Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-02-16

Of the first day. General Early says:
General Lee then determined TO make
the attack from our right on the enemy's
left, and left us for the purpose OF order
Ing up Longstreet's Corps In time 70
begin the attack al dawn the next morn
Ing. That corps was rot in readiness to
make the attack until o'clock In the
afternoon Of the next day. By that time
Meade's whole army had arrived on the
field. and taken Its position. Had the at
tack been made at daylight, as contem-
plated, II must have resulted In Driillant
and decisive victory. as all OF Meades
army had not then arrived, and very
small portion OF II was In position. a
considerable portion Of his army did not
get up until after sunrise, one corps not
arriving until o'clock In the afternoon.
and prompt advance to the attack must
have resulted In his defeat in detail The
position which Longstreet attacked at
was not occupied by the enemy until late
in the afternoon. and Round Top HILL
which commanded the enemy's position.
could have been taken In the morning
without a struggle"
Speaking OF the fight the next day, OF
the impossibility Of General Lees doing
"the actual marching and fighting OF ms
army" and the necessity of the prompt
and cheerful execution of his orders by
his subordinates, General Early said: III
Mr.. Swinton has told the truth In repeat
ing In his book what Is alleged to have
been said to him by General Longstreet
there was at least one of General Lees
corps commanders at Gettysburg VINO
did not enter upon the execution OF his
plans with that confidence and faith ne
cessary to success, and hence, perhaps,
1t was that II was not achieved
These were all Of General Early's criti-
NJ nd
obvious that, under the provocation OF
General Longstreet's previously published
criticisms of General Lee. they were
very mild for General Early.
GENERAL PENDLETON'S SPEECH.
The next year-January 10, ls93-Gen-
eral ". N. Pendleton, General Lees chief
of artillery and his beloved friend and
pastor during his residence In Lexington.
made the anniversary address, In which
he made the statement about General
Lees orders for the early attack which
you have published, and In which, while
pointing out his hardness and Its
result, he spoke Of General Longstreet
In very complimentary terms as a brave
and sturdy soldier.
This address General Pendleton repeated
at a number Of points in the South, and
then published in the Southern Maya
General Longstreet next published In
the New Orleans Republican Of Febru-
AIRY nth, 1876, very bitter attack on
General Fitz Lee (whose offence was that
he had respectfully asked him to publish
the whole of letter from General r.
e. Lee. from which he had published
single sentence), General Pendieton. and
General Early. but was especially bitter
against General Early.
OF course "Old Jubap replied, there
were several papers from each, and Gen.
eral Early used him up so badly that
General Lohgstreets warmest friends
very much regretted that he had gone
into the papers.
THE NEXT PHASE.
The next phase OF the controversy was
the publication Of General Longstreet's
paper In the Philadelphia Times of No
vember 3. 1877. ve-y full account Of
the campaign and battle of Gettysburg,
In which he criticised General Lee more
severely than ever, and undertakes to
show nine distinct mistakes which Lee
made, and he Q-ongstreeD saw, pointed
out, and demonstrated with Lee against
Al the time. This called forth the
scathing rejoinder of General Dick Tay-
lor, that any subject involving the pos
session and exercise OF intellect should
be clear to Longstreet and concealed
from Lee is O startling proposition to
those possessing knowledge Of the two
men. We have biblical authority for the |
story that the angel In the path was
visible TO the ass. though invisible to |
the seer, his master. But suppose that
instead Of shifting the honest, stupid |
animal Balaam had caressed him, and |
then been kicked by him, how would
the story read?"
Especial indignation was excited against
General Longstreet because In a letter
to the editor of the Philadelphia Times,
accompanying this paper. he charged that
General Lee had altered his original off,
cial report, written under the generous
spirit in which he had assumed all the |
blame OF the defeat at Gettysburg. and |
had afterwards written q detailed and |
somewhat critical account of the bat |
tie" from which Longstreets critics had |
gotten all of their points against him. |
In other words, he charged General Lee |
with altering his original report In order |
to injure him.
the Southern Historical Society, received |
a letter from the Count of Paris, pro- |
a series OF questions as to |
1.-THE causes OF Lees defeat at Get |
tysburg." and asking that / secure re- |
plies from leading Confederate officers, |
who were in position to know / sent |
copies Of this letter to prominent men |
In every corps. division. and arm OF the
service. with a personal letter request
ing reply. The result was a series |
Of papers on Gettysburg from such men
as Generals j. A. Early. A. l.. Long,
Fra Lee. z. p. Alexander. Cadmus VIII
cox, ]. u. Hood. II Heth. L. McLaws.
r. L. Walker. James II. Lane, and II.
ID. Fry. Colonies Walter Fl. Taylor, Will
liam Allen. ]. B. Walton, j. r. Win
ston. and w. c. Oates, Major Scheibert.
Of the Prussian Engineer Corps. Cap
tain r. II. McKim. and the Count OF
me a paper. as ! requested him to do.
but published q second paper, In the
Times. in which he under
took to reply to his critics, who had
handled his first article pretty roughly.
II Is clear that I was. according TO
he rule among editors, under not the 4
slightest obligation to copy his papers
rom the Times. and yet / was so anxious
% do him the fullest justice. and to have
,ur Gettysburg series as complete as
possible. that / republished both Of his
articles. also published all of the Con-
ederate off1clal reports of Gettysburg
hat / could procure. including Gen.
raj Longstreet's report. which had never
before been In print, and which he con-
rsdicte1 i've times In his papers in the
Times.
This series Of papers excited wide in
crest among northern and European
military critics. as well AZ among our
'wn people.
As ] did not. personally. write either
4 the papers, but published all thar
cached me without note or comment
I my own. may say that most Of them
m "a |
'alue, showing deep research and a
borough knowledge Of the subject, and
hat the series (Which may be found
n Volumes w.. ". and VI. OF Southern
Society Papers). thoroughly
Established these points: