« PreviousContinue »
the open space effectively swept by his artillery, advanced on them, and they fled. The battle was over on the right.
"During all this, the skirmishers of the left were moving in our front. A line of battle was formed on the ridge. About twenty minutes after the attack on the right, the enemy advanced in four columns on battery Robinett, and were treated to grape and canister until within fifty yards; when the Ohio brigade arose and gave them a murderous fire of musketry, before which they reeled and fell back to the woods. They, however, gallantly reformed and advanced again to the charge, led by Col. Rogers, of the 2d Texas. This time, they reached the edge of the ditch; but the deadly musketry fire of the Ohio brigade again broke them; and, at the word charge, the 11th Missouri and 27th Ohio sprang up and forward at them, chasing their broken fragments back to the woods. Thus by noon
ended the battle of the 4th of October."
In his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War,
"Between 3 and 4 o'clock A. M., the enemy opened his batteries furiously from a point in front of battery Robinett; but in the
course of an hour he was silenced and driven from his position. Our troops, thus aroused from their brief rest, which could scarcely be called slumber, nerved themselves for the coming fight; the brunt of
which came on about 10 o'clock, when, the enemy charging our right center, Davies's
division gave way, but speedily rallied, and, with the aid of Hamilton's division and a cross-fire from battery Robinett, poured in a fire so destructive that the enemy were thrown into confusion and finally driven from this part of the field; at the same time, he also charged battery Robinett; but was thoroughly repulsed, after two or three efforts, and retired to the woods. With our inferior numbers of exhausted troops, we stood on the defensive, sending skirmishers
to the front and expecting another charge from the enemy, till about 3 o'clock P. M.; when, finding that their skirmishers yielded to ours, we began to push them, and by 4 o'clock became satisfied that they intended to retire from our immediate front; but so superior was their strength that I could not believe they would altogether abandon the operation. By 6 P. M., our skirmishers had pushed theirs back five miles."
Our soldiers, having now been marching and fighting some 48 hours,
| with very little rest, Gen. Rosecrans ordered all but those on the skirmish line to lie down, while five days' rations should be issued to them, and that they should start in pursuit of the enemy early next morning; but, just before sunset, Gen. McPherson arrived, with five fresh regiments from Gen. Grant, and was given the advance on the trail of the flying enemy, whom he followed 15 miles next day;" having a skirmish with his rear-guard that night.
Meantime, another division, which Gen. Grant had pushed forward from Bolivar, at 3 A. M. of the eventful 4th, under Gen. Hurlbut, to the relief of Corinth, had struck the head of the enemy's retreating forces and skirmished with it considerably during the afternoon. Hurlbut was joined and ranked, next morning, by Ord. The Rebel advance, having crossed the Hatchie river at Davis's bridge, were encountered by Ord and driven back so precipitately that they were unable to burn the bridge, losing 2 batteries and 300 prisoners. Ord, being in inferior numbers, did not pursue across the river, but gathered up 900 small arms which the Rebels had thrown away. reports that his losses in killed and wounded during that day's pursuit were several hundreds-probably exceeding those of the enemy, who fought only under dense cover, with every advantage of ground, compelling our men to advance across open fields and up hills against them. Gen. Veatch was among our wounded.
Van Dorn crossed the Hatchie that night at Crumm's Mill, 12 miles farther south, burning the bridge behind him. McPherson rebuilt the
37 Oct. 5.
UNION AND REBEL LOSSES AT CORINTH.
bridge and crossed next day;" con- | with 2,248 prisoners." He estimated tinuing the pursuit to Ripley, followed by Rosecrans with most of his army, gathering up deserters and stragglers by the way. Rosecrans was anxiously eager to continue the pursuit, and telegraphed to Grant for permission to do so," believing the Rebel army utterly demoralized and incapable of resistance; but he was directed to desist and return to Corinth. Nine days after his return, he was relieved from his command at Corinth, and ordered to report at Cincinnati; where he found a dispatch directing him to supersede Gen. Buell in command of the Army of the Ohio and Department of the Cumberland, including all of Tennessee east of the Tennessee river.
Gen. Rosecrans reports his total loss at Corinth and in the pursuit at 2,359-315 killed, 1,812 wounded, and 232 missing; and says that the Rebel loss in killed alone was 1,423,
se Oct. 6.
"He gives these reasons for his eagerness, in his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War:
"Mississippi was in our hands. The enemy
had concentrated all his available force for an offensive movement, had been thoroughly beaten at Corinth, and had then retreated, blowing up his ammunition wagons and caissons; their men throwing away their camp and garrison equipage in the flight. The weather was cool; the roads were dry, and likely to be so for a month to come. Corn was ripe, and, as yet, untouched. We had 3,000,000 of rations in Corinth, and ammunition for six months. There was but one bridge injured on the Mobile and Ohio road; and it could be put in running order by a regiment in half a day. The enemy were so alarmed that, when Hamilton sent a reconnoissance to Blackland, they vacated Tupelo, burning even the bacon which they could not take away on the first train. I had eighty wagon-loads of assorted rations which had reached me that night at Ripley, and had ordered the 30,000 from Chewalla to Hurlbut."
their loss in wounded at 5,692. He says the prisoners represented 53 regiments of infantry, 16 of cavalry, 13 batteries, and 7 battalions; and that their numbers engaged were nearly double his own," which he makes less than 20,000 in all." Among his trophies were 14 flags, 2 guns, 3,300 small arms, &c.; while the Rebels, in their retreat, blew up many ammunition and other wagons, and left the ground strewn with tents, accouterments, &c. Among our killed were Gen. Pleasant A. Hackleman," Col. Thomas Kilby Smith, 43d Ohio, and Cols. Thrush, Baker, and Miles; while Gen. Richard J. Oglesby, Adjt.-Gen. Clark, of Rosecrans's staff, and Col. Mower, 11th Missouri, were among the severely wounded. On the Rebel side, Acting Brigadiers Rogers, Johnston, and Martin were killed, and Cols. Pritchard, Daily, and McClain were wounded.
40 Pollard-who rarely or never finds the Rebel losses the greater-says:
"Our loss in all the three days' engagements was probably quite double that of the enemy. In killed and wounded, it exceeded 3,000; and it was estimated, beside, that we had left more than 1,500 prisoners in the hands of the enemy."
41 He says, in his official report:
"We fought the combined Rebel force of Mississippi, commanded by Van Dorn, Price, Lovell, Villipigue, and Rust in person; numbering, according to their own authority, 38,000
"He says, in his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War:
"Our own force in the fight was about 15,700 infantry and artillery, and about 2,500 effective cavalry.”
in the Franklin district, Indiana.
"Since elected Governor of Illinois.
SLAVERY IN THE WAR-EMANCIPATION.
THE Federal Constitution was framed in General Convention, and carried in the several State Conventions, by the aid of adroit and politic evasions and reserves on the part of its framers and champions. The existing necessity for a stronger central authority, which had been developed during the painful experiences of our preceding years of independence, were most keenly felt by the mercantile and mechanical or manufacturing classes, who were consequently zealous advocates of a "more perfect Union." The rural districts, on the other hand, were far less seriously affected by commercial embarrassment and currency dilapidation, and were naturally jealous of a distant and unfamiliar power. Hence the reticence, if not ambiguity, of the text with regard to what has recently been termed "coercion," or the right of the Federal Government to subdue by arms the forcible resistance of a State, or of several States, to its legitimate authority-a reticence which was imitated by the most prominent advocates of ratification, whether in The Federalist or in the several State Conventions. So with regard to Slavery as well. It is plain that the General Convention would have utterly and instantly prohibited the Foreign Slave-Trade, but for the proelaimed fact that this would insure the rejection of their handiwork by the still slave-hungry States of South Carolina and Georgia, if not of North Carolina also; though Virginia was among the most earnest advocates of
the prohibition. Hence, when the State Conventions were assembled to ratify or reject it, with such eminent Revolutionary patriots as Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, George Clinton, and Luther Martin, leading in the opposition, the clauses affecting Slavery were vigilantly, and not unsuccessfully, scrutinized for grounds of attackthe provision concerning the African Slave-Trade being assailed in some States from the side of Slavery, in others from that of anti-Slavery, with vigor and effect. In the North, these assaults were parried by pointing to the power conferred on Congress to abolish the traffic after twenty years, as so much clear gain: to reject the Constitution would not arrest the traffic now, but would destroy the power to prohibit it hereafter. On the other hand, the Federalists in the Southern Conventions met their adversaries by pointing to the privilege secured to the slaveholders of hunting their fugitive chattels in other States than their own-a privilege hitherto non-existent-and asked them what was to be gained by rejecting that. In fact, the Constitution was essentially a matter of compromise and mutual concession-a proceeding wherein Thrift is apt to gain at the cost of Principle. Perhaps the majority in no State obtained exactly what they wanted, but were satisfied that, on the whole, they were better with the Constitution than without it.
Patrick Henry alone, in opposing
VIEWS OF PATRICK HENRY AND J. Q. ADAMS.'
ratification, assailed the Constitution as a measure of thorough, undisguised, all-absorbing consolidation, and, though himself a professed contemner of Slavery, sought to arouse the fears of the Virginia slaveholders as follows:
"Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves, if they please; and this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with. you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here,
that the great object of a National Govern ment was national defense. That power, which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the General Government to provide for the general defense, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the Government which is intrusted with the public defense. In this State, there are 236,000 Blacks; and there are many in several other States: but there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say that every Black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly
passed, that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about: Slavery is detested; we feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defense-let all these things operate on their minds: they will search that paper, and see if they have the power of manumission. And have they not, Sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they
not think that these call for the abolition of
Slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free? and will they not be warranted
In closing the argument in favor of ratifying the Federal Constitution, Mr. Zachariah Johnson said:
"They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the Revolution. Let
by that power? There is no ambiguous
Gov. Edmund Randolph-who became Washington's Attorney-General-answered Mr. Henry: denying most strenuously that there is any power of abolition given to Congress by the Constitution; but not alluding to what Henry had urged with regard to the War power and the right of Congress to summon every slave to the military defense of the country. Nor does this view of the subject appear to have attracted much attention elsewhere-at least, it does not appear to have been anywhere controverted.'
In 1836, Mr. John Quincy Adams, having been required to vote Yea or Nay, in the House, on a proposition reported by Mr. H. L. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in these words-
"Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional power to interfere in any way with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy"
voted Nay, in company with but eight others; and, obtaining the floor in Committee soon afterward, on a proposition that rations be distributed from the public stores to citizens of Georgia and Alabama who have been driven from their homes by Indian
us do what we will, it will come around.
* May 25,
depredations, proceeded to show that such distribution (which he advocated) was justifiable only under the constitutional power of Congress "to promote the general welfare," which Southern statesmen habitually repudiated, or under the still more sweep ing War power. In the course of his argument, he said:
| to interfere with the institution of Slavery
"During the war with Great Britain, the military and naval commanders of that nation issued proclamations inviting the slaves "Sir, in the authority given to Congress by to repair to their standard, with promises the Constitution of the United States to de- of freedom and of settlement in some of the clare war, all the powers incidental to war British colonial establishments. This, sureare, by necessary implication, conferred upon ly, was an interference with the institution the Government of the United States. Now, of Slavery in the States. By the treaty of the powers incidental to war are derived, peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate not from their internal municipal source, all the forts and places in the United States, but from the laws and usages of nations. without carrying away any slaves. If the * * * There are, then, Mr. Chairman, Government of the United States had no in the authority of Congress and of the power to interfere, in any way, with the Executive, two classes of powers, altogether institution of Slavery in the States, they different in their nature, and often incom- would not have had the authority to require patible with each other-the War power this stipulation. It is well known that this and the Peace power. The Peace power is engagement was not fulfilled by the British limited by regulations, and restricted by naval and military commanders; that, on provisions, prescribed within the Constitu- the contrary, they did carry away all the tion itself. The War power is limited only slaves whom they had induced to join them; by the laws and usages of nations. This and that the British Government inflexibly power is tremendous; it is strictly constitu- refused to restore any of them to their mastional; but it breaks down every barrier so ters; that a claim of indemnity was conseanxiously erected for the protection of lib- quently instituted in behalf of the owners erty, of property, and of life. This, Sir, is of the slaves, and was successfully mainthe power which authorizes you to pass the tained. All that series of transactions was resolution now before you; and, in my opin- an interference by Congress with the instiion, there is no other. * There are, tution of Slavery in the States in one way indeed, powers of Peace conferred upon Con--in the way of protection and support. It gress which also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the laws of nations; such as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce; the interchange of public ministers and consuls; and all the personal and social intercourse between the individual inhabitants of the United States and foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, which require the interposition of any law. But the powers of War are all regulated by the laws of nations, and are subject to no other limitation. * * * It was upon this principle that I voted against the resolution reported by the Slavery Committee, 'that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this confederacy;' to which resolution most of those with whom I usually concur, and even my own colleagues in this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that there is, even among the Peace powers of Congress, no such authority; but in war, there are many ways by which Congress not only have the authority, but are bound,
was by the institution of Slavery alone that the restitution of slaves, enticed by procla mations into the British service, could be claimed as property. But for the institution of Slavery, the British commanders could neither have allured them to their standard, nor restored them, otherwise than as liberated prisoners of war. But for the institution of Slavery, there could have been no stipulation that they should not be carried away as property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of that engagement.
"But the War power of Congress over the institution of Slavery in the States is yet far more extensive. Suppose the case of a servile war, complicated, to some extent-as it is even now-with an Indian war; suppose Congress were called to raise armies, to supply money from the whole Union to suppress a servile insurrection: would they have no authority to interfere with the institution of Slavery? The issue of a servile war may be disastrous; it may become necessary for the master of the slave to recognize his emancipation by a