National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-03-14
FROM THE PEOPLE,
Fik-JOhn POrter's Course Subjected to a
SCathing Review.
His Treachey Demonstrated by In
answerabIe Arguments,
A Ohinaman Expresses His Thoughts About The
Chinese Bill.
Forcible Words on the Ever Interesting
Subject OF n Free Bridge.
FITz-JoHN PORTER.


to the case of this treachorous and disobedi-
emit officer of the union forces. 1t seems to
tho writer that in all the criticisms Of his con-
duct OF the second battle Of Bull Run one inn
portant feature has either been entirely over
looked or only incidentally alluded to
namely, that he never communicated his con-
dition or whereabouts to tho general COM
manding.
Let US review the case n moment. 1t Is
alleged that he could not obey tho command
because there was little Tor much) mud in
the road and some wagons in the way. Tho
utter puerlity of such an excuse is clearly
manifest on its face, especially when all the
rebel troops and generals, and most Of those
on the union side were marching or fighting
at the same time and some of them only
few miles from Porter's command
That tho mud IL an aiterthought Is clearly
proved from Porter's own witness, Gen.
Rosser, who says he raised dust few hours
after in the same vicinity aud 1t Is in evil
dence that this very dust affected Porter so
greatly that he told Mcdowell it meant fight,
rs though he was not there for that very pur-
pose. How deep could tho mud have been
which in few hourS--say ten or twelve
became such q cloud of dust? Can Porter or
any of his friends answer this query?
A general who permits n few Tor many
wagons to prevent his obedience TO per-
emptory and urgent command from his SUI
perior is not wanted in the federal army by
any loyal soldier or citizen. He is unfit to
command. His incompetency alone should
bar him out OF the army.
But Gen. Grant says it was physically inn
possible for Porter to move. That is q self
evident fallacy. There is not spot Of ground
in all that region which Gen. Grant or Gen.
Porter can select where it Is physically i'm
possible to move 10000 men, rain or shine,
mud or dust; and it is sham aud shame
to say so. Any competent military commits
sion on Gods footstool will bear out his as
sertion 1t is an imposition on common sense
to put forth such a declaration in connection
with that country.
Gen. Grant knows that Sheridan had in
comparably worse roads to contend with in
the last days before Lees surrender than
those Porter complains of, aud yet no went
on from victory to conquest Had Sheridan
done as Porter did there would have been no
surrender at Appomattox, and Grant knows
this well. All this ado about bad roads, &C.,
is the sheerest bosh" and an insult to the
intelligence Of the American people.
But suppose the claim set up by Porter was
true. Suppose he could not obey the order.
What thenP 1t at once became his imperative
duty to inform his commander of this fact.
NO man will deny this proposition. Ii was
rs much his duty to inform his commander
Shat he could not obey tho order, if he could
not, as 1t was to obey it If he could. Here
we have the whole question in q nutshell.
Did he send word to Pope that it was i'm
possible for him to obey tho order? Not a
bit of it. He never communicated with his
commander at all. If Longstreet was in his
front, as he claims, 1t was his imperative
duty to inform Pope of that fact and either
tell him he would hold Longstreet or ask the
general commanding what he should do.
Nothing is palmer than this. And we know
Porter understood his duty, for when under
Mcclellan before Richmond he was In con-
slant communication with his superior and
kept him posted as to the movements of the
enemy. And ut Malvern hill, when sorey
pressed on the left he sent the general in
command on the field particulars of his situa-
tion and asked for requirements which he
obtained. He knew his duty to Pope. He
knew it was mportant-yoa, essential-that
the general III command should know every
thing possible to be known, and especially to
know where his men were and what they
were doing or unable to do.
Here Is Porter's double crime. He refuses
to obey orders, and then relrains from in.
forming the general that he will not or
can OF obey, and leaves HIM to plan his order
of battles expecting the order to his subordi-
nate will be obeyed. Porters guilt is clear
rs light. There is not an intelligent man in
America who does not know that IL MoClel-
Ian had been in Pope'S place Porter would
have obeyed that order, or have told his SUI
perior that he could not.
Right here is the unmistakable proof Of the
intent of this man to disobey the orders OF
his superior, and there Is no avoidance of this
conclusion. He predetermined to sacrifice
Popo if he could, and he knows this fact. So
does every other intelligent person in Amer
ica The writer gave the matter thorough
investigation at the time, and speaks intelli-
gently. The only mistake made when he
h,v1. - III
that ever tried man was that he was not
shot for his treachery and disobedience at
once.
He never dared TO come before a congress
composed Of loyal union men. He waited
until the confederates whom his treachery
gave temporary success had the controlling
power in congress before he dared to press
his claim. He understood we'll enough who
were the benefciGries of his conduct aud
who would be likely to help him. IL for no
other reason than this, that he wishes to be
restored to position in the union army by
rebel votes, he ought to be secuted from that
army. This in itself is enough to condemn
him forever. There is no excuse for
putting treacherous man, once expelled by
such an able court, back in the army to dis
grace it, and offer n premium for future
characterization. Or, If Portcr's own state
ment is true thore is as little excuse for plac-
ing man in command who is SO incompe-
when there ia little mud, or few wagons
in the way, or who is scared by n little dust
raised from his impossible mud of a few hours
old.
If the confederates had any sense of pro-
priety or of the fitness of things they would
refuse to vote on this measure, and like
honorable men leave the question to be dc,
termined by the other side,
Gen. Grant should remember that the
person who figured most conspcuously in
this new investigation of Ftz-John Porter is
the same one who connived at the removal oil
that "noblest Roman of them ALL" Gen.
George Ii. Thomas, and by whose machi-
nations the order for his supersedure was
issued Just as he dealt that crushing defeat
which overwhelmed and almost annihilated
Hoods army near Nashville. Grant was
mistaken then in Thomas; no is now far
more mistaken in Porter. lie removed War
rem from command for nothing, compared
with Porter's crime. lilo should remember
his mistakes. The people do not forget them
He is one Of the grandost generals Of any age
but veIy far from being infallibo.
Contrast Sheridan at and before the sur
render at Appomattox with Porter ut Bul
Run, and then lot tho latter so down t.
merted oblivion. But never disgrace tn,
rtryith