The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-01-13

works. and has no connection WIN '"e
battle II discusses.
First II was charged that the NUM-
bers given Of the southern army were
not correct: that ! got my returns
from Colonel Walter Taylor ana o'ner
vague sources" and Sharpspurg anu
Gettysburg were cited as examples. gave
Lee at the former 35.2,e page Zo'l' ana a.
Gettysburg s.. 600 page BOD your Iesie" .
err claims that Lee had nearly U'"o AT
Sharrsburg and nearly 5000 at Gettys-
burg. / replied to his first arucie py
giving the official statements OF Lee
commanding officers at Sharpsburg and
Lees own report OF that battle. IN WHICH
he stated he had on that neId Tess
than 1000 men, / also called at,ehtioh
TO the fact that Colonel Taylor estimates
We're not vague" that IL was MS du.y
as the Adjutant. General or the army ~
compile the army returns; that the ON
clal records had been captured Det"eel
Richmond and Appomattox Courthouse Az
April. 1860. and were now on ME III ,ie
Record Office of the War Department
Washington, u. c., and that py peIhiiS.
sion Colonel TAYLOR had taken copies OF
them after the war, and pubhshed saih
returns in his book, -Four Years WIN
General Lee and that they were true
copies of the original reports.
To dispose of this vague source charge
as 1t relates to Colonel Taylor, WIZ add
here that General Lee wrote (oee ielteI.
page l56. -Four Years With GeneraI Lee,
by Walter II. Taylor Colohei IeNlor
three months and three weeks AFTER the
surrender. stating that he was connecting
the necessary data for the history OF ms
campaigns in Virginia.; that the oiicla
records had been lost or destroyed ana
that as he prepared tri-monthly returns
for so long. and tested their accuracy
he wanted the benefit Of his recollection,
etc. 81 am particularly anxious, SAID
he, that its this army actual s1rength
in the different battles be correctly
stated" The General did not know then
that the returns were in the washington
War Office.
Second. The reply by the editor Of the
Evening Post OF December ~, 1874. that
paper and The Nation being under the
same management, | am miormedl' 10
my statement OF Lees numbers az Snarps-
burg, does not touch the issue. save
the reports of the commanders OF their
strength on the day OF battle, the 18th of
December. 1862. Your critic attempts 10
tear them 10 pieces by giving the army
return of the 22d. five days after the bat
tie. One sample of the Illustration ne
gives will make everybody understand
what l say. He says: Another eN-
ample taken at random. IS OF the otohe-
wall division, JacksOn's own. j. Il,
Jones. in command of II. says tpage iVS
of volume last quotedl that not number
ing over Loo men at the beginning OF
the fight 1t was obliged TO faiI bach,
and these round numbers General Fltz-
hugh Lee gives as official In preference
to the statistical report OF the division TO
af
which the figures are 2,553 effective on
GERS and men. Jones says or ms loses
that they amounted to about 400 Killed
and wounded. He says nothing OF any
missing. Add the 700 TO the 1888 re-
naming after'the battle, and we have at
its beginning 1888, instead OF l,6O, or more
than twice as many. II we had space
we could continue this comparison to any
extent"
II may be true Jones had 1858 men
and officers on September I'D and 100 kill
ed and wounded in the battle, but he did
not have 1853 plus 700-S,25S, oil the day OF
the battle He had mot over 1,1lO men,
because he says so, ana neither nor
your reviewer know more on that point
than he does. His reports OF the litn
and 22d do not conflict; are distinct ana
respectively correct. General Lee lost
1921 men in that Maryland campaign;
10000 men, but had three days after the
battle page 217. Life of General Leel
10000 men. Mcclellan on the same day
had 50, $780, notwithstanding his losses. eX-
elusive of the two divisions of Couch and
Humphreys, which reached him the day
after the battle. Mcclellan says tf'e-
port of Committee on Conduct of War
Part /, page 44N: General Rockers corps
had about $500 men present for duty on
the 18th of September, 1862, the day after
the battle of SharpsburS, but four days
after the returns of same corps snow
1850"
BY your method of reckoning the
strength of hostile armies in the civil
war" Hooker should be credited as hav-
ing this last number in the battle.
General Lees ranks, as is generally
known. were rapidly filled when he re-
turned from Maryland to Virginia, by
the addition of many bare-footed men who
were left behind on the line of march
through Virginia to Maryland; by detach-
ments left for various purposes In Vir-
GINA, and by some recruits. All had
been halted and massed near Winchester
Va. They appear on the return of Sep
tember %, 1862, hut never appeared in
the battle fought five days before, until
placed there by your statement
One word as to Gettysburg. You put
General Lees force there at 1859. plus
5000 (omitted in the return giyenl-So,5oJ.
From the official returns. now in the War
Department, General Lees army on the
3lst Of May. 1869, numbered Gs,3j2. This
Is the nearest return before the battle,
and was Immediately before the Penn
sylvania invasion. The next return, on
July 20, 1863, after Lee came back to
Virginia gave as his effective total, 1900.
AS history should be correctly written,
I shall be very glad TO have anything l
may write criticised, and If | am wrong
will readily acknowledge IT; bat in the
question now at issue cannot make such
admission.
General Lee often said TO me after the
war that at would be difficult 10 con-
vince the world of the odds against US"
and ne was right.
Very truly yours.
FlTZlItTGH LEE