DISAPPOINTMENT AT RESULTS OF THE GEORGIA CAMPAIGN—HOW FAR IT WAS PARALLEL WITH THE VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN—DIFFERENT TACTICS ON BOTH SIDES—REMOVAL OF GENERAL JOHNSTON—THE EXPLANATION OF THAT STEP—A QUESTION FOR MILITARY JUDGMENT—THE NEGATIVE VINDICATION OF GENERAL JOHNSTON—DIFFERENT THEORIES OF WAR—THE REAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOUTHERN FAILURE—THE ODDS IN NUMBERS AND RESOURCES AGAINST THE SOUTH—WATER FACILITIES OF THE ENEMY—STRATEGIC DIFFICULTIES OF THE SOUTH—THE BLOCKADE—INSIGNIFICANCE OF MINOR QUESTIONS—JEFFERSON DAVIS THE WASHINGTON OF THE SOUTH—GENERAL JOHN B. HOOD—HIS DISTINGUISHED CAREER—HOPE OF THE SOUTH RENEWED—HOOD’S OPERATIONS—LOSS OF ATLANTA—IMPORTANT QUESTIONS—PRESIDENT DAVIS IN GEORGIA—PERVERSE CONDUCT OF GOVERNOR BROWN—MR. DAVIS IN MACON—AT HOOD’S HEAD-QUARTERS—HOW HOOD’S TENNESSEE CAMPAIGN VARIED FROM MR. DAVIS’ INTENTIONS—SHERMAN’S PROMPT AND BOLD CONDUCT—HOOD’S MAGNANIMOUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT—DESTRUCTION OF THE CONFEDERATE POWER IN THE SOUTH-WEST.

General Johnston had failed to realize either the expectations of the public, or the hope of the Government, in his direction of the campaign in Georgia. His tactics were those uniformly illustrated by this officer in all his operations, of falling back before the enemy, and seeking to obviate the disadvantage of inferior numbers by partial engagements in positions favorable to himself. There was, indeed, some parallel between his campaign and that of Lee, between the Rapidan and James, but the results in Virginia and Georgia were altogether disproportionate. The advance of Sherman was slow and cautious, but nevertheless steady; and when the campaign had lasted seventy days, he was before Atlanta, the objective point of his designs, and in secure occupation of an extensive and important section of country, heretofore inaccessible to the Federal armies. Not only were Sherman’s losses small, as compared with those of Grant, but his force was relatively much weaker.

There can be no just comparison of these two campaigns, either as illustrating the same system of tactics, or as yielding the same results. The aggregate of Federal forces in Georgia did not exceed, at the beginning of the campaign, one hundred thousand men, if indeed it reached that figure. To oppose this, Johnston had forty-five thousand. We have already stated the aggregate of Federal forces in Virginia to have been at least four times the force that, under any circumstances, Lee could have made available. The public did not interpret as retreats, the parallel movements by which Lee successively threw himself in the front of Grant, wherever the latter made a demonstration. Not once had Lee turned his back upon the enemy, nor abandoned a position, save when the baffled foe, after enormous losses, sought a new field of operations. At its conclusion, Grant had sustained losses in excess of the whole of Lee’s army, abandoned altogether his original design, and sought a base of operations, which he might have reached in the beginning, not only without loss, but without even opposition.

Some explanation of the widely disproportionate results achieved in Virginia and Georgia, is to be found in the different tactics of the Federal commanders. Sherman, whose nature is thoroughly aggressive, yet developed great skill and caution. Instead of fruitlessly dashing his army against fortifications, upon ground of the enemy’s choosing, he treated the positions of Johnston as fortresses, from which his antagonist was to be flanked.

