Delaware State journal and statesman., 1862-03-07
MAIon GENERAL PATTERSON.

=
reny to some remarks made upon the other side
Of the House, that the knowledge or Information
that General Johnston had escaped from Win
chester and mad euded ueneral Patterson was
communicated to the General commanding heIe
on Friday afternoon or Friday night. or at latest
on saturday. also stated 10 that connection
that General Patterson had sent dispatch to
that effect That, however, was not important
The point on which ! wished 10 insist was not
that General Patterson had sent the dispatch
the point wished TO bring ont WAS in reply to
allegations which threw the result Of that battle
and the responsibility of the defeat upon others
than the generals commanding the army at thai
time We all know that in July last the whole
olium OF that defeat was attempted TO be thrown
upon what is known as the "On to Richmond
clique" connected with the Government, embrace
ing Congressman and others.
In July last or on the let of August when /
first spoke upon the subject in this House for the
purpose of putting that responsibility where it |
belonged stated what knew to be fact and
reiterated that fact, Friday last, aud the /
generals 10 the command of the army knew that
Gen. Johnston had euded Gen. Patterson and /
left Winchester to reinforce Gen, Beauregnrl at
Manassas. That is what said, hut it seemed /
that gentlemen upon the other side were so full
OF some secret they had got in committee that
they at once raised this side issue with me as 10
whether Gen. Patterson sent the dispatch or not
1 Mr. Gooch-lf the gentleman will permit me
I to interrupt him. desire TO say that, go far as
am concerned 1 desire to raise no issue with
\ him, so fnr as the main question is concerned
as to this Information being received by the
authorities here did, however, desire 10
correct the gentlemap in reference 10 his state
ment that Gen. Patterson furnished this informa-
tion.
Mr. Blair, Of Missouri believed at the time
that this information had come direct from Gene
raj Patterson to the General in command here
4 but that General Scott received the inf formation
there is no earthly doubt. Nor is there auy
doubt that the President suggested to General
Scott the propriety of waiting for General Patter-
cons army in order to support the column Of
General Mcdowell. | have no doubt of that
fact, for have knowledge Of it. II is OF no i'm
porance whether General Patterson sent the
information or not; but it appears from the
letter which hold in my hand that ] Lm correct,
and that General Patterson did send u dispatch
to General Scott on the subject received the
letter from a gentleman with whom am very
we'll acquainted, and will read it for the infor-
nation Of the House.
WAsHIsGroS, February lG. 1862
My Dear Colonel IL enclose u copy Of dis
patch, which has been forwarded to me by Gen.
Patterson it, as we'll as my avn recollection,
fully confirms the statement made by you in the
House that General Patterson, OH the 10th of
army at Washington the intelligence that john
stOn had, with portion of his force, left Win
chester By the road to MillWoOl.
This dispatch was given in evidence before the
Investigating Committee, as appears by ta
record.
General PAttersons force at Martinsburg was
eighteen thousand two hundred men.
The ouly point in which, permit me to say,
do not agree with your remarks in the House, is
/ in impugning the personal courage of Gen. Pat
I tersou. Those who were with him in the affair
ut Darnesvie can testify to his readiness to ex.
q pose himself to danger.
, Very sincerely yours, CRAId BIpDLR.
IlgApQuARTgas DEPARTMENT PENSsYLvASIA, Z
/ Charl, sown, Virginia, July 20, 1861.
4 With portion Of his force, Johnston left Win.
/ chester by the road to Milwood on the afternoon
, OF the 18th. His whole force about thirty-ive
/ thousand two hundred H. PATTERSON,
/ Major General Commanding.
D Colonel L D. TOWNSEND, A. A. G., u, s. A.,
r Washington, d. G.
q Ii will be noticed that that dispatch is dated
e the 10th day Of July, 1861. now desire tC
n reiterate, whatever information the gentlemen
G the committee may have in regard to this matter
G that did not mean to make an issue with III,
committee Ns 10 whether this information cam,
B. from Gen Patterson or not As | remarked OF
= Saturday last, thought that General Patterson
|. had at least done that much of his duty, Tim
information was published in the newspapers
v The President heard of il, and went 10 Gen
q Scott and suggested delay until Gen. Patterson
d forces could be brought up to Gen. Mcdowell
.. assistance, to support him in his proposed as-
e sault upon-Manassas. have this from the bes
" sources. know that it is true. | can vOucl
i fer its accuracy
I. Mr.. Stevens-lf my recollection serves me,
in was reported In the papers, aud wish to know
/ from the gentleman whether | am correct, tina
- ! (tpnpFnl ufaf nH in tba . a.
10 Cabinet, that this battle was fought against hi
}, Judgement aud against his wishes. Now, wa
te that declaration correct?
II Mr.. Critteuden-I did not hear that question
ID and hope that the gentleman will repeat it.
A MIR. Steyens--I wish to know from the gentle
e. man from Missouri, as l suppose he knows
Ds whether the statement made in the papers an
10 by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.. Richard
"a son, upon the floor was correct understan
10 that the gentleman from Illinois stated he wa
nj present when General Scott declared to th
a Cabinet and the President that the battle of Blu
IL Run had been fought against his wishes and hi
OF Judgement and under instructions from highe
1t, authority, and that be deserved to be dismsse
l. from the army in hsvHg yielded his judgemeL
al to those above him. Is that true
r MIR. Blair, Of Missouri-In addition to that ID
gentleman fiom Illinois stated, in reply to
in question which put to him, that the Presdel
g. asked Gen. Scott whether he had given him an
is such orders, aud that Gen. Scott diHcaimed il
ed the most emphatic manner, then and there.
re will not do for the gentleman from Pennsylvani
Id to state portion Of what took place He Ougl
m, to state all that transpired.
ty Mr.. Sieyens-I am the partisan OF no one.
a. did not rise for the purpose of yindicutng an,
,e, body. only wish to know whether was CORE
les in my understanding Of what had taken plac
to Did Gen. Scott state that that battle had bet
th fought agaiuet his judgement and wishes, al
upon pressure from others? | wish to kno
r. whether this is correct or not.
lst Mr. Blair of Missouri-The gentleman So
ny that he had been forced 10 fight the battle again
nv his judgement by the highest authority.
m Mr. Stevens understood the gentleman fro
Id Illinois to soy that the pressure upon 0ener
av Scott had proceeded from those who were hig
nj in authority to him.
TO Mr.. Blair, Of Missouri gentemans re
ed collection is correct far as his statement eoe
aW but it is incorrect in emitting portion of VIII
nd occurred at that interview. The President a
he pealed to Gen. Scott TO say whether he hi
ise urged him into that battle prematurely. al
1g, General Scott frankly admitted that he had nj
It, Mr.. Stevens-The gentleman does not uude
ing staud me. understand that General Scott d
Ms, clared that that battle had been fought again
he his wishes and his judgement. The gentlem
red from Missouri states that the battle was foue
sal by General Scott against the protest Of the PI
og- sident. Which is correct?
to Mr.. Blair, Of Missouri-lu reply to the PREF
the dent General Scott stated that the President b
not urged him to fight that battle. know III
re- the President suggested to General Scott. VIII
aW he asceFained that General Johnston had sud