Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-12-17

We observe that several of our Administrator
contemporaries are animadverting with much seve
rity on the annual report Of Major Gen. Haleck the
Genera-in-Chief Among those participating in
these structures the New York Tribune is oonspi
cuous. After stating that the report is an elabo
rate document which "professes to be review
of the military operations in the different depart
ments, from November Of the last to November Of
the present year. our contemporary proceeds to add
1t does not contain many facts that to the
country but it contains some versions OF well known
events which are say the least, surprising IL Is
very begerent document We reckon not less than eight
Generals who directly indirectly censured for mis-
conduca of them commanders of departments corps
There not single disaster failure for which the
Generaln Chief seems to consider himself responsible
not for which he not able to account by the dere
LECTION in duty of subordinate commander. On the
other hand it made to appear that he which
successful conducted strictly in accordance
with the orders suggestions issued from Washington.
There deficiencies in this report for which we are
at loss to account For instance in the brief narrative
of that remarkable movement by which Lee withdrew his
army from front of Gen Hooker the RappahannOck,
find explanation of the reasons which induced the
latter to permit flank march by the rebel commander of
than one hundred and fifty miles without attempt
ut its interruption The result OF this inactivity on the
part Of Gen. Hooker, is well known, was to permit
Gen. Lee to occupy the Shenandoah Valley and advance
omission Of Gen. Haeck to justify the strategy by which
Gen Dix with army estimated at not less than thirty
thousand men, kept on the Peninsula while Gen
Meade was fighting decisive battle in Pennsyvania 1t
is known that Gen. Meade had been reinforced by Gen.
Dix Immediately after Gettysburg the humiliation of the
rebel army would have been certain Gen Hseck would
have done the service if he had told us who
responsible for the detention Of Gen. Dix who it that
kept those forces uselessy prOmenadng on the Peninsula
at critical moment and whether the General In Chief
who must have had tho power failed to the necessity
N M Clan
been destroyed north of the Potomac, Richmond would
have fallen Of its weight If the other hand, for
want Of endorsements Gen Meade had been defeated
could not have held Richmond had taken it, But
these points fail to find the information we sought
in Gen. Hallecks report"
We fear the critical editor has not very carefully
read the document on which he animadverts. On
Gen. Halleck's report as regards the operations
which eliminated in the invasion of Pennsylvania
and the battles at Gettysburg, but we supposed
ourselves to find sufficient explanation of the
paucity of Gen. Halleck's information under this
head in the following statement, with which he
prefaces his remarks upon these events
"a severe battle took place on the Cd and Sd Of Nay,
and on the 9Th our army was again withdrawn to the north
side of the river For the want of official data I'M
able to give any detailed accounts of these operations
OF our losses IL also proper TO remark IN this place
that from the time he placed in command Of the Army
of the Potomac till he reached Fairfax Station, on the 10th
of june few days before he relieved from the
mand Gen Hooker reported directly to the President and
reeeiped instructions directly from him. IreceiDed off,
cial Information Of his plans or Of their execution"
1t will thus be seen that during the early part
of the period within which Gen. Hooker was per-
hitting Gen. Lee to outfank him the General-in-
Chief was not in correspondence with the former,
and that military relations were not established
between him and Gen. Hooker until few days
before the latter was relieved from the command
of the Army Of the Potomac by Gen. Meade. 1t
is obvious that the General inc hef should not be
held responsible for such omissions in his report
as result from an ignorance which was his misfor-
tune and not his fault.