ge from
the army.

In consequence of the conditions at Pittsburg Landing that have been
alluded to, men died by the score like rotten sheep. And a great many
more were discharged for disability and thereby were lost to the
service. It is true that some of these discharged men, especially the
younger ones, subsequently re-enlisted, and made good soldiers. But
this loss to the Union armies in Tennessee in the spring of '62 by
disease would undoubtedly surpass the casualties of a great battle,
but, unlike a battle, there was no resulting compensation whatever.

The battle of Shiloh was fought on April 6 and 7. In 1890 I wrote an
article on the battle which was published in the New York Tribune, and
later it appeared in several other newspapers. It has also been
reprinted in book form in connection with papers by other persons, some
about the war, and others of a miscellaneous nature. The piece I wrote
twenty-five years ago is as good, I reckon, if not better than anything
on that head I can write now, so it will be set out here.

IN THE RANKS AT SHILOH.

By Leander Stillwell,
late First Lieutenant, 61st Illinois Volunteer Infantry.

There has been a great deal said and written about the battle of
Shiloh, both by Rebel and Union officers and writers. On the part
of the first there has been, and probably always will be, angry
dispute and criticism about the conduct of General Beauregard in
calling off his troops Sunday evening while fully an hour of broad,
precious daylight still remained, which, as claimed by some, might
have been utilized in destroying the remainder of Grant's army
before Buell could have crossed the Tennessee. On the part of Union
writers the matters most discussed have been as to whether or not
our forces were surprised, the condition of Grant's army at the
close of the first day, what the result would have been without the
aid of the gunboats, or if Buell's army had not come, and kindred
subjects. It is not my purpose, in telling my story of the battle
of Shiloh, to say anything that will add to this volume of
discussion. My age at the time was but eighteen, and my position
that of a common soldier in the ranks. It would therefore be
foolish in me to assume the part of a critic. The generals, who,
from reasonably safe points of observation, are sweeping the field
with their glasses, and noting and directing t