National Republican., 1882-11-30

determined TO Withdraw to Manassas" showing
that at the very time that Pope was IN the height
covering his LEFT Hank, was probably then ON tho
retreat
lie says further that "they have gathered artil
lery and cavalry aud Infantry, and the advancing
masses Of dust show the enemy coming In force"
in his front except what have mentioned here
tofore; that no attack was made on him, no
movement In force was made against him, and
that but one brigade ever showed Itself during the
whole day, aud that did not advance upon him.
The evidence does show that the dust he men
down the road, and ii no Other way; SLOWING
that he had decided not TO fight, but was deter
mined that Pope should lose that battle, by his
seeking to produce a panic In tho army aud,
while portion of his command were retiring
back not only 20 Manassas, but to Ceutrevile,
Pope's 5000 men were fighting the whole com.
bined army of 1000, with probably the exception
ew s ana s odS's m Taseu some
Yet Gen. Grant insists that those men could not
have possibly gotten into that fight IN any way
destroyed
You will soc from the fncts have stated that
Gen. Porter did not only disobey the $3.50 order of
the 9th, but disobeycd the o'clock order of the
morning of the Goth, which directed him to move
on TO Centreyille. That he disobeyed the order
delivered TO him about Q o'clock on the morning
OF the 2gth, ordering him to push forward to Gains
vile, in not leaving until 10 o'clock; that he dis
s SsoSeyed the G lso ordeE directing him TO attack
tho enemys right flank; and IN fact that he
ooeyed no order in any proper military sense that
was given TO him from the first order on the night
OF the 9th up to and through the engagement OF
the goth. General Smith, who is now pnymos;er
| in the Army, in conversation with Pope on the
morning Of the 29th told GEN Pope that zen. Por-
ter would fail him in that battle Gen. Ben Bob
erts did the same thing. Porter did fail him, ut
terly disobcying his orders, that Gen. Pope was
constrained to issue an order ON the night OF the
10Th in the following words:
McV.Gen, porter-GESERAL: Immediately upon
receipt of this order the precise hour ofwhch you
Will acknowledge, you will march your command to
d S 9ma to Gnns o in
expected TO comply strictly with this order aud be
ception, or after daybreak tomorrow morning.
And Gen. Grant further says that he considers
facts given SeiSFe OF tb ime arg m
of the 430 order, and also III his lukewnrmness in
supporting, the commanding, general How he
can make this last statement cannot understand. .
! | will here insert a paragraph from leter Of
| George b. Mcclellan major general, written on
September /, 1862, at $3.50 p. m to Maj Gen. Porter
at Centefvilie, commanding the Fifth Corps;
ask you for my sake, that of the country, and of
al the old M Army Of the PoipmaS that you snd all
! going
| Grant whether or not Mcclellan himself does not
show from the writing of this note to Gen. Porter
that he did not believe that he Porter was cor,
written three days after the battle, and yet Gen.
! Grant says he is fully exonerated from the impu-
| taton of lukewarmness in his support of Gen.
| Pope. The sworn testimony of man named Lord
| shows that Gen. Porter told him (Lord) that he
was not loyal, and had not been loyal, TO Pope
and ali the facts collated show this statement to be
| true. Porter, with his troops-1S0O0 men under
arms-lay whole day within two and one half
| miles of battle raging where the artillery and
| musketry did not cease during the whole time.
| WHAT PORTER SHOULD HAVE DONE.
Iwould like to know when similar case has
occurred2 He ought to haze moved and fought
not fight even with orders to do sOa better excuse
for not doing so must be found.
7 pSh tn na11 al IN not har
ton of General Grants, which is equally as as
founding as anything in reference to Porter's
| conduct Speaking of Porter he says that twenty
years OF the best part of his life have been con-
sumed in trying TO have his name and his repu-
tation restored before his countrymen. In his
application now before Congress he asks only that
he may be restored to the rolls Of the Army with
the rank that he would have if the court-martial
"This in my Judgment. is q very simple part of
what is possible to do in this case and OF what
way of partial restoration, be declared by Con-
gress to have been convicted by mistaken testi-
mony, and therefore not to have been out of the
volunteers until the date might be fixed for his
muster out of that rank, after which he would be
brigadier- general of the United States Army from
the date Of IN the act when he could be placed on
This proposition would give him over s7O,OOO
out of the Treasury of the United States for no act
performed for no duty done. for no service rem
duty on the 2sh day Of August, 1867.
Gen. Grant ought to know whether Porter was
dismissed from the Army or not on what he con-
slders mistaken evidence;" that he WAS dis
missed and put out of the Army. his place was
filed. and he has been a citizen ever since, is to-
day citizen. and not soldier, know of no
rule of law, no rule of Justice, that would give this
to Gen. Porter, or TO any other man dismissed from
the Army. This rule would establish q precedent
that would pay money back to every man dis
missed from the Army that might ever afterwards
be placed back again, whether dismissed at the
beginning of the war for disloyaly or not, If they
could get up testimony such as Is wanted. Some
have been put back into the Army by act of Con-
gress since, and, under this rule of Gen. Grants
they could come and claim pay for the whole
time they have been out of the Army, saying that
they were not disloyal aud were improperly dis
missed. Every officer that may be convicted fol
misconduct in office, civil or military, and re.
moved from Office, If afterward on examination OF
the evidence obtains decision that he was i'm
properly dismissed, on this proposition would he
be entitled to pay while he was out OF his Office
proposition Of this kind and principle Of thi.
sort should not be entertained for a moment, and
, l am very much uIprised to find a suggestion o.
this kind coming from the pen of Gen, Grant
believe have answered fully the proposition!
: laid down by Gen. Grant in Justification of Fitz
, , John Porter, and merely wish TO add that, ate
twenty years have pissed and the country ha
been raked and scraped for some kind of fimsy
testimony for an excuse to restore this man to tn,
Army, no such testimony has been found. Th'
effort TO vindicate Porter at the expense of the re
pnatons of such men as Gen. Garfield Gen
men, who found him guilty, and also TO cloud tn,
l reputation of Abraham Lincoln, who approved
the findings, cannot succeed.
This is asking too much, even though 1t b
) asked by such men as Gen. Grant.
JOHN A. LOGAN.