Grant The Forgotten Hero

by Charles Henry Vessey

  Fuller was no kinder when he described Halleck like this: "he was a thorn in Grant's side--a cautious, witless pedant who had studied war, and imagined that adherence to certain strategical and tactical maxims constituted the height of generalship. It may be said, without fear of contradiction, that throughout the war Halleck was worth much more than the proverbial army corps to the Confederate forces."2

  This should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the person under whom Grant labored for so long a period of time.

  When Halleck assumed command of the Department of the Missouri, he ratified Fremont's judgment and left Grant in command of the district, but he did change the designation of Grant's command to the District of Cairo and enlarged it to include the forces of Paducah. This brought General C. F. Smith under Grant's administration. Smith was an accomplished officer in the regular army and Grant had known him since West Point, when Smith was Commandant of Cadets. He always felt in awe of Smith and was flattered to have so able a soldier in his command. Smith could best be described as a soldier's soldier. Halleck did not realize that bringing these two soldiers together was bound to spur forward action before long.

  Grant despised inactivity, but that is exactly what he experienced for the first couple of months under Halleck. He had foreseen the obvious route for the invasion of the South and his views had coincided with those of Fremont, but now he had a new commander who would take time to see where the opportunity lie.

  While he waited, the regular routine of district commander went on unabated. During the months of November and December, Grant faced a number of thorny issues including the fugitive slave issue. His position on the issue was reiterated throughout the war because he vehemently opposed aiding the enemy in any way. In a letter on this subject to a subordinate he wrote: "The slave who is used to support the master who supports the Rebellion is not to be restored to the master by military authority. If such a master has a civil right to reclaim such property he must resort to the civil authority to enforce that right. The general commanding does not feel it is his duty to feed the foe or in any manner contribute to their comfort."3

  Although Grant tried to deprive aid and comfort to the enemy, he had to abide by departmental orders. To Colonel Cook at Fort Holt he wrote the following: "I do not want the Army used as negro-catchers, but still less do I want to see it used as a cloak to cover their escape. No matter what our private views may be on this subject there are in this department positive orders on the subject and these orders must be obeyed. I direct therefore that you have a search made, and if you find these or any other fugitive slaves in camp at Fort Holt you have them expelled from Camp, and if hereafter you find any have been concealed or detained you bring the party so detaining them to punishment."4

  Another controversial issue Grant encountered during his time at Cairo was the horde of speculators which had gathered in the area hoping to do business with the government. Apparently one such group of speculators had conspired to obtain a monopoly on the government's wartime contracts because prices appeared to be exorbitant. Because all government vouchers issued in his district had to have his signature, he refused to sign the ones which appeared out of line. In one instance, Grant refused to sign a contract for forage even though it had already been endorsed by the proper authorities in St. Louis. When the fuming contractors exhibited this document to Grant he remained steadfast. "My reply to them was that they had got their contract without my consent, had got it approved against my sense of duty to the Government, and they might go on and deliver the forage and get their pay in the same way. I would not approve a voucher for them under that contract if they never got a cent. Hoped they would not. This forced them to abandon the contract and to sell the forage already delivered for what it was worth."5 Grant always placed principle above expedience.

  The following example illustrates perfectly Grant’s strict adherence to doing what was right. Eventually, Grant’s sense of devotion to his country caused him to butt heads with one, Leonard Swett. Mr. Swett was a close friend of President Lincoln. When Swett attempted to sell materials at exorbitant prices, Grant refused to purchase them. Swett wrote Grant offensive letters regarding the matter and threatened to go to the President about the issue. Grant responded that he could if he wanted, but Grant would continue to make purchases at what he considered reasonable prices. Grant told Swett that if he had to seize the Illinois Central Railroad to deliver the goods, he would. This did not sit well with Swett because he owned part of that railroad. But Grant did not stop there; he ordered Swett out of the District of Cairo and threatened to arrest or have him shot if he stayed. Years later Swett admitted that he did go see Lincoln about this event. Lincoln quipped that Swett had better be careful: "if this man Grant threatened to shoot him he was likely as not to do it."6 These incidents portrayed Grant accurately as a man of convictions and determination.

