When Smith began his movement against Petersburg, which was to be in the nature of a surprise, the greater part of Grant’s army was still north of the James River, and both Meade and Hancock allege that they were not notified that a new effort was to be made to capture Petersburg by Smith alone, after Butler had tried and failed with his whole army to isolate and cut it off from Richmond by the movement to Bermuda Hundred.  Both of these able officers declare that if they had known in time that Petersburg was to have been captured, Petersburg would have been captured.  This simple statement, without reference to its truth, which has never been questioned, is conclusive evidence that the staff arrangements and the organization of the machinery of command were fatally defective, for had it been otherwise, every officer who could have been called upon to take part in the movement, or could have been expected to co-operate with it, would have been so clearly instructed as to make his duty entirely plain.

General Smith, in explanation of why he was relieved from command in the field, not only reflects strongly upon the conduct of General Butler, but endeavors to show that General Grant “was forced” by Butler to restore him to full command, in order to prevent the exposure of his own conduct, yet even if this were true it necessarily leaves both the question of fact and the question of motives in the dark.  Certain letters which passed between Smith, Grant, Rawlins and Butler have been quoted, for the purpose of illustrating the character of the persons concerned.  They will he found in the Records and they throw much light upon the subject, but they still leave the reason of Smith’s removal in obscurity.

It cannot be denied that Smith was a man of great talents and conspicuous services, with unusual powers of caustic Criticism, who had been badly injured by the way in which his connection with the Army of the James had been severed.  His views and conduct had been impugned, not only then, but afterwards, in both the newspapers and the personal statements of the day, and hence it was but natural that he should retort with an appeal to the facts of a private nature more or less commented upon at the time, to expose the reasons for official action and to vindicate his own conduct.  He strenuously contended that he was under no obligation to conceal any important facts of the case connected either personally or officially with those who were using him unkindly to the prejudice of the public welfare, especially where those facts were believed to be a potential factor in influencing their official acts and in shaping history.