But while this explanation was appreciated, the public was much disposed to accept the two campaigns as illustrations of the different systems of tactics accredited to the two Confederate commanders. It was seen that in Virginia the enemy occupied no new territory, and, at the end of three months, was upon ground which he might easily have occupied at the beginning of the campaign, but to reach which, by the means selected, had cost him nearly eighty thousand men.[76] In Georgia, on the other hand, Sherman had advanced one hundred miles upon soil heretofore firmly held by the Confederacy, and without a general engagement of the opposing forces. In Virginia, the enemy had no difficulty as to his transportation, and the farther Grant advanced towards James River, the more secure and abundant became his means of supply. In Georgia, Sherman drew his supplies over miles of hostile territory, and was nowhere aided by the proximity of navigable streams.

When in a censorious mood, the popular mind is not over-careful of the aptness of the parallels and analogies, wherewith to justify its carping judgments. Without denying his skill, or questioning his possession of the higher qualities of generalship, people complained that “Johnston was a retreating general.” Whatever judgment may have arisen from subsequent events, it can not be fairly denied that when Johnston reached Atlanta, there was a very perceptible loss of popular confidence, not less in the issue of the campaign than in General Johnston himself. It was in deference to popular sentiment, as much as in accordance with his views of the necessity of the military situation, that President Davis, about the middle of July, relieved General Johnston from command. Sympathizing largely with the popular aspiration for a more bold, ample, and comprehensive policy, and appreciating the value of unlimited public confidence, Mr. Davis had lost much of his hope of those decisive results, which he believed the Western army competent to achieve.

The dispatch relieving General Johnston was as follows:

This order sufficiently explains the immediate motive of Johnston’s removal, but there was a train of circumstances which, at length, brought the President reluctantly to this conclusion. The progress of events in Georgia, from the beginning of spring, had developed a marked difference in the views of General Johnston and the President. Early in the year Mr. Davis had warmly approved an offensive campaign against the Federal army, while its various wings were not yet united. The Federal force, then in the neighborhood of Dalton, did not greatly exceed the Confederate strength, and Mr. Davis, foreseeing the concentration of forces for the capture of Atlanta, believed the opportunity for a decisive stroke to exist before this concentration should ensue. General Hood likewise favored this view of the situation. He urged that the enemy would certainly concentrate forces to such an extent, if permitted, as would gradually force the Southern army back into the interior, where a defeat would be irreparable, with no new defensive line, and without the hope of rallying either the army or the people. General Johnston opposed these views, on the ground that the enemy, if defeated, had strong positions where they could take refuge, while a defeat of the Confederate force would be fatal. This difference of opinion is to be appropriately decided only by military criticism, but it can not be fairly adjudged that an offensive in the spring would not have succeeded, because it failed in the following autumn. Circumstances were altogether different.

General Johnston’s operations between Dalton and Atlanta were unsatisfactory to Mr. Davis. Here again arises a military question, which we shall not seek to decide, in the evident difference as to the capacity of the Army of Tennessee, for any other than purely defensive operations. It was, indeed, not so much an opposition on the part of the President, to Johnston’s operations, as the apprehension of a want of ultimate aim in his movements. Whatever the plans of General Johnston may have been, they were not communicated to Mr. Davis, at least in such a shape as to indicate the hope of early and decisive execution. Alarmed for the results of a policy having seemingly the characteristics of drifting, of waiting upon events, and of hoping for, instead of creating opportunity, Mr. Davis yet felt the necessity of giving General Johnston an ample trial. During all this period strong influences were brought to bear against Johnston, and upon the other hand, he was warmly sustained by influences friendly both to himself and the President.

For weeks the President was importuned by these conflicting counsels, the natural effect of which was to aggravate his grave doubts as to the existence of any matured ultimate object in General Johnston’s movements. Upon one occasion, while still anxiously deliberating the subject, an eminent politician, a thorough patriot, a supporter of Mr. Davis, and having to an unlimited extent his confidence, called at the office of the President, with a view to explain the situation in Georgia, whence he had just arrived. This gentleman had been with the army, knew its condition, its enthusiasm and confidence. He was confident that General Johnston would destroy Sherman, and did not believe that the Federal army would ever be permitted to reach even the neighborhood of Atlanta. Mr. Davis, having quietly heard this explanation, replied by handing to his visitor a dispatch just received from Johnston, and dated at Atlanta. The army had already reached Atlanta, before the gentleman could reach Richmond, and he acknowledged himself equally amazed and disappointed.

