the letter itself. I could very well understand his
grievance at seeing untrue and disgraceful charges apparently
sustained by an officer who, at the time, was at the head of the
army. I replied to him, but not through the press. I kept no copy
of my letter, nor did I ever see it in print; neither did I receive
an answer.</p>
<p>General Albert Sidney Johnston, who commanded the Confederate
forces at the beginning of the battle, was disabled by a wound on
the afternoon of the first day. This wound, as I understood
afterwards, was not necessarily fatal, or even dangerous. But he
was a man who would not abandon what he deemed an important trust
in the face of danger and consequently continued in the saddle,
commanding, until so exhausted by the loss of blood that he had to
be taken from his horse, and soon after died. The news was not long
in reaching our side and I suppose was quite an encouragement to
the National soldiers.</p>
<p>I had known Johnston slightly in the Mexican war and later as an
officer in the regular army. He was a man of high character and
ability. His contemporaries at West Point, and officers generally
who came to know him personally later and who remained on our side,
expected him to prove the most formidable man to meet that the
Confederacy would produce.</p>
<p>I once wrote that nothing occurred in his brief command of an
army to prove or disprove the high estimate that had been placed
upon his military ability; but after studying the orders and
dispatches of Johnston I am compelled to materially modify my views
of that officer's qualifications as a soldier. My judgment now is
that he was vacillating and undecided in his actions.</p>
<p>All the disasters in Kentucky and Tennessee were so discouraging
to the authorities in Richmond that Jefferson Davis wrote an
unofficial letter to Johnston expressing his own anxiety and that
of the public, and saying that he had made such defence as was
dictated by long friendship, but that in the absence of a report he
needed facts. The letter was not a reprimand in direct terms, but
it was evidently as much felt as though it had been one. General
Johnston raised another army as rapidly as he could, and fortified
or strongly intrenched at Corinth. He knew the National troops were
preparing to attack him in his chosen position. But he had
evidently become so disturbed at the results of his operations that
he resolved to strike out in an offensive campaign which would
restore all that was lost, and if successful accomplish still more.
We have the authority of his son and biographer for saying that his
plan was to attack the forces at Shiloh and crush them; then to
cross the Tennessee and destroy the army of Buell, and push the war
across the Ohio River. The design was a bold one; but we have the
same authority for saying that in the execution Johnston showed
vacillation and indecision. He left Corinth on the 2d of April and
was not ready to attack until the 6th. The distance his army had to
march was less than twenty miles. Beauregard, his second in
command, was opposed to the attack for two reasons: first, he
thought, if let alone the National troops would attack the
Confederates in their intrenchments; second, we were in ground of
our own choosing and would necessarily be intrenched. Johnston not
only listened to the objection of Beauregard to an attack, but held
a council of war on the subject on the morning of the 5th. On the
evening of the same day he was in consultation with some of his
generals on the same subject, and still again on the morning of the
6th. During this last consultation, and before a decision had been
reached, the battle began by the National troops opening fire on
the enemy. This seemed to settle the question as to whether there
was to be any battle of Shiloh. It also seems to me to settle the
question as to whether there was a surprise.</p>
<p>I do not question the personal courage of General Johnston, or
his ability. But he did not win the distinction predicted for him
by many of his friends. He did prove that as a general he was
over-estimated.</p>
<p>General Beauregard was next in rank to Johnston and succeeded to
the command, which he retained to the close of the battle and
during the subsequent retreat on Corinth, as well as in the siege
of that place. His tactics have been severely criticised by
Confederate writers, but I do not believe his fallen chief could
have done any better under the circumstances. Some of these critics
claim that Shiloh was won when Johnston fell, and that if he had
not fallen the army under me would have been annihilated or
captured. IFS defeated the Confederates at Shiloh. There is little
doubt that we would have been disgracefully beaten IF all the
shells and bullets fired by us had passed harmlessly over the enemy
and IF all of theirs had taken effect. Commanding generals are
liable to be killed during engagements; and the fact that when he
was shot Johnston was leading a brigade to induce it to make a
charge which had been repeatedly ordered, is evidence that there
was neither the universal demoralization on our side nor the
unbounded confidence on theirs which has been claimed. There was,
in fact, no hour during the day when I doubted the eventual defeat
of the enemy, although I was disappointed that reinforcements so
near at hand did not arrive at an earlier hour.</p>
<p>The description of the battle of Shiloh given by Colonel Wm.
