CHAP. V. four-bastioned fort commanding a bend of the

river, and a long line of intrenchments running from the river to an impassable bayou. It was defended by about five thousand men. Sherman commanded the right and Morgan the left of the Union army, while Porter in person directed the vigorous and effective attack of the fleet. After a sharp skirmish, during which Sherman got within a few hundred yards of the intrenchments, the white flag was displayed, and Sherman and Morgan at the two ends of the line rode into the enemy's works. An instant of confusion ensued, which might have led to awkward consequences, as General Thomas J. Churchill, commanding the place, asserted that he had not authorized the display of the white flag, and one of his subordinates on the left of the rebel lines refused at first to surrender; but, seeing the hopelessness of further resistance, Churchill ordered his troops to stack their arms, and the easy and valuable victory was complete. The Union loss was slight compared with the magnitude of the result accomplished.

The expedition remained three days to complete the destruction of the rebel works, and then, under Grant's orders, returned to Napoleon at the mouth Jan., 1863. of the Arkansas River on the 17th. McClernand had for a moment the intention to push his conquest further into Arkansas, but while planning this movement, his justifiable complacency over his victory was rudely dashed by a dispatch from Grant, written upon receiving the first announcement of the expedition, and in ignorance of its triumphant result, in which he peremptorily ordered McClernand to return to the Mississippi, at

Grant, Jan. 12, 1863. W. R.

Part II.,

p. 555.

the same time telegraphing Halleck that McCler- CHAP. V. nand had "gone on a wild goose chase to the Post of Arkansas," to which dispatch Halleck replied with that unfailing confidence and support with which the Government favored every movement and every request of Grant, "You are hereby author- Halleck to ized to relieve General McClernand from command of the expedition against Vicksburg, giving it to Vol. XVII., the next in rank, or taking it yourself." Even after Grant received the news of McClernand's complete success, his dislike and distrust of that general made it impossible for him to regard his conduct with approval or satisfaction. General Badeau says, "Lacking any confidence in McClernand's military judgment, and supposing that the plan emanated solely from that officer, he did not give it the same consideration it would have received had he known that Sherman first suggested the idea." The relations between the two generals were such that it was only a question of time when one of them must leave the service. McClernand answered Grant's dispatch in an angry letter contrasting his own success with Grant's failure in Mississippi, and the correspondence between them which opened in this inauspicious way continued in the same tone until six months later McClernand was relieved of his command.

Although it cannot be denied that it is not, as a rule, judicious to assign to a general in the field a subordinate who is distasteful to him, we cannot but think that too much has been made of this want of harmony between McClernand and Grant, so far as results are concerned. The order appointing McClernand to the command of the Vicksburg expedi

Badeau, "Military History of U. S. Grant."

Vol. I.,

p. 149.

СНАР. У.

tion was not carried into effect until after Sherman had made his attack and failed; and during the few days when McClernand exercised his independent command it was attended with the most brilliant possible success. It is useless to discuss the point whether he or his more famous subordinate deserved the credit of the victory of Arkansas Post. The practical fact is that McClernand at least did not prevent it. It was within the undoubted prerogative of the President and the Secretary of War to give command of an army corps to a general who largely by his own personal exertions had raised it and placed it in the field, and there has been more than enough talk among professional military writers about civilian interference in appointments to high command. This interference is not only authorized but commanded by the Constitution of the United States, which places these appointments in the hands of the civil government, and in a war carried on by thirty millions of free people the President who would entirely disregard popular, or, as some prefer to call it, political influences, would by that fact show himself incapable of understanding or properly executing the duties of his office. McClernand was not the only soldier in the Western army who owed his appointment to such considerations. Grant and Sherman themselves were constantly favored and protected by some of the most powerful statesmen in Congress. McClernand's fault was, not that he had been a politician, but that he did not become a good soldier; while Blair and Logan, who in civil life were more popular and more distinguished politicians than McClernand, as soon as they put on army

Grant, "Personal

uniform surpassed him equally in their thorough CHAP. V. obedience and subordination as generals. General Grant himself bore willing witness to the worth Memoirs." of Logan and Blair as soldiers.

If McClernand had been supported at Washington in his attitude of insubordination to his general, the results would, of course, have been as disastrous as such a course would have been ill-advised. But there never was the slightest disposition on the part of the President or the Secretary of War to encourage him in such a course. Grant was made, from beginning to end, the absolute arbiter in all matters affecting the administration of his army. In the order of the 18th of December, assigning McClernand to command, it was expressly stated that he was to be "under the direction" of Grant, and afterwards, at the first intimation of Grant's dissatisfaction with his subordinate, who had as yet, it must be said, done nothing to deserve it, the Government authorized him to relieve McClernand from command, leaving it optional with Grant to give it to Sherman or to take it himself, and this attitude the Government maintained until the last. At the beginning of the final campaign against Vicksburg the Secretary of War telegraphed : "General Grant has full and absolute authority to enforce his own commands, and to remove any person who, by ignorance, inaction, or any cause, interferes with or delays his operations. He has the full confidence of the Government; is expected to enforce his authority, and will be firmly and heartily supported; but he will be responsible for any failure to exert his powers. You may communicate this to him."

Vol. I., pp. 497, 573,

574.

1862.

Stanton to Dana, May 5, 1863. W. R. Vol.XXIV., Part L.,

p. 84.

CHAPTER VI

CHAP. VI.

TH

THE CAMPAIGN OF THE BAYOUS

HE most important result of the lack of harmony between Grant and McClernand was that the former, not wishing to use the authority given him to relieve McClernand of the command of the expedition against Vicksburg in favor of Sherman, his junior, determined to take personal charge of it himself; a determination to which we owe one of the most brilliant and instructive chapters in all our annals. In accordance with orders from the War Department the army was divided into four corps numbered and commanded as follows: the Thirteenth by McClernand; the Fifteenth by Sherman; the Sixteenth by Hurlbut, and the Seventeenth by McPherson. General Grant lost no time in thoroughly completing this organization of his forces; but, in striking contrast to the conduct of some of our generals in the East, he did not spend an hour in mere drill and discipline, rightly believing that, with an army composed like that of the Tennessee, the active work of a campaign was the best possible school. Hurlbut's corps was left in charge of the line of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, and McPherson's was, as rapidly as possible, brought down the river to join