The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-01-13
THE FITz JOHN PORTER CASE.

THE FITZ JOHN PORTER CASE.
There are depths in the Fitz John Porter
case that we cannot fathom. For instance:
General Longstreets letter, paraded in his de-
Tense, is to the effect that a general should
disobey the orders of his superior whenever
he thinks best; that he (Longstreet) did so
once, won battle, and was promoted for it, Is
this the plea upon which General Porter is to
be acquitted? If So then there is an end to
ali discipline in armies, and 'orders" are
mere bubbles to be blown away at will by
those to whom they are addressed. But
no battle won by reason of his
disobedence. Whether any good resulted
from it is a matter of judgment entirely
upon which men Of equal military abilities
and experience may and do differ There
are not few who think the result might
have been different had General Porter
moved to the support of Pope as he was or
dered to do. If General Porter's acquittal is
to be based upon this feature of the defense,
then it simply amounts to fighting the battle
over again on paper, twenty years away from
the scenes and circumstances under which
the actual fight took place.
Then, again, if we comprehend Don Came
ron's defense at all, it is that be-
cause General Porter argued General
Thomas into active loyalty to the Fed
eral government, therefore he should be
forgiven. Mr.. Cameron makes a remarkable
contribution to military history in what he
now reveals respecting General Thomas; but,
at the BEST we cannot see how it affects the
guilt or innocence of General Porter of the
act or rather the failure to act, for which
he was condemned. If General Porter
throws himself upon the mercy of the coun-
try, and asks to be pardoned or nave the
penalties of his crime RENTED, that is one
thing; but it has been paraded again and
again that it is not mercy but justice he
wants. If General Longstreets and Mr..
Cameron's are the sort of defenses which
General Porter is to receive, he must either
change the nature of his application to Con-
gress, or pray to be delivered from his friends.
We do not understand that General Por-
ters offense was SO much treason to the coun-
try as that his hatred and jealousy of General
Pope led him so near the verge of what, I'M
warrant the severest penalty a court-martial
could inflict, The letter General Mcclellan
wrote him. in which he begged him TO give
General Pope a loyal support, reveals what
his nearest friend thought OF him and his
character, and shows the prevalence of a fear
that Porter might not do his duty by the new
commander. And after the disaster, believed
by many able military critics to have been
caused, partly at least, by the disaffection Of
General Porter, the latter wrote letter in
a spirit and tone of satisfaction over the de-
feat, saying he hoped now Macs star would
be again in the ascendant"
Fitz John Porter cannot be pushed into
public regard over the disgiMe of Major
general George H. Thomas, whose memory
is embalmed in the affection OF the American
people, 1t is scarcely necessary to allude to
the party phase this case has assumed and
upon which General Porter so confidently
relies for final success. In an interview he
says he does not expect favorable action by
the present House, but believes there will be
no trouble in the passage of his bill through
both branches of the next Congress. The
House of Representatives of the Forty-eighth
Congress has Democratic majority of more
than sixty. The Senate bill was received
with Kisses in the House on Thursday, and
it will be received by the loyal people of the
North and West, as it has been advocated,
by a feeling very far from "vindication" on
of the dark days of 1862.