The national Republican., 1861-08-10
GENERAL PATTERsON's CASE.

The most conspicuous fact in respect to the
battle Of July Il, is, that it was fought by the
enemy with all his forces on the Potomac, con.
centrated against the single army Of General
Mcdowell, while the right wing Of our Potomac
forces under General Patterson, twenty-five
thousand strong, was bivouacked idly at Har.
pers Ferry, within reach by telegraph, and
only six hours from Washington by rail.
As events turned out, the whole demonstra.
ton of General Patterson on the upper Poto.
mac, which did not cost the Government one
farthing less than ten millions of dollars, was
an utter failure. Somebody, it is evident, was
very unlucky, or very unfortunate.
1t may possibly never be settled where the
fault was, if it was fault anywhere, and not mere
misfortune.
Napoleon, as long as he lived, continued to
demonstrate that Marshal Grouchy ought to
have joined him at Waterloo, while the marshal
never ceased to maintain that it was by the
Emperors blunders, and not his own, that
junction was not effected.
Such controversy between General Scott
and General Patterson is not likely to be con-
tinued by them personally great while.
General Patterson is seventy.tvo years old.
General Scott is seventy.fve years old.
But the controversy which they will leave
behind them, will be continued as long as the
battle of July 81 continues to be the subject
Of historical criticism.
At this present writing, nothing appears to
be settled by proofs exhibited to the public, ex.
cept the fact that down to the 10th Of July,
General Patterson was restrained by the posi-
tive orders of General Scott from attacking
General Johnston, even if he had any disposition
to make an attack.
AS to General Scott's subsequent OF ders,
the Washington correspondent august . Of
the New York Tribune, says:
General Pattersop's orders were We learn,
from one who has seen them, all decided and
defnitiye. He was to attack Johnston, if strong
enough, if not, to cut him off form Beauregard,
to worry him at any rate, and, if out generated,
to reinforce General Mcdowell here"
The public would be better satisfied with
sight of these orders, than with any version Of
them given by an unknown somebody "pho
has seen Mem." But the account given has this
presumption in its favor--that the orders, as de-
scribed, are such as would probably have been
given after the advance on Manassas was de-
termined upon here.
Soon after the battle Of July Il, the Phila-
delphia Forth american published the follow
ing defence of General Patterson;
! Whilst the public mind is seeking for some
single victim upon whom to lay the blame of
our recent disaster at Manassas let US beware
of being hurried into irreparable injustice to-.
wards our absent tellow.citizen, General Pat
terson. We give below the substance of private
letters received from the army under his COM
mand, which were not written for publication,
but which are from source entirely reliable
and unquestionable.
"The attack by Mcdowell was to have been
made on Tuesday, the 10th Of July, and on that
day General Patterson was to have attacked
Johnston at Winchester, if sufficiently strong,
or to hold him there by demonstrations of an
attack. On the appointed day Patterson found