E 477 .52 .S554 Copy 1 THE BATTLE OF SPRING HILL, TENNESSEE November 29, 1864 A refutation of the erroneous statements made by Captain Scofield in his paper entitled "The Retreat from Pulaski to Nashville" Captain John K. Shellenberger One hundred, twenty-five copies privately printed for the author by THE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY Cleveland: 19 13 THE BATTLE OF SPRING HILL, TENNESSEE THE BATTLE OF SPRING HILL, TENNESSEE November 29, 1864 A refutation of the erroneous statements made by Captain Scolield in his paper entitled "The Retreat from Pulaski to Nashville" Captain John K. Shellenberger One hundred, twenty-five copies privately printed for the author by THE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY Cleveland: 19 13 '055^ FOREWORD In the second volume Sketches of War History, issued by the Ohio Commandery of the Loyal Legion, there is a paper entitled "The Retreat from Pulaski to Nashville" prepared and read December i, 1886, by Captain Levi T. Scofield (spelled without an "h") although it would appear from their similar methods that he and General John M. Schofield (spelled with an "h") were scions from the same tree. This paper, while indulging in extravagant praise of the generalship of Schofield and Cox during that retreat, to which no one would raise any serious ob- jection, descended to the sneaking methods of an assas- sin in its desire to smirch the reputation of Wagner's Division - a division, which by its conduct in both the Battles of Spring Hill and Franklin, saved the army from an imminent danger of destruction to which it was subjected by grossly incompetent generalship. As an instance of the covert methods used by Captain Scofield in his efforts to dishonor Wagner's Division, in describing what occurred in the Battle of Franklin, he cunningly puts the ugly word, "cowards," which he was afraid to use himself, into the mouth of Gen- eral Wagner: "with terrible oaths he called them cowards," and he indorses the fitness of the epithet by his own statement: "but back they went to the town and nothing could stop them." 8 Foreword At the close of that campaign I knew in a general way, as any subaltern participant would know, that gross blunders had been committed but was ignorant regarding on whom the responsibility for the blunders primarily rested. Some years before Captain Sco- field's paper appeared I had been in correspondence with General Opdycke and from him had learned much about the true inwardness of the Battle of Franklin. He was writing a history of that campaign and at his request I had furnished him a statement of what I knew about it. Unfortunately he died before his work was completed and with his death my interest in the matter lapsed until the appearance of Captain Scofield's paper. I then began a critical investigation to make a reply and soon struck the right trail regard- ing the responsibility for the blunders and followed it home. My paper was completed by the latter part of 1889 and was sent to the Ohio Commandery, where it was rejected for "harsh criticism of general officers." The influence of General Cox was then too strong in the Ohio Commandery for me to get a hear- ing. I next sent the paper to the National Tribune^ in which it appeared in the issues of January 30, Feb- ruary 6 and 13, 1890. Many letters were received about it- mostly complimentary but a few abusive. The most valued one came from General Stanley in which he stated that he was "surprised at the accuracy with which you state your points." He did not mention General Schofield's name in this letter and was always very guarded in subsequent letters of any mention of him, but in a later one, referring especially Foreword 9 to the Battle of Spring Hill, he stated, "Schofield's claim [he has lectured on it], that it was all thought out and planned by him, is trash." In the same mail with the first letter came a much longer one from Mrs. Stanley, scoring General Schofield and praising me highly for the fearless manner in which I had told the truth about him. Thus came assurances from the most reliable source as to the truth of what I had told. Some of the letters received at that time contained valuable bits of criticism and additional bits of in- formation of which I took advantage in subsequent papers. In 1902, being then a resident of St. Paul, I prepared a monograph on the Battle of Franklin which was read before the Minnesota Commandery at the meeting of December 9, 1902. They seemed to enjoy "harsh criticism of general officers" in Min- nesota, for the recorder assured me no other paper had ever held more closely the undivided attention of its auditors. Many of my correspondents had expressed the wish that I would publish in pamphlet form the National Tribune article, but this was never done. Of the Franklin monograph a pamphlet edition was printed and copies were mailed to every Commandery of the Loyal Legion, to historical libraries, and to many individuals, including General Schofield and Captain Scofield. In my Franklin researches I had incidentally picked up much valuable information concerning the Battle of Spring Hill and after the issue of the Franklin pamphlet I carried the Spring Hill investigation to a finish, making a special trip to Spring Hill, in October, 1906, to verify some of my lO Foreword data. The result was a monograph on that battle which was read at a meeting of the Missouri Com- mandery of the Loyal Legion, February 2, 1907. A pamphlet edition was printed and distributed as be- fore. Since then Captain Scofield has issued his paper in a small bound volume profusely illustrated with por- traits and pictures, and with several maps. One of these maps professes to be of Spring Hill and vicinity, drawn to scale, but really a creation of his own imag- ination, a forgery made to back up the preposterous claims of the regiment to which he belonged. He put down roads and streams where none existed. He located Wagner's entire division in a double line of battle immediately south of Spring Hill and in front of the position occupied by his own regiment. Man- ifestly this was done to uphold the claim that his regiment had repulsed the rebel attack after Wagner's Division, in its front, had broken and run. As a mat- ter of fact not a single regiment of Wagner's Division was in the immediate vicinity where he located it. Bradley's Brigade was more than half a mile to the southeast. Lane's Brigade, the nearest flank, several hundred yards to the northeast, and Opdycke's Bri- gade about a half mile to the north. He had a copy of my pamphlet which told the truth about the loca- tion of Wagner's Division, as any one can verify who will consult the official reports. I, therefore, charge that in the preparation of his map he showed shame- less dishonesty. The map accompanying this pam- phlet is practically correct as I verified in my visit to Spring Hill in 1906. Foreword 1 1 The text following, except for a few slight verbal corrections, is the same as the paper read at the meet- ing of the Missouri Commandery of the Loyal Le- gion, February 2, 1907. John K. Shellenberger. Hampton, Virginia, March, 1913. st^ .<^' •^/^/t BURWED-BlSr J/, BURNED- HOOSE ta!» ,o — ^ ^: JTA MCARootMKTFKS .•Ta.MTd«^KMgt PETERS /'#/ aTHOHPSi CH009SHDaR$) Map of Sprino Hill Tennessee &\s/M6 Location <3f Ro\D$.^n?ffK^Ai^ novm pRACTi<:ALLy ^rOWfCT.-AMD THE LoariOtJ O? TROOPS APPROXtHATfLy CORRKT. IVie POTTFP LINE- FRONl THE VlCNlTV OF THE ^EAIR5 H0U5F TO THE