| |

Who kept U.S. Grant sober?By Peter Cozzens | Civil War Times | Single Page | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Rawlins' loyalty to Grant found its first expression that winter when a crooked contractor whom Rawlins had expelled from the department spread rumors that Grant was a drunk. Rawlins hastened to squelch them, assuring Congressman Washburne that, if ever Grant did drink, Rawlins would be the first to speak out. "I regard his interest as my interest," he declared, "all that concerns his reputation concerns me; I love him as a father; I respect him because I have studied him well, and the more I know him the more I respect and love him. But I pledge you my word, that should General Grant at any time become an intemperate man or a habitual drunkard, I will ask to be removed from duty on his staff or resign my commission." Subscribe Today
During the Fort Henry and Fort Donelson campaigns, Rawlins' duties extended little beyond keeping an eye on Grant and writing orders. But in the confused fury of Shiloh he emerged as a force to be reckoned with. Rawlins and Grant were in Savannah, Tenn., on the morning of April 6, 1862, when the rumble of cannon fire told them the Army of the Tennessee, camped upriver (south) near Pittsburg Landing, was under attack by Albert Sidney Johnston's Army of Mississippi. Rawlins set off with Grant on the steamer Tigress for Pittsburg Landing, where they found hundreds of dazed soldiers huddled around the bluff. The two rode forward at 9 a.m. to inspect the five divisions in action. Grant then sent Rawlins back to Tigress to write orders calling up Lew Wallace's division, camped nearly six miles away at Crump's Landing. Rawlins scratched out a note to the chief quartermaster to find Wallace, then returned to the front and stayed with Grant under fire until midafternoon when, despairing of Wallace, Grant ordered him and fellow staff officer James B. McPherson to locate the Indianan. They found Wallace on a back lane, four miles from the fighting. Furious at the "cool and leisurely" pace of his march, Rawlins marshaled his choicest oaths to implore Wallace to make haste. "The roar of battle swelled from the direction of Pittsburg Landing," Rawlins recalled. "We knew that it was our heavy guns, and that the enemy had attained a nearness to the river that filled our minds with terrible apprehension." As Wallace's division drew nearer the battlefield, he continued to move too slowly to suit an always exacting and then overexcited Rawlins. Grant's loyal aide never forgave Wallace for what he considered a gross neglect of duty. McPherson, in fact, had to talk him out of arresting Wallace on the spot. Rawlins reached the landing with Wallace's advance at sunset, and was reassured by Grant that the Rebel attack could be stopped. Grant was right, but that costly victory cast a cloud over him that lingered until the fall of Vicksburg. Rawlins never forgave Wallace, and stood by Grant in condemning him, believing his presence before nightfall on April 6 might have hastened a Federal victory the next day. In the 15 months between Shiloh and the final operations against Vicksburg, Rawlins—who became chief of staff on November 1, 1862—found new challenges in his self-ordained role as Grant's protector. Major General Henry Halleck had concentrated the Western armies to capture Corinth, Miss., and he relegated Grant to second in command of the whole: "fifth wheel to a coach," as Grant put it. Grant wanted to resign, but Sherman and Rawlins persuaded him to stay on. When Halleck was called East, Grant assumed command of both the armies of the Tennessee and the Mississippi. Sherman and Rawlins had rescued him from almost certain military oblivion. Rawlins' next task was to diffuse doubts about Grant's competence and sobriety, which grew, in early 1863, as Grant's offensive against Vicksburg foundered. Major General John McClernand, a War Democrat whose corps operated independently at Vicksburg under Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton's authority, was angling to replace Grant. Brigadier General Cadwallader Washburn wrote Congressman Washburne, his brother, that Grant was unsuited to high command, and that his staff officers were imbeciles. Only Rawlins had any military ability, he said. The letter found its way to Abraham Lincoln, and Stanton decided to send Charles Dana, a former journalist destined to become assistant secretary of war, to investigate. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
7 Comments to “Who kept U.S. Grant sober?”
This story is factually incorrect. Grant didn't "shuffle around his father's general store". It was a leather store and harness shop. He was the hide buyer, and spent a great deal of his time on the road, traveling up and down the Mississippi, buying the tanned hides that they used to make the harnesses, saddles and other leather items that they sold in the store. The author's errors call into question the veracity of the rest of the story! Do you plan to run a correction?
By Kathleen Webster on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yup, Ms. Webster, you're right – and I know and knew that. I slipped up in calling it a "general" store. But I stand by the rest. He was a clerk, in name and in fact, when he was not on the road. Matter of where you want to put the emphasis.
I think you're a bit harsh – and engaging in hyperbole – calling into question the veracity of everything in a story because of one error, but that's your privilege of course.
By Peter Cozzens on Nov 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Mr. Cozzens doesn't mention the arrival of Buell and the decisive contribution of his army in saving Grant at Shiloh. He downplays Hooker's crucial role in in getting behind Bragg's left flank at Chattanooga. See my page on Stewart's Division's Reports (www.aotc.net/chatt-stewart.htm) to see how the Confederate defenders viewed Hooker's "foundering." He doesn't even refer to his own book on Iuka where he made a very strong case for Grant having been drunk and unable or unwilling to direct Ord to join the battle. And I don't want to hear about acoustic shadow. Ord was about 3 miles away as the crow flies, and Grant was 8 miles away on an evening with no wind at all, according to people present. He doesn't mention Grant's little excursion to New Orleans without Rawlins. The article is a nice portrait of Rawlins, but seems hastily written.
By Bob Redman on Dec 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm
To the moderator who removed my factual and reasoned observations about Cozzen's article, you are a jerk.
By Bob Redman on Dec 4, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I found this to be an interesting and enjoyable article. Not being a Civil War history buff, I can't comment on its historical merits. But the article does seem to shed light on why Grant said so little about Rawlins in his autobiography. Rawlins as loyal aid is one story. Rawlins as Grant's military genius and firebrand is quite another. Great men sometimes become curiously blind to the importance of their subordinates.
That said, it would be incorrect to deny Grant's central role. Rawlins could have done nothing without Grant. As in many cases, it is the fortuitous combination of complementary personalities that created the formidable new entity that decided the War — in this case, Grant, Rawlins, Sherman, and a few others. And let us not forget their chief.
By Mark H. Moulton on Feb 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm