■t>i \ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 701 403 8 i| pennulif^* Wot _. (. - ^i ■ - ■ J n oni as. ABSTRACT OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS DEVELOPED BV Worthington'' s court-martial, at Memphis, Tennessee, August, 1862, of lohich no other official evidence could otherwise be ob- tained; and, the only official evidence ofjhe causes tvhich led di- rectly to the slaughter and disgrace at/ Shiloh, April 6th, 1862 ; shotving, also, the efforts of Colonel vVorthington, 4,6th Ohio, to avert the disaster, and hoio its most terrible ami seemingly inev- itable residts tvere, by the troops tender his command on the ex- treme Union right Jiank, almost miraculously averted, April 6th, 1862. j 1st. Extract f lom a letter of General W. T. Sherman, 5th Division, Army of the Tennessee : Moscow, July 16th, 1862. Colonel Worthington, Coni'g, La Fayette: We are ordered to move. My division will come to-morrow, or the day after, to La Fayette, where you will be prepared to join your brij>;ade, with all your men and means of transportation. Be prepared to destroy your works then, and anything that would be of service to the enemy, who may come in. We are to operate further South. If Colonel McDowell be at or near La Fayette, please Inform him of this fact, &c. I want to spare his troops the march, &c. [Signed,] W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General. 2d. On the first charge of drunkenness on duty as commanding ofHcer at La Fayette, Tennessee, General W. T. Sherman, the officer calling the coiut, and also the prosecutor and chief witness, being sworn, testified : That Colonel Worthington commanded 46th Ohio, in Colonel McDow- ell's Brigade, 5th Division. On July ISth, 1862, he commanded a redoubt, built by himself and his command, at La Fayette, with orders to pi'otect the j-oad and bridges. About 10 A. M. of that day I readied the station, and saw Colonel Worth- ington in a state of disgraceful drunkenness, &c. Major Hammond, A. A. G., and Captain Dayton and Major Sanger testified to the same effect — Major Sanger swearing that he came into the Fort about II A. M. and af- tei-wards saw him, several times, loudly cursing and swearing at teamsters, sutlers, &c. 3d. Three teamsters testified that they saw no indication of intoxication in tlie Colonel's manner. His orderly testified that he was not intoxicated, but got on his horse as usual ; and the sutler and teamsters testified that they did not hear the loud and indecent cursing and swearing charged by Major Sanger. Two testified that they saw him at halt of the troops, which was half a mile fi-om the Fort, at 11 A. M.; proving it unlikely that Major Sanger saw Colonel W. in the Fort at all. 4th. The evidence of Major Hammond, Lieutenant-Colonel Corse, 6rh Iowa, etc., proved that the brigade evacuated the post, and Colonel W.'s regiment— 46th Ohio— left the Fort two hours before the time of the 2 oftense cliarged bj' Genenil Sherman, who was therefore himself in com- mand at the time charo-ed ; and Lieutenant-Colonel Corse testified that when he left with the brigade, between 8 and 9 A. M., Colonel W. was sober, in his opinion. 5tli. Colonel ]McDowell, commanding the brigade, testified to his being in command of the post on the 17th and ISth, and was in command till General yherman's arrival — about 8 A. M., on the IStii Julj^ 1862. All of which proves that Colonel W, could not have been guilty of the ofiense cliarged. 6th. The second charge of habitual drunkenness was negatived by the court. 7th, To the third charge, of conduct unbecoming an ofiicer and a gentle- man, in printing, or causing to be printed, on a siieet for circulation, what purported to be extracts from his diary of the Tennessee expedition, con- taining false and libellous matter calculated and designed to injure his superior ofiicers — Colonel McDowell and Generals Grant and Slierniau. Which said diary was not made contemporaneous with tlie dates set forth in it, but was fabi'ieated or manufactured after the occasion to fulfill some base and dishonorable purpose. To tliis char^'e General Slierman certified that Captain Giesy, 46tli Ohio, liad left at his quarters about tlie 10th of August, 1862, a printed siieet, headed "Private and Confidential," contain- ing matter false and libellous. To prove whicii, he made oatli, among many other statements, — 8th. That Colonel W. repeatedly warned his brigade and division com- manders of impending danger — urging the fortification of the position a week befoie tlie attack. 9th. That there was reason to expect an attack on the 3d of April, 1862, while charging that Colonel W.'s diary entry of tlie 3d to the same oft'ect was '"''false and libellous.''^ lOtli. After swearing that there was reason to expect an attack on the 3d, with no enemy witiiin six miles of his front, he testifies that no one — ■ not even Colonel W.