Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-02-08
The Second Nfanassas.

The articles OF Gems. Pope and Long
street on the second battle of Manassas
/ in the January and February numbers Of
4 the Century Magazine have attracted
/ great deal Of attention, especially from
/ those who feel an interest In the case OF
/ Gen. Fitz John Porter. Itmay be noted, as
( announced by the editor Of the Century,
that neither Gen. Pope nor Gen. Long
street knew that the other was writing an
article on the subject, and although Pope's
article was first published, that of Long
street was not intended as reply to it,
in fact it was written as a spontaneous
narrative Of the brief campaign which
disarranged the later Federal plans Of
1862 tor the capture Of Richmond, and
made aprolongation of the war by the
Confederates for nearly three years posi-
slble.
The statements in the two articles
bearing on the Fitz John Porter case,
however, are as widely at variance as if
the second article Rad been written 10
controvert the first in Its most Important
points. POpe's article had for its express
object the placing of his charges against
Porter, on which the latter was court
martialed and dismissed from the service,
before the country. His statements are
direct and positive, and if they are true,
POrter's failure TO obey the order TO at
tack the Confederate right was inexcusa-
bic, for Pope charges that Porter with
10000 or 1900 OF the best men IN the
army, largely regulars, was held in check
by an observation force of cavalry under
Jeb Stuart, who kept detachment haul
ing brush up and down the road, in order
to raise a dense dust, such as is raised by
a large body Of troops.
Longstreet, on the other hand, states
that his corps Of 1000 veteran troops and
not Stuart's cavalry, held the naturally
strong positions which Porter was d.
rected to assaIl, and that il the latter had
attempted to obey orders his command
would have been destroyed, and hence he
would not have been able to save P0pe's
army from capture, as he did by his gal
liant fight on the last day OF the battle.
Longstreet only refers to this matter in
cidentally, but his statements are posi-
tive, and his views nave during the last
few years been adopted by many Federal
Generals who formerly fully believed that
Porter deserved to be shot for his dis
obedience, rather than TO be dismissed
from the service.
While neither OF these articles was
written with reference to the other, 1t is
doubtless true that each q the writer's
knew the position of the other su ostan-
TALLY as 20 the Fitz John Porter matter.
IL is not likely that either article will
have much effect on public opinion on the
subject. The statements made by several
Federal and Confederate officers a few
years ago caused a large majority of the
impartial thinking men Of the country to
change their minds, and TO look upon
Porter as victim Of a monstrous con-
spIracy rather than a traitor and coward.
One of the most manly things Gen. Grant
ever did was to declare that he had been
mistaken in this matter and to write
strong letter In vindiostiOn of Gen. Porter.
Toe vindicatiOn of Porter appears to
necessarily involve the seVerest censure
OF Pope, as well as OF the officers who we're
his instruments In securing a cOndemna-
ton. Were it not for this fact, no doubt
Porter would, long ago, have received
justice and had the official blot on his rec
ord solemnly and effectively erased.