Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-14
AN IsvoLvsD CONTROVERSY.

is the whole affair that it is difficult to
decide who is being attacked, and who
defended. The controversy arose out of an
expression in Blaine's eulogy, to the effect
that there had been dissensions in the
Army of the Cumberland when General
Garfield was Chief of Staff to Rosecrans.
This statement offended Rosecrans, who
denied it, saying that if anything Of the
kind had occurred he would probably have
known OF it. At this point the New York
Sun printed what purported to be a letter
written by Garfield TO Judge Chase in
1864, in which an unfavorable opinion of
General Roaeetans and his campaign was
expressed. -Thereupon the friends of Gar
field assert that an attempt is being made
to iniure his memory, and they forthwith
proceed ~ to question the genuineness of
the letter; ~ to show that Garfield on
many occasions spoke very highly of
Roaecrans; (3) to demonstrate the
business of the criticism contained
III Vic lSlLOIs IL appear 4lOLl WIS
that President Garfeld's friends had not
made up their minds as to what they de.
sired to effect, for it is clear that the things
they have set themselves to do are calcu-
lated to involve the whole subject in hope
less confusion. It is obviously necessary
in the first place to determine the genuine
ness of the letter, for if it is forgery no
further need for argument will exist. But
should it prove to be genuine, the case as
sumes a much more difficult aspect, for
then it will require to be explained how it
happened that Garfield both approved and
censured Rosecrans. AS regards the fact
of his approval, it cannot be doubted, for
already speech of his in Congress has been
quoted, wherein he defended General Rose
Grams for his course at the battle of Chicka-
manga, and demanded that his name
should be inserted in resolution of
thanks to the Union Generals then under
debate.
IL is also on record that Garfield many
times exhibited the warmest friendship to
his old commander, even endeavoring at
the Baltimore Convention to secure for
him the nomination for Vice President. In
the face of such facts it is impossible to
perceive how his friends can solve the
present problem by denouncing Rosecraus,
and by demonstrating his incapacisy. The
only effect of such demonstration would
be to show that Garfield had conceived an
erroneous estimate of the abilities of
Rosecraus, and had in fact sought to falsify
history for his special benefit. The cir
cumstance that on one occasion he wrote
letter in which he took more sober
and rational view of the operations of the
Army of the Cumberland, could not affect
as well as privately, adopted an entirely
opposite theory. At present the friends
of Garfield are concentrating their fire
apon General Rosecrans with much effect.
They have in fact gone far towards
proving that whoever rated him high as a
commander must have judged i'll of his
capacity. They have shown from the
records that at Chickamauga he himself
was convinced he had lost the battle
that because of this conviction he refused
to succor Thomas, who was holding out
with %, 600 men against the whole rebel
army, three times his force; that he
actually sent dispatch to Washington
announcing the total rout of his army
that forty eight hours later he expressed
the opinion that it would be impossible to
hold Chattanooga; that in short he had,
to put the case plainly, "lost his grip"
This is made out so clearly as to leave
little opening for rebuttal testimony, but
the popularity Of the case is that to crush
Rosecrans is not to vindicate Garfield and
this, singularly enough, is just what the
friends of the latter do not appear to COM
prehend. They declare that this is ma
| lgnant and deliberate movement to blacken
his memory. That is strong language, but
it would be entirely justified by proof
that the letter attributed to him was
forged. Lacking that proof, however such
language is not justified, for if the letter is
genuine, and il it's tendency is to call in
question the sincerity of the writer, that
effect can only be ascribed to his own
action. On the supposition of the gen.
uineness Of the letter, the position of Gen
eral Garfield's defenders would seem to be
that it is in some way libelous to publish
the correspondence of dead man, il that
correspondence tends to diminish the pub
lie esteem for him or to throw suspicion
upon his candor or integrity. This is
strange reasoning. It is reasoning which
cannot be seriously upheld. If Garfield
during his life acted double part at any
time, he did wrong and though it GER
tainly is not friendly act to expose the
duplicity, the responsibility for the wrong
cannot be shifted from the perpetrator to
the exposer of it.
When man takes two Numerically
opposite views Of case, he cannot be
right in both. Now either Garfield be-
lieved in Rosecrans, or he did not believe
in him. His speech in Congress justifes
the conclusion that he did believe in him,
and that was a public expression. The
letter attributed to him looks as though he
did not believe in him, and it is impossible
to find any explanation for such letter
which is compatible with retention OF
complete faith in the writer's integrity.
But even if the letter can be shown to be
forgery, the fact still remains that Gar
field defended Rosecrans in Congress and
if ROsecrans is the incapable Garfeld's
friends now assert him to have been, we
have here demonstration which initiates