  The downside of Grant’s strong actions manifested themselves in seedy rumors spread by the disgruntled contractors. The old issue of drinking from his California days was rearing its ugly head. This was the first of many accusations during the war advanced in an effort to discredit Grant.

  Historical legacy has painted Grant was a drunk and possibly an alcoholic. To reinforce how Grant has been maliciously treated by many historians, the reader may rest assured that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when Grant was stationed at Sacketts Harbor, New York during 1848 he belonged to the local chapter of the Temperance Society. The fact is Grant rarely drank and was certainly not an alcoholic.

  During the research for this book, an earnest search for evidence was made which would prove history's accounts of Grant's drunkenness. None was found! The only evidence uncovered were the same old rumors about his famous drinking habits. To postulate Grant never drank would be a lie, but most occurrences were social occasions and not to excess. Most legends of Grant’s infamous drinking habits were started by people who felt harmed by Grant. Usually they felt themselves harmed on occasions by Grant's honesty and selfless devotion to the Union cause.

  Grant’s drinking habits are usually attributed to his time spent in California away from Julia and family. There are no doubts concerning the veracity of these stories about this period in Grant's life, although, there is scant evidence.

  It was allegations about Grant’s old drinking California drinking habits that began to circulate about Cairo during November-December, 1861. The disgruntled contractors were incensed that Grant refused to play ball with them, so they spread rumors about him drinking heavily and his inefficient administration of the District of Cairo.

  Rawlins, Grant's Chief of Staff, blamed these stories on disappointed contractors. These stories were indeed receiving good press and had made the rounds all the way to Washington. The stories eventually found their way to Congressman Washburne's office. In December, Washburne wrote to Rawlins asking for a complete report. Rawlins, an abstemious man, had appointed himself as the sole guardian of Grant's morals. He wrote Washburne the following lengthy reply. "I would say unequivocally and emphatically that the statement that General Grant is drinking very hard is utterly untrue and could have originated only in malice. When I came to Cairo General Grant was as he is today, a strictly abstinence man, and I have been informed by those who knew him well that such has been his habit for the last five or six years.

  No man can say that at any time since I have been with him has he drunk liquor enough to in the slightest unfit him for business or make it manifest in his words or actions. At the time I have referred to, continuing probably a week or ten days, he may have taken an occasional drink with these gentlemen (officials of the Illinois Central Railroad) and others visiting Cairo at that time, but never in a single instance to excess, and at the end of that period he voluntarily stated he should not during the continuance of the war again taste liquor of any kind, and for the past three or four weeks, though to my knowledge frequently importuned on visits of friends, he has not tasted an
y kind of liquor. If there is any man in the service who has discharged his duties faithfully and fearlessly, who has ever been at his post and guarded the interest confided to him with the utmost vigilance, General Grant has done it.....If you could look into General Grant's countenance at this moment you would want no other assurance of his sobriety. He is in perfect health, and his eye and intellect are as clear and active as can be.

  Have no fears: General Grant by bad habits or conduct will never disgrace himself or you.....But I say to you frankly, and I pledge you my word for it, that should General Grant at any time become an intemperate man or an habitual drunkard, I will notify you immediately [and] will ask to be removed from duty on his staff (kind as he has been to me) or resign my commission. For while there are times when I would gladly throw the mantle of charity over the faults of friends, at this time and from a man of his position I would rather tear the mantle off and expose the deformity."7

  If this was not refutation enough of the charges, in January, Washburne received another letter from one of his constituents, Lieutenant William Rowley, who was soon to join Grant's staff. "I have had an excellent opportunity of learning as to the truth or falsity of the reports which have without doubt reached you concerning Genl. Grant and I have no hesitation in saying that anyone who asserts he is becoming dissipated is either misinformed or else he lies. I think you will have no cause to be ashamed of the Brigadier you have manufactured."8

  This was but one of the issues which surfaced during Grant's inactive period at Cairo. This issue surfaced repeatedly throughout the war. Grant could never escape the stigma, all he could ever do was to let his actions speak for themselves.

