Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-04-12
FITZ JOHN PORTER'S CASE
His Reply to Senator Chandler
Recent Speech.
A Strong Argument for the Re-
opening of the Trial.

Gen. Fitz John Porter's reply to the re
cent speech by Senator Chandler has beer
addressed to that Senator with the reques
that it be laid before the Senate, stt
show into what grave errors Mr.. Chand
Ter had fallen" in endeaYoring to do JUS
tice to history. The main points of the
reply are that he has proofs of the fol
lowing:
That Mr.. Lincoln promised to reopen
his case on production of new evidence;
that he had based his approval of the sen
tence on Judge Hollis opinion, not hay
ing had time to examine the case himself
That he delayed two hours in executing
Pope's order to march by the urgent ad-
vice of his division commanders. Their
Seasons were: ''That the command had
reached Wauenton Junction at a late
hour, without food, very much fatigued
by continuous march of Is days, and
nights of broken rest; that the night was
pitch dark, the road was bad, and block
AIDED with wagon trains in confusion that
the spirit of the order would be best car
ried out by delaying the march till day
DlCdfs bSNAASN AAN hAOOlo hOhlu AGNC
their nights rest, and would march more
rapidly, reaching their destination in con-
dition for immediate action; and that as
the indications pointed to the fact that the
enemy was then retreating from before
Gen. Pope, the necessity was not pres
sing"
He viii prove on a rehearing that
though approaching the soundness of
these reasons, he was decidedly of the
opinion that "he who gave the order
knew whether the necessities of the case
should warrant the eXertion;" and that he
yielded TO the advice of his generals only
after being assured by the bearer of the
order that he had been delayed by the
darkness and the blocked condition of the
road. He will prove that the result
showed that literal compliance with the
order was impractics bic; that no time was
lost by the delay, but the march made all
the quicker for il; that he arrived as soon
as other troops, coming a shorter distance
and under as urgent orders; that when he
did arrive there was and had been nothing
for him to do; and that he remained in
Bristol all that day under POpe's order,
twice. repeated, "tO remain at Bristol;
when wanted you will be sent for. "
He can also show that he knew nothing
about Hooker wanting ammunition; that
he did not want any, and did not take
any when it reached him; that this
charge of Pope was not only false but
frivolous. The "joint order" to Ger.
Mcdowell and himself was, according to
all testimony, McDowell's included, freely
complied with, and that when Mcdowell
elected to march away from him, taking
one-half Of the whole force, he left him
confronted by all of LOngstreet's force,
double and more in number, in position
selected, and as Longstreet now writes,
'mOst anxious to bring on a fight.
Gen. Porter claims that he desired to
show this on his trial as against Pope's
charge that LOngstreet was fifty miles
away, and he now adduces Longstreet's
testimony TO prove that he, Porter, was
right, and Pope and Mcdowell wrong.
He claims that McDowel's testimony
should not have been taken ashe admitted
a 'Ewant of memory" on vital points, and
had this want supplied by member of
the court, who though setting judicially in
Porter's case, left the bench to testify
against him.
lie challenges his accusers to meet him
before military tribunal of the best army
men, with the full evidence he now has
to present He says they dare not meet
the truth. He says that POpe's final and
most important order was not delivered
TO him until two hours later than too late
to execute it. According to ths evidence
now in hand, his action not only was the
best for his corps, but saved Pope from
total capture or Tout.
This evidence was not Obtainable at
the time of the trial, for the following
reasons:
The times and circumstances checked a
free expression or offering of testimony.
The Secretary Of War refused the &C
cused permission, early in the trial, TO
send his aids to the army TO see witnesses
and gather testimony.
4 When he did send his aids, on his own
responsibility, letters ID and from them
and others were purloined or opened, and
robbed of information.
He was not appraised of the names and
location of witnesses whom he was per
suaded could furnish reliable information
in his favor, thus losing not only the ben
eft of their testimony, but also the benefit
of the information they had as to what
other persons could prove in his favor.
Others whom he knew would testify TO
very important facts in his behalf did not
appear till the moment they were called
TO testify, compelling him to produce
witnesses without knowing what partiCu-
lar facts they were possessed of, and
how TO fully elicit them.
These Irregularities he complained of to
the Court and TO the Government during
the trial He claims they give additional
ground for a re-hearing.
Quoting from Chandeliers speech in
which the latter said: "What business
was it to him porter whether he was
cut TO pieces or not. Porter replies:
yWhen an officer is ordered 70 fall on the
Aank of one corps Of the enemy, and he
cannot fall on il and defeat and capture
IL il is his business not to be cut to pieces
in falling on another much larger body of
the enemy which he was not ordered TO
attack. and which, if he did attack, must
have defeated, and captured him and the
army of the General giving the order
Again, 1uOllLS nun NlldAuLCA . olSCN4l,
in which the latter asserts that he had
sworn testimony from man whose name
he had promised not to disclose, that
Porter said in his hearing 81 was not
true to Pope, and there's no use of deny
ing it." Gen. Porter says that "the
statement by whomsoeyer made is false in
every particular. The person thai lllakes
a statement which, if true, is so damnir
in its character, and then begs the con.
cealment of his name, is not worthy OF
recognition by men. Aside from my gen.
eral character for retiCence when in the
army, certainly had no inducement tc
lose my senses pending my trial, and false.
Iy assert in anyone's presence just what
Gen. Pope was forty-fve days endeavor,
ing to prove" He significantly asks why
this reliable witness was not produced OF
tbe trial, whose testimony, if credible,
would long ago have ended his appeal.
In renly TO the Senator's statement tina