The National tribune., 1886-10-14
BATTLE OF ATLANTA.
Another Member Of the Fifteenth Corps Critieizes
Gen. Leggett.

EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: Gen. Leggett
in his letter published Aug. 20 says that, in
writing the article describing the part taken
by his command, he did not intend any Feaec-
tion the Fifteenth Corps and that careful
examination Of the article would show that he
did not reflect on them. / am willing to con-
cede that he did not intend any injustice to
the Fifteenth Corps. Still, rs his article and
the accompanying maps conveyed very dis
tinctly the idea that the corps had been driven
from the line which it had occupied in the
morning, injustice was done to so much of the
corps as maintained its position on the ad-
vaneed line, and was not driven from it. i
concede to him the right to publish history
wherein his command shall be the central fig
ure; but while so doing it was incumbent on
him, when incidentally mentioning other COM
mands, to state their actions correctly. He
says:
did not know when I wrote how much Of the
Fifteenth Corps was in position that day. sim
ply learned that all in position north of Gen. Wal
cutt had been driven back whether one division
three, did not know; and for my purpose in
writing IL made no difference.
The General may have heard that all the
Fifteenth Corps north Of Walcutt had been
driven back, but he never learned it, for it was
not true. Furthermore, while it may have
been unimportant to Gen. Leggett whether he
correctly stated the result of the fight on the
| front of the Fifteenth Corps, it does make q
difference with the boys of the Fifteenth Corps.
! It would have been no disgrace to be over
/ powered and compelled to fall back 10 another
| line; but it would be disgraceful to allow his
tory 10 be so distorted as to make it appear that
| we were whipped, when in truth and fact we
were not whipped or driven an inch.
| owe the boys of the Sixteenth Corps an
apology. / supposed the troops engaged in re-
| taking the line lost by the two brigades of our
Second Division, all belonged to the Fifteenth
Corps. In this / am satisfied / was mistaken
What / took to be brigade from John T.
| Smiths (Fourth) Division, was brigade from
the Sixteenth Corps. / remember that the
Slst Ohio was amongst them. The brigade was
on our left and did its share in retaking the
line. Capt Williamss battery may have con-
| tributed towards the restoration of the line
south of the railroad. / could not see what
took place there. But neither saw nor heard
of any assistance from that quarter on the north
| side
In conclusion, permit me to say that but tive
brIgades of the Fifteenth Corps were driver
from their line on that day; and that no dis
credit attaches to them for falling back, as il
| would have been folly to attempt To hold tn,
ground. Those brigades were second to nOnt
in our army for grit and staying qualities
Further, that il will not do for any command
10 drrogate to itself more credit for the snccess
Of that day than il awards to others. Eaet
brigade. division and corps did its duty nobly
and like heroes. If their positions had beer
transposed, the outcome would probably hav,
been the same. AS it was, there was glory
enough for all then let us give each other th,
credit justly due.-CROSBY JOHNSON, Co q
10th Ohio, Hamilton, Mo-