Hornets Nest and Gen. Prentiss..?

[5fish]

At the infamous Hornets nest during the Battle of Shiloh the union forces hold off the rebels giving Gen. Grant extra time to bring up reinforcements.

Eventually Gen. Prentiss surrenders the Hornets nest position to the rebel and is consider a hero by the public of that day and later by historians. Gen. Grant doesn't consider what Prentiss did during the Battle of Shiloh as important as the public or historians do.

So who is more correct Historians or Gen. Grant about Gen. Prentiss at Shiloh?

Does Gen. Grant know something Historians are forgetting about at Pittsburgh's Landing?

Does Gen. Grant just not like Gen. Prentiss as some Historians claim?

There was Gen. W.H.L. Wallace who's men where at Sunken road and fought as well as Gen. Prentiss men did at the Hornets nest. The action at Sunken road cost Gen. W.H.L. Wallace life but no claims of being a hero. Where is the justice for Gen. Wallace?

[timewalker]

Been reading up on Shiloh, have you?

I don't know that much about the battle, yet.

Just for grins, I just checked the audiobook of Shiloh by Shelby Foote out of the library (a 45 minute commute each way and I get a lot of my "reading" done with books on tape).

Given my current ignorance, I will have to defer on the question.

[ole]

Prentiss, Hurlbut and Wallace saved the Federal's butt that day. The rebs dashed themselves fruitlessly on that line, and frittered away what ought to have been their day to shine.

It's one of those historical what ifs.

ole

[5fish]

Prentiss, Hurlbut and Wallace saved the Federal's butt that day. The rebs dashed themselves fruitlessly on that line, and frittered away what ought to have been their day to shine.

It's one of those historical what ifs.

ole

.

So, why is Grant reluctant to recognize this?

Do you(Ole) think Grant may have felt safe at Pittsburgh Landing so Prentiss, Hurlbut, and Wallace stands were grand but not a major factor that day?

[30th_il]

5fish, much of history was written post war in reminisces by the soldiers. Also, Shiloh was the first National Battlefields established and many of the monuments were placed by the accounts given by the veterans who tended to embellish and magnify their accomplishments. Somehow my memory seems to think that one of the first advisers to the battlefield commission was a veteran of Prentiss's brigade and he did have a tendency to throw more light on that area of the battlefield. States/regts that could raise more funds for more monuments tended to receive more attention from the public because of these markers.
I am not so sure that Grant neglected the other generals heroism(s) and deeds but more that, the Prentiss backers sort of wrote the history.

[Borderruffian]

I would guess it also begs the question. Had Bragg attacked in that area differently than he did would Prentiss still have held out as long as he did?

[ole]

Please excuse. I was not aware that Prentiss got short shrift in the reports of the time. His guys, with Hurlbut's and Wallace's, certainly held to their place and quite possibly saved the day.

ole

[OpnDownfall]

I have seen claims that Grant downplayed Prentiss' contribution to the battle, but have not found direct quotes from Grant Yet. It is possible, some infer Grant's downplaying of the Hornet's Nest, when comparing his comments on it with his fulsome praise of Sherman and his men.
There is little doubt of Sherman being one of Grant's particularly favorite commander and sometimes had a tendency to ascribe any success to Sherman a little too quickly. IMO sometimes it was deliberate and othertimes it flowed naturally from his genuine friendship with Sherman.
It is difficult from this distance to say for sure, but Grant's failures at Shiloh were blatant and obvious to his superiors. With all eyes on him it would have been a natural response to try to draw attention to a commander who performed well during the battle that Grant thought could be trusted to not use his fame to angle for Grant's own job.
From the Historical Perspective the actions of Prentiss and Sherman, were both decisive in saving Grant's bacon.
Johnston's original plan was to make the Union Left (Johnston's Right) the center of the main attack, so as to get between Grants Army and AWAY its base on the Tn River and drive it to destruction in the Marshy area of the Owl and lick Creeks. But Beauregard either misunderstood Johnston's plan OR ignored it, because his words and orders indicated he wanted to attack all along the line and drive the Union Army to destruction INTO the Tennessee. Prentiss foiled Johnston's original plan and Sherman foiled Beauregard's.
Very humanly, but incorrectly, Grant, May have tended to recognize Sherman's contribution to the resulting victory than Prentiss'. recognized Sherman's contribution to victory more than Prentiss'. In any case in todays abbreviated CW history classes in our schools, if Shiloh is mentioned at all, Prentiss and the Hornet's Nest usually gets top billing.

