The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1882-12-07
Y. Herald, November 16.
GRANT ON PORTER,

IL mas Deen known Tor some Clne
past that General lf. S. Grant, having
studied the case of General Fitz John
Porter. concluded that the charges
against General Porter were untenable.
In this the ex-President but followed
the findings OF the Schofield Board.
A sense of the long injustice under
which General Porter has suffered for
now score of years has stimulated
General Grant to publish an article in
which he gives the grounds for his
present opinion. OF this article but
the main points can be given here.
Says General Grant:
General Porter's alleged miscon-
duct was embraced in three separate
cases of disobedience of Orders--one on
the 9th of August and two on the
29th of fAugust-and in having retreat
edunne1essarily from the enemy, by
that endangering other portions Offthe
army with which he was cooperating.
1t will be seen that though the offenses
were alleged to have been committed
in August of 1862, he was continued in
command of an army corps until some
time in November following, taking an
active part in the battles of the day
following the date of the last charge,
and in command of the defenses of
Washington on the west bank of the
Potomac, and also at the battle of An
tietam, some weeks later. 1t would
look at first very singular that an Off
Ger so wantOnly derelict in the per-
formance of IFS duty as General Porter
was alleged to have been on the 9th
and 18th of August, should have been
continued in so important a place of
command as an army corps, when so
much was at stake as there was on the
30th of August, and in the defenses of
Washington, and in the later battles
in Maryland when the invasion of the
North was threatened. These facts
would indicate to an unprejudiced
mind that the charges against Porter
were an aftet-thought to shift the re-
sponsibilities of failure from other
shoulders and to place them upon him.
General Grant then reviews the facts
brought out in the evidence before the
Schofield Board with characteristic
directness and cogency. In the course
of his review he says:
IA literal obedience to the order of
the 9th of August was physical inn
possibility. 1t is further shown that
General Porter was desirous of obeying
it literally, so far as was practicable,
but was prevailed upon by his leading
Generals-against whom suspicion of
dislOyalty to their commander or to the
cause has never been entertained-to
do what his own judgment approved
as the best thing to do; to make a
later start with view of arriving at
his destination as early as it was possi-
bic for him to arrive there, and to give
his jaded and worn troops two hours
more of needed rest.n
On this point the following state
ment from General Grant is o. great
significance
- question very much whether
there was an engagement during the
w ,r, or "a series of engagements, con-
Linuing over as much time as was con-
sumed in the battles about Bull Run
in August, 1862, when not only one
but number of Generals did not ex-
ercise their discretion as Porter did on
this occasion, aud with far less justiti-
catiou,n
With regard to the second case
namely, the first or joint order of the
10Th of August, Ito establish commu-
ulcation with Pope.-the fact that
Porter was left with 10, 900 men to face
Longstreet, newly arrived in his front
with 5000 men, whom Pope believed
to be far distant, is sufficient to account
for the order not being obeyed. Fur
ther, so successfully did Porter engage
Longstreet that the latter was caused
" to take WilcoX's Division from in
Of in tn, CT oo
the line confronting Porter"
Thus" says General Grant, "Por-
ter, without sacrifice of men and with
out endangering any interests, did
more for Pope's relief than if he had
gone directly to that Generals assist
ance. TO have done so would proba-
bly, have sacrificed his corps without
any benefit, and jeopardized the safety
of Pope's army. So far as L have in
vestigated the case-and | have studied
it, think, pretty thoroughly see no
fact to base the charge of retreat upon.
| Go not see that any argument to
prove this is necessary, because any
readercf history may be defied now to
iind where and when General Porter
retreated during the time specified
Upon the '4 80 p. N. order" Gener-
al Grant enters into fuller detail, as
this & is the principal one aud the one
jhat has most deeply impressed the
general public" As maintained by
The prosecution in the court martial OF
1862, to the apparent satisfaction of the
Court, the situation of the beligerent
forces was on that day, in numbers and
position, as follows, namely: Pope,
with 80, 900 men, facing Jackson, with
-, 90 men, while Porter. with 10000
men, was drawn up Obliquely across
Jackson's right flank, Porter's right
being towards Pope's left. With this
alleged disposition of the forces there
was some color in the opinion which
held Porter responsible for not attack
ing the enemy's flank and rear"
But the facts now accessible to the
world, and known at the time to Gen
eral Porter, show that the actual stu
alton was, says General Grant, as
shown in the following diagram