Despite his doubts and apprehensions, however, Mr. Davis resisted the applications of members of Congress and leading politicians from the section in which General Johnston was operating, for a change of commanders, until he felt himself no longer justified in hazarding the loss of Atlanta without a struggle. There appeared little ground for the belief that Johnston would hold Atlanta, nor did there appear any reason why his arrival there should occasion a departure from his previous retrograde policy. Of the purpose of General Johnston to evacuate Atlanta the President felt that he had abundant evidence. Not until he felt fully satisfied upon this point, was the removal of that officer determined upon. Indeed, the order removing Johnston sets forth as its justification, that he had expressed no confidence in his ability to “repel the enemy.” If Atlanta should be surrendered, where would General Johnston expect to give battle?[77]

Subsequently to his removal, General Johnston avowed that his purpose was to hold Atlanta; and, therefore, we are not at liberty to question his purpose. But this does not alter the legitimate inference drawn by Mr. Davis at the time of his removal. Can it be believed that the President would have taken that step, if satisfied of Johnston’s purpose to deliver battle for Atlanta?

This entire subject belongs appropriately only to military discussion, and no decision from other sources can possibly affect the ultimate sentence of that tribunal. Yet the most serious disparagement of Mr. Davis, by civilian writers, has been based upon the removal of Johnston from the command of the Western army. Granting that General Johnston would have sought to hold Atlanta, can it be believed that the ultimate result would have been different? When Sherman invested Atlanta, the North found some compensation for Grant’s failures in Virginia; and even though his force should have been inadequate for a siege, can it now be doubted that he would have been reËnforced to any needed extent? The mere presence of Sherman at Atlanta was justly viewed by the North as an important success. He had followed his antagonist to the very heart of the Confederacy, and was master of innumerable strong positions held by the Confederates at the outset of the campaign. To suppose that he would, at such a moment, be permitted to fail from a lack of means, is a hypothesis at variance with the conduct of the North throughout the war.

General Johnston has that sort of negative vindication which arises from the disasters of his successor, though, as we shall presently show, Mr. Davis was nowise responsible for the misfortunes of General Hood.[78] The question is one which must some day arise as between the general military policy of the Confederacy, and the antagonistic views which have been so freely ascribed to General Johnston by his admirers. We have no desire to pursue that antagonism, which, if it really existed, can hardly yet be a theme for impartial discussion. Towards the close of the war, it was usual to accredit Johnston with the theory that the Confederacy could better afford to lose territory than men, and that hence the true policy of the South was to avoid general engagements, unless under such circumstances as should totally neutralize the enemy’s advantage in numbers. We are not prepared to say to what extent these announcements of his views were authorized by General Johnston, or to what extent they were based upon retrospection. Some confirmation of their authenticity would seem to be deducible from General Johnston’s declaration since the war, that the “Confederacy was too weak for offensive war.” Certainly there could be no theory more utterly antagonistic to the genius of the Southern people, and that is a consideration, to which the great commanders of history have not usually been indifferent. Nor was it the theory which inspired those achievements of Southern valor, which will ring through the centuries. It was not the theory which Lee and Jackson adopted, nor, we need hardly add, that which Jefferson Davis approved.

Indeed, the philosophy of the Southern failure is not to be sought in the discussion of opposing theories among Confederate leaders. The conclusion of history will be, not that the South accomplished less than was to be anticipated, but far more than have any other people under similar circumstances. Southern men hardly yet comprehend the real odds in numbers and resources which for four years they successfully resisted. Other questions than those merely of aggregate populations and material wealth, enter into the solution of the problem.

By the census of 1860, the aggregate free population of the thirteen States, which the Confederacy claimed, was 7,500,000, leaving in the remaining States of the Union a free population of over twenty millions. This statement includes Kentucky and Missouri as members of the Confederacy; yet, by the compulsion of Federal bayonets, these States, not less than Maryland and Delaware, were virtually on the side of the North. Kentucky proclaimed neutrality, but during the whole war was overrun by the Federal armies, and, with her State government and large numbers of her people favoring the North, despite the Southern sympathies of the majority, her moral influence, as well as her physical strength, sustained the Union. The legitimate government of Missouri, and a majority of her people, sided with the South; but early occupied and held by the Federal army, her legitimate government was subverted, and her moral and physical resources were thrown into the scale against the Confederacy.

To say nothing of the large numbers of recruits obtained by the Federal armies from Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, (chiefly from their large foreign populations,) their contributions to the Confederate army were nearly, if not quite, compensated by the accessions to Federal strength from East Tennessee, Western Virginia, and other portions of the seceded States. It would be fair, therefore, to deduct the population of these two States from that of the South, and this would leave the Confederacy five and one-half millions. Dividing their free populations between the two sections, and the odds were six and a half millions against twenty and a half millions. This is a liberal statement for the North, and embraces only the original populations of the two sections at the beginning of hostilities. There can hardly be a reasonable doubt, that had the struggle been confined to these numerical forces, the South would have triumphed. But hordes of foreign mercenaries, incited by high bounty and the promise of booty, flocked to the Federal army, and thus was the North enabled to recruit its armies to any needed standard, while the South depended solely upon its original population. As the South was overrun, too, negroes were forced or enticed into the Federal service, and thus, by these inexhaustible reserves of foreign mercenaries and negro recruits, the Confederate army was finally exhausted.

The following exhibition of the strength of the Federal armies is from the report of the Secretary of War, at the beginning of the session of Congress in December, 1865:

And again:

And again he says:

This statement does not include the regular army, nor the negro troops raised in the Southern States, which were not raised by calls on the States. It may be safely asserted that the “available force present for duty,” of the Federal armies at the beginning or close of the last year of the war, exceeded the entire force called into the service of the Confederacy during the four years. The aggregate of Federal forces raised during the war numbered more than one-third of the free population of the Confederate States, including men, women, and children.[79]But this disparity of numbers, apparently sufficient of itself to decide the issue against the South, was by no means the greatest advantage of the North. When it is asserted that the naval superiority of the North decided the contest in its favor, we are not limited to the consideration merely of that absolute command of the water, which prevented the South from importing munitions of war, except at enormous expense and hazard, which made the defense of the sea-coast and contiguous territory impossible, and which so disorganized the Confederate finances. The Confederacy encountered strategic difficulties, by reason of the naval superiority of the North, which, at an early period of the war, counter-balanced the advantages of its defensive position.

In the beginning the enemy had easy, speedy, and secure access to the Southern coast, and wherever there was a harbor or inlet, was to be found a base of operations for a Federal army. Thus, at the outset, the Confederacy presented on every side an exposed frontier. In every quarter, the Federal armies had bases of operations at right angles, each to the other, and thus, wherever the Confederate army established a defensive line, it was assailable by a second Federal army advancing from a second base. The advantage of rapid concentration of forces, usually belonging to an interior line, was obviated by the easy and rapid conveyance of large masses by water.

Probably the most serious strategic disadvantage of the South was its territorial configuration, through the intersection of its soil in nearly every quarter by navigable rivers, either emptying into the ocean, of which the North, at all times, had undisputed control, or opening upon the Federal frontier. In all the Atlantic States of the Confederacy navigable streams penetrate far into the interior, and empty into the sea. The Mississippi, aptly termed an “inland sea,” flowing through the Confederacy, was, both in its upper waters and at its mouth, held by the North. The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, with their mouths upon the Federal frontiers, navigable in winter for transports and gunboats, in the first twelve months of the war, brought the Federal armies to the centre of the South-west. In the Trans-Mississippi region, the Arkansas and Red Rivers gave the enemy convenient and secure bases of operations along their margins. Each one of these streams having inevitably, sooner or later, become subject to the control of the Federal navy, afforded bases of operations against the interior of the South, while it was likewise threatened from the Northern frontier.

