Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-11-18

The Charges Against the Latter Pre-
nOunced snaeMahlc.

nOunced snsenabIc.
1t has been known for some time pas, that
General L. :. Grant, having studied the case o;
General fitZ john Porter. concluded that the
charges against General Porter were untepalle
In this the ex-Presi6ent but followed the find
ings OF the Sehofeld board sense of the
long Injustice under which General Porter has
suffered Tor now score of years has stimulated
Gen. Grant to publish an article In which he
gives the grounds for his present opinion. Says
Gen. Grant:
General P0rter's alleged misconduct WAS
embraced IN three separate eases oi dsobasliencp
OF 0rders-one on the 27tii of Aurus, and two
on the 2sth OF lfugust-ami in having re,reated
utiiiecessarii; from the enemy by that act en-
dangering other portions OF the army with wbic,,
ne was cooperating. II will be seen that
thGugh these offences We're alleged to have been
committed in August Of 1892 he was continued
IN the command Of an army corps until some
time lii November following. taking an active
part IN the Battles of the day following the date
OF the last charge. and in command Of the de-
FENCES OF Washington on the west bank OF the
Potomac. and also at the battle of Antietam.
some weeks later. 1t would look at first
very singular that an officer SO wantonty
0ereiict i'll the performance of his duty as Gen
Porter. was alleged to have been on the 2;th
and 29th Of August. should have been continued
IN so important place as the command of an
army corps when so much was at stake as there
was on the S0th of August and i'm tn. deiersas
OF Washington, and i'm the later battles IN Mary
land when the invasion Of the north MAS threat
ened. These facts would indicate to mn uunre-
JUDGED Eind that the charges against Porter
were an afterthOught, to shift the responsible
ties of failure from other shoulders and to n,acc
them upon hi,n.''
ten Grant then reviews the facts brought
ont in the evidence before the Sc,iotirld board.
In the course OF his review he says:
"A literal obedience to the order OF the 9th
OF August was q physical impossibility. Ii is
further shown that General Porter Was DESTROYS
OF obeying 1t literally, far az was practicable
but was prevailed upon by his leading gem
erals-against whom suspicion of disoyalty to
their commander or to the cause has never been
entertained do what his own Judgment ap-
proved as the best thing to dO--to make u lat r
start with a view to arriving at his destination
as early as it was possible for him TO arrive there
and TO give his jaded and worn troops two hours
more of needed rest.
81 question very much whether there was an
engagement during the war. or a series OF en-
gagements. continuing over as much time as
was consumed in the battles about Bull Rps. IN
August, 1862. when not only one but & humber
OF generals did not exercise THAR discretion, as
forter did on this occasion. and with far less
justification.
with re4ss.d to the second case-namely.
the firsc Or joint order of the 29t Of August to
establish communication with POpe-the fact
that Porter was left with 10000 men to face
LOngstreet, newly arrived i'm his front with
2o.OOo men. whom Pope believed to be far dis
tant. Is sufficient to account for the order not
Delng Obeyed. Further. successfully did POr-
ter engage LOn9street that the latter was
caused to take WilcoX's division from In front
OF Pope in order to strengthen the line confront
Ing Porter"
Thus, says Gen. Grant Porter. without sacri-
flee of men and without eniangering any inter-
ests. did more for POpe's relief than II he had
gone directly to that generals assistance. To
have done so would probably have sacrificed his
corps without any benefit and jeOparded the
safety OF P0pes army. So far as have inyesti-
gated the caSe-aHd have studied it. / think.
pretty thoroughly see no fact to base the
charge OF retreat upon. l do not see that any
argument to prove this is necessary. because
any reader Of history may be defied now to find
where and when Gen. Porter retreated durin"
the time specified
Gen. Grant explains that ne means no criti-
cism upon the court which tried Gen. Porter.
nor upon the officers with whom he served"
and concludes
IL feel. az stated on a previous occasion, a
double interest In this particular case. because
directly after the war, as general of the army.
when might have been instrumental In having
Justice done to General Porter, and later as
PRESIDENT of the United States, when l Ger
talnly could have done so. j labOrei under the
firm conviction that he was guilty; that the
facts OF the receipt OF the 40 order were as
found by the court. and that the position Of the
troops and numbers were as given in the first of
these diagrams. Having become better in
formed at once voluntarily gave, as / have
the minds OF my c0untfymen with the Justice of
this case, and to secure from our government
as far as it could grant it, the restitution due to
Gen. FitZ John Porter