Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-07-15

Charlottesville? It has been both asserted
and denied. The Comte de Paris, the le-
gitimist, successor of the Count de Cham
bord, to the kingly throne of France, of
the Bourbon pretenders, was present in Vir-
ginia, with the Union army, as an observ-
er during the rebellion, and has written
and published history of the civil war.
In it he vaguely intimates Hooker's condi-
ton by saying he was physically unable"
at critical moment to give the word of
command. In regar to the battle of
Charlottesville the count leaves the mys-
terry where he finds it. After describing
the various maneuvers and movement
which resulted in placing Hooker's army
on the Plateau of Charlottesville between
the two wings of an inferior force, and af-
ter detailing the hot fighting between Lees
forces and about half of Hooker's, when
the rest of the Union forces should have
been swung into the scale to decide the
day, the count says: "The general in chief
after having delayed too long issuing such
an order, finds himself, by strange fatali-
ty, physically unable to give it at the
most critical moment. The wound which
he presently receives does not allow us to
comment upon his conduct on this occasion
as it deserves. He has himself said that
but for this wound he would have adopted
proper measures to sustain his lieutenants;
he might probably have succeeded in re-
tanning possession of the plateau of Chan
cellorsville, But when he was wounded he
was already almost too late, for he had not
yet taken any preliminary steps for
bringing reinforcements upon the field of
battle and the causes of this strange mac
ton have never been explained" This
reference is undoubtedly to the story, for
which there is considerable evidence that
Gen. Hooker was recovering from de-
bauch on the occasion of the battle. Gen.
Doubleday, however, in his volume on the
Charlottesville and Gettysburg" cam
paigns, says nothing to indicate that Hook
or was not physically and mentally sound
up to the moment he was wounded, al
though he admits that $1,000 men stood by
and did not fire a shot, although they were
eager to go in. Doubleday says that Lin
all the troops and not hold any back. The
Count of Paris says that the battle of
Charlottesville is the "most interesting
to study of all those that were fought in
Virginia, for the two adversaries depend
ed upon complicated and boldly conceived
maneuv ers for success. The confederates
prevailed over their enemies by reason of
the greater mobility of their troops, the
energy they displayed in the attack, the
far-sightedness and decision of their lead
ers, and finally by reason of the errors of
their adversaries." Doubleday lays down
as principle of military science, that "the
attempt to overpower a central force by
converging columns is almost always fatal
to the assailants." The count says that
Charlottesville was defeat for the
Union forces, but not a disaster, and that
Hooker, while he had COMMITTED some
errors, had also displayed some of the at
tributes that should characterize a COM
| mander-in. chief"
Ittook our generals some time, Grant
among them, to learn the principle above
laid down by Gen. Doubleday. The Count
| de Paris, in his sketch of the Vicksburg
campaign, shows how completely Grant
| underestimate the defensibility of Penn
berton's positions and forces. Gen. Grant
at the beginning of the siege, by series
of simultaneous assaults from all points
| upon Pemberton's lines, simply destroyed
his own forces with out greatly weakening
the enemy. In the appendix to his second
volume the royal historian corrects some
of the statements and opinions given in his
first volume, subsequent and more accurate
| information. The most important of the
corrections temper the blame visited upon
| Gen. Patterson's failure to detain John
ston from reaching the first field of Bull
Run. the blame of Baker for the disaster
Of Balls bluff, and also that of Fitz John
Porter at the second battle of Bull Run.
In regard to Porter he says: "Far from
indorsing the reproaches Pope has lavisbed
upon Porter we have been led, while writ.
ing this new account, to modify the judg.
ment, far too severe, We had ourself passed