Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1882-03-15
War History.

There is unusual interest Just now in
matters of history pertaining to the re-
bcllion. Part of this comes from the pc
litical situation. and at least portion Of
it from the very interesting series of war
monographs now publishing by Charles
Scrbner's Sons of New York called
Campaign of the Civil War" The
earlier monographs taking up the outbreak
of the rebellion, the Fort Doneson and
Shiloh campaigns, Fredericksburg and
Antetam and other interesting episodes
were of great interest and called out dis
cussion.
The latest book of this series which is
coming to attract the attention Of all old
soldiers and others who care for war
history, is General Doubleday's "Chancel.
lorsyille and Gettysburg" Some of his
statements are criticised by the Free Press
whose editor was at Gettysburg a member
of General STANDARDS staff, while they
arc defended by the Rutland Herald. The
Free Press is earnest in defense of General
Meade's record, and between that general
and Doubleday there was not good feel
ing after Meade took Doubleday from the
command of the first corps to which he
succeeded on the death Of Reynolds.
Whatever may be the merits of this
controversy Doubledav's book is a fas.
cnating ono and will be sought by all
who want to get at the facts as to the
great and critical battle of the war. YER
moncrs will 60 to the study of General
Doubleday's book with the knowledge that
h. was u good soldier and that he did
noble work at Gettysburg; and perhaps
some of them somewhat prejudiced in his
favor as they remember how he waved his
hat the last day of the fight and shouted,
GLORY to God! Glory to God! See the
Vcrmonters go it!'
Another branch of discussion arises
from the publication of a letter written by
Gen. Garfield to Secretary Chase July 81,
1861 which Garfield who was Rosecrans'
chief Of staff condemned what he consid-
cred unnecessary postponement of action
by Gen. Rosecrans. 1t is charged that
this letter was a piece of treachery tc
Rosecrans and was followed by other let
tiers or statements that in the end occa-
stoned Rosecrans' removal. Gen. Rose
Grams had correspondence with Gen. Gar
field early in 1880 as to charges made by
G. A. Dana and others and Garfield Their
asserted that he had been as friendly t.
his superior as he had professed. Thu
campaign of 1880 is said TO have broker
the friendship between the two, but Gen.
Rosecrans does not now exhibit any eager
ness to too readily believe Garfield wa
not his friend when his trusted chief O
staff. The charges made with great bit
lerncss that Garfield betrayed Rosscran
do not rest on the published letter but o
other alleged letters and statements an
both sides TO the controversy are settn
ready to defend the positions they hav
taken. Meantime it is we'll to note that
Soo" suaio vi tue huIach VII Nch' ua
fields record is evidently prompted b
personal and political malice. Part Of
however apparently comes from an hone
belief that he was untrue to his old com
mander-a thing which his old comman,
er appears 10 have got even with him [
in the campaign of 1880. More facts wi
doubtless come to light SO that a We
founded judgment cal DO formed as to u
Garfield Rosecrans question.