The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-08-18

blame on that account No blame Is implied
In permanently relieving an officer who has
been known to be suffering from iil-healtn fOr
months, and who has already, retired from
duty on q certificate Of disability valid for
four months longer. Gen. Joseph u. John-
ston has never been blamed for getting HIM
self wounded at Seven Pines, nor has the gov
eminent been blamed for assigning Gen. Lee
TO command In his place. The cases are pre-
cisply analogous as far as the transfer Of per-
manent command is concerned.
have no knowledge, Of the profound I'M
'upon The whole Confederaey" by the .Presi~
DENTS answer to certain members OF CON
gress who applied to him In September, 1862
for the restoration OF Gen. Behuregard to
command, nor what was the answer referred
to. The kilograms above transcribed We're
submitted to q committee OF those gentle
men, aud may well have made some i'm
preston, but 1t Is not probable that they
were published.
speak Of my brief reply to bis original refer
ence to this subject as indicating q Feeling Of
nsperlty perhaps even OF invldlousness."
He seems to forget that he originated the dis
cusson.. [ had refrained, and had stu re-
Trained, from any criticism OF Gen. Beaure-
gard beyond what has been absolutely neces-
sary In answer to his criticisms, which | will
not charge with either asperity or invldions-
ness, though they are certainly injudolous
and untenab1e.
The writer Of this article has nothing in the
world against Gen. Beauregard. He has had
the honor Of serving (tDngo i,tefpatlO III re-
spect Of rank) under that distinguished com
niander, without ever uttering, or having
terrain for him any other than kindly feel
ings. He greatly regrets that 10Y has (un-
wisely, as he beIieves) thought fit to advance
for him claims antagonstic to the sjustice
son Davis TO the memory of Albert Sydney
Johnston, and that In yindicating the one 1t
has been necessary to discuss the other,
Rus.
?. S-While the foregoing communication
for reasons unknown to it's writer, has been
lying unpublished another elaborate com
mum cation has appeared from "Cy' in reloin-
der to 'Vindex." It is not my desire to In
terfere with any discussion pertaining more
especially to the province OF another writer
who Is fully competent to maintain his own
positions. but one passage III this last men
toned communication is based on misun-
derstandng so remarkable that 1t may very
properly be corrected. The writer questions
regard to n cypher dispatch received by him
from Gen. Johnston, on grounds which L
quote In full in his own words, as follows:
And here. we think it not inopportnne to re-
fer to tho ..cypher dispatch OF Gen. Johnston
That dispatch could not have been the order Of
march and plan of battle Mr. Davis alleges II to
be, for this reason: That order Of march, that
u
by him submitted to Gen. Johnston. was only
written from Gen Beauregard's notes. on the
third Of April, 1869. We fully established that
fact in our former communication. 80 pressed
for time were our commanders on that day
every nerve being strained TO bring on the light
before Buell's junction. and the preparations
therefore being so vast aud multitudinous-
that verbal instructions only were given by
Gen. Beauregard In Con. Johnet9n,s pre3s,en .g
to 6 hat sy Wilt WIFI on
the march, they would receive official written
copies Of said order and plan, known as special
orders Nos This. or the substance Of this: is
whole united forces. How. then, could Cen
Johnston, before reaching Corinth, have dis
patched this order and plan of battle, so repeto
with hundreds Of minor details. and So volil-
minoue, when it had never yet been fully writ,
ten out? We explain Mr.. Davis error in this
manner: The cypher dispatch he aludes to
was nothing more than tho notification by Gen.
Johnston Of his projected march and JUNCTION
with. Gen. Beauregard, in order to take the Of
feDsive against the enemy Mt or near CDrlnth.
And we now know that it was ut Gen. Behure-
CARDS instance thnt this movement was being
executed"
Now, by reference to the published address
Of President Davis, it may be seen that he
said nothing at oil about tho "order OF
march" which has assumed such magnitude
in "Cy's" statement of the case. Moreover,
he did not say that the dispatch referred to
Corinth," nor did he say anything to justify
such an assumption. He says, simply, that
Gen. Johnston sent him u cypher dispatch,
"beipG his plan Of bdHie,' and regrets its loss,
knowledge OF 20 plan which was executed AS
it was devised" OF course Mr. Davis does
not refer to the ''order Of march," which 1t is
well known was not executed as 1t was de-
vised Nor does he refer to any dispatch sent
before JOhnston's arrival ut Cornth which
occurred on the twenty fourth Of March, thir-
teen days before the battle. The dispatch re-
ferred to was probably sent on the fourth OF
April, when the troops were in motion toward
the enemy; and the only thing refuted by
"Cy' is his own unauthorized and erroneous
assumption.
The extraordinary endeavor to show that
Gen. Johnston had no part in the plans and
PURPOSES devised for the conduct OF the opera
lions of his own army. beyond that OF mere
passive acquiesence, is in opposition to the
Gen. Beauregards chief OF staff, and whose
| testimony is SO frequently adduced by "Cy.'
| In his "Campaigns OF Forrest, Col. Jordan
says that Gen. Johnston, after 'Weigttng lr'th
great ability the reasons in favor OF such an
adventure Ithn movement on the encmyl us
well as those that were opposed
| "dccidpd to put his army in movement
Again; "One the following day the plan OF
march and battle was discussed and d77'nhDfd
| bef,reen Gems Johnston and BeduTcgard.'
| Pages 1O8 and 100. These statements are Ger
tainly not from source un1riendly to Gen
| BGauregard.
Whoever advised, whoever suggested, who,
ever 'drew up there can be no doubt that
Gen. Johnston decided" las Col. Jordan ex-
presses it for himself The ultimate decision
was his own, whether favorable to the suggeS'
tons of the adviser, as it may have been with
regard to "the order of march, oradverse, as
it certainly was with regard to the proposal
to retire to Corinth without q battle
Nothing is easier than for controversiaist
to make confident assertions of having the
facts all on his own side, of having established
his positions by 'undeniable evidence ant
that only partisan minds" can draw any
other conclusions. Such assertions are some
times made merely for effect, but in Other
cases, however extraordinary, they are genu
inc subjective illusions. / do not question
therefore, the sincerity Of your correspondent
in the belief that he has made good his posi-
tions by ''undeniable evidence" any more thai
in the idea that he has been defending Louis
ianians' in taking exceptions to an address i
which no Louisianan was attacked-in which
indeed no Louisanian was mentioned excep
in the terms OF eulogy bestowed upon Bragg
and Polk and Sydney Johnston-who began