^ — could expect an attack on Frida\^, the 4tli, witii the infantry, cavaliy, and artillery of the enenij' less than three miles from iiis front, and when their drum-beat was heard at the outposts of tiie camp. lltli. He swears that no stronger position was ever held by an army, because defended bj'^ Owl and Lick Creeks, which were proven an3'vvhere foi'dable before and on tlie day of the battle. 12tii. He testified that Buell's troops liad been rightfully expected for two weeks, wiiile knowing tliat when at Duck River, ninet}' miles oft", Buell's division commanders had been notified not to reach Savannah, eight miles on the river below Pittsburgh, till the 7th ; and knowing, also, that on tlie morning ^ffthe 4th of April General Nelson, with the advance, was notified tiiat he ne«*-nct be up till the 8lh ; and knowing, as lie testifies, that there was reason to expect an attack on the 3d, wliich, according to General Johnson's original intention, siioiild have occurred on the 1st or 2d of April, 1862. 13tli. He swears that Colonel W.'s diary entry, that he covered too much ground, is false ; wliicli evidence he upsetsb.y other evidence, tliat the gap on his left, of about a mile, was intended for an army of 40.000 men, re- quiring a single line of eight miles, without artillery; which monstrous fiction he smothers by the extinguisher that Buell was to have been sent to Hamburgh, on the rivei", four miles above ; and thus proving that there was a gap, which left open the ''key point," as he calls it, of his position, whicli gap, on an official map, corrected and, of course, approved b}' Gen- erals Grant and Sherman, (saj^s Badeau,) is closed by the left flank of McClernand on Badeau's map. To crown this '•'•tragedy of errors^'''' as it proved to be. this left flank of McClernand, on the official map, also ap- proved by Grant and Siierman, is in longitude half a mile west of the center of the gap in question. Q. E. D. " 14th. Repeating his evidence as to the sti'pr..:;th of the position, — equal to or above any in 'lie world, — lie swears that the flanks were well protected, &c., knowing that the creeks on front and flank proved to be the merest wagou- ruts in the way of the attack; that by means of the gap, which Buell was and was not to have fllled, three divisions of the Union army had been tnrned at the moment of attack ; that his own., the otli, and that of Prentiss, the Gth, had been driven back or dispersed from ten to ninety minutes after the attack, as was liis 2d Brigade on the extreme left, and that the same, but for the 46th Ohio, would have occurred, as by him intended, on the extreme right, where he should have been, but, fortunately or unfortu- nately, was not, when that flank was first threatened, about 11 A. M., and at that hour deserted by his aids and the brigade coumiander, doubtless by his order, when the 9 A. M. retreat of tlie 1st Brigade began, as also did his lonely flight to the rear of McClernand's right. loth. Knowing, four months after the battle, that the Confederates had but little over 41,000 men, he swears that 43,000 Union troops stood their ground agah)st 60,000 chosen troops of the South; wliile it liad been provea b_v all reports of tiie battle, his own and G-eneral Grant's inclusive, that, witii the exception of two or, perhaps, tliree regiments of McClernand's division, comprising not over 800 men in line of battle, the wliole army had been dispersed, and himself, with a few hundred fugitives, driven half a mile north of the Landing, which, liaving given up as lost, he made no effort to defend, wliile charging Buell as a laggard, who then and there prevented its capture and iiis own, and towards which the Confederates had advanced within musket-shot, or two or three hundred yards, when repelled by General Ammeu's brigade of ISTelson's division, wiio, with Gen- eral Buell, according to General Grant, directed the attack against the last charge of the Confederates, about 5 p. M., April 6, 1862. 16th. Wliile swearing against the probability of an attack on Friday, the 4th, he had, with displeasure, admitted to Colonel Buckland that by the capture of a dozen prisoners he might have induced an attack before he was ready for it, thus proving his conviction that the Confederates had force suflicient in his front to warrant an attack that day, advised as he was, by Major Ricker, oth Oiiio Cavalry, that he had that afternoon en- countered Beauregard's advance, and warned during the niglit by the wounded and dying Confederates that he would be attacked next day. 17tli. Wliile thus swearing against any probability of an attack, he tes- tifies that he knew he had the elements of an enemy's army in his front, but did not know its strength, destination, or purpose ; thus proving that military history has never before produced so great a commander, so en- tirely innocent of that knowledge which the most stolid private in his armj'- shoifld have possessed, and did possess ; for he proceeds to testif}'^ — ISth. That not a man in the camp but knew we had an enemy to the front before we slept that night, while his admitted stolidity is more or less relieved by an assurance (truthless as the rest of his evidence) that the guard was strengthened, &c. 19th. So far is this strengthening of the guard opposite to the fact, that Colonel Taylor's 5th Cavalry scouts were withdrawn that very evening, and not a hoi'seman was sent to his front before the attack, some 36 hours thereafter, to the loss of 13,000 Union troops, not a score of whom need have been lost, if Buell's troops, on their arrival, before noon of the 5th, had been sent up to Hamburgh as intended. 