William M. Ferraro

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to Indiana Magazine of History online. About 687 words from this article are provided below; about 9950 words remain.

If you are a individual subscriber to Indiana Magazine of History, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a subscriber to Indiana Magazine of History, you can:: • subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of Indiana Magazine of History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

William M. Ferraro | A Struggle for Respect: Lew Wallace's Relationships with Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman After Shiloh | The Indiana Magazine of History, 104.2 | The History Cooperative

A Struggle for Respect

Lew Wallace's Relationships with Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman After Shiloh

Lew Wallace, born on April 10, 1827, in Brookville, Indiana, aspired to greatness. Given a better than average start socially, politically, and economically, Wallace went on to achieve fame as a soldier, government official, and author before his death in 1905. Of the many relationships with other prominent Americans that he enjoyed over this long and active life, none proved more complex or troubling than those Wallace maintained with two of the best-known public figures of the nineteenth century: Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. The purpose of this article is to examine why Wallace continued to turn to these men for advice and assistance in the weeks and years after April 6, 1862: the day when Wallace's failure to move his division in a timely fashion had imperiled the Union Army at the battle of Shiloh.¹	1
Wallace's interactions with Grant and Sherman reveal both his capacity to deal with strong personalities and his staunch determination to fulfill his life's aims and ambitions. Unusually sensitive, yearning to earn a place on the same plane as his more accomplished contemporaries, Wallace could not resign himself to second-rank status; nor could he accept that his talents and exertions may have been inferior to those of such better-known peers. This persistence proved a mixed blessing in Wallace's life. While it drove him to attain the military, political, and literary fame to which he had aspired, it also left him anxious and unable to enjoy the satisfaction merited by his many achievements. Wallace's troubled interaction with the Union Army's greatest generals reflects a struggle for respect never fully won in the course of a long and illustrious life.	2
Brigadier General Lew Wallace first met Ulysses S. Grant at Paducah, Kentucky, in late October 1861. Grant, then a more senior brigadier general than the recently promoted Wallace, had come to Paducah from his headquarters at Cairo, Illinois, to discuss an attack against a Confederate position in southeastern Missouri with Wallace's superior, Brigadier General Charles F. Smith. Wallace entertained Smith, Grant, and Grant's adjutant John A. Rawlins at his quarters and enjoyed the camaraderie of his guests far into the night.² Unfortunately, a false story that the gathering had been a drunken debauch spread among the ranks. Wallace quickly squelched the rumors, and the incident passed with no evidence that Grant had taken any offense. Still, Wallace believed that the matter had made Grant's staff officers suspicious of him.³	3
The Union victory at Fort Donelson in February 1862 should have righted all wrongs between Grant and Wallace. Left behind to guard earlier conquests, Forts Heiman and Henry, Wallace pushed his troops to Fort Donelson after the battle had begun more rapidly than anticipated. Grant then gave Wallace command of a newly formed division and assigned him to the center of the line. Wallace distinctly remembered that Grant's face "flushed slightly" and that he "crushed the papers in his hand" when he learned that control of a critical road on the Union right had been lost. Regaining full composure, Grant said in "his ordinary quiet voice" to Wallace and another general: "Gentlemen, the position on the right must be retaken." Wallace and his soldiers valiantly recaptured the road and drove the enemy back into their fortifications. But he also disobeyed Grant's order to withdraw and await reinforcements because he did not think the commander comprehended the gravity of the situation. Grant later approved Wallace's decision. The general "intends to give you a chance to be shot in every important move," reported Grant's staff officer William S. Hillyer to Wallace after the Confederates' surrender on February 16. Hillyer concluded his short note: "I speak advisedly—God bless you—you did save the day on the right."⁴ Grant's official report on the battle commended Wallace and the other division commanders for being "with their commands in the midst of danger" and "always ready to execute all orders no matter what the exposure to themselvs."⁵	. . .

There are about 9950 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.