Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-11-16
BEFORE CHARLOTTESVILLE.
Gen. II. I. Hunts Opinion of the
Opposing Armies.

opposing hrHItSs
Gen. FL. /. Hunt, chief OF artillery Of
the army OF the Potomac at Gettysburg,
describes the battle OF the first day In the
November Centurv. He prefaces his mar
rative with a short reference to Chancel-
lorsville, from which we make this ex-
tract: 1.-The morale OF the Confederate
army was, however, much higher at this
time than that OF it's adversary. 1t was
composed OF men not lesa patriotic, many
OF whom had gone into the war with
reluctance, but who now felt that they
we're defending their homes. They were
bv this time nearly all veterans, led by
officers having the confidence of their
government, which took pains TO inspire
its soldiers with The same feeling. Their
successes were extolled and magnited;
their reverses palliated or ignored. Ex-
aggeratiOns as to the relative numbers of
the troops had been common enough on
both sides, but thuse INDUCED In at the
South had been echoed, sometimes suk-
gested, in the North by portion of the
press and people, 30 that friends and
enemies united in inspiring in the Con-
federate soldier a belief in himself and
contempt for his enemy.
"ln the army of the Potomac it was
different; the proportion of veterans was
much smaller; a cessation of recruiting
at the very beginning of active operati ons,
when men were easily Obtainable to
supply losses in existing regiments, had
been followed, as emergencies arose, by
new levies for short periods Of service,
and in new organizations which could not
readily be assimilated by older troops.
And there were special difficulties. The
army OF the Potomac was not IN favor at
the War Department. Rarely, If ever, had
it heard word OF official commentator
after success, or sympathy or en-
couragement after a defeat. From the
very beginning its camps had been filed
with imputations and charges against its
leaders, who were accused on the streets,
by the press, in Congress, and even In the
War Department itself. and after vic
tories as we'll as after defeats, not only of
incapacIty or m scOnduct, but sometimes
OF disloyalty to their superiOrs, civil and
military, and even to the cause for which
they fought. These accusations were fol-
lowed or accompanied by frequent
changes of commanders of the army,
army corps, and even of divisions. Under
sucn circumstances, but little confidence
uld be felt by the troops, either in the
wisdom of a war office which seemed to
change its favorities with the caprice of a
coquette, or In the capacity OF new Gene
ra s who followed each other in such rapid
succession. But it is due to that patient
and sorely tried army to say tnat the
spirit of both it's officers and men was of
the best, and their devotion to duty un-
cOnquerable. The army Itself had origi-
nally been so admirably disciplined and
tempered. that there always remained to
IL a firm selt-reliance and a stern sense of
duty and OF honor that was proof against
its many discouragements. In battle it
always acquitted itself well, and dis
played the highest soldierIy qualities, no
matter who commanded il nor whence he
came. Charlottesville furnishes no ex-
ception TO this assertion, nor evidence of
interiorlty of the Northern to the South
ern soldier, but it does furnish striking
Illustrations OF Napoleon's well-known
saying: "In war men are nothing, man
is eYervthinR.o