20th. He swears that no general could have sooner detected or reported the approach of an enemy, thus appropriating the merit of the small-arms, drums, and artillery of the enemy, detecting and reporting at the same instant the Confederates to be at hand. 21st. It was proven on Colonel W.'s trial, by brigade commanders Buck- land and Hildebrand, and by the picket oflicers of the 46th Ohio, that the pickets of three brigades were driven in on Saturday, the 5th, at and after 7 A. M., and the same reported to him, which he on oiith repeatedly denies, swearing persistently that no pickets were driven in on the 5tli. 22(1. It was proven that a picket post, three-quarters of a mile, l\v his own evidence, in front of Bnckland's center, was occupied by the Confed- erate artillery Satiu'day afternoon, and the fact to him reported, which, against hundreds of witnesses, he three times on oath denies, swearing that Colonel W. could not possibly have heard anything of the kind. He testifies that he has given an account of his operations from the 2d to the 7th of April, while not a word is said as to tlie occurrences of Saturdaj'. Sunday, or Monday, except a denial of the driving in of tiie pickets on Saturda3% and a crossing and recrossing of troops past the Howell house, to which he called no evidence against that of picket-officer Sharpe, who testified, without question, that the Howell house was all day occupied by the enemy's pickets. 23(1. As regards the Colonel of the 46th Ohio, the record proves, on Gen- eral Sherman's and other evidence, that he never neglected anj'- duty whatever; that he visited his pickets, as could have been proven, night arrd day after tiie 3d of April ; that he kept two comijanies nightly on their arms after that date; that he jiracticed his troops in the manual of arms, and especially loading and firing, for two weeks iiefore the battle ; that he regularly visited his hospital in camp and on the march. Diary extracts pronounced false on oath by Gen. W. T. Sherman., and proven true on his own evidence. Monda}% March 31st, 18G2. — Sherman is inviting an attack, for which we are unprepai-ed. To which he answers. : What business was it of his whether his superior officer invited an attack or not? I was perfect!}^ willing that we should be attacked, and tiiink tliat Beauregard made a fatal mistalce when he did it; but I denj' (third time) that the enemy had a battery near the Howell house that Saturday after- noon. Monday, April 3(1, 18G2. — Rode to Pittsburgh Landing. The place is crowded and in disorder below, with noise and gambling on the i>ank above. The indications are still of an attack, which I have intimated to McDowell. Tlie troops cover too much ground, and cannot support each other. To which he replies, on oath: I knew there was no hostile force within six miles, though there was reason to expect an attack. We did not cover too much ground. Buell's troops had rightfully been expected for two we(!ks, and a place was left for his forces; although Gen- eral Grant afterwards determined to send Buell to Ilambui'gh (four miles above). The gravamen of Sherman's charge was that the diary had been written '•"after the occasion.,^'' to secure to the writer a popular reputation for prophes}^ and foresight. In regard to this he testifies : I suppose that Colonel McDowell, like myself, had become tired of his prognostications ; and, also. Colonel Worthington might have tiiought an attack imminent, because for weeks he was predicting the w(3rst, and hoping it might happen. This charge of predicting the worst, &c., is upset by Colonel McDowell, who testifies as follows, on question by Colonel W. : "I do not know that I ever lieard you predict any actual disaster ; on Monday or Tuesday before the battle you insisted that we would be at- tacked, and complained of the want of tools," — which upsets the charge of making the entries after the battle. To the diary entry that a slight "'• ahattis'''' might prevent or avert an attack, Sherman replies : "To iiave erected fortifications would have been evidence of weakness, and would have invited an attack," and, therefore, the infei-ence is fair, there were no intrenching tools provided bj^ him, as was the case. Is it any wonder that every operation in the field under the immediate direction of this com- mander was a, blunder, a failure, or a disaster, tin'oughout the war, from Bull liuu to Diniiain Station? PART II. Hon. A. F. Perry'' s Opinion, There is nothing in the printing or circulating sucli a diary, under the circumstances, on which to found any such charge as '•'•conduct unbecom- ing