The Notorious "Bull" Nelson: Murdered Civil War General

A Martyr to Political Expediency

153 A Martyr to Political Expediency [11] At 9:00 a.m., Monday, September 29, 1862, the U.S. Military Telegraph Service informed authorities in Washington that Brig. Gen. Jeff. C. Davis had killed Maj. Gen. William Nelson and would be brought before a local police court judge. Halleck’s messenger, Colonel McKibbin, had not received the wire to hold delivery, and one half-hour after Nelson’s death, that overeager courier handed Buell the orders that relieved him of command. It was nearing noon when George H. Thomas tactfully informed Halleck it would be wrong for him to assume command because he did not know enough about Buell’s preparations. Buell and Thomas waited patiently for additional instructions from the War Department, and at 2:30 p.m., Buell advised he would leave for Indianapolis as instructed. That brought an immediate reply from Halleck. He professed to have no authority to rescind Buell’s removal and requested that both men consider the matter suspended until further notice.1 Due to the uncertainty of his situation, Buell made no effort to order a general court-martial, appoint an investigator, or ask for written statements. He did issue general orders that praised Nelson. Buell made no mention of the circumstances surrounding the murder, but he noted no shortcoming offended Nelson more than the “disobedience or neglect of public duty.” Years later, Buell stated that while the iniquitous assassination deeply upset him, it was simply impossible for him to defend Nelson’s odious outbursts. Adjutant James B. Fry considered Nelson’s loss “the greatest the Army of the West had yet received. He was everything himself—his staff were very young and inexperienced but all gentlemen; he seemed to care more for that than any knowledge they might have.” Those officers needed Nelson more than ever, and Buell selfishly replaced that warrior with Charles C. Gilbert, a insensitive martinet who had lost the respect of the officers and men. Buell had originally 154 A Martyr to Political Expediency intended to move the twenty-five brigades of the Army of the Ohio in a threecolumn advance against Braxton Bragg in the morning. Now that would have to wait until Wednesday. At 9:00 p.m., he informed his corps commanders that Tuesday, September 30, would be devoted to memorializing Nelson.2 The next morning, friends of Nelson took one last look at his remains in the Grand Hall of the Galt House. At 3:00 p.m., the visitation ended. A military band and tolling church bells accompanied the solemn procession that moved the body over to Calvary Episcopal Church. Soldiers quietly arranged bouquets of flowers around a rich mahogany coffin with massive silver mountings. They placed Nelson’s sword on the flag-draped casket, the music ended, and the crowd grew somber as Rev. Messrs. Newell and Lange began to read the Episcopal burial service.3 Dr. Talbot then spoke of how “Justice was . . . [Nelson’s] distinctive characteristic . Ever ready to accord praise and promotion to the officer who did his duty, he fell like a thunderbolt on imbecility. Careful to a fault of the soldiers in his command, he lashed unsparingly at the official cause of their miseries. Indifferent to the praise or censure of those who surrounded him he marked out his course and he followed it despite every obstacle. Independent in the extreme, he sought the advice of a few, and would tolerate the interference of none.” Talbot concluded by saying, “The General is dead! Let us remember his virtues and emulate them. Let us forget his faults and bury them . . . let us deal kindly with his memory.”4 The Indianapolis Journal found it difficult to follow the last admonition. The paper noted that while Nelson “was a man of considerable ability,” the basis for his fatal encounter with Davis arose from “language that no decent man will use to a dog.” The Louisville Democrat said very little about Nelson other than “His loss at this time is very serious.” The New York Times admired Nelson’s “virtue and loyalty, and courage” and it deeply regretted that his “rude and offensive personal deportment” would very likely “exempt . . . his killing from the usual regrets and sympathies.” The Times added that condemnation of Nelson’s disrespectful behavior did not justify the terrible crime of murder, and Davis therefore “must meet a swift and relentless penalty.”5 The Cincinnati Times disagreed. The paper believed Davis was right in killing an unqualified tyrant...