  While there was little Grant could do to quell these stories, there were other concerns which were weighing more heavily on his mind. Apparently there was significant contraband trade occurring between North and South within his district. Evidently, steamers were transporting goods between the rich Illinois farm land near St. Louis and unloading their cargo on the Missouri side of the river between Cape Girardeau and Cairo. From there, his old nemesis, Jeff Thompson, would transport the goods south. As stated earlier, Grant would stop at nothing to eliminate aid going to the enemy. Grant made many allegations to Halleck about the loyalty of the officers and crews of the steamers plying these waters. He was concerned about the apparent ease which passes of transit were being distributed at headquarters in St. Louis. To General Curtis, the commander of the military post in St. Louis, Grant addressed the following letter. "Several have come to this post with safe-conducts through, signed by yourself. I regret this, as one of the most exposed posts in the Army at this time, and would much prefer that the number sent south should be made as limited as possible or sent by some other route. Although I shall accommodate, whenever it seems to me consistent with that interest of the public service, I shall in future exercise my own judgment about passing persons through my lines, unless the authority comes from a senior and one who exercises authority over me."9

  And exercise his judgment he did. As always, Grant had no qualms about decisive action. Any orders from Halleck for shipment south went unquestioned, but from others he would be the final arbiter. Numerous shipments had been authorized by the Provost Marshal in St. Louis. The freighter J. D. Perry had made countless landings on the Missouri side between Cape Girardeau and Cairo. Consequently, Grant ordered the captain of the J. D. Perry to disregard any orders requiring him to land on the Missouri side at the above stated location. Of one such shipment, Grant informed Halleck, "Eighty barrels of freight were whiskey; a character of commerce I would have no objection to being carried on with the South, but there is a possibility that some barrels marked whiskey might contain something more objectionable."10

  On other occasions Grant ordered armed intervention against suspected transshipment locations in Kentucky, Missouri and Illinois. Arrests and seizures were both authorized and made, but Grant found it to be a never ending battle.

  Amidst all his administrative duties and planning for upcoming actions, Grant was able to enjoy some respite during his time in Cairo. In November, Julia and the children were able to join the general. He had desired their presence since he arrived in Cairo, but had to wait until conditions permitted. Having Julia and the kids around always brightened Grant’s day for he was truly a devoted husband and father. Julia's arrival caused Grant to trim his beard. Prior to this time, Grant wore his beard long and flowing down to his chest. She did not like this appearance so he cut it short as it is pictured in subsequent photographs.

  Grant was primarily occupied during the late fall of 1861 with administrative functions. While having his family in Cairo offered him an interlude of peace, he more than anyone, felt the tug of duty, honor, and country. A warrior's job was to make war and his cause came first. He could not truly be at peace until the Rebellion was crushed.

  Lincoln was eager to open the way into east Tennessee, and utilizing McClellan's plan, action would soon begin after the first of the year. Fortunately for Grant, the coming action would be exactly as he had foreseen months earlier and not at all what Lincoln or McClellan had hoped.

  McClellan wanted to push an expedition under his friend General Buell through the Cumberland Gap in east Kentucky and into east Tennessee to liberate the loyal Union people in that area. This would cause the Confederacy to drain reserves from the Richmond area to restore Confederate control over east Tennessee, or so the thinking went. McClellan then hoped to approach Richmond by sea while its defenses were weakened. One major stumbling block to this movement was Don Carlos Buell. He had little faith in this project and felt he was in no position to move during the fall of 1861 when the initial planning took place.

