National Republican., 1883-10-31
RosEERANs' EXCEPTIONS.
The Rspbrter Took no Notes." and Much That
Was, Said Was "NOt for Publication"
Tho Things That should Have Been Left
OuN, not because OF Their Untruth.
10 he Editor.


On Lny return home find copied in your
issue Of the twenty-seventh my disavowal of
tho abstract published by the Cincinnati Conf
meroinl- Gazette of an interview" with me,
credited to your paper.
/ thank you for it, although / expected
that much from your kind courtesy, for what
you saw l regarded as an act of injustice-I
doubt not unintentional on your part-done
me in publishing as mine statements contra
dieting my own official reports; mixing up
the important events Of two distinct cam
paigns; saying called for opinions of corps
and division commanders after Tullahoma,
which were only required before that cam
paign; saying that IL was well known that 1t
was impossible to cross any considerable
stream in the presence of an opposing army,
instead of saying 1t was next to impossible
for an army to cross great river the intro
duction of personal characteristics, incident
ally mentioned, as indicative of probable
motives Of action, as principal facts in
the history of these campaigns; the
introduction of numbers and statements Of
fact and inference as mine, but solely those of
the reporter, as we'll as many verbal inaccu-
racies. All these were before the public, and
sither / or your reporter had to be RESPONSE
ole for them. was not and 80 told the
oublic by the disavowal.
But in your subsequent issues you have
moro than taken back all, and through abso-
ute misconception Of my character and the
meaning Of my disavowal of the interview
have outraged justice
Now let there be no Misunderstanding. No
notes, stenographic or photographic were
taken by your reporter of the conversations
he had with me; nor did l give him any
notes of mine as some Cincinnati reporter
enormously states.
As your reporter correctly states, 1 told him
DO
the battle of Chickamauga or Of the preceding
campaign of Tullahoma was to take the full
official reports and road them over carefully.
But he said without an outline of facts from
me he could not give interest to it; and so,
at his urgent solicitation, outlined the main
features Of the campaigns of Tullahoma and
of Chattanooga, stating to him repeatedly,
"These are only to assist your memory, en-
liven your apprehension, and guide your judg-
ment in reading the official reports, which
give the main facts correctly. They are not
to supersede the reports nor to bo printed"
He said he would follow the advice, and
begged permission TO call when he had written
up from Those reports, and get suggestions
and details. 1 granted IL. On the eve of my
departure for Cincinnati he came with some
fifty pages Of manuscript, of which had only
time to glance at the first few pages in which
i found that he inextricably mixed events Of
the campaign of Tullahoma with those OF
NnaUIunOORh. OpOu ChlllIB MS hblSuIlOu u
this he said there was no use in reading the
remainder, as he "would have to rewrite it,"
Having q few moments before leaving
said, II will repeat to you some great salient
points of those two campaigns to guide your
studies and writing and enable you to get at
their essential spirit" repeating that he must
not consider what / said to him as If 1t were
for publication.
Remember, he took no notes; nor did l ex-
pect he would publish his article before
could return, and hoping to see the proofs.
You know what happened He finished
his article from memory solely and it was o
wonderful efIort-all the moro so rs he was
reporting about military operations requiring
technical knowledge. But his confidence In
his memory has led him into the mistakes
have alluded to, the responsibility for which
under the circumstances, he can we'll affort
\ ta bear. s-
me, which is the only right way, / could have
readily pointed OUT the errors and inac
curacies which impaired the value of
splendid report and deprived it of the righ
to be called my interview contribution K
history.
should have stricken out what was sale
of Gen. Garfield.and Gen. Wood, not because
of untruth, but because 1t had the author:
sharp inferential edges, and because all tha
said about them was intended merely Il
guido the young man in his future studies o
history in which they were actors, and wa
not intended for publication.
The publication in the "interview" re
specting Gen. Wood was all the more objec
tionable because his own long report and al
irregular supplemental report made by hin
some sixty days later, and my official repor
of the battle of Chickamauga, and my lot
ter to the war department calling at
tention to the irregularity of allow
ing such report to be fled withou
notice to me, and published before the regula
reports, close his case for the verdict of ,his
tory. i have known Gen. Wood since h
first rected to mo in mathematics as q ney
cadet. He was with me at Stone river unit
the close of the thirty-irst of December an'
in the two succeeding campaigns, and in al
our intercourse, both personal and official,
have been Ito his faults a little blind, and t.
his virtues very kind" as the above mon
toned reports will in part show.
1t was all wrong for the reporter to dra
him before the public upon what was state
to him as q guide in his study Of the events 9
the battle. Very respectfully,
w. s. RosEcRANs.
WAsHINGToN, Oct 30, 1883