[civilwarbuglertn]

Timothy B. Smith is a former ranger at SHiloh and wrote a book about the creation of the park called, The Untold Story of Shiloh: The Battle and the Battlefield. In it he explains about some the contrevery about Prentiss. Part of the problem was D. W. Reed the parks first historian was in Prentiss' Division. He played up his part. Smith goes into this in his book. The best book is Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 by Edward Cunningham, one of Smith's mentors. Both books are excellent reads. I was lucky enough to have Smith speak to my Civil War roundtable about this and catch him a few days later at the park and he took me around. He is now at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, I think.

Civilwarbuglertn

[30th_il]

Timothy B. Smith is a former ranger at SHiloh and wrote a book about the creation of the park called, The Untold Story of Shiloh: The Battle and the Battlefield. In it he explains about some the contrevery about Prentiss. Part of the problem was D. W. Reed the parks first historian was in Prentiss' Division. He played up his part. Smith goes into this in his book. The best book is Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 by Edward Cunningham, one of Smith's mentors. Both books are excellent reads. I was lucky enough to have Smith speak to my Civil War roundtable about this and catch him a few days later at the park and he took me around. He is now at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, I think.

Civilwarbuglertn

This is the report that I had read and reffered to earlier....

[5fish]

I think CWBulartn and 30th il maybe on to some self promotion by the men who were with Gen. Prentiss at Shiloh.

For one, there was a wise tale going around that Gen. Prentiss and his men were capture still in their tents sleeping which even Grant dispels.

For the other, Grant never mentions the Hornets Nest or Sunken road in his battle report or in his memoirs. In his memoirs he states Prentiss did not fall back with the other divisions which left him exposed and later capture.
The impression I get from Grant is that the whole Hornets Nest and Sunken Road never existed but just part of the union forces falling back, nothing special.

In his memoirs, he mention the names of creeks which the union reformed the defensive lines on and some ravine too. He never talks in the terms like Hornet nest or Sunken road.

I read some parsed regimental histories like one from the state of MO. In it, it praise Gen. Prentiss and tells how Grant rides up to Gen. Prentiss and tells him his division must hold the line. In this regimental history Sherman's men and Wallace's men are force to retreat because the lines were crumbling and being over run leaving Prentiss men exposed.

Historians like a good story and if they went by Grant's account there is no cool story but if you go by the self promoters then there's a good story....

I needed to find a time line of the battle so I can match up events and see how they all relate....

[Baggage Handler #2]

I've wondered if Ambrose Bierce was referring to the Hornet's Nest when he wrote this:

I remember a deep ravine a little to the left and rear of the field I have described, in which, by some mad freak of heroic incompetence, a part of an Illinois regiment had been surrounded, and refusing to surrender was destroyed, as it very well deserved. My regiment having at last been relieved at the guns and moved over to the heights above this ravine for no obvious purpose, I obtained leave to go down into the valley of death and gratify a reprehensible curiosity.

and if so, there appears to have been more than one contemporary view of things. But Bierce was generally sour anyway, so maybe it's best not to read him too literally.

[ole]

Just behind the "sunken" road is a ravine.The guys on that line could go down there, clean their rifles, take a break, and come back up to shoot some more. Couldn't have been that much fun, but the ravine did much to make the "hornet's nest" formidable.

ole

[civilwarbuglertn]

Just behind the "sunken" road is a ravine.The guys on that line could go down there, clean their rifles, take a break, and come back up to shoot some more. Couldn't have been that much fun, but the ravine did much to make the "hornet's nest" formidable.

ole

According to Timothy B Smith that reveine was only about 1-3 feet deep at the time of the battle the tourist traffic has worn it down that much. He also said that the park is starting to switch it offical interpretation of the that of Cunningham's after further research now. They just wish that they had all the records the D W Reed had, sadly they we destroyed by a tornado in the early 1900's that hit the park.
]I find it amazing that one person's opinion can shape so much histroy when so many men we involved.

[5fish]

HistoryNet » Battle of Shiloh: The Devil’s Own DayJohnston took the gamble; he quickly moved his force toward Shiloh. ... He had suggested to Prentiss that the division be placed on combat alert, ...
www.historynet.com/battle-of-shiloh-the-devils-own-day.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this



Here is an interesting place to read about the Battle of Shiloh. It trys to debunk some of the myths surrounding the battle.

[5fish]

There is another figure at Shiloh that everyone forgets to mention on that day in 1862. It is Lew Wallace, who's Division was in reserve that day down river form Pittsburgh Landing.

Grant orders Lew Wallace Div. to come up and support Sherman which he does. The problem arises is that there were two roads to reach where Sherman was, a upper road and a lower road.