Preston Johnston is very graphic and well told. The reader will
imagine that he can see each blow struck, a demoralized and broken
mob of Union soldiers, each blow sending the enemy more demoralized
than ever towards the Tennessee River, which was a little more than
two miles away at the beginning of the onset. If the reader does
not stop to inquire why, with such Confederate success for more
than twelve hours of hard fighting, the National troops were not
all killed, captured or driven into the river, he will regard the
pen picture as perfect. But I witnessed the fight from the National
side from eight o'clock in the morning until night closed the
contest. I see but little in the description that I can recognize.
The Confederate troops fought well and deserve commendation enough
for their bravery and endurance on the 6th of April, without
detracting from their antagonists or claiming anything more than
their just dues.</p>
<p>The reports of the enemy show that their condition at the end of
the first day was deplorable; their losses in killed and wounded
had been very heavy, and their stragglers had been quite as
numerous as on the National side, with the difference that those of
the enemy left the field entirely and were not brought back to
their respective commands for many days. On the Union side but few
of the stragglers fell back further than the landing on the river,
and many of these were in line for duty on the second day. The
admissions of the highest Confederate officers engaged at Shiloh
make the claim of a victory for them absurd. The victory was not to
either party until the battle was over. It was then a Union
victory, in which the Armies of the Tennessee and the Ohio both
participated. But the Army of the Tennessee fought the entire rebel
army on the 6th and held it at bay until near night; and night
alone closed the conflict and not the three regiments of Nelson's
division.</p>
<p>The Confederates fought with courage at Shiloh, but the
particular skill claimed I could not and still cannot see; though
there is nothing to criticise except the claims put forward for it
since. But the Confederate claimants for superiority in strategy,
superiority in generalship and superiority in dash and prowess are
not so unjust to the Union troops engaged at Shiloh as are many
Northern writers. The troops on both sides were American, and
united they need not fear any foreign foe. It is possible that the
Southern man started in with a little more dash than his Northern
brother; but he was correspondingly less enduring.</p>
<p>The endeavor of the enemy on the first day was simply to hurl
their men against ours—first at one point, then at another,
sometimes at several points at once. This they did with daring and
energy, until at night the rebel troops were worn out. Our effort
during the same time was to be prepared to resist assaults wherever
made. The object of the Confederates on the second day was to get
away with as much of their army and material as possible. Ours then
was to drive them from our front, and to capture or destroy as
great a part as possible of their men and material. We were
successful in driving them back, but not so successful in captures
as if farther pursuit could have been made. As it was, we captured
or recaptured on the second day about as much artillery as we lost
on the first; and, leaving out the one great capture of Prentiss,
we took more prisoners on Monday than the enemy gained from us on
Sunday. On the 6th Sherman lost seven pieces of artillery,
McClernand six, Prentiss eight, and Hurlbut two batteries. On the
7th Sherman captured seven guns, McClernand three and the Army of
the Ohio twenty.</p>
<p>At Shiloh the effective strength of the Union forces on the
morning of the 6th was 33,000 men. Lew. Wallace brought 5,000 more
after nightfall. Beauregard reported the enemy's strength at
40,955. According to the custom of enumeration in the South, this
number probably excluded every man enlisted as musician or detailed
as guard or nurse, and all commissioned officers—everybody
who did not carry a musket or serve a cannon. With us everybody in
the field receiving pay from the government is counted. 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. 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.</p>
<p>Our loss in the two days' fight was 1,754 killed, 8,408 wounded
and 2,885 missing. Of these, 2,103 were in the Army of the Ohio.