The difficulty of space, which defeated Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, and which has baffled the largest armies led by the ablest commanders, had an easy solution for the North. Remarkable illustrations of the extent to which these water facilities aided the North, were afforded by the signal failure attending every overland advance of the Federal armies so long as the Confederates could raise even the semblance of an opposing force. Besides the innumerable Federal failures in the Appalachian region of Virginia, Sherman and Grant, the most successful of Northern commanders, illustrated this military principle in instances already noted. When Sherman finally marched from the Confederate frontier to the ocean, General Grant’s policy of “attrition” had virtually destroyed the military strength of the South, and Sherman simply accomplished an unopposed march through an undefended country. There can be no better illustration of these strategic difficulties of the Confederacy, than that afforded by the train of disasters in the beginning of 1862, each of which was directly and mainly attributable to the naval advantages of the enemy and the geographical configuration.

A candid review of the events of the first two years of the war will demonstrate the inevitable failure of subjugation of the South, but for these advantages of her invaders. Not only are the facilities of transportation possessed by the North to be considered, but the further advantage extended by its fleet in the event of military reverse. The shipping constituted an invulnerable defense and convenient shelter for the fugitive Federals. Upon at least two occasions, the two main Federal armies were rescued from destruction by the gunboats—in the case of Grant at Shiloh, and of McClellan on James River.

Nor was it possible for the South to make adequate provision to meet the naval advantages of the North. The Federal Government retained the whole of the navy. The North was manufacturing and commercial, while the South was purely agricultural in its means; hence the incomparable rapidity with which the Federal Government accumulated shipping of every character. The initial superiority of the North in naval resources prevented the South from obtaining from foreign sources the men and the material for the equipment of vessels of war. Then, again, the disputed question of the capacity of shore batteries to resist vessels of war, had a most inopportune solution for the South, and in cases where great interests were involved. We have already noted one instance where this question had a fatal solution—that of New Orleans. And in this instance, too, the want of time for preparation was a fatal difficulty. But for the unfinished condition of the iron-clads at New Orleans, the possession of the Mississippi by the enemy would have been greatly deferred, though, with the headwaters and mouth of the great river in Federal control, it was hardly more than a question of time, should the North skillfully employ its superior manufacturing resources and preponderant population.

The special weapon of the North, from which no amount of victories ever brought the Confederacy one moment’s relief, was the blockade—a weapon which the injustice of foreign powers placed in the grasp of our adversaries. The blockade ruined the Confederate finances and, by preventing the importation of military material, weakened the Confederate armies to the extent of thousands of men who were detailed for manufacturing and other purposes. It was the blockade, too, which caused the derangement of the internal economy of the South, creating the painful contrast in the effects of the war upon the two sections. The North, with its ports open, the abundant gold of California, and petroleum stimulating speculation, found in the war a mine of wealth. Patriotism and profit went hand in hand. The vast expenditures of Government created a lucrative market; the enormous transportation demanded made the railroads prosperous beyond parallel; and the sources of popular prosperity and exhilaration were inexhaustible. The condition of the South was the exact reverse. With its commerce almost totally suspended; frequently in peril of famine; whole States, one after another, occupied or devastated by the enemy, so that when the Confederate armies expelled the enemy they could not maintain themselves, and were compelled to retreat; deprived of every comfort, and nearly of all the necessaries of life, the history of the war in the South is a record of universal and unrelieved suffering.

It must be apparent that we have here given but a superficial review and imperfect statement of the obstacles with which the South contended. But, assuredly, before even this array of odds, such minor questions as the removal of one officer and the retention of another sink into utter insignificance. As we have before intimated, many of the most important incidents in the conduct of the war must be reserved for the decision of impartial military judgment. What if it should be granted that the appointment of Pemberton and the removal of Johnston were fatal blunders, were they compensated by no acts of judicious selection of other officers for promotion and reward? Is the firm and constant support of Lee, of Sidney Johnston, of Jackson, and of Early to be accounted as nothing? Are we to accept the imputation of error to Mr. Davis alone? We need not pursue the career of General Johnston much farther than its beginning to discover what his countrymen unanimously deplored as an error, what Stonewall Jackson declared a fatal blunder. General Lee confessed his error at Gettysburg. Beauregard, too, has been generally adjudged to have seriously erred at Shiloh. Yet how easy would it be to construct a plausible theory, demonstrating the seriously adverse influence upon the fortunes of the Confederacy, from each one of those errors. And we could extend the parallel much farther. Napoleon estimated the merits of different generals by the comparative number of their faults and virtues. Perhaps that is even a better philosophy which urges us to measure the reputations of men, “not by their exemption from fault, but by the size of the virtues of which they are possessed.” Assuredly, the South can never demur to the application of this test either to herself or her late leader. Judged by such a standard of merit, neither can be apprehensive for the award of posterity. Two generations hence, if not sooner, Jefferson Davis, not less for his wisdom than for his virtues, will be commemorated as the Washington of the South.

With a view to dramatic unity, we shall disregard somewhat of chronological order, and follow, with a rapid summary, the movements of the ill-starred Western army of the Confederacy, to the point where its existence virtually terminated. The successor of General Johnston, General John B. Hood, embodied a rare union of the characteristics of the popular ideal of a soldier. He was the noblest contribution of Kentucky chivalry to the armies of the South, and his record throughout the war, even though ending in terrible disaster, was that of a gallant, dashing, and skillful leader. Identified with the Army of Northern Virginia from an early period of its history, he shared its dangers, its trials, and its most thrilling triumphs. “Hood and his Texans” were household words in the Confederacy, and the bulletins from every battle-field in Virginia were emblazoned with their exploits. Few commanders have possessed to a greater extent than Hood that magnetic mastery over troops, which imbues them with the consciousness of irresistible resolution. Of conspicuous personal gallantry and commanding physique, he united to fiery energy, consummate self-possession and excellent tactical ability. A favorite with General Lee and President Davis, he had also received the warm commendation of Stonewall Jackson for his distinguished services at Cold Harbor, in 1862.

Painfully wounded and disabled at Gettysburg, he accompanied his old division to Georgia, and, while his previous wound was yet unhealed, he lost a leg at Chickamauga. After months of painful confinement, he was again in Richmond, soliciting the privilege of additional service to his country. His conspicuous devotion challenged equally the admiration of the people and the Government, and President Davis was universally declared never to have conferred a more deserved promotion than that by which he made Hood a Lieutenant-General. General Hood was assigned to the command of a corps under Johnston, and accompanied the army in its movements from Dalton to Atlanta.

The appointment of Hood as the successor of Johnston was the occasion of renewed anticipation to the South. His aggressive qualities, it was thought, would supply that bold and energetic policy which the country believed to be the great need of the situation in Georgia. Nor was there any thing in the record of Hood, to cause apprehension that his possession of these qualities excluded such an equipoise of mental faculties, as should ensure a sound and discreet system of operations.

We shall not discuss in detail the operations which General Hood so speedily inaugurated. They were necessitated, to a large extent, by a situation of affairs for which he was not responsible. The one object of Hood, and the one hope and necessity of the Confederacy, was the expulsion of Sherman from a vital section. Sherman had not delayed an hour in his purpose of securing possession of the Macon road, and severing the communications of Atlanta. Already he was preparing operations similar to those by which Grant sought the isolation of Petersburg; and if his strength was not then adequate, there could be no question of his capacity to obtain ample means from his Government to secure the great results of his skillfully conducted and successful campaign. The situation required precisely that immediate execution of a vigorous policy by which Lee had relieved Richmond of the presence of McClellan.

While thus foreseeing the fatal result of permitting himself to be besieged in Atlanta, General Hood did not rashly assail the enemy. A favorable opportunity was presented, by a gap between two of Sherman’s columns, for a concentrated assault upon that which was most exposed. Though the Confederate forces were admirably massed and skillfully led, they were eventually repulsed by the murderous fire of the Federal artillery, which was concentrated with signal promptitude and served with rare ability. This demonstration was a failure, though it had promised favorably, and, for a time, exposed the entire Federal army to serious danger. A series of subsequent engagements, fought by Hood to prevent the consummation of Sherman’s design to isolate Atlanta, left the enemy in possession of the Confederate line of supply, and Atlanta was evacuated on the 1st of September.

Such was the melancholy conclusion, for the Confederacy, of the first stage of the Georgia campaign. Military judgment must decide, how far an able offensive policy, at the outset of the campaign would have delayed, if not entirely checked the march of Sherman to Atlanta; how far an offensive was then practicable; to what extent Hood’s course was imposed upon him by a situation which he did not create, and whether his accession to command, either altered or hastened the ultimate fate of Atlanta.

The emergency consequent upon the fall of Atlanta, summoned President Davis to Georgia. His visit was dictated by the double purpose, of healing dissensions in that State, and of devising measures for the restoration of the campaign. The perverse course of Governor Brown had proven successful in the dissemination of disaffection, and his teachings were beginning to mature those fruits of demoralization in Georgia, which the subsequent march of Sherman abundantly developed. It would be impossible to characterize the conduct of this official in terms of extravagant severity. Capricious and perverse in his hostility to the Confederate Government, while yet professing fealty to the cause, he contrived, in the most distressing exigencies, to paralyze the energies of Georgia, and finally to create a feeling bordering closely upon open disaffection.

The conduct of Governor Brown, acceptable only to the clique of malcontents who followed him, was the subject of criticism throughout the Confederacy, and of suspicion by a large portion of the public. It is a matter of record that after the fall of Atlanta he refused to coÖperate with the Confederate authorities for the defense of Georgia, and demanded the return of the Georgia troops in Virginia, unless the President would send reËnforcements. Yet he was perfectly aware that the Confederate Government then, had not one man to spare in any quarter, and was in a crisis, produced solely by the want of numbers. His communications to the Confederate Government were usually splenetic assaults upon the President, whose military administration he offensively criticised, and whom he charged with an ambition to destroy every protection to the reserved rights of the States. There is no point of view in which the course of Governor Brown is not equally incomprehensible and indefensible. It was freighted with disaster and defeat to the cause which he professed to serve. Considered in the aspect of partisan administration, or the indulgence of personal spleen, its inconsistency was paralleled only by its folly. It demoralized public sentiment, and tended largely to that corruption of the public and the army which, in the last stage of the war, was so palpable. Not the least injurious feature of Governor Brown’s official policy was the unpropitious seasons which he selected for the indulgence of his capricious and splenetic moods. Upon the heels of crushing military disasters, and when the Confederate authorities were most helpless, Governor Brown was most exacting.

The purposes of his persistent and vindictive impeachments of the Confederate Government, at such periods, must remain a subject of speculation. Certainly he did not exalt his dignity as a statesman, nor approve his earnestness as a patriot, by giving precedence to his personal animosities over his official duties, and by substituting for coÖperation in support of a cause to which he protested his devotion, a system of malignant controversy with the national authorities.

The interviews of President Davis, with Governor Brown, during his visit to Georgia, in September, failed, as had all previous efforts to that end, to effect an accommodation of differences. Governor Brown was determined not to be satisfied, and though Mr. Davis, having made nearly every concession demanded, left him under the impression that Brown was at last prepared to coÖperate with him heartily and zealously, he was speedily convinced of the error of such a calculation.While on his way to Hood’s army Mr. Davis addressed the citizens of Macon, and spoke with great candor, concerning the perils of the situation, which, though serious, he believed, might be repaired. Alluding to the demand made upon him for reËnforcements from Virginia, he said that the disparity in Virginia was greater than in Georgia; the army under Early had been sent to the Valley, because the enemy had penetrated to Lynchburg; and now should Early be withdrawn, there would be nothing to prevent the Federal army from forming a complete cordon of men around Richmond. He had counseled with General Lee upon all these points; his mind had sought to embrace the entire field, and the necessities of every quarter, and his conclusion was, that “if one-half of the men now absent from the field, would return to duty, we can defeat the enemy. With that hope, I am now going to the front. I may not realize this hope, but I know that there are men there, who have looked death too often in the face to despond now.”

On the 18th September, the President reached Hood’s head-quarters, and on the following day reviewed the whole army. He addressed the troops in terms of encouragement, and his promise to them of an advance northward, was received with unbounded enthusiasm. The situation in Georgia admitted a very limited consideration of expedients, by which to obtain compensation for the loss of Atlanta. Sherman’s presence, unmolested, in the interior of Georgia, during the autumn and winter, would be fatal. He would then be in a position to assail, at leisure, the only remaining source of supplies for the Confederate armies. His cavalry could safely penetrate in every direction, destroying communications and supplies, and producing universal demoralization.Hood was confident that his army was capable of better fighting than it had performed against Sherman, provided it could meet the enemy under such circumstances as should promise the recovery of the ground lost, in the event of victory. To attack Sherman in Atlanta was not to be considered, and to await the development of the enemy’s plan would be dangerous. Sherman had already announced his purpose to rest his army at Atlanta, with a view to its preparation for the arduous enterprises yet before it. Hence, it became necessary to adopt a plan, which should draw him away from his defenses, and compel him to fight upon equal ground.

It may be briefly stated that the subsequent operations of General Hood, when they ceased to menace the enemy’s flank, and assumed the character of a mere detachment upon the Federal rear, was not the plan of campaign which Mr. Davis expected to be carried into execution. He approved a concentration upon the Federal flank, which it was not likely Sherman would permit to be endangered. Seeing, however, the exposed situation of the country south of Atlanta, in consequence of the movement into Alabama, Mr. Davis opposed any operations which should place Hood’s army beyond striking distance of Sherman, should the latter move southward from Atlanta.

It is remarkable to what extent the movements of Sherman demonstrated the judicious character of the Confederate movement, so long as it was in conformity with these views of Mr. Davis. Puzzled, at first, as to Hood’s purposes, Sherman was no longer perplexed as to what his own course should be, when it was evident that Hood was making a serious demonstration for the recovery of Tennessee, meanwhile giving up Georgia entirely to Federal possession. When these larger and more doubtful enterprises were added to the original scope of the Confederate movement, Mr. Davis was too remote from the scene to assume the responsibility of recalling the army from an enterprise which he felt assured would not be attempted without justifying information by the commander.[80]

But, after all, the disastrous consequences, following the uncovering of Georgia, are to be attributed less to the intrinsically erroneous strategy of Hood, than to the consummate vigor and promptitude of Sherman. Odious to the South as Sherman is, by reason of his cruelties and barbarities, he can not be denied the merit of an immediate grasp of the critical situation, and a no less prompt execution. A commander of less self-possession, and less audacity, would have been bewildered by the transfer of an army from his immediate front to his rear, and placed astride his communications. The “march to the sea” was no military exploit, and only a brazen charlatanism could exalt it as an illustration of genius. The proof of Sherman’s merit is to be seen in the quick determination and execution of his purpose, when the real significance of Hood’s operations was revealed. His telegram to Washington fully described the situation and prophesied the sequel: “Hood has crossed the Tennessee. Thomas will take care of him and Nashville, while Schofield will not let him into Chattanooga or Knoxville. Georgia and South Carolina are at my mercy, and I shall strike. Do not be anxious about me. I am all right.”

We are not permitted to trace the unfortunate Tennessee campaign of General Hood, culminating in his disastrous defeat at Nashville, in December, and in the virtual destruction of the gallant but ill-starred army, upon whose bayonets the Confederate power, west of the Alleghanies, was so long upheld. It was the final campaign of the Confederacy in that quarter, and, with its failure, perished forever the hope of defending the western and central sections of the South.[81] Meanwhile, Sherman, unopposed, had marched like Fate through Georgia, to Savannah, realizing Grant’s assertion that the Confederacy was a mere shell, and revealing a fact, until then not clearly appreciated, of the exhaustion and demoralization of its people.