The Assault on Kenesaw
General Sherman says in Vol. II, page 60, of his “Memoirs”:
“During the 24th and 25th of June, General Schofield extended his right as far as prudent, so as to compel the enemy to thin out his lines correspondingly, with the intention to make two strong assaults at points where success would give us the greatest advantage. I had consulted Generals Thomas, McPherson, and Schofield, and we all agreed that we could not with prudence stretch out any more, and therefore there was no alternative but to attack ’fortified lines’—a thing carefully avoided up to that time.”
The first sentence literally means that I extended my right “with the intention,” on my part, “to make two strong assaults,” etc. But that is a mere verbal error. General Sherman, of course, meant to say that the intention was his.
The second sentence is, perhaps, ambiguous. At least it has been construed to mean more than the truth. It is undoubtedly true that “we all agreed that we could not with prudence stretch out any more,” but we did not agree in the conclusion “and therefore there was no alternative,” etc.
Indeed, such conclusion was extremely illogical, as was demonstrated a few days later, when one of the other “alternatives” was adopted with success. This successful movement was essentially the same as that which had been previously made to dislodge the enemy from Dalton, and that by which Sherman’s army had been transferred from New Hope Church to the railroad in front of Allatoona, as well as that by which Atlanta was afterward captured. Hence the existence of this “alternative” could not have been unthought of by any of us at the time of the assault on Kenesaw.
But there was another alternative in this and similar cases, which was much discussed at various times during the campaign. Its practicability can be judged of only upon general principles, for it was never tried. It was to detach two or three corps, nearly half our army (which was about double the strength of the enemy), make a detour wide enough to avoid his fortifications, and strike directly at his flank and rear. Such a movement, it was urged, at Dalton, Kenesaw, or Atlanta would have compelled Johnston to fight a battle on equal terms with one half of Sherman’s army, while he had to hold his parapets against the other half. Whatever else may be said of this proposed movement, it would undoubtedly have been more hazardous and much more decisive, one way or the other, than any of the plans actually adopted. It certainly promised success proportionate to the cost, instead of a costly failure, which the assault of fortified lines had almost invariably proved to be.
I did not see Thomas or McPherson for some days before the assault, but I believe their judgment, like mine, was opposed to it. Undoubtedly it was generally opposed, though deferentially as became subordinates toward the commanding general. The responsibility was entirely Sherman’s, as he afterward frankly stated; and I presume he did not mean to imply otherwise by the language used in his “Memoirs” above quoted (Vol. II, page 60). General Sherman’s orders, issued on June 24 (Special Field Orders, No. 28), directed each of the three armies to make an attack (under the word “assault” for Thomas and “attack” for McPherson and me). I had made all preparations to carry out the order on my part. Being visited by General Sherman a day or two before the date named for the execution of the order (June 27), I explained to him what I had done, and how little hope there was of success, on account of the smallness of my reserve to push the advantage even if we should break the line, when he at once replied that it was not intended that I should make an attack in front, but to make a strong demonstration in my front, and gain what advantage I could on the enemy’s flank. During the day Cox’s division forced the passage of Olley’s Creek and secured a position on the head of Nickajack, which was spoken of by Sherman as the only success of the day.