an officer and a gentleman " in the Army Regulations ; and in i-egard to the same, the Hon. A. F. Perry, of Cincinnati, Ohio, late member of Con- gress, expresses the professional opinion, with great regard for General Shei'man, that "It was no fault to keep a diary, and note,in it tlie faults of his superiors, if he believed tiie truth and tiie public service required them to be iujiu'ed. Th(; existence of the printed sheet is the only evidence of a design to circulate it, and it does not appear to me such proof as should take away the character of an officer and a gentleman." Witii regard to the charge of being drunk upon duty, he expresses the opinion tliat General Siierman testified under feelings of uncontrolled resentment. With reference to the specification of being found in a state of disgraceful drunkenness, he asks : ''Why discolor the record with such indications of personal revenge ? But this feeling does not rest satisfied yet. Botli specifications cliarge tliat he exhibited himself in that condition. He obtruded or exhibited himself. Now, if there is no foundation, absolutely none, for these cliarges, by way of exaggeration — that is to say, for these in- tensifj'ing allegations — tiie fact tliat they were used shows the '•animus'' in which these charges were made, and this ^animus'' will also show the influence which must have been brought to bear, consciously or uncon- sciously, on the court during the trial. "First, as to exhibiting himself. Wlien General Sherman and his staff arrived, they found Colonel W. somewliat under the influence of liquor, but engaged in the performance of his proper duties. He exhibited him- self in the sense only of not hiding from them. He knew what was to be done, and did it. He mounted his horse without help, and rode with his regiment, neglecting nothing, and misdoing nothing, on the march. One or more of the witnesses tell us that his ordinary manner is unquiet and peculiar, and might suggest to those not intimately acquainted with him the idea of excitement from liquor, when entirely free from it. "Why, then, charge an officer, when just ready to march from a fort under orders, and in the presence of several superiors who ranked him, with being drunk in command of the fort, wiiich is shown by the evidence of Major Hannnond, and others, to have been evacuated by his regiment several hours before the time charged? Why charge him, when able to mount his horse and command his regiment, with being not merelj'^ drunk, but disgracefully drunk? It is true that this precise adjective is sworn to by General Sherman and portions of his staff, but that does not help the mat- ter — no, it is a mistake, an exaggeration. Feelings of resentment for injuries, real or imagined, found their way into the charges and the testi- mony. Dropping off all these intensifying words, for which no justiflca- tion is found in the facts, it will appear that on several occasions Colonel Worthington drank so much liquor as to affect his conduct and appearance, but it does not appear that this happened on any occasion w^hen duties or responsibility were upon him. All I am intending to express, in the presence of such intensifying words, is to find out the true meaning; and I state it as my opinion that the language of the specification is not justi- fied by the evidence." 6 Extract from Hon. Chas. Mason'' s opinion on Worthington'' s court-martial record^ addressed to the Hon. H. B. Banning^ Chairman of the Militarxj Committee^ House of Representatives: As an old West Point school-mate of Colonel Worthington, I have, witliout any expectation of pecuniary compensation, sometimes under- taken to act as his adviser. In that capacity. I have been at no little pains to arrive at a correct con- clusion as to the value of his military services, as w^ell as to the injustice of which he complains. * * * At the battle of Shiloh, in particular, I unhesitatingly believe that but for the extraordinary and unexpected stand made by him t\\v. victory tliere and then achieved would have i-esulted in an overwhelming defeat. By tlie most daring pertinacity, he maintained his position on the right wing of the Union army, wliere lie then lield the chief command, and kept the Confederate forces in check for some two hours at a critical period, and thus allowed tlie forces of General Buell to retrieve the fortunes of the day, which were otherwise lost beyond hope. Tiiis opinion, long since formed from other sources, is corroborated by a recent letter of General Beaure- gard, who held the chief command of the hostile ai-my after the fall of General Johnson. And if it be true, it will be difficult to overestimate the full value of his services on that important occasion. I have just as little doubt that the greatest injustice has been done him by the court-martial held in August, 1802, by which he was found guilty upon baseless charges, and sentenced to dismissal from the service. Tiiat sentence, it is true, was disapproved, for the very sufficient reason, tiiat tiie court by which it was rendered was illegally organized ; but, still, it was virtual])- cari'ied into effect by his arbitrar)^ dismissal from office, and by a persistent deter- mination not to restore him. 