The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-07

nate in taking issue with me on the hu-
thenticity of that report. and II this Is u
sttatagem of his new scouting expedt-
tion aent out to obtain information. he
shall at once be enlightened on the sub
ject. If he will turn to page 252 Of the
number Of the Southern Magasjne con
tanning the report, dor August, 1s72J
Green Table" n note by the editor. Mr..
! William Hand Browne, who IL ~
| gentleman and most accomplished
writer. in which he says that. ut my
| suggestion. ho had compared tho copy
Of tho report sent by mo Tin tho Histori-
cal MagngiaeJ with the original in the
possession Of Colonel Marshall. and
| that he found only u few slight verbal
errors' that is. in the copy sent by mo !,
and he further says that. '"The corIeo-
tion of 'Pughtown' for 'Newtown' Is
confirmed by the MS" That is tho only
correction suggested or made. and IT.
could haze been az readily made by
ANY PRIVATE IN uAys BRIGADE.
for that brigade charged and carried
tho position referred to. Mr. Browne
further says that the copy then before
| him Colonel Marshall'a) contains "Cor-
rections and interlincations in General
I,ec's handwriting. In addition ] havo
u letter from Colonel Charles Marshall,
who was General Lees confidential mil
itary secretary, dated the 18th inst. In
which he says:
II have read with cnro your article,
my reply TO General Longstreet), and
| have only time 10 say that it Is entirely
correct ~ far as II goes In the statement
of facts. The report Of the battle in the
| Southern Ha1dgiHe Is correct. ] have
the original draft Of It. with corrections
in General Lees handwriting. Swinton
kept the last page altogether written
by the General. in which he speaks of
his staff. but the report is complete and
Is accurate. II WIS prepared under
General Lees direction, and with the
reports OF corps, division and brigade
commanders before me. EwCll states
| hia orders correctly
There is much moro in the letter to
sustain my views. but ] do not feel ut
liberty to copy any moro without Col.
| Marshall's special permission. Swinton
furnished tho copy for tho historical
Mngasi,ie, from which the report was
copied into the Southern Magazine, II
being printed in the latter journal be-
fore the editor had m opportunity OF OK
aiming the original: and hence there
Is the omission Of tho date and super.
scription referred to by Gen. Longsiroet
Swintou being responsible for that omis-
aion. In hia letter to the editor of the
| historical MdgaSinc. accompanying the
copy Of tho report furnished. SwintoI
says
"iT wAs GEN LEE 4 HABIT
TO make public, brief preliminary re-
ports Of his military operations MS soou
ma possible after their occurrence anc
afterwards follow them up by CAREFUL,
prepared and elaborate reports, de
signed for permanent places in the
archives Of the war. Such "A brief pre-
Iiminary account of the invasion o
Pennsylvania and battle of Gettysburg
was published by Gen. Lee soon after
the return Of Qrom y the ill-starret
campaign of tho summer Of 1863. ant
it Is this paper which appears in our OK
isting collection Of historical docu
ments. 1t IL quito meagre and incom
plcte." It Is this last document which
Gen. Longstreet persists in putting for
ward rs ne true official report, to tn,
exclusion of that (which Is vouchcd fo
by Colonel Marshall. and bears the i'm
press Of General Lees own handwrit
Ing. With tho failure Of Gen. Long
street g attempt to discredit this latte
report, tho whole superstructure o
error, which he has based upon th
assumption that the meagre and incom
pleto preliminary report Is tho only gen
uine report of the battle Of Gettysburg
dssolves into mir like
THE BAsEIESs FABRIC or VISION
} This latter report IL published b.
Bates, In his appendix, and contains
} literally, the extract given by both hin
and Gen. Longstreet. IT there Is an mp
parent variance between that cxtrac
and the one ] gave from the detaile,
report. IL must be borne in mind, upoi
the assumption that the former is gen
| hat ,,,ta
write u report which should be tn
permanent historical record Of tn
battle of Gettysburg, SO far MS he coul'
furnish 1t, In writing hurriedly q mcr
outline of the battle in the absence o
the reports Of subordinates, would
not think 1t necessary to discriminat,
between real attack and one in
tended us u mere diversion or demon
stration. Moreover, when tho Ian
guage in the preliminary report Il
, scanned closely and critically, it viii
be seen that 1t does not necessarl,
imply that EwelI's attack was Il
be simultaneous with that Of Long
street. In the passage:
''IN FRONT OF LoNGsTREET
the enemy held position, from 1rhich
If he c0uid be driren, it was though
that our army could be used TO advant
= age in assailing the more elevate,
ground beyond, and thus enable us t.
reach the crest Of the ridge" the sen
tence that / have put in italics Is rathe
imperfect and indefinite, and may b.
construed to mean from which, IL h.
tho enemy could be driven MereJrOn,
it was thought that our army could b.
used to advantage" etc. or il may b.
construed to mean that "if the enem,
} could be driven from the position ii
front OF Longstrect, then our arm,
could be used to advantage in assailin,
the more elevated ground" etc. boil
T of which constructions necessarily i'm
, ply that Longstreet was first to driv
, the enemy from that position, and thel
the more elevated ground beyon,
} could be assailed The advert
while" used in referring to Ewell'
contemplated attack, does not neces
sarily mean simultaneously with,
and in common parlance is frcquentl
used in q different sense, as could b.
shown by various illustrations. In fact
! | may say that, achite Gen. Longstree
may now use the preliminary report t,
accomplish his present purposes, tn,
, future student of the history OF our wa
will be very apt to adopt the detailed
} report as the only genuine historical
record Of the battle of Gettysburg from
Gen. Lees standpoint. However
all that may be, the language Of the
preliminary report, hastily prepared as
l in viua 70 ho H.