The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1870-10-06
Confederate war history.
A"otlier Letter from Hon. A. II. Stephens,
And Reply.
LIBERTY HALL, CRAwFoRDvLLE Gal
August 10Th. 1870


u Hon. E. BARksDALE:
Dear Sir A copy of The CLARION O
[ the 18TH INST, containing my letter to yol
C OF the oth inst, ("by way of RejOiader'' no
| OF rtndicdtton as printed y and your com
ments about it, was received this M ornino
ms requires further notice from me. les
D silence on my part may be construed int
e an admission OF some matters which | an
very TAR from making.
lou viii therefore please allow me TO say
10 you and to your readers that | al
r not admit that the statement in the Constftlt
tt0Hdttst on which you had commented il
your previous letter ''has the same meaning
precisely" as the paraphrase of it by YOU
40 not admit that il had, in its whole con,
2 nectlon, any such meaning whatever, as tina
, conveyed by the words you used in giving
Its purfort.
You will allow me also to saw that dc
, nc; ''cOHcur ruth you in holding that Mr.
Davis is represented by me i'm the 2nd vol
OF my work upon the war, as having ~disap-
proved" a movement Ito reap the fruits OF
the victory" (of the first battle of Manas-
sas) three months after it had passed into
history"
You say in substance that l must concur
'cih yOu in holding that this is the purport
of my statement in the Book. Now | say
TO you most respectfully and emphaticallv
that 1 DO not in any such construc-
ton a the language used by me as that by
whlc%any such distorted meaning can be
/ SlNCL " IT. duu enter INV protest against
any such construction being put upon it.
The substance of what is said in the Book
| as to my knowledge of the facts bearing up
on the tn0cttrity OF the Confederate army at
Manassas during the fall of ls6I-after the
bSttle OF the q July, you and your read
ers will recolleet amounts to this:
J The Confederate army at that place was
/ in my opinion, in no condition to make an
| advance movement Immediately after that
/ battle; that Gen. j ohustOn did wish to make
/ some movement OF the sort In fla par lU fall
after he was better prepared:
That his plan was to concentrate as quick
/ ly as possibly aC that place force sufficient
for that purpose. which tchich could be done
only by tedUing bare reDOte points then defended:
that for the consideration of that policy a
council of war was held at his Headquarters:
that Mr. Davis went up from Richmond, and
met in this council Gems. Johnston, Beau
regard and Gustavus w. Smith; that the re-
suit OF this council of war was the diSapprOUdl
of Mr. Davis of the policy proposed-that
Is, he dlsapproyed of the proposition sub
mItted for an advance movement by con-
centrating at Manassas the required forces.
which could be done only by LeavtRg bare re-
mote places then defended.
This is a brief but clear statement of the
substance of all that is set forth in the book
about the subject In it there is nothing
but the mention of facts onlv so far as my
knowledge extended.
On the merits or dement's of the policy
suggested. | gave you no opinion whatever;
on the contrary. | expressly abstained from
giving any opinion My object was simply
to state the facts accurately as far as they
had come TO my knowledge, leaving all to
form their own opinions from the facts sta
ted
Now the only real question between us
that which gave rise to this CORES
pOndence-iS whether the statement OF facts
as ADORE set forth, being substantially the
same as that set forth in the book, be correct
or not.
You will recollect that in your first arti-
Gle on this subject in the CLARION. you
maintained that i had in it committed an
terror, scarcely excusable in one occupy
i@g my position, and who had undertaken
to write for pesteriy." In my reply of the
9th ofJuly last, | gave you the exact extract
of the book in full upon the subject and
stated that IF it be shwon that l had fallen
into an error upon any point, however
small one, it would be most cheerfully
corrected i'll all subsequent editions
Without having pointed out any error in
the statement, as iC stands in my own Ian
guage in the book, in either of your subSe-
quent letters to me; you nevertheless eX-
press "hOpe" in the last of these letters re-
ceived to-day, that corrections and eXpla-
nations will appear in revise edition of the
End volume of my work, corresponding
with the facts brought to light by the cor
respondence (Which you published for the
first time) between President Davis aud
Gen. Joseph f. Johnston, and by the ac-
near Manassas in the fall of 1861, lately
given to the public for the first time over
the signatures ofGen's Smith, Beauregard
and Johnston, and which, | may add, was
most probably brought to light by this cor
repOndence.
Now in reply to this. ask you most Sc
riOusly and earnestly, wherein is there the
slightest discrepancy or arrangement be-
tween anything in either of these lately
published papers, and the statement as it
stands i'm fhn hO0E fhaV Ot firm
in every particular? If I had had the cor
respondence between President Davis and
Gen. Johnston. and the account of the con-
ference referred to by you (recently pub
lighed over the signatures of Gen'ls Smith,
Beauregard and JOhnstOn) before me when
| was penning the statement of the facts as
it stands in the book could | have possibly
made It more strictly conform to both these
papers than it does?
Does not Gen. Johnston. in his letter to
President Davis, published by You, say, in
substance, that the army 1T Manassas was
not in a condition to make an advance
movement Immediately after the battle of
the 2Ist of july, 1861 ? Is not this in strict
accordance with what ] said upon that sub
iect?
Does not Gen. Johnsl ON also in this letter
of the 10th of November, 1861, expressly
say to Mr.. Davis. ''aftera conference at Fair
fax {. H. with these senior general officers,
you announced it to be impracticable TO
give this amy the strength which these of
Ulcers considered necessary to enable it to
assume the offensive %
Does this statement conflict in the least
with the statement by me: So far from
conflicting with it, does it not sustain it to
the very letter so far as it goes?
Then, as to the account of the conference
or council of war recently published by
Gents Smith. Beauregard and Johnston
Does not this show clearly that General
Johnston did desire in the early fall of 1861
to make some sort of A forward or aggres-
sive movement? Does it not show that a
council of war was held upon the subject at
or near Manassas at which Mr.. Davis was
present, in the latter part of September p
Does it not show that Gen. Johnston did
submit for consideration such plan as stat
ed for an advance movement! Does II not
show that Mr.. Davis dtSdpprored of it! Does
not the paper to which you refer represent
him as saying that "he could not take any
"troops from the points named - Does not
this paper expressly state in behalf OF the
General in command that this answer ofthe
President twas accepted as final and it was
''felt that there was no other course left but
ito take a defensive position and await the
sevening"
Is there, my Dear Sir, anything in this |
statement in conflict with mine? Is there |
anything in the written paper to which you |
refer, in conflict in the slightest particular
with the statement of facts on this subject as
it stands in the book? Ii there is assure |
you it has escaped my attention. and re- |
peat in conclusion that If / had had that |
paper before me when my statement was |
written / do not think that / could have
made it more strictly in conformity with its
general details than it now stands. There
fore as yet see no reason for revising or
modifying the text in any particular. If
there be any error in it, do not vel per-
ceive it.
Yours Respectfully.
ALEXANDER III. STEPHENS.
REPLY.
Jackson. Mss, September 80, 1870.