'J'he objection to the organization and action of that court Avas not tecii- nical, but substantial, and its decision was not entitled to the least weight, either legally or morall3\ In regard to the ciiarge of disgraceful drunkenness on duty, I find the subject so ably discussecl in a review of the record said to have been made by tile Hon. A. F. Perry, that I shall not weaken the force of liis criticisms by attempting to traverse tlie same grounds, and will merely say tiiat [ fully concur with him in both his arguments and conclusions. Under the cliarge of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, the only ground to seciu-e a conviction seems to have been certain extracts from a diar.v kept by the accused about the date of the battle of Siiiloh, or just pi'evious. Notliiiig in the evidence would justif)"^ the conclusion that he had been actuated by any malicious or ignoble motive; nothing more than a desin; to evince his own sagacit}' or iiis own superior vigilance. And the result fuUj^ shows that none of the providence and forethouglit evinced by him was superfluous. Perhaps, by a somewhat violent straining of language, the conduct of Colonel Worthingtoii in this respect may iiave been regarded as unbecom- ing an officer; but with wiiat propriety can it be said to have been unbe- coming a gentleman? The facts do not sustain tlie charge. This is a stigma that has been attached to his name by the verdict of a court-martial illegally constituted, and conducted under influences which were wholly inimical to the ascertainment of truth. It may not j^et be too late to rescue from abject penury this victim of in- veterate injustice and oppn^ssion, and to make some aclequate compensa- tion for the most meritorious and valuable services at a critical period of our militarjr llistorJ^ (Signed) Chas. Mason. " As a further evidence against the veracity of the prosecutor — the baseness and baselessness of the charges, to say nothing of the pliability of the court — it may be liere for the lirst time recorded that the ''victim of this injustice" was in New York in February, 1863, to obtain the approval of an account by General McClellan. He there met General Scott, Colonel Monroe, a West Point graduate of 1815, Gen. Kobt. Anderson, of Fort Sumter, who had all known him 30 or 40 years, and with them General Swift, the first and oldest West Point graduate, aged 80 years at that time. He had with him the record of his trial, and Hon. A. F. Perry's opinion thereon, both of which documents Avei'e scrutinized by these old and dis- tinguished officers. General Anderson and Colonel Monroe, both Soutlierii men, liad correspondents in both armies, and had letters equivalent to tliat of General Beauregard's, herewith submitted; and, on consultation, after the Colonel iiad left for Washington, agreed upon the letters, as follows, inclosing the last to the Secretary of War : General Stviffs Letters. New York, February 26, 1863. Colonel WoKTHiNGTON,— Dear Sir : I have conversed with General Robert Anderson and Colonel James Monroe on your subject, and also with Genei-al Scott; and am fully satisfied that the Government would find material benefit in ottering you employment in the United States Army, and that a good mode of satisfying the Secretary of War would be by his instituting an inquiry by a board of officers as to your merits, and also as to the legality of the proceedings of the court-martial in yoiu- case. That you were educated at West Point is an earnest of yoin- having there acquired essential information, and that your military conduct evinces that fact. In these days of seeming dearth of generalship in our army, it be- hooves the Government to seek the genth'inen wlio do possess tiie ability to conduct our good soldiers to victory; and I lieartily wisli you may find the employment you seek, not from personal motives on your part, but from devotion to our Union. I am, &c., &c., (Signed) J. G. Swift. General Swift, formerly of the United States Army, presents his compli- ments to the Hon. Mr. Stanton. General Swift having accidentally become acquainted with facts that relate to the character and military ability of Colonel Thomas Worthington, late a general officer of Ohio militia, is of opinion that the Colonel possesses qualities amply fitting him for the functions of a general officer. In these days, when such ability is not readily found. General Swift sug- gests respectfully to Mr. Stanton the institution of such inquiry as may satisfy Mr. Stanton as to the actual merits of Colonel Wortliington. City of New York, February 26, 1863. These letters should certainly have some weight, even had the trial occurred before a legal court of officers, independent of their Division General, and on charges having some color of truth, and supported by evidence not utterly irrelevant and contradictory. The manner of executing the sentence was just as reckless, illegal, and unjust as the matter of the charges, evidence, and the constitution of the court, if such it could be denominated with any propriety whatever. This is proven by the facts. 