Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-04-01

tionally clear type and white paqer and
handsomely illustrated), Gen. Joseph E.
Johnston has acted a noble and knightly
part by the muse of history. He rightly
appTehended her delicate behest, when he
resolved to undertake the task, and he has
executed it with marked ability and true
mcdesty. He has given plain, ~unadorned
but very graphic account of all the cam
paigns with which he was connected. The
matter, much of which is new and none of
which is superfuous or unnecessary, is
judiciously arranged and presented in a
clear and vigorous style. . 1t
is entirely foOt-loose from the
great mass of details and minu-
tie, which are undisputed, and easily OBJ
tainable from other sources. sbVhere it be-
came necessary TO combat an error or re-
move a doubt by reasoning. we find the ar
gument direct, cogent and conclusive. The
complete impression made by the whole is
that a clear, cool, common sense had stood
guard from the beginning against the in
trusion Of faults. Yet the fact that the
enarratiyer does not anywhere deviate
from the nature of a sketch, is proof enough
that it was not written with
a view to literary reputation,
nor even intended to survive as an in
dependent production. Ii is Offered merely
as "a contribution of materials tor the use
of the historian of the War between the
States" But, like Caesars famous nara
tive, it is probably destined to live, if for
no other reason, on account of the practical
use to which 1t will be put by those who
choose the profession of arms. For
whether it be adopted as a textbook or
not, we may predict that the military
will always regard it as a valuable
reference-boOk. In perusing it ont sensi-
bly, realizes and keenly appreciates
the eminent standpoint Of the
General as a position from which to con-
template those memorable affairs. For
those who live and have witnessed the
events which it ~recounts, the work must
have great interest. But the highest and
most permanent good Will be the assistance
it will afford to the historian in ascertain
ing that truth, which shall be finally and
universally accepted as the truth and moth
ing but the truth. Careful examination
will satisfy the reader that this was upper
in the mind of the author. Although
standardization necessarily enters as Il part
of that truth, it would be a low
view that would regard that as
the topmost object aimed at. As Mr.
Stephens work has indisputably estab-
lished the business of the aus which the
South espoused as its own, so Gen. john
ston's s'Narrative'' is an incontruverible
testimony to the true proves with which
the Southern soldiery defended that cause.
Both works are contributions of materials
for the use of the future historian, and the
Southern people may with reason tIust
that both will have an important bearing
the final verdict of history.
One Of the strongest impressions pro-
duoed by a reading Of the Narrative" Is
that of the difference of opinion which sep
arated the President Of the Confederate
States and Gen. Johnston from the begin
ming of the war. Their correspondence
forms a feature of the work. Gen. John
ston gives the plans of the COMMANDMENTS
chief and his own, side by side. Many a
suggestion he made which the Administra-
ton ~disregarded. 1t may be that he adj
viSed over their heads, IS Edmund Burke
is said to have spoken over the heads OF
Parliament. JOhnstOn's military ideas were
unique as compared with those of the Ex-
ecutive and other Southern officers, whether
superior to theirs or not. We may with
profit and interest trace up the difference OF
opinion. Ii is unnaccOuLtable why the
Commander-irChief by arbitrarily dating
the general officers commissions gave
Johnston the fourth rank on the list instead
of the first, to which he was entitled blythe
laws of Congress. The Presidents well
known obstinacyis probably the true expla-
nation why he did not repair the military
injury, when Gen. Johnston had remon-
strated with him. However the President
or his friends may undertake to p~alliate the
wrong, it certainly grave injury. 1t was
not enough, however, to blight JChnstOn'S
patriotism or stide his resolve upon self
sacrifice. We may remark here that the
evidence Of the Presidents entire devotion
to the cause Of his people is abundant, and
that he displayed eminent qualifications
for his Office in many respects is equally
well-known. The differences Of opinion
between him and Gen. Johnston were
doubtless honest. The two commanders
set very different relative estimates upon
The concentration OF forces and the protec-
ton Of territory. Johnston set much
stake, than the President did, upon
vigorous concentration and much less
upon guarding the territory. We
believe this is the true explanation
the chasm which constantly divided
them. The President was fundamentally
to yielding a foot ofteTitory, and it
was his purpose 20 guard the length and
breadth Of the Southern country. This
was probably his supreme desire including
the desire of success. Johnston's supreme
was success alone. he estimated
that with our armies and resources We
could more easily gain our independence
than guard Ii territory. His mind was
soon made up after reaching Hayper's Fer
~ that that post was Untenable by garri-
son. and he at once resolved TO abandon 1t
and concentrate his forces and B~eauregard'S
as O O as that officer shouldbe threatened.
His decision some time anticipated the
Presidents. and the latter's order to with
draw was also anticipated by Al actual re
cession. He united with Beauregard just
time TO be Of service. BY a great fault
Of his own. he Acknowledges, a large pro-
norton of his army was not engaged in the
hattie of Manassas. which ensued, and had
the tactics of the Federals been equal TO
u