Lew Wallace chose the upper road which would have put him to the right of Sherman men but when he arrived Sherman had already been push back. He found his Div. was located behind the rebel lines

The receive a message from Grant asking where he was and get to Pittsburgh Landing. Here is where Lew made his faithful decision. He could have attack the rebels from behind and most likely been the Hero of the day but he chose to follow Grant's order. He counter march his Div. and arrived at Pittsburgh Landing as the battle was ending.

He was not admonish for arriving late at first but as the public outcries of the body count grew. Wallace became the scape goat for Grant and Halleck.

Yes, our humble Grant used Wallace as a scape goat for his failing at Shiloh. Grant did not know there where two roads that led from where Lew Wallace Div. was to where Sherman was. The road Wallace chose was the logical one for it put him where Sherman should have been. He could have attack the rebels form behind but he follow Grant's basically new orders and marched to Pittsburgh landing.

Grant and Halleck needed a scape goat and Lew Wallace the young Div. commander was thier choice. I can understand Halleck or he was a political rascal but Grant has always been related to us as a honorable man above military politics. The Lew Wallace story puts a finger in that...So what other back stabbing did Grant do during the war?

Maybe Grant could not share the spot light with Prentiss either that is why he plays down the Hornet nest tale.

Shermen is spoken in glowing terms is because Grant was playing favorites.

Maybe Grant was a bigger political rascal then history makes him out to be. Think, you do not become the most powerful military figure in America without having soon political skills.... back stabbing is a political tool.

Oh, Grant you hide your political skills so well...

[OpnDownfall]

Is 5fish bragging or complaining about Grant's political skills?

[5fish]

Is 5fish bragging or complaining about Grant's political skills?

GEN. GRANT WAS BOTH!!

The positive he was more of a political "artisan or a rascal" then either himself or historians give him credit for. I beleive it was an image he promoted of being non-political but in truth you do not reach high office in the military unless you are politically astute.

The negative he was more then willing to destroy another officer's honor and career to save his own. He was willing to play down other peoples achievements for his own political gain. He was a political beast in the aftermath of Shiloh.

I just pointing out that Gen. Grant was a political beast!

[OpnDownfall]

Since politics is endemic in All institutions and groups, 'political artisan' is not necessarily the same as 'rascal'
All Human beings try to project an image and,of course, one seldom reaches Any position of authority, in Any organization, unless one is politically astute , Or are All successful people 'Rascals' and/or 'political beasts' ?



P.S. I understand that the 'politics' as practiced in the halls of Academe are every bit as vicious and remorseless as in the Military or in the board rooms of corportate America.

[30th_il]

Many of the generals were political beasts, McClellan, Halleck, and my favorite, McClernand. Much of Grant's political were from experience I think...from how he was treated by Halleck and McClernand. I think Sherman gave Logan the short end after Atlanta, by giving the Corps command to O.O. Howard and not to Blackjack.

[Baggage Handler #2]

From what I recall, the "upper" road was dry and comparatively traffic free. The lower road was kind of messed up that day, so there is some logic to his choice.

Also, I visit Brookville, IN every once in a while and read the marker in front of Wallace's house.

Some say his experience at Shiloh, followed by his confrontation of Early later on led to his writing of Ben Hur.

Probably under-rated, but if he'd centerpunched the CS left that afternoon...

[timewalker]

Grant certainly knew how to play politics with the best of them. Look at his handling of McClernand. He had permission to sack him weeks before he actually did, but bided his time to make sure he built the case in such a way, and played his card at the right time, so that McClernand was left twisting in the wind even though he was a favorite and confidant of Lincoln. not that I don't think McClernand deserved it, mind you.

[ole]

We talk about politics like it was a bad thing.

When you're in a position where you are running something large, you want your closest associates to be on your side ... right? McClernand proved himself to be a formidable general, and Grant gave him some rather large leeway. But McClernand was on McClernand's side and not on Grant's.

McC made his play and got trumped. That's the way the game is played.

ole

[5fish]

We talk about politics like it was a bad thing.

When you're in a position where you are running something large, you want your closest associates to be on your side ... right? McClernand proved himself to be a formidable general, and Grant gave him some rather large leeway. But McClernand was on McClernand's side and not on Grant's.

McC made his play and got trumped. That's the way the game is played.

ole

Yes, he handling of John McClernand was brilliant and lets admit McClernand was a political "rascal". Grant easily best him at the political game that McClernand live by.

My grip with Grant and historians is that they present him as a political naive and the truth is. He was skilled politically.

[OpnDownfall]

The historical record seems to indicate Grant was Not particularly skillled (having great ability) in politics.