The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-01-06
THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG.
REvIEw or THE GREATEST BATTLE
II OF THE WAR OF TIE STATES.

TSuppIement to Gen. Early's Review-Reply t
Gen. Longstreet1
After the foregoing review was In thu
hands OF the printer, as article en-
titled 1.-THE campaign of Gettysburg,
purporting to be by Gen. james
Longstreet. appeared In the Phila
delphia Weekly Times of November
5, which requires some notice Al
my hands. That article is not from
Gen. Longstreet's own pen, as Is very
apparent to those who are familiar witt
his style Of writing, and of the fact
have the assurance from a quarter tha
leaves no doubt on the subject. The
data and material for the article, how
ever. were furnished by him and put In
form by another. He is therefore re.
SpOnsible for its statements and utter
sI1ces. The excuse for the appearance
OF the article Is stated as follows:
After giving o letter, written on the
twenty-fourth OF July, 1868. to his uncle,
he says: o4 That oanno+ s.,,,
rest upon that letter. But l have been
40 repeatedly and 80 ranoorously as.
sailed by those whose intimacy with
the Commanding General In that battle
gives an apparent Importance to their
assaults, that I feel impelled by a'sense
Of duty to give to the public full and
comprehensive narration OF the cam
paign from It's beginning to its end /,
especially when reflect that the publi-
cation of the truth cannot now, as 1t
I might have done then, injure the
cause for which we fought the battle"
The temper towards Gen. Lee in
which the article was written, or rather
procured to be written, is shown by the
4x11 mi y - ~ ut an lIi al nn
tice Of some additions to the article re-
Ceived after 1t was in print, contained
III the same number OF the Times:
The editor says:
''The letter from Gen. Longstreet,
which accompanies these enclosures,
dwells particularly upon point which
he wishes to have his readers under.
stand as the justification of his present
narrative. 1t Is that while Gen. Lee on
the battle field assumed all the responsi-
bility for the result, he afterwards pub.
lished report that differs from the re.
port he made at the time while under
and other officers made their official re-
ports upon the battle shortly after its
occurrence, and while they were i'm.
pressed with Gen. Lees noble assump-
I tion OF all the blame; but Gen. Lee
having since written q detailed and
somewhat critical account OF the battle
---and the account from which Gen.
Longstreet's critics get all their points
against him-Longstreet feels himself
justified In discussing the battle upon
its merits. 1t is In recognition OF his
soldierly modesty that the substance
Of his letter is given here; the article
Is Its own sufficient justification.
This is direct iinputation upon the
81 fy1atfvnd that unvornod Gon T,ao in
writing his detailed report, If it does not
impeach his veracity, and place him
among Gen. Longstreet's assailants.
Gen. Longstreet ranks me among the
RBsailantg whose attacks call for this
vindication of himself and criticism oil
Gen. Lee, and In that connection he
It was asserted by Gen. Pendleton,
with whom the carefulness of statement
Or deliberateness of judgment has never
been characteristic, but who has been
distinguished by the unreliability of his
memory, that Gen. Lee ordered me to
attack the enemy at sunrise on the I'd.
Gen. j. A. Early has, in positive terms.
indorsed this charge, which now pro.
ceed to disprove."
Gen. Longstreet is exceedingly care
less in his statements. as 1 have had
occasion before to demonstrate, and.
while to some 1t may be a matter Of sur
prise when / assert that there is no
foundation whatever for the statement
that endorsed either Gen. Pendleton's
or anybody else's assertion that the
order was given by Gen. Lee to Long
street to attack at sunrise on the morn.
Ing OF the I'd of July at Gettysburg,
those familiar. with the controversy
that arose out of a bitter assault by
Gen. Longstreet on myself will not be
Rt all astonished. In my official report,
dated In the month OF August, 1868.
after giving an account Of the opera
tions OF the 1st Of July, say: Having
been Informed that the greater portion
OF the rest of our army would
move up during the night. and
that the enemy's position would
be attacked on the right and left
Hanks very early next morning, gave
orders to Gen. Hays to move his brigade.
under cover OF the night from the town
into the field on the left of it, where 1t
would not be exposed to the enemy's
fire, and would be in position to advance
on Cemetery Hill when o favorable op-
portunity should occur. This move
ment was made, and Hays formed his
brigade on the right OF Avery, and Just
behind the extension Of the low ridge
on which a portion Of the town is located,
The attack did not begin in the morning
OF next day, as was expected, and in the
course OF the morning rode with Gen.
Ewell to examine and select position
for artillery"
Here is a statement of fact while its
recollection was fresh In my memory.
and it cannot surely be said that it was
made for the purpose OF attacking Gen.
Longstreet's war record because of
political differences" or from any other
motive.
On the 10th Of January, 1872, the an
niversary Of Gen. Lees birth, L de-
livered an address at Washington and
Lee University, by invitation of the
Faculty. and in that address, after
speaking of the fight on the 1st at Get
tysburg. I said:
"Gen. Lee had ordered the concen-
tration of his army at Cashtown. and
the battle on this day, brought on by
the advance Of the enemy's cavalry,
was unexpected to him. When he ascer.
tainad the adYantana that had haan