Lew Wallace

[dlofting]

I've just finished reading Timothy Smith's book "Shiloh, Conquer or Perish". He treats Lew Wallace a lot more "gently" than other writers/historians and actually shows that he performed quite well at Shiloh.

According to Smith Wallace didn't get "lost" moving his division to the battlefield. He took the road that would bring him in on the left (west) flank of the Union army. Unfortunately he didn't know that the flank had moved and none of the messengers that conveyed his orders thought to tell him.

On the second day of the battle his division was on the right of the Union army. While other commanders were engaged in frontal assaults he twice executed flanking maneuvers that caused the Confederates to abandon defensive positions and fall back.

Did Wallace get a "bad review" ? Was he a better general than some historians have portrayed him ?

 

[David Moore]

There is a recently published book about Lew Wallace and Shiloh http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17072177-scapegoat-of-shiloh
and also this dissertation which is available on line: http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=theses

The conclusions of both are favorable to Wallace.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

In the Cincinnati, Ohio area (Southwest Ohio, Northern Kentucky and Eastern Indiana), Lew Wallace is known as an American Civil War hero. In the fall of 1862, Wallace was ordered to build various forts and batteries in Northern Kentucky to defend the city of Cincinnati from a possible Confederate army invasion. The invasion never occurred.....

http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc19/defense1.htm

Bill

 

[rbasin]

Always thought he was better than what was written about him.

 

[James N.]

Did Wallace get a "bad review" ? Was he a better general than some historians have portrayed him ?

I remember reading a few years ago, I think in Blue & Gray Magazine, an "experiment" made by a modern writer who hiked the route taken by Wallace to determine if he was really as dilatory as Grant accused him of being. The conclusion was that at normal marching pace he arrived as quickly as possible, given the error mentioned above regarding the retrograde movement of Grant's right flank under Sherman which had fallen back from its position around Shiloh Church. The only fault I remember thinking about this was that Wallace counter-marched his miles-long column instead of merely having everyone do an about face. (This was an awkward process in which the entire halted column moved to one side of the very narrow road while the leading elements turned and marched past them; think of a snake doubling back and slithering past itself.) The reason for this, however, was that likely his rearmost elements were probably the supply and ordnance trains that always accompanied marching troops and are factors we arm-chair historians don't usually take into account.

 

[rbasin]

Wallace was one of many to whom blame was attached to enhance another's narrative.

 

[Drew]

I've said it a dozen times in these threads and I am only half kidding. Lew Wallace saved the Union.

He got in front of Early's Raid on Washington at Monocacy, MD. He got clobbered but bought enough time in the process for Grant to reinforce Washington's garrison.

Had Early made it into an undefended Washington in the late summer of 1864, all bets are off. Union morale was at its low point and Lincoln's re-election may have been put at great risk (this is an understatement, but it's a 'what if').

He wasn't among the West Point boys and certainly wasn't among Grant's 'fair haired favorites,' so would never be given credit, for anything. I'm going to have to order the book.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I think it is unfortunate that many writers feel it necessary to find one general "right" and one general "wrong" in the Wallace/Grant issue. Both men did what they thought was right that day. Grant was confident that he gave orders which should have resulted in Wallace's division showing up at Pittsburg Landing in the early afternoon. Wallace was confident that he was proceeding to the battle by the best route.

Both turned out to be mistaken in their understanding. By the end of his life, Grant had cut Wallace some slack on Shiloh. And Wallace was mainly very positive in his writings of Grant.

 

[TomP]

I remember reading a few years ago, I think in Blue & Gray Magazine, an "experiment" made by a modern writer who hiked the route taken by Wallace to determine if he was really as dilatory as Grant accused him of being.

This trek was made by authors Gail Stephens and Tim Smith along with Chief Ranger Stacy Allen. In comfortable hiking shoes and light day packs they were hard pressed to make the hike in the like amount of time.

 

[Carronade]

The only fault I remember thinking about this was that Wallace counter-marched his miles-long column instead of merely having everyone do an about face. (This was an awkward process in which the entire halted column moved to one side of the very narrow road while the leading elements turned and marched past them; think of a snake doubling back and slithering past itself.) The reason for this, however, was that likely his rearmost elements were probably the supply and ordnance trains that always accompanied marching troops and are factors we arm-chair historians don't usually take into account.

That's true, but I think it's missing the point. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the supply wagons would lead the return march; they would do just as they did historically and as you describe, pull off to the side of the road while the fighting troops passed by. The 'about face' would take place within the column of fighting troops, i.e. the last regiment in column would be first on the return - and that raises another point; Wallace was trying to take his division into battle and may well have placed at the head of the column the units in which he had the most confidence. An about face would have the troops he had placed in the rear leading the division into action; perhaps that was his concern.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Wallace was one of many to whom blame was attached to enhance another's narrative.

Are you referring to Halleck?

In Lew Wallaces autobiography, I remember he attributes losing his command after Shiloh to some remarks he made about Hallecks leadership during the slow advance to Corinth. He criticized Halleck to some officers who were on their way to join Hallecks staff. Ooops!

 

[JeffBrooks]

In Grant's defense, he gave Wallace great credit for Monocacy. Immediately after the battle, removed Wallace from command, only to reinstate him when the facts became clear and it dawned on Grant that Wallace had likely saved Washington City itself from being captured by the Confederates. And in his memoirs, Grant wrote glowingly about Wallace's contribution at Monocacy.