--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "Will" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "josepharose"
> > I trust that you are not stating that Wallace was given no more
> > explicit instructions than that. Please, tell me where Grant
> > Wallace to go, and list the evidence which confirms that opinion.
> As stated above, Grant wished Wallace to march up the River Road
> Pittsburg Landing. This is the version given by all the actors at
> the sending end of the message: Grant, Rawlins, Rowley, Baxter,
I maintain that Wallace was ordered to the army's "right." That's
what he and his aides stated. In the ORs, Grant's aides also stated
that it was to the right--and not to the Landing, as you maintain--
that Wallace was ordered.
Rawlins: "You then directed me to return to the river and sent
Captain A. S. Baxter, assistant quartermaster, U. S. Volunteers, and
chief of the quartermaster's department in your district, on the
steamer Tigress, without delay, to Crump's Landing, with orders to
Major General Lewis Wallace to bring forward his division by the
River road to Pittsburg Landing to a point immediately in rear of
the camp of Major C. F. Smith's division, and there his column at
right angles with the river on the right of our lines and await
McPherson: "He informed me that when he came up from Savannah, at
7.30, he notified Major General Lewis Wallace, at Crump's Landing,
to hold his command in readiness to march at a moment's notice, and
that immediately on his arrival at Pittsburg Landing, finding that
the attack was in earnest and not a feint, he had sent Captain
Baxter, assistant quartermaster, with orders to him to move up
immediately by the River road and take a position on our right.
Shortly after this Captain Baxter returned, certainly not later than
10.30, and said that he had delivered the order."
Rowley: "Upon reaching the Landing General Grant immediately mounted
his horse and rode the bank, and after conversing a moment with some
officers turned to Captain Baxter, assistant quartermaster, and
ordered him to proceed immediately to Crump's Landing, and direct
General Wallace to march with his division up the river and into the
field on the right of our line as rapidly as possible."
Baxter: "I will give my own recollection of the event at Pittsburg
Landing. On Sunday, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'clock A. M.,
April 6th, 1862, Adjutant-General Rawlins, of General Grant's staff,
requested me to go to Crump's Landing (five miles below) and order
General Lew Wallace to march his command at once by the River Road
to Pittsburg Landing, and joint the army on the right."
Even Grant in his article wrote: "If the position of our front had
not changed, the road which Wallace took would have been somewhat
shorter to our right than the River road." He did not claim that
Wallace made a mistake by marching to Sherman's flank; Wallace's
only alleged mistake in this article is having marched past the
Therefore, how can you attempt to assert: "As stated above, Grant
wished Wallace to march up the River Road to Pittsburg Landing.
This is the version given by all the actors at the sending end of
the message: Grant, Rawlins, Rowley, Baxter, McPherson." You are
thoroughly contradicted by the evidence given by each of these men,
the aides in particular.
Furthermore, did Rowley explicitly mention the River Road as you
state that he did?
> > Wallace's "rear" was roughly to the north, as he was headed
> > I would think that the fighting was never to his rear even by
> > most liberal interpretation: that being any point behind a
> > perpendicular drawn from the line of movement.
> By this measure, which I think is a good one, the fighting would
> in his rear as he got near Snake Creek. The Shunpike heads in a
> westerly direction until it crosses Snake Creek. When Rowley
> up with him, Wallace's rear was faced back toward the Tennessee
> the firing was not coming from the direction he was heading.
No map which I have seen shows the Shunpike heading west, which you
claim it does as the Tennessee was to the east. Is there an on-line
map or other source to which you can refer me?
> > The order was seen by the aides. As the aides evidently made no
> > mention of the River Road, they would have not been telling the
> > truth if that is what the orders actually stated.
> That is not the only possibility. When their opinion on this
> was requested, it had been six years since they saw the order.
> had no surviving copy of the order to refer to. Do you remember
> perfectly things that you read in the spring of 1997?
I am pretty sure that if Grant's order mandated the use of the River
Road and Wallace's aides realized that day that Wallace disobeyed it-
-especially with all of the repercussions and the attention given to
this issue--they would remember it well enough.