  Buell felt a move from Louisville toward Bowling Green and Nashville was more appropriate. Letters flew between Buell and McClellan during November and December. All the time Lincoln was growing impatient waiting for someone to do something.

  Whenever a movement occurred, it was obvious a great deal of cooperation between the two department commanders in the west was required and what Lincoln got was anything but cooperation. Halleck and Buell were both jealous individuals intent on becoming supreme commander in the west, so neither wanted to play second fiddle to the other.

  The pressure on Halleck and Buell continued to mount, but the resulting actions were not what the President or the General-in-Chief had envisioned. Halleck was the first to succumb. On January 6, 1862, Halleck ordered Grant to make a demonstration toward Columbus and Mayfield, Kentucky.

  Grant put the crux of these operations into these words: "Early in January 1862, I was directed by General McClellan, through my departmental commander, to make a reconnaissance in favor of Brigadier-General Don Carlos Buell, who commanded the Department of the Ohio, with headquarters at Louisville, and who was confronting General S. B. Buckner with a larger Confederate force at Bowling Green. It was supposed that Buell was about to make some move against the enemy, and my demonstration was intended to prevent the sending of troops from Columbus, Fort Henry or Donelson to Buckner."11

  Grant accepted these orders with alacrity, although the movement was delayed somewhat from departing as rapidly as he would have liked. Grant sent six thousand men under McClernand toward Mayfield and Murray in Kentucky. He also ordered C. F. Smith with two brigades to threaten Columbus and the line between Columbus and Bowling Green. It is interesting to note something in the orders he issued for this operation. These orders are dated January 13, 1862. Grant has been severely criticized for making war without regard for civilians. One part of the order reads as follows: "It is ordered, therefore that the severest punishment, be inflicted upon every soldier, who is guilty of taking or destroying private property, and any commissioned officer guilty of like conduct, or of countenancing it shall be deprived of his sword and expelled from the camp, not to be permitted to return."12 When one is in command of a large operation, he cannot be expected to be aware of everything that happens, but these orders hardly por
tray a reckless commander with no regard for others or their property. Grant's forces made their demonstration over the course of more than a week with the men suffering greatly due to the cold, rain and snow.

  During this movement, McClellan ordered Buell to move against east Tennessee. Buell, not agreeing with these views, nevertheless, ordered General George Thomas to attack the rebels in the Cumberland Gap area where he defeated Confederate General Zollicoffer in the Battle of Mill Springs.

  It is important to understand that further ideas or plans of operations against the rebels in east Tennessee were placed on hold after the victory at Mill Springs. The reason emanates from the subsequent report received by the government from General Thomas. Thomas notified Buell in his report: "I have every reason to believe that the roads leading into Tennessee are in the same condition as the one over which my division has just passed, and the enemy having passed over these roads our chances for subsistence and forage would be but poor. I would therefore again respectfully suggest that I may be permitted to move down the river (the Cumberland) with my troops, taking our subsistence and forage in flatboats, and co-operate with the main army against Bowling Green."13 Thomas was an incredibly cautious individual and was to remain so throughout the war to Grant’s great frustration.

  This effectively brought Lincoln's plans to a halt, but the positive development from this dead end, was to focus attention on the area where Grant felt the greatest opportunity existed.

  Grant's mission had been accomplished and the rebels had been prevented from sending reinforcements to the east against Thomas. The most promising offshoot of Grant’s movement was the report of C. F. Smith. He felt that Fort Henry, one of the forts guarding the Tennessee River, could be captured. Grant’s feelings are stated best in his memoirs. "This report of Smith's confirmed views I had previously held, that the true line of operations for us was up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. With us there, the enemy would be compelled to fall back on the east and west entirely out of the State of Kentucky. On the 6th of January, before receiving orders for this expedition, I had asked permission of the general commanding the department to go to see him at St. Louis. My object was to lay this plan of campaign before him. Now that my views had been confirmed by so able a general as Smith, I renewed my request to go to St. Louis on what I deemed important military business."