310

P. G. T. Beauregard

Currency:USD Category:Collectibles / Autographs Start Price:NA Estimated At:1,500.00 - 2,000.00 USD
P. G. T. Beauregard

Bidding Over

The auction is over for this lot.
The auctioneer wasn't accepting online bids for this lot.

Contact the auctioneer for information on the auction results.

Search for other lots to bid on...
Auction Date:2014 Dec 10 @ 18:00 (UTC-05:00 : EST/CDT)
Location:236 Commercial St., Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, United States
ALS - Autograph Letter Signed
ANS - Autograph Note Signed
AQS - Autograph Quotation Signed
AMQS - Autograph Musical Quotation Signed
DS - Document Signed
FDC - First Day Cover
Inscribed - “Personalized”
ISP - Inscribed Signed Photograph
LS - Letter Signed
SP - Signed Photograph
TLS - Typed Letter Signed
ALS signed “G. T. Beauregard,” two pages, lightly-lined both sides, 7.75 x 9.75, October 2, 1878. Letter to General Daniel Ruggles regarding accusations made by William Preston Johnston in his recently published biography of his father, The Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston. In part: “I have just read in the Fredericksburg ‘Semi Weekly Reporter’ of the 13th ulto. your vindication of yourself against the ‘calumny’ of Col. W. P. Johnston, in the Life of his worthy Father, relative to the concentration of troops, April 5, 1862, preliminary to the Battle of Shiloh. This is the first time that I have heard you blamed or rendered responsible for the unfortunate delay which occurred in the march of the troops to the battlefield of Shiloh, on the morning of the 5th. Neither General Johnston, in my presence, nor myself ever attached such blame to you. The reasons you give for the delay are correct; as far as they go: bad roads due to heavy rains, change of route from that ordered (by a subordinate Commander) & the injudicious blocking up of the Bark road to troops, wagons & artillery belonging to a different command. Col. Johnston seems…to be intent only in building up a reputation for his father at the expense of the latter’s co-laborers in the War, proving, as Macauley has justly said, ‘that a son can never be the impartial biographer of his father.’ Thus, not satisfied ascribing to his father so much that does not belong to him, Col. Johnston even oversteps the period of his biography in order to contend that our failure to carry Grant’s position, on the evening of the 6th, was due to my recall of the troops. This stale story, which originated in an intrigue against me, he revamps & enlarges for the purpose of building up a fanciful contrast, in face of the facts which are furnished in your report & in those of the brigade & regimental commanders of your division, as well as the reports of those of Wither’s division…In those reports it is plain that the order to cease the conflict was not given & executed until further offensive attempts that day—in the scattering condition of the troops & the threatening attitude of Lew Wallace’s fresh division on our left flank—were out of the question. That order was not given until near nightfall & was not executed until dark, & with such difficulty on account of the confusion & darkness that many Officers, as you well know, lost their commands…Should you have need, for your final vindication, of any papers in my files referring to that period of the War, they are at your service.” Intersecting folds (one vertical fold passing through a single letter of the signature), a few small separations and tape repairs to edges, and light soiling, otherwise fine condition.

Commanding General Albert Sidney Johnston originally intended to launch an attack on Grant’s army on April 4, 1862, but had to be delayed for two days due to heavy rain. While Beauregard urged retreat, fearing that the element of surprise had been lost, Johnston pushed forward. The Battle of Shiloh commenced on April 6, and Johnston was killed on the first day; Beauregard, his second in command, decided against assaulting the final Union position that night, and the Union troops received reinforcements and were able to win the battle the next morning. It was the deadliest battle in American history to that point, and the tactical decisions on both sides were questioned for years to come. In the decades following the war, Beauregard—like many of his colleagues—frequently engaged in feuds regarding his place in history.