Grant What the Halleck?!

Well, I can't find much more on this except there was a 'disloyal telegraph operator' in the mix and that 'there were also solid reasons for the mishap, including some erratic communications and the intercepted messages'. Apparently Halleck stated he'd addressed daily enquiries to Grant, but there are no records of these, so it appears he was also 'stretching the truth'.

No, he did.
 
I think part of the problem was that Halleck was just naturally an intriguer. His tendency was to plot and manipulate from behind the scenes. That's what made him the ideal person to later stay in Washington as Chief of Staff. He fit into the political scene.

Here is what John Schofield wrote in his memoirs concerning this period:
I knew personally at the time the exact truth respecting the action of General Halleck toward General Grant before the battle of Shiloh, especially in ordering Grant to remain in the rear while General C. F. Smith was sent with the advance of the army to Pittsburg Landing, as described by General Grant in his "Memoirs." Halleck hoped Smith might fight a battle and win a victory in Grant's absence, which would naturally be followed by an order putting Smith in command in place of Grant. But Halleck had not anticipated Grant's soldierly action in applying to be relieved, and was not prepared to face that emergency. As soon as Grant's application reached St. Louis, Halleck abandoned that line of action, but he did not abandon his purpose to supersede Grant in some way until some time later. Whatever excuse there may have been at that time for Halleck's opinion of Grant, nothing can be said in favor of the method he adopted to accomplish his purpose to supersede him.​
 
Regarding Hallecks requests for troop returns from Grant, here is some interesting info in the notes of Papers of US Grant by John Simon which suggest that Halleck had not really asked Grant for them like he said. Apparently McClellan had complained to Halleck for not sending more information and Halleck had explained to McClellan that he was having problems with the telegraph. This suggests that Halleck may have been passing the buck to Grant for his own butt-chewing. Here is the note from Simon:

Although Halleck complained that USG had failed to report his strength and position, there are no specific requests for this information either in USG's hd. qrs. records or those of the Dept. of the Mo. On Feb. 16, McClellan had telegraphed to Halleck. "Give me in detail Grant's force & positions—the last report from him—all that you heard reliably in regard to enemy. What left at Fort Henry." ALS (telegram sent), DNA, RG 107, Telegrams Collected (Bound). On the preceding day, McClellan had requested the information directly from USG, but the telegram was not received until March 3. See letter to Commanding Officer, Gunboat Flotilla, Feb. 15, 1862. Memoirs, I, 325. On Feb. 21, McClellan complained that Halleck had not reported "either often or fully enough," though this telegram did not refer specifically to USG's command. O.R., I, vii, 646. In his reply of the same date, Halleck explained that he had encountered difficulties with the telegraph. Ibid., p. 647.​
 
Back
Top