Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/660

 assault on the next morning. But Lee had by now moved more forces down, and his line extended from the Totopotomoy to the Chickahominy. Hancock’s corps, very greatly fatigued by its night march, did not form up until after midday, and meanwhile Smith, whose corps, originally but 10,000 strong, had been severely tried by its hard marching and fighting on the 1st, refused to consider the idea of renewing the attack. The passive resistance thus encountered dominated Grant’s fighting instinct for a moment. But after reconsidering the problem he again ordered the attack to be made by Wright, Smith and Hancock at 5 p.m. A last modification was made when, during the afternoon, Lee’s far distant left wing attacked Burnside and Warren. This, showing that Lee had still a considerable force to the northward, and being, not very inaccurately, read to mean that the 6 m. of Confederate entrenchments were equally—i.e. equally thinly—guarded at all points, led to the order being given to all five Union corps to attack at 4.30 a.m. on the 3rd of June.

The resolution to make this plain, unvarnished frontal assault on entrenchments has been as severely criticized as any action of any commander in the Civil War, and Grant himself subsequently expressed his regret at having formed it. But such criticisms derive all their force from the event, not from the conditions in which, beforehand, the resolution was made. The risks of failure were deliberately accepted, and the battle—if it can be called a battle—was fought as ordered. The assault was made at the time arranged and was repulsed at all points, with a loss to the assailants of about 8000 men. Thereafter the two armies lay for ten days less than a hundred yards apart. There was more or less severe fighting at times, and an almost ceaseless bickering of skirmishers. Owing to Grant’s refusal to sue for permission to remove his dead and wounded in the terms demanded, Lee turned back the Federal ambulance parties, and many wounded were left to die between the lines. It was only on the 7th that Grant pocketed his feelings and the dead were buried.

This is one of the many incidents of Cold Harbor that must always rouse painful memories—though to blame Lee or Grant supposes that these great generals were infinitely more inhuman here than at any other occasion in their lives, and takes no account of the consequences of admitting a defeat at this critical moment, when the causes for which the Union army and people contended were about to be put to the hazard of a presidential election.

The Federal army lost, in this month of almost incessant campaigning, about 50,000 men, the Confederates about 32,000. Though the aggregate of the Union losses awed both contemporaries and historians of a later generation, proportionately the losses of the South were heavier (46% of the original strength as compared with 41% on the Union side), and whereas within a few weeks Grant was able to replace nearly every man he had lost by a new recruit, the Confederate government was almost at the end of its resources.

 WILDMAN, SIR JOHN (c. 1621–1693), English agitator, was educated at the university of Cambridge, and during the Civil War served for a short time under Sir Thomas Fairfax. He became prominent, however, not as a soldier but as an agitator, being in 1647 one of the leaders of that section of the army which objected to all compromise with the king. In a pamphlet, Putney Projects, he attacked Cromwell; he was responsible for The Case of the Army stated, and he put the views of his associates before the council of the army at a meeting in Putney church in October 1647. The authorities looked upon him with suspicion, and in January 1648 he and John Lilburne were imprisoned, preparations, says Clarendon, being made “for his trial and towards his execution.” However, he was released in the following August, and for a time he was associated with the

party known as the levellers, but he quickly severed his connexion with them and became an officer in the army. He was a large buyer of the land forfeited by the royalists, and in 1654 he was sent to the House of Commons as member for Scarborough. In the following year he was arrested for conspiring against Cromwell, and after his release four months later he resumed the career of plotting, intriguing alike with royalists and republicans for the overthrow of the existing regime. In 1659 he helped to seize Windsor castle for the Long Parliament, and then in November 1661 he was again a prisoner on some suspicion of participating in republican plots. For six years he was a captive, only regaining his freedom after the fall of Clarendon in October 1667.

In or before 1681 Wildman became prominent among those who were discontented with the rule of Charles II., being especially intimate with Algernon Sydney. He was undoubtedly concerned in the Rye House Plot, and under James II. he was active in the interests of the duke of Monmouth, but owing to some disagreements, or perhaps to his cowardice, he took no part in the rising of 1685. He found it advisable, however, to escape to Holland, and returned to England with the army of William of Orange in 1688. In 1689 he was a member of the convention parliament.

Wildman was postmaster-general from April 1689 to February 1691, when some ugly rumours about his conduct brought about his dismissal. Nevertheless, he was knighted by William III. in 1692, and he died on the 2nd of June 1693. Sir John, who was the author of many political pamphlets, left an only son, John, who died childless in 1710.  WILES, IRVNG RAMSAY (1861–), American artist, was born at Utica, New York, on the 8th of April 1861. He studied under his father, the landscape painter, Lemuel Maynard Wiles (1826–1905), in the Art Students’ League, New York, and under Carolus Duran, at Paris. His earlier work was as an illustrator for American magazines, and later he devoted himself with great success to portraiture. He became a full member of the National Academy of Design (1897) and a member of the American Water Color Society.  WILFRID (c. 634–709), English archbishop, was born of good parentage in Northumbria, c. 634. When serving in King Oswio’s court, he attracted the notice of the queen, Eanfled, who, fostering his inclination for a religious life, placed him under the care of an old noble, Cudda, now a monk at Lindisfarne. Later on Eanfled enabled him to visit Rome in the company of Benedict Biscop. At Lyons Wilfrid’s pleasing features and quick intelligence made Annemund, the archbishop, desire to adopt him and marry him to his niece. Resisting his offers, the youth went on to Rome, received the papal benediction, and then, in accordance with his promise, returned to Lyons, where he stayed for three years, till the murder of his patron, whose fate the executioners would not let him share. On his return home, Oswio’s son Alchfrid gave him a monastery at Ripon, and, before long, Agilbert, bishop of the Gewissae, or West Saxons, ordained him priest.

He was probably already regarded as the leading exponent of the Roman discipline in England when his speech at the council of Whitby determined the overthrow of the Celtic party (664). About a year later he was consecrated to the see of York, not, however, in England, where perhaps he could not find the fitting number of orthodox prelates, but at Compiègne, Agilbert being now bishop of Paris. On his return journey he narrowly escaped the pagan wreckers of Sussex, and only reached his own country to find Ceadda (St Chad) installed in his see.

The rest of his life is largely a record of wandering and misfortune. For three years (665–668) he ruled his monastery at Ripon in peace, though acting as bishop in Mercia and Kent during vacancies in sees there. On Archbishop Theodore’s arrival (668) he was restored to his see, and spent in it nine years of ceaseless activity, especially in building churches, only to be driven out through the anger of King Ecgfrith’s queen (677).