Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War.

The Confederates had no means of transporting the cotton across the country to the sea-coast except by wagons, a proceeding that would not have paid expenses, and General Banks when he arrived at Alexandria should have recognized that fact, if he did not know it before.

It would have been the simplest thing in the world for General Banks to have held Alexandria, which is exactly in the centre of western Louisiana, and lies on a large river, by which he could at all times be supplied with stores and reinforcements. He had everything to justify him in adopting this course, even if his original orders were to invade Texas through the Red River region.

General Grant, after becoming Commander-in-chief of the western armies. directed Banks, on or before the 5th of May, to return General A. J. Smith's command to General Sherman, and that he should march upon Mobile with what forces he had. As Banks paid no attention to this command, he was guilty of disobedience of orders. He did not move from Alexandria upon Shreveport until the 29th of March, and there was not time between that date and the 5th of May to accomplish the campaign, even with uninterrupted success, which no one but Banks himself counted on.

Banks' holding Alexandria and opening the country to commerce would probably not have been opposed by the Confederate generals; but when he attempted to move into the heart of the country at the same time that Steele with a large army was advancing to join him, the Confederates saw that it was the subjugation of all Louisiana and the invasion of Texas that was contemplated.

Banks finally accomplished for the Confederates more than they could have hoped to do for themselves, turning their trans-Mississippi department from a rather harmless affair into one of importance, provided with powerful artillery and small arms captured from his army.

The Confederates thus encouraged assembled a large army, composed of Texans and others, under enterprising leaders, who animated their men with their own spirit, and, encouraged by their unexpected success against the Federal arms, were getting ready to resume that system of warfare the Navy experienced so much trouble in breaking up.

If they did not put their old tactics in operation. it was because they deemed it wiser to let well alone, having driven one of the best appointed of the Union armies out of their country.

General Banks labored under the disadvantage not only of having some inefficient staff-officers, but of not being in accord with the officers of the regular Army who commanded the 13th, 16th and 19th corps.

Most of the civilians who undertook the command of armies were wise enough to select a capable soldier as chief of-staff and surrounded themselves with as much military talent as possible; but Banks having previously succeeded in all that he had undertaken, having been a popular Governor and Speaker of the House of Representatives, thought himself equal in military abilities to any army officer; and although in every operation of consequence undertaken by him he failed of success, yet he assumed as much as Caesar did after he had conquered the world.

The duties of the chief-of-staff of a civilian general were much more important than those of the chief-of-staff of a regular officer, and the Government, recognizing the possible inexperience of their volunteer generals, endeavored to place with each of them an officer of experience, whose duties were so onerous as hardly gave him time to eat or sleep.

The history of the civil war establishes that, wherever these educated chiefs-of-staff were supported by their civilian generals, the latter got along much better than those who, like Banks, chose to ignore the chief-of-staff altogether.

It was plain to any one from the beginning of naval intercourse with General Banks, that he and General Stone were not on good terms, and that Banks relied chiefly on one of his aides, who had received no regular military training, and was about as ignorant of the art of war as it was possible for a man to be.

Before the Army left Alexandria any one could see that General Stone did not exercise the influence over military movements that a chief-of-staff should, and this became more apparent in the advance towards Shreveport in the matter of assigning proper positions to the different portions of the Army, and in other respects; for a chief-of-staff is supposed to be on the most confidential terms with the Commander-in-chief, and is in duty bound to see his plans carried out.

General Banks complains that Stone's judgment was not good, and therefore he had to rely on some one else. He states that although General Stone was on the field at Sabine Cross Roads all day, yet he did not insist on the concentration of the Federal forces, nor did he seem to be aware that the enemy were in force in his front.

Now, Banks was on the field himself, and did not do any of the things he blames Stone for not doing.