Beauregard reported a total loss of 10,699, of whom 1,728 were
killed, 8,012 wounded and 957 missing. This estimate must be
incorrect. We buried, by actual count, more of the enemy's dead in
front of the divisions of McClernand and Sherman alone than here
reported, and 4,000 was the estimate of the burial parties of the
whole field. Beauregard reports the Confederate force on the 6th at
over 40,000, and their total loss during the two days at 10,699;
and at the same time declares that he could put only 20,000 men in
battle on the morning of the 7th.</p>
<p>The navy gave a hearty support to the army at Shiloh, as indeed
it always did both before and subsequently when I was in command.
The nature of the ground was such, however, that on this occasion
it could do nothing in aid of the troops until sundown on the first
day. The country was broken and heavily timbered, cutting off all
view of the battle from the river, so that friends would be as much
in danger from fire from the gunboats as the foe. But about
sundown, when the National troops were back in their last position,
the right of the enemy was near the river and exposed to the fire
of the two gun-boats, which was delivered with vigor and effect.
After nightfall, when firing had entirely ceased on land, the
commander of the fleet informed himself, approximately, of the
position of our troops and suggested the idea of dropping a shell
within the lines of the enemy every fifteen minutes during the
night. This was done with effect, as is proved by the Confederate
reports.</p>
<p>Up to the battle of Shiloh I, as well as thousands of other
citizens, believed that the rebellion against the Government would
collapse suddenly and soon, if a decisive victory could be gained
over any of its armies. Donelson and Henry were such victories. An
army of more than 21,000 men was captured or destroyed. Bowling
Green, Columbus and Hickman, Kentucky, fell in consequence, and
Clarksville and Nashville, Tennessee, the last two with an immense
amount of stores, also fell into our hands. The Tennessee and
Cumberland rivers, from their mouths to the head of navigation,
were secured. But when Confederate armies were collected which not
only attempted to hold a line farther south, from Memphis to
Chattanooga, Knoxville and on to the Atlantic, but assumed the
offensive and made such a gallant effort to regain what had been
lost, then, indeed, I gave up all idea of saving the Union except
by complete conquest. Up to that time it had been the policy of our
army, certainly of that portion commanded by me, to protect the
property of the citizens whose territory was invaded, without
regard to their sentiments, whether Union or Secession. After this,
however, I regarded it as humane to both sides to protect the
persons of those found at their homes, but to consume everything
that could be used to support or supply armies. Protection was
still continued over such supplies as were within lines held by us
and which we expected to continue to hold; but such supplies within
the reach of Confederate armies I regarded as much contraband as
arms or ordnance stores. Their destruction was accomplished without
bloodshed and tended to the same result as the destruction of
armies. I continued this policy to the close of the war.
Promiscuous pillaging, however, was discouraged and punished.
Instructions were always given to take provisions and forage under
the direction of commissioned officers who should give receipts to
owners, if at home, and turn the property over to officers of the
quartermaster or commissary departments to be issued as if
furnished from our Northern depots. But much was destroyed without
receipts to owners, when it could not be brought within our lines
and would otherwise have gone to the support of secession and
rebellion.</p>
<p>This policy I believe exercised a material influence in
hastening the end.</p>
<p>The battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg landing, has been perhaps
less understood, or, to state the case more accurately, more
persistently misunderstood, than any other engagement between
National and Confederate troops during the entire rebellion.
Correct reports of the battle have been published, notably by
Sherman, Badeau and, in a speech before a meeting of veterans, by
General Prentiss; but all of these appeared long subsequent to the
close of the rebellion and after public opinion had been most
erroneously formed.</p>
<p>I myself made no report to General Halleck, further than was
contained in a letter, written immediately after the battle
informing him that an engagement had been fought and announcing the
result. A few days afterwards General Halleck moved his
headquarters to Pittsburg landing and assumed command of the troops
in the field. Although next to him in rank, and nominally in
command of my old district and army, I was ignored as much as if I
had been at the most distant point of territory within my
jurisdiction; and although I was in command of all the troops
engaged at Shiloh I was not permitted to see one of the reports of
General Buell or his subordinates in that battle, until they were
published by the War Department long after the event. For this
reason I never made a full official report of this engagement.</p>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<SPAN name="ch26" id="ch26"></SPAN>
<center>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />