Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-03-13
lancaste1 f,ttelIigencer.
MONDAY EVENING. MARCH 10. 1881.
Garfield and ROsecrans.


Garfield and Rosecrans.
We print q fresh installment of in
teresting matter touching the Garfield
Rosecrans controversy. 1t is all timely
and relevant to the discussion which was
provoked by Mr.. Blaine's eulogy of the
military genius of Rosecrans' chief OF
staff to the disparagement of the old
commander himself. There are, it seems
to us, three considerations involved in
this controversy. First, as to whether
or not Gen. Garfield was guilty of
breach of military discipline in writing
to a member Of the cabinet his CON-
plants in regard to the administration of
Of his superior Office; secondly, whether
he was always true to Gen. Rosecrans and
faithful to their friendship; and thirdly;
whether he or Gen. ROsecrans was cor
rect in his view of the military situation
in the southwest. TO Gen. ROsecrans
personally or for the sake oe the memo
~ of the late president, the last consider
alton is of the least consequence. There
are thousand controversies concerning
details of the management of the late
war, like those Of every other great mil
itary struggle, about which controversy
will continue SO long rs there are diff
ferences Of opinion on military tactics.
Conceding that the pub ished letter from
Garfield to Chase, and the later one from
Garfield to Rosecrans are genuine,
and there seems to he no reason
to doubt their authenticity, it is very
hard to understand how Garfield could
say sincerely to itosecrans that any
charge, whether it comes from Dana or
any other liar, to the effect that / was
in any sense untrue to you or unfaithful
to our friendship has no particle Of truth
in it, Ifthe Chase letter is genuine, and
we repeat that its authenticity has not
; been questioned, there can be no doubt
Of Gen. Gariieid'S disregard OF military
discipline and breach Of all the proprie-
ties in writing such IN epistle to a men,
Der of the cabinet, with whom, as the
World suggests, his own promotion and
his commanders removal rested. The
other incidents which have been brought
out by this controversy, Gariield's al
legged responsibility for the removal of
Rosecrans and his loudly avowed adni
ration for him in other quarters, are
only reconcilable with the double deal
ing which the documentary evidences
seems to fasten upon him.
For what they are worth in the eluci
dation OF the disputed military problem
we print Gen. Rosecrans's account of
his campaign and also a very severe crit
icism upon it 10y one of the editors of the
New York Tribune.
We canno: see that this controversy
is to he especially deprecated, nor that it
is reasonable to suppose its production
at this time is part of a plan of the Stal.
warts to heap undeserved odium upon
The late president. Such plan, if at
tempted in the present frame Of the pub.
lie mind, would only damage the faction
which was 1T variance with Mr.. Gar.
field. But Gen. Rosecrans is entitled to
all the vindication which he is claiming
The national eulogist of the dead presi-
dent made the occasion for him to seel;
it. In that task he has right to pro-
duce the letters which seemed to show
that Gep. Garfield had always been true
to him. If other letters in existence are
1T variance with this, their writer and
not Gen. Rosencrans is responsible for
the inconsistency ;. and tine friends of the
late president and not his enemies must
he presumed to have produced them now.