army, and to advise the general-in-chief
of the supposed danger to our ‘extreme right flank.’
There occurred on that occasion one of those little and seemingly trifling incidents which never escape the memory, and are always a source of pride, especially to those who are comparatively young.
's despatch, which he interpreted as meaning that my corps was not in position to protect Hooker
's flank, he said in substance, if not literally, and with great emphasis: ‘That is not true.
I sent Schofield
an order to be there.
I know he received the order, for his initials, in his own hand, are on the envelop which the orderly brought back, and I know he is there.
's statement is false.’
What a delight it was to execute the orders of a chief who manifested such confidence!
I do not remember that I was ‘very angry’ about Hooker
's despatch, as General Sherman
II, page 59), though I think Sherman
was. Indeed, he had more reason to be angry than I; for the fact, and evidence of it, were so plain that the Twenty-third Corps had done its duty as ordered, that if Hooker
's despatch was meant to imply the contrary, which I doubt, that was a cause of anger to the general-in-chief
, whom he had unnecessarily alarmed, rather than to me, who had no apprehension of being suspected by the general-in-chief
of having failed in my duty.
In fact, I do not recollect having seen Hooker
's despatch at all until I saw it quoted in Sherman
My recollection is that Sherman
told me, on his visiting us the next day, that he had received during the battle a despatch from Hooker
to the effect that his flank was unprotected.
In reply to this I explained to General Sherman
where my troops had been during the engagement, and showed him the dead of the 14th Kentucky lying on the advanced ground they had held while Hascall
's division was forming.
I believe that if I had seen Hooker