The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-15
THE BATTLE or GETTYSBURG.
tlen. Early's Reply u Uen. T,ensstreet.
WhV Wns Responsible for the
Loss NJ the battle.

VNUA H1Mh y tstYsy ~ WVUs VIZ
WhU Wns Responsible for the
Loss VI the Battle.
In the New Orleans Republican Of thu
27th Of February. copy uf which has
beer, sent me by a friend there isa com
munieation from Gen. LoBgstreet, wbiet
seems 10 have been called out by the re-
cent letter Of Gen. Fitz Lee. In refer
enoe To the letter Of the former 10 his
uncle IN July, 1868. about the battle o.
Gettysb,ttg Gen. Longstfeet. how
ever. does not confine himself to Gen
t'itz Lees letter. but. after brisk fisil
lade upon the author of that letter, hf
turns bis columns and his batteries
upon Gen. Pendleton, the. Rey. Jno
Vim. Jones and myself. He attempts
to demolish Gen. PeuJleton aud Mr.
Jones at one blow Nv clubbing them
parsons. and then levels what he cyl
IDENTITY deems his heavy guns at me
What relation Gen. FIFE Lees very
courteous. and as.. thought on
titely too. complimentary, letter
bears 10 Glen Longstteet's supposed
grievances nj the hands Of General Pen
dleton, Mr.. Jones aud myself, ] cannot
conceive. and | can account for his max
Ing them all the subject Of one and The
| same assault, only upon the supposition
that having fepeiled what he Imagined
10 be n cavalry raid" he thought II
good policy to follow up his advantage
by assailing the infantry md artillery,
| will leave General Fits Lee, General
pendleton and Mr.. Jones to speak for
themselves, but IN reference TO General
Longstreet's remark that "Bpeskibs
through his parson. one would think
that General Early must speak close by
the. record. ] must say that my address,
which Mr.. Jones has done ME the honor
10 copy into bis Personal Hemibis
cences Of General II. ". Lee" was de
livered MT Lexington. by invitation ri
the Faculty Of Washington and Lee Uni
versity, some three years before Mr..
Jones' book was published, which fact
Gen bcngstreet might have learned "
he had read Mr.. Jones' Introductory re-
marks; and tho address had gone
through two editions before the book
was compiled
The gravatnen IT Hen. Longstreet's
complaint against mo seems to be con
tained In the extract from my address.
which he gives as follows
''The position which Longstteet ut
tackled Mt 4, was not occupied by the
enemy until late in the afternoon. aud
Round Top Hin. which commanded the
enemy's position. could have been taken
attack was made by two divisions. and
though the usual gallantry was dis
played by the troops engaged In II, no
material advantage was gained When
Gen. Lee saw his plans thwarted by the
delay on our right. he ordered an attack
tn be made also on our left. to be begun
by Johnsons division. on Culp's Hill.
and followed up by the rest Of E,well's
corps. and also by NUS.
This affair occurred just little before
dark"
This passage In my address was pre-
faced by the description of an inter
view Cen Leo had with Gen. Ewell,
Gen. Nodes aud myself Mt the close Of
the first day of tho battle. ut tho end Of
which he announced his purpose to at
tack the ehemy's left from our right,
and left us for tho purpose Of ordering
up Jongstreets corps To begin tho Mt
tack nj dawn next morning. and | also
stated that that corps was not in readi-
ness to make tho attack until four
o'clock In tho afternoon Of tho next day.
| did not say who WIS to blame for the
delay. but merely stated the fact. or
course no one expected that corps to
begin tho attack ut dawn II II could not
he brought ny by that time. nor before
II could he got into position. The policy
W MI WiHNSe w tH' PitlllfFN I'VI I"iFFl-
bio next day was SO apparent, that ]
have always taken II for granted that
Gen. Loo underworld tn carry out his
declared purpose.
In tho omitted portion Of the passage
quoted by General Longstreet. indi-
rated by Hsterisks, ] stated. in sub
stance, tho fact Of tho attack from our
left. It's partial success. and final failure
because some OF tho troops ordered to
cooperate did not move IN time. by
reason Of which tho enemy WINS enabled
to bring q large force against my two
brigadcs which had entered tho eneiny's |
breast works Mt the Cemetery. thus
them 10 retire. also stated
that General Leo's orders had again
Fniled to DO carried out. by reason Of
which tho victory in our grasp was lost.
and then follows the romark : This
affair occurred just before dark" The
officers commanding tho troops that |
Failed to cooperate. had ~ much right |
20 complain M General Longstreet. md
bis Ia no special grieynnce. l stated
'acts which | conceived 10 be stiscepti |
Die Of tho clearost proof ard demonstra |
ion.
General Longstrcet now assumes tho |
fole Of u defender of Gen. Lees fame |
,gainst his friends. though his own
nave IuTnlSuGu Inc ttLJcf1nl |
Tor tho severost criticisms that have
been made on Gen. Lees management |
IF tho battle Of Gettysburg. M ! will |
show-nay, ! think will show
before | am done, that, Immediately
After That battle, he laid the foundation
Tor an insidioIs attack on Gen. Lees
reputation as u commander, and since
the war he has persistently pursued his
purpose up to this very moment, and oil
with the view Of magnifying himself.
In tho very letter l am considering,
here Is u stealthy thrust at Gen. Lees
'ame under tho assumed garb OF respect.
/ will examine the Issues he has
thought proper to make with me. In the
,rder I'm which the events occurred to
which they relate, rather than In the
,rder they occur in the letter.
After giving tho foregoing extract
rom my address, Gen. Longstreet says
According to his account General
Lee had the key Of the Federal position
n his hand on the morning Of our as
ault, and failed to grasp It, preferring
o awnit the uncertain movements OF
wo divisions on u night march Of tWclce
niles over road INSTRUCTED and much
rowded by artillery and wagon trains,
lvOugh n net night. while he had In po-
ition before him six divisions that had
nd comfortable nights rest. This
ounds 80 much like a calllmny against