Official Records of the Rebellion

No.2. Reports of Brig. Gen. John G. Barnard, U. S. Army, Chief Engineer of operations from May 23, 1861, to August 15, 1862.

[p.130: SPLIT 25: MISTAKES BEFORE RICHMOND]

On leaving Williamsburg we should have crossed the Chickahominy and connected with the Navy in the James. We should have had a united army and the co-operation of the Navy, and probably would have been in Richmond in two weeks. The facts that we did not know the character of the Chickahominy as an obstacle (as it lay across our direct road to Richmond); that our transports were on the York River, and that the railroad furnished a good means of supply to the army; that we wished to connect with McDowell coming from Fredericksburg, &c. determined our route in taking it we lost essentially all that was worth going so far to gain, viz, the James River approach and the co-operation of the Navy.

The route chosen, two weeks should not have been spent in traversing the 40 miles from Williamsburg to Bottom’s and New Bridge; and the barrier of the Chickahominy being left unguarded at Bottom’s Bridge, no time should have been lost in making use of the circumstance to turn and seize the passage of New Bridge, which might have been done by the 28th and even earlier had measures been pressed to prepare for it.

The repulse of the rebels at Fair Oaks should have been taken advantage of. It was one of those occasions which if not seized do not [p.131] repeat themselves. We now know the state of disorganization and dismay in which the rebel army retreated. We now know that it could have been followed into Richmond. Had it been so, there would have been no resistance to overcome to bring over our right wing.

Although we did not then know all that we now do, it was obvious enough at that time that when the rebels struck a blow at our left wing they did not leave any means in their hands unused to secure success. It was obvious enough that they struck with their whole force, and yet we repulsed them in disorder with three-fifths of ours. We could have followed them up at the same time that we brought over the other two- fifths.

After it was known that McDowell was called off to another quarter there was no longer hope of an increase of force by the junction of his corps. There were no other re-enforcements to look for beyond what we received by the middle of the month of June. The rebel force was known or supposed to be constantly increasing by conscription, by the influx of troops from other parts, and by the breaking up of Beauregard’s army.

At last a moment came when action was imperative. The enemy assumed the initiative, and we had warning of when and where he was to strike. Had Porter been withdrawn the night of the 26th, our army would have been concentrated on the right bank, while two corps, at least, of the enemy’s force were on the left bank. Whatever course we then took, whether to strike at Richmond and the portion of the enemy on the right bank or move at once for the James, we would have had a concentrated army and a fair chance of a brilliant result in the first place, and, in the second, if we accomplished nothing, we would have been in the same case on the morning of the 27th as we were on that of the 28th, minus a lost battle and a compulsory retreat; or had the fortified lines (thrown up expressly for that object) been held by 20,000 men (as they could have been), we could have fought on the other side with 80,000 men instead of 27,000; or, finally, had the lines been abandoned, with our hold on the right bank of the Chickahominy we might have fought and crushed the enemy on the left bank, reopened our communications, and then returned and taken Richmond. As it was, the enemy fought with his whole force except enough left before our lines to keep up an appearance, and we fought with 27,000 men, losing the battle and 9,000 men. By this defeat we were driven from our position, our advance of conquest turned into a retreat for safety by a force probably not greatly superior to our own.

In view of the length of time which our operations before Richmond actually consumed, there is now no doubt that the depot at the White House should have been fortified, as well as one or two points on the railroad thence to the Chickahominy; that the téte-de-pont at Bottom’s Bridge should have been completed, and likewise tétess-de-pont or strong positions prepared to cover the debouches from our bridges to the left bank of the Chickahominy. With these the army would have possessed freedom of motion and concentration on either side, and the disastrous battle of the 27th would scarcely have occurred.

When the army reached the James River it needed no prophet to predict the disasters which have since befallen our country’s cause. If the army had sustained itself nobly it cannot be denied that so much fruitless toil and so much disaster had deprived it of the élan which results from success alone. It was, moreover (as well as our forces elsewhere), sadly diminished in numbers. On the other hand, the rebel army from its first low state had risen to be an army most formidable in numbers, excellent in organization, and inspired by a great success. Had its [p.132] numbers, indeed, approached to that attributed to it (200,000 men), there is little doubt that a march upon Washington would have speedily followed our withdrawal to the James. From such considerations, as well as those flowing from the results of past operations, I counseled the immediate withdrawal from the James to reunite with the forces covering Washington.

Respectfully submitted.

J. G. BARNARD,

Brig. Gen. and late Chief Engineer Army of the Potomac.

General R. B. MARCY, Chief of Staff.

<-BACK | UP | NEXT->