The Second Corps was on the march towards Petersburg on the 15th, arriving within a mile of that portion of the works already captured by my division at about sunset, and about ten o'clock at night moved into these works, General Smith being then upon the ground; and by his orders my division was withdrawn to the rear some seventy-five or one hundred yards.Again I call attention to what has passed into history relative to the hour of Smith's attack and Hancock's arrival. Capt. Gordon McCabe, at the head of Pegram's Battery, of the Army of Northern Virginia, in an address delivered before the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia,1 says:--
[701]
to Smith for that part of the work, because Smith knew the ground upon which the operations were to be performed.
Now, if anything has been proven it is that Hancock arrived early in the evening and offered to co-operate with Smith in every way, even to giving up the command of the movement of his corps to Smith.
Smith knew that he had knowledge of the article, and knew that Grant had ascertained that fact, and yet he denied it, and he knew that Grant relieved him, not for his insubordination, or any other thing done during his absence on leave, but for having participated in publishing a libel upon his brother superior officer, before that, and for denying the truth about it. No one, upon reading the article, which comprises nearly seven columns of closely printed matter in the Tribune, can doubt that Grant was right.
To remove from the memory of General Grant all obloquies in the letter of Smith, I ought in justice to say a few more words before I dismiss him, I trust, forever.
Because of the very decided contradiction of Smith's statements I have above given, it is due that I show by facts that his official statements, even, in any matter, are not reliable.
I have already touched upon the mendacity of his report to me at midnight of the 15th of June that “General Hancock had not then come up,” and called attention to the statements of Lieutenant Davenport, my staff officer, directly and fully contradicting him.
I also call attention to the letter of General Hinks which likewise contradicts him in that point:--
1 Vol. II., Southern Historical Society Papers, Nov. 1, 1876, p. 257.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.