1st. That the sentence was first executed by the prosecutor, Sherman, September 16, 1862, before the approval of General Grant, commanding the district, had been obtained, or the record had been submitted to the Judge-Advocate-General. It was next executed by General Grant, October 1st, without any seeming knowledge of its previous execution by Sherman. Tlie Judge- Advocate-Greueral at once decided the court without color of authorit}', and its findings and proceedings a nullity. Keeognizlng, nevertheless, the plainl}'-false charges, not even sustained by still more truthless and contradictor}^ evidence, he recommended Colonel "Worthington's dismissal on these flimsy mendacities, under a law of July 17, 1862, so that the Colonel of the 46th Ohio may indulge the distinction and gratification of having been the most frequently and imperfectly dis- missed officer in the volunteer service. Assistant Adjutant-General Buckingham, then in tlie War Office, from Ohio, becoming aware of these covert proceedings, he, by a word or two to Secretary Stanton, had the matter indefinitely suspended. Meantime Colonel Worthington knew nothing of tins attempted fraud till tlie winter of '63-'64, when, in looking up the matter, by an ordth, and half of the Illinois 40tli, wiiicii readied Savannali on the 8tli, or three days before tlie fleet with General C. F. Sniitli, and not General Slier- man, in the lead. The five companies of- the 40th Illinois were out of stores, and liad to return on the 10th. In the above extract of a dozen lines there are about as many false state- ments, expressed or implied, tlie cliief of which being, first, that liis divis- ion left Paducah on the 10th, instead of the Otli of March; second, that there was an order for a column of boats; tliird, that Sherman reached Savannah witli his division one day, instead of three, after the 46tli ; fourth, that Gen. Smith reached Savannah, about tlie 13th, after his division, in- stead of the 11th, before his division; liftii, that Col. W. had landed his regiment, none of which had been landed but the sick, who were in hospi- tals, but ordered back to a close and crowded boat with Sherman's char- acteristic hmnanity. A fuller statement of this matter, with a testimonial X)f the citizens to the good conduct of the 46th, will be found in ^' Shiluh or the Tennessee Campaign o/'1872," pages 76, 77. 15 The last special regimental order given the Colonel of the 4Gth and re- sults are equally characteristic of the ''animus" of the Commander-in- Ciiief towards him, as follows : Special Order No. 101. Head-Quarters Fifth Division, Army op the Tennessee, Lafayette, Tenn., June 25, 1862. The 52cl Indiana volunteers will move early in the morning- to the bridge three miles west of this place and form a" junction with the o6th Ohio volunteers, the senior officer taking command of both regiments. These regiments will guard the bridges and road to Germantown, and draw their supplies from Memphis. Colonel McDowell, commanding 2d Brigade, will detail the 46th Ohio volunteers to remain and, Avith one section of artillery detached by Major Taylor, protect the depot in Lafayette and the bridges and railroad. By order of Major-General W. T. Siierman. J. H. Hammond, Assistant Adjutant- General. P. S. — The railroad having been broken to-day, and an attack being imminent, great vigilance must be exercised. J. H. Hammond, Assistant Adjutant-General. An order for the 5th Division having been given during the day to fall back towards Corinth, leaving many Union citizens about Lafayette ex- posed to the enemy. Col. W. had sent to Gen. Sherman, about 9 P. M., a remonstrance against their exposure without any means of defense or pro- tection. Col. Walcut and Capt. Heath, Company A, by whom the missive was sent to Sherman, soon returned, stating that Col. W. would be arrested if he sent in any more such papers. The result was the above order, fol- lowed immediately by another, countermanding the same as to the 52d Illi- nois and 56th Ohio, without notice to Col. W., ordering them to Mem- phis, thirty miles off. Next morning, about 10 A. M., he became aware that the 46th, as at Shiloh, was deserted. Several of the pickets also having come in with warnings from planters that the post would be attacked within twenty-four hours, and Major Hammond having (unknown to Sherman) given warning by the postscript. Col. W. having taken care of his intrenching tools, had tiie post so fortified during the night as to be able, with 300 men fit for duty, to repel 2,000. Otherwise he would doubtless have been attacked and perhaps captured, as was a large Union detachment at Min-freesboro the 13th of July, 1862. The General of Division (as was understood) intimated insubordination on the part of the Colonel for this fortification without orders. He also refused him ten horsemen to keep a lookout for Col. Jackson and Major Porter, who, ten or twelve miles off, on Coldwater, had 800 men, which on occasion could be doubled. For want of cavalry scouts to give warning of the danger, these Confed- erates on Coldwater did attack his pickets about the first of July, one of whom, J. M. Harper, a boy of eighteen, was killed. The "animus " so often above indicated was exemplified by twice brigad- ing Col. W. under volunteer officers without military knowledge or capa- city, though he had been for many years General of Ohio militia; had grad- uated high (sixth in engineering) at West Point thirty-five years before, and commanded the best-instructed regiment in the division, or perhaps in the army, as proven at Shiloh, where his military education availed the Government more than the expenses of West Point for centuries. Yet he was retained under the same command after the battle, and the Brigade Commander to whose position and responsibility he had been transferred at the most critical and dangerous period of the conflict on April 6, 1862, was recommended by Sherman and Grant for promotion, as hereinbefore stated, wiiile Col. W. was ignominiously and illegally dismissed the service 16 for the performance of the highest moral duty incumbent on a gentleman, a citizen, and a soldier. That duty, so far as his circumstances will per- mit, is perfected by this "Memoir," which will be found as correct as another regarding the same events has been found truthless. And the above exposition may be considered as in some sort the con- clusion of the defense lie was not permitted time to make at Mempliis in 1862, thougii not all exhaustive of the subject. And if the Colonel of the 46th Ohio, by a moderate and judicious use of stimulants, &c., had done no other service tlian obtaining through a court-martial the official and histo- rical information above recorded, the same should have been not only in mitigation of his having remained under the influence of liquor to the extent proven during the whole campaign of 1862, but should have been worthy to some extent of the promotion and emolument accorded to others for his meritorious conduct in this behalf, outside tlie battle of Sliiloh ; and for the service performed, by a metliod so unexampled in military history, he trusts he may at least be exculpated from groundless charges, through which he has been consigned to poverty and obloquy through nearly six- teen years of his old age. Kespectfully submitted, T. WORTHINGTON, Formerly Col. 4Gth Regt. Ohio Volunteer Infantry. Washington, D. C, Mardi 8, 1878. APPENDIX. Tennessee River, March 8th, 1862. Received of T. Worthington, Marcii Stli, 1862, at Britt's Landing, a correct account in duplicate of oats and bags obtained for use of the pub- lic service, the amount for oats being $47.62, and for bags $8.40, unless returned. W. O. Britt. Head-Quarters First Division of the \ Expedition up the Tennessee, March 12^A, 1862. / You are hereby ordered to move your sick aboard the /. JB. Adams, where they will remain until further orders. By order of Brigadier-Gren- eral W. T. Sherman, commanding First Division. D. W. Hartshorn, Division Surgeon. Col. T. Wortinqton, 4tQth Ohio Vols. United States Internal Revenue, ] Collector's Office, District, Ohio, [■ Columbus, Ohio, February 15, 1877. J Dear Colonel : In answer to your inquiry, it gives me pleasure to say that in the camp of instruction, called "Camp Lyon," at Worthington, Ohio, of tlie 46th Ohio, of which you were the Colonel, you taught the reg- iment a prompt movement in changing front, that was not found in any of the tactics. Also, that I am positive that the 46th, at the battle of Shiloh, was placed on the right under the direction of Major Sanger of General Sherman's staff. Chas. C. Walcutt, Lieut. Col. 46th O. V. I. at Shiloh. Col. Thos. Worthington. Washington, Ohio, March, 1877. I concur in the within statements. I can add, from my remembrance of Colonel Worthington's history, that he was, so far as I know, the first of the officers of the army to insist upon and practice the intrenchment of the front of the moving columns as a constant guard against surprise, and a means of added strength in operating in the wooded and difficult coun- try of the South. He also showed his zeal in publishing, at his own cost, ^nd in advance of official editions, a useful manual of tactics, based on Scott and Hardee. (Signed,) J. D. Cox. PART IV. Brief of Worthingtoii' s claim for Government supplies, 1861. Afjjreement written at Cincinnati, in accordance witli a proposal to snp- pl3^ Camp Dennison, Oliio, with water, accepted by A. Q, M. Dicker?on, who was then pajino^ 40 cents per barrel of forty galloiis, and, except T. W.'s, had no acceptable and responsible proposal at a less rate. Cincinnati, May 16, 1861. I do hereby a^ree to furnish 12,000 to 18,000 troops at Camp Dennison, Oliio, with 1 J gallons of water per man per day, at 15 cents pei- 100 gal- lons, and to furnish any additional amount required at 40 cents per 100 gallons. T. WOBTHINGTON. 