New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-15
GARFIELD ON ROSECRANS.

TIMr-lus CRITICISMS OF ROsECRANS TRUE. FAIR
AND EVEN GENERoys-rHE LETTER EARNEST,
WISE AND PATRIOTIC
III iAe Edit0r Of The Tribune
SIN. Mr. Rlaires eulory of the late President
.eens ia have been made the occasion ard excuse
for rather than n justification OF, the publication
of a priyate letter TO Secretary chase relative 10
the inexcusable maction of the Army OF inc
Cumberland during the summer of 1858
whom ali tine other armies oil the 'h"n
were vigorously pounding away at the
shell of the Coufedcracy. Only enc ieUer HaS oe'h
published In fmi; iut the contents OF others nave
been indicated Tie one dated July y, 1863,
Will sneaLino in complimentary and cndear-
Ing terms personally Of RoSecraHS, was strongly
condenn,tory of lis policy of inAction in not Idov
ing on Chattanooga, and was manfcstly written TO
fnduce Secrctar, Chase, then among the most pow
erful Influences at Washington, to urge upon Pres
dent Lincoln and the Var Department the active
employment Of RoSscranss army III an advance
movement in epiug with the general plan Of cam
paisri The others. not yet published. are sad
10 have been written in October, 1863, from
Chattanooga. TO Secretary Chase, and their con-
tents are DECLARED to have finally determined
President Lincoln to remove ROsccrans If the
unpublished letters OF the same logical, truth
fn and generous character with the printed one,
the friends of Garfield ought TO have no objection
70 their Immediate publication in fact they ought
70 insist upon and procure their publicity at once
The letter a 'ready printed has been twisted and
turned and distorted to the purposes of those who
persistently slandercd Garfield when alive; and it
is difficult to imagine motive for the surrcptitious
publication of a confidential letter OF the important
character of this one except to excuse further de-
traction of the man now dead. 1t certainly
could rot have been put forward with any design
of defending kosecrans's military reputation, for
il is cOndemnatory throughout of that commanders
policy and plans The letter has no political Sieniti
canoe NJ this late date for though ROsccranS is now
in Congress lie can hardly be said to be in politics,
and the Presidential bee that buzzcl in his bon
net from Stone River which gave him hopeS, 10
Chickamauga which dashed them to the ground, can
hardly have any Judgment there now. can see as
the motive for It's first publication only personal
malice, but the Democratic papers with hardly an
exception, and few of the more thoughtless
and reckless Stalwart Republican journals, have
seconded the original purpose by making common
cause III eliminating the writer as tTeicherouS,
hypocritica and ungrateful. Thus far, al any rate
thus is the only use to which the publication has
been put. 1t will fail of that ain, and the true i'm
port and noble and patriotic purpose of the letter
will come to be ognized by the people, and
eventually add to the reputation Of its author. To
any fair and candid Iuan who knows now truth
f.lly that letter described the military stua ion
then existing i'll Tennessee, now accurately and
properly CriticiSes the mistaken course Of General
Rosecrans, and how faithful Garfield, at the time
and later Was to the personal reputation Of Rose
GRAMS while st.li openly diSagrering with him in
his professional plans the letter as printed and
the others a. outlined, will renew admiration Of
hiia a, a and soldier.
The published letter bears ample evidence
of G2T.elCo h0Grst and earnest zeal in the
public service. Ii indicates that he had at
the time a clear appreciation of the military stua-
ton and poilcy of me Government which his chief
did not possess. and which brief time confirmed
true ard wi>c fOrethomght 1t breatheS unselsh am
bition ia which Self subordinated wholly to the
Cause foI which h. fought; aud duty to the coun-
try was held paramount 10 friendship for his chief.
Policy in the man would have dictated prudent
approval of his mnedioto Suprricrs policy but Gar
field was the only one of RosscfansS eighteen gener
ais who OPENLY differed with lIG and criticised him.
There is indeed nothing in the letter to Mr..
Chase. Garfield at tn tine openly held
the views he therein expresses lie often deprecated
to me personally, with prohibition Publi-
cation, although he knew III" n newspaper CORE
spondrnt the inactivity of the army i'll 1863. It
was az open secret, discussed by the generals in the
presence of newspaper correspondents generally,
that Garfield and Rosecrans ;eTr not i'll accord as
b. plans of the campaign. Garfield expressed verb
ally his views in councils IF in which he in
minority OF one, and il was secret al the tine
that he stOutly malntalned against ali the other
generals that his views wrte correct He has ex-
pressed the same views ouTluod in the letter 20
Chas" in an official communication to ROsccrans OF
an earlier date than that letter. in which he elaho.
rates the identical arguments and gives detail
the igdrcs substantially which he addresses TO
the Secretary of the Treasury. IL Is difficult
TO understand why chief Of staff should not crjti
else in a confidcnta! letter the plans of a command
or with whom, AID with whose corps and division
Generals he openly differed. II he believed the
policy of ROserTans wrong, ana agreed with the
Washington authorities that he army oag'It ~ ad
varce in support of the aggressive movements III
other quarters, lie fully justified III using his in
fuence with the distinguished Secretary Of the
Treasury to brig about such action; and inste ID
OF violating any Obligation of friendship 10 his |
commander. General Garfield, in writing he did |
shows to my mind, the strongest and most unSciish |
devotion to the country. And when il shall be
shown, as was the fact, that n the |
date of that letter ROsecrans deliberately |
opposing t!ie general plans of the Commander !
in hiet by delaying on most frivolous excuses tie
movement 10 capture Chattanooga, Garfield will he |
seen 10 have done only disagrecablc but impera- |
tive duty in writing as he did.
In most of the comments which have seen on |
this letter Of July p, deductions censorous of Gen
eral Garfield are made the erroneous supposiion |
that he therein protesting against the long de- |
Law Of nearly six months at Murfrecshoro, Tenn. |
This was not the case though that bluudeT of Rose
Grams is alluded TO IN the letter But at that time,
July ~ Rosccrans had moved from Murfreeshoro
az the positive requirement of the COMMANDMENTS
Chief aud was again at halt. wholly at variance
with his orders and dangerous TO the success
of the general campaign. II against This sec
ond delay that Garfield protested, and ii was TO