The Portland daily press., 1864-10-08
Annihilating Reply to Ex-Gen. Naglee,
BY WIN. D. KELLEY.

-~@~AA>N~-Af1 A~SPAJ w 9A-NAOA' NdEl6Og
BY VIM. D. KELLEY.
The copperhead papers, the Argus among
the rest, are circulating letter from Henry
M Naglee, formerly Brigadier General Of
Volunteers, to Hon. VIM. D. Kelley, of Phila-
delphia, but none of them, probably, will
deem it expedient to publish Mr.. Kelley's re-
ply.
Mr.. Kelley made speech in Philadelphia,
and it was report of this speech in the Press
of that city which prompted Gen. Naglee's
letter. He makes the following quotation
from that report
1t got out that the President was determin-
ed to have the army moved, and it was found
that Mcclellan had no plan; and here may
state that we owe the Peninsula campaign to
those distinguished Senators, Latham of Cali
fornia, Rice of Minnesota, and brigadier in
the column of Joseph Hooker. Gen. McCel-
lan's plan was concocted by others, and put
into his hands. 1t was agreed on in a council
of war. That plan was submitted to the
President 1t was submitted in the presence
OF Secretary Stanton. Stanton put them
through strict course of examination. One,
Gen. Blenker, owned that he did not under
stand the plan, but would sustain it, as he
thought he had to obey the mandates of his
chief. Gen. Naglee was one of those present.
and Stanton observed that he had but one
star. Sir" said Mr., Stanton, you have no
right herew 6 am representing Gen. Hook
err" said he. IL was afterwards found out
that Gen. Naglee was absent without leave,
and that Fighting Joe Hooker knew nothing
of the council. Applause.
Upon this paragraph Gen. Naglee says:
Now, my dear sir, this statement is simply
false, and on the part of your friend, Mr. Ed
win Stanton, Secretary of War, malciously
false. The Peninsula campaign was not indi-
Gated by "Senaters Latham, of California, and
Rice, OF Minnesota, and brigadier in the col
umn Of Joseph Hooker" as asserted by you.
Gen. Naglee was at Washington with proper
leave, and with the full knowledge of General
Hooker, and was a member of the council of
war by direction of General Mcclellan, to
represent the division of the army at Budd's
ferry in the absence of General Hooker, who
was too far removed from Washington to be
presents And unfortunately for the veracity
OF MIR. Stanton,- tho -irnpeItinont remarks
which you ascribe to him could not have been
made, for there were no officers of the council
of war entitled at that time to more than one
star.
In his reply, which is published in the Phil
adelphia Press, Mr., Kelley says:
The report from which you clip this extract
does not purport to be verbatim-nor was it
full. l have, however, no special exception to
take to the passage you quote. 1t embodies a
fair statement OF my assertions as far as it
goes. 1t refers to what occurred during the
first week in March, 1862, and must follow in
the report, which Ihave not read my statement
of the disappointment well-informed men had
experienced in the last week of February.
had told the audience of the hopes enter
tanned by the President, the Secretary of
War, and leading members of Congress, of the
success of Gen. MeClellan's proposed surprise
of the rebels on the line of Brentsville. You
doubtless remember that the success of that
promised movement was said by the General
to depend Ou the fact that it was to be sur
prise That no suspicion of his contemplated
movement might be excited, he proposed that
instead of constructing pontoons or hauling
them thither, be would collect in the canal
canal boats, of which to construct bridge
across the Potomac. This he did at his lei
sure. All was now ready. "If anything was
wanting, he had nobody but himself to blame, .
as he himself had said. The morning os the
eventful day arrived, and To- difficulty, and
difficulty which to the eminent engineer
commanding the army was insuperabe.
1t had never occurred to him to measure
the outlook through which the boats he had
critical moment, as they were some feet wider
than the lock, they ohstinately refused to pass
through! Was it not vexatious? / also told
the meeting of the puerile excuses for the
failure which he offered In the presence oil
Hon. Ruel Wade, of Ohio, and Andrew John
son, then a senator from Tennessee, and that
he in their presence proposed to make anoth.
er effort to surprise the rebels over bridge
which he thought could be built in ten days
Thnso xuhn oardr mill hor oil
and am quite sure that Gen. Mcclellan, in
firm as his memory appears to be, can verify
all my statements.
further said, in substance, that this fact
following the incident of the store-pipe al
Munson's Hill, and the wooden guns st Man
passas, had exhausted even the President Is
stock OF patlencei but that he had, in the
kindness OF his heart, determined to give Gen.
Mcclellan chance to redeem himself from
utter ridicule, and had given him ten days in
which to propose plausible plan of cam
pagn. 1t was then l said he had no plan, and
that when several of the promised Ten days
had passed he was still without plan
At this point of time, my dear General, you
come upon the scene, and reaffirm all that |
have said OF you. Without attempting to re-
produce the language Of my address, l reaf-
firm this, not on the authority OF one whom
am proud to call my friend, Hon. E. M. Stan
ton, but of one whose word you ought to ac
cept, as be was graduate of West Point, {
brigadier-general of volunteers, and enjoyed
in an eminent degree, the confiden ce OF Gen
eral Mcclellan, then Commander in Chief o
the armies of the United States.
Indeed, my dear General, he was command
ing brigade under General Hooker in lowel
Maryland, which / think was your position
Eheh you received a communication from |
Dehocratic Senator, Mr.. Latham of CaliiOr
ma, which, though cannot give you Its pre-
else language, yet you know that General Nc
Ciellan was In danger of removal because he
had stipulated TO submit a plan Of campaier
within certain number of days. and would
be removed If he did not, and requested Won
to hasten to Washington. am ouite sure
my dear General, that you will not denv this
nor that in pursuance OF that Communicated
you did not hasten to Washington, and were
chagrined at finding that Mr. Latham had lief
for New York.
Nor further, that you found letter from
him awaiting you, in which he regretted tha
duties in connection with the Pacific Mail sci
vice imperously demanded his presence il
New York on that day. 1t, however, relerre
you to another Democratic Senator, Mr.. Ric
of Minnesota, and told you to confer freel
with him, as you would have done with tn
writer, as he understood the delicacy of tn
Generals situation, and might be conferre
with frankly and safely. Now | say agar
that am sure you will contradict none c
these statements, and ask you how my value
and honored friend, the Secretary Of Wal
could have given me these facts which wer
meant to be so confidential? My other asseI
tions OF how you proposed the plan of the Pc
ninsula campaign, and, as politicians say
"packed" council of war, are all equally tru