1st. The rate of 15 cents per 100 gallons was for the supply by a steam pump and pipes. The rate of 40 cents per 100 gallons being for supply by wheels, by which means all the supply, except, a fraction by wells anil springs, was furnished. 2d. On the 3d June, Capt. Dickerson, A. Q. M., wrote to Gen. Bates, commanding the camp, that the Government, by conti-act, was to keep tiie receiving casks accessible, and if they were not so. Gen. W. would have a claim for damages; but thej' remained inaccessible. 3d. In August, 1863, Camp Qr. Mr. D. W. McClung, by order of the Q. M. General, made a report of the case, and stated : (1) That the contract was more than filhid by Col. W. ; but not one stipulation, except i^ayment of the contract rate, was complied with by the Government. (2) That the obstacles thrown or left in the way of the contractor increased his expenses at least fifty per cent. (3) That he was not protected, as agreed by the Government, in the pei'formance of his contract. His pipes were torn up, pump destroyed, life threatened, and his water-carts excluded from the camp all night, when required to furnish part of the suppljr by daylight. And in February, 1869, the Third Auditor stated that in this way the Gov- ernment had substantially abrogated the contract. (4) McChmg reported that by the action of the Government in erecting a slaughter-house above the camp, the distance of hauling was made three times greater than that agreed on. 4th. The Assistant engineer, L. S. Cotten, made affidavit to the increase of distance, and that the expenses of delivery were in proportion to the distance hauled, which is indorsed by Governor Cox. 5th. Generals Bates and Cox, commandants of the camp, recommend a settlement, without reference to the contract, at what the service was worth. 6th. Except for the first ten days' supply, paid for at fifteen cents per 100 gallons. Col. W. has been paid forty cents, the estimated, but less than the actual cost of delivery. 7th. On the second item, for increased hauling, nothing has been paid— about 614,500. 8th. Nothing on the third item, for failure on part of the Government to comply with tlie conti-act, about $4,400. 9th. Nothing for destruction of property, ttc. about $2,400. 10th. On February 21, 1876, the Third Auditor reported nothing paid on tliese items, for want of jurisdiction by the accounting oflicers. 18 Oil a relieariim. by voquost of SecrctiiiT Bri^^tow, rlic same Amlitor r<'- ]>orte(l Marcli 20^ 1876, tliat these items had been r-onsidei-ed, allowed, and paid in contradiction of all prcvions repiMts, and without any proof of pay- ment. 11th. On a rehearing, by reqnest of President Hayes, the same olficer reported tiie same withont evidence March 20, 1877. Colonel Worthington considers that the assertion of payment is an ad- mission of the justice of these items, and of the jurisdiction of the ac- counting officers, and now requires the payment of these items, or evidence of their payment. r2rli. The present Deputy Auditor having suggested in a letter to Gen- eral Sehenck. March 2o. 1870, tliat the opinion of Governor Cox of Ohio, then Secretary of the Interior, shoidd be had. Governor Cox makes tlie statement as follows : House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, March 5. 1878. Having been commandant at Camp Dennison, Ohio, in May, 1801, when Colonel Worthingtou undertook to supply the camp with water, I. know enough of the circumstances to say that I believe the statement of Colonel McCiung, Post Qr. Mr., to be true. I have no doubt the embarrassment of Colonel Worthiugton, in the execution of his contract, was due to the inter- ference of officers of tiie Government, and especially the establishment of the slaughtei-house above the camp, made it necessary totallj'^ to change the character of his work. From all the facts which came to my knowl- edge while I was in the camp, through Ma\% June, and into Julj', 1861, 1 bi'lieve Colonel Worthiugton to be entitled to damages for the losses he suHl'ied b}'' reason of inteiference bv officers and soldiers with his work, and by failure of the Govenmient to comply with the contract on its part. (Signed) J. D. Cox, lateMaj. Gen. U. S. Volunt.(;ers. 13th. Eule of Second Comptroller's bureau applicable to T. AVoithing- ton's claim, according to the account of Camp Quartermaster Col. McClung and Major-General J. D. Cox, one of the commandants at Camp Dennison in 1861: " Contractors should be made good for all expenses and losses which are the direct and legitimate consequences of the interference of the Govern- ment in the performance of their contracts." 14th. Extract from the Third Auditor's first decision in the case, March 9, 1807: "It is apparent that the claimant is equitably entitled to remimeration for the increased quantity and distance hauled," &c. Under this decision an allowance Avas made for increased quantitj', but nothing for increased distance. T. AVORTHINGTON. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 701 403 8 I