Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-01-03
PUBLISHED DAILY AND TRLWEEKLY BY
EDGAR SNOWDEN-
THJ1RsDA EVENING, JANUARY s. 1878
THE WILDERNESS CAMpAlGN.-A editorial
10 the New Yo,k Herald of the . iostaps has


THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN editorial
10 the New Yo,k Herald Of the 81 lostant has
. tendency to reflect injuriousy upon dlstln'
puished officer of the late Southern Confedc'
racy. Tho father of that officer was even
moro distinguished His name, clarum CT
venerable uomen, is koown throughout the
length and breadth of this Republic. from New
York to Ca!iforoia. from the waters OF the
Kepuebec 10 those of the blue Gulf; and 10
foreign lands, wherever the English tongue is
snoken-indeed, to the ears ef all ciVilz I'd
men, the trump of fame has sounded bis praise.
That fathers name was Z,chary Taylor! 10
this name the whole American people should
make it their business 10 see that Justice IS
done. That ne may DO 90 Injustice ourselves,
We quote from the Hersd's article verbatim. as
follows:
EVERY pioce OF testimony that tends to cast
light on important points in tho history OF our
great civil war is Ct interest and may be of val.
ue, and for this reason some attention will be
siven to statement recently published By Gen.
Taylor, formerly of the Confederate army. This
statement refers to the history of what is COM
monty called the Wilderness campaign and
alleges in substance thst that campaign was
made upon the line actually taken against The
conviction of General Grant, who wished to sp-
proach Richm ond by the James river. and that
it was not only made against his conviction. but
that the line taken was insisted upon by the al.
ministration, though the assurance WIS., given
tha. it would cost one hundred thousand more
lives than an advance the other way. This cruel
waste Of life it is assumed in the chronicle. WAS
made to save the pride Of the government. ;
which could not be brought to acknowl edge that
it had previously blundersd in its adhesion TO
tho land route General Taylor claims good au.
thority for his information, and it has been fair
" inferred that his Information could neither
have come from Lincoln nor Stanton and must
have como from Grant. Such q story could
scarcely have come from General Grant, for this
would suppose that that silent soldier WAS in
olned to shirk the responsibility for an unplsas-
ant feature of his campaign. and. still worse.
was ready to cast that responsibility upon men
who had passs1 from the scene and could not
clear their names of the imputation i:An that
il known of the character of Gen. Grant makes
it impossible to believe that he would pursue
such course. It may be safely denied thst this
story came from him. and as it is scarcely pos
sibls that it came from either Lincoln or Staun
ton it Can claim no special excellence as to its
source"
Now see what General Richard Taylor him
self says. In his article in the January. Feb
,uary humber Of the North American Review,
entitled "Reminiscences Of the Civil War,
page 95, We read as follows: AFTER the battle
of Chickamaugs 10 1868. General Grsut was
promoted to the command Of the armies Of the
United States aud called to Washington. Inc
conference at the War Office bet,0een him. Pres
iaent Lincoln and Secretary Stanton the ap
preaching campaign in Firginia ,oas discussed
Grant said the Advance on Richmond should
Ie made by the James 7iver. 1t soas replied
that the Government required the ,ntrposstion
of an army Jct,0een Lee and Washington, and
,oould not consent. at that late day, to the adop
t;on of plan that ,oouH be taken by the public
as confession of prerious error. Grant OBJ
serred he ,oas indifferent as to routes, but If the
Government preferred its o,on-so often tried
to the one he suggested, 1t must be prepared for
the additional tess of one hundred Thousand
men. The men ,oere promised, Grant accepted
the governmental plan of campaign, and eoas
to the end The oboue came to me
,ocN authenticated, and Ihare no doubt Of its
correctness.
The italics are our own. and We use them be-
sause Of the importance OF the language 10 de-
,idiug the apparent issue bstSeeu General Tsy-
or and the Herald. This issue, 10 use the lang.
aase of that journal, is, whether or not General
raylor's statement "can claim any especial ex
,ellsnce IS to its source" The Herald says it
,annot. General Taylor says it does; that it
,omes to him vel! authenticated, and that he
has no doubt of its correctness" The paper
holds that, if from responsible source. it could
,nlg be General Grant, and THAT silent soldier |
would never sbirk responsibility, or what would |
" worse, would never cast responsibility upon
non who had passed from the scene and sould |
lot clear their names Of the imputatioo. Now
70 are not concerned 10 duplicating General
3rant, bat 10 poiotips out that General Taylor
3 above reproaeh. Aud in performing this
luty ~ are forced to recall TO the recollection
{ eli men the unquestioned facts that General
araet IN the matter of the Seoretaryahip of war,
d interim. in President Johnson's time, andin
il hte charge against the dead Sumner was
ssy Ear indeed from being above suspisioD.-
his as to Gen. Grant, and nothing more, except
bat it isour decided opinion thatthis statement
id come from him, as he aud Gen. Taylor are
ooWa 10 have had friendly relations since the
Ar. a. t..
As to General Taylor. we would have the
(srsld aud its readers. to know that any in
nuation Of uutruthiulness against that gallant
% Of Old Rough and Ready" the "digous
ins Hi0nSaasni nalrio - vili ho rena;,.J Con, |