The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1896-07-02

Longtreet's book, "trom Manassas 10
Appomattox, by the London DatL
Telegraph with much interest. We
naturally feel anxious about the con
clusions of the impartial and unbiased
foreign student of history concerning
the events Of the war between the
States, and especially as to his esll-
mate of the leaders on the Southern
side. This review, however, appears
to me to have been suggested by some
one nearer home, and, as | read be
tween the lines, | fancy that | hear
the partizan here prompting the re-
viewer over there. Who on the other
side of the Atlantic could claim to be
SO we'll informed of public sentiment
in Virginia during the eventful years
of 1862 and 1868 as to be able to as
sert that "controversy ragged high IN
Richmond between the followers Of
Lee and Johnston as to their relative
merit" which is great exaggeratlon;
or to say that "Longstreet was distinct
ly of the opinion that General John
ston as a soldier was Gen. Lees supe-
ro1?" Where is the authority for
this latter assertion? Gen. Long
street had served under Gen. John
ston up to the battle OF Seven Pines
and after that battle Gen. Lee; he had
been in position to form his own esti-
mate of the ability of each of these
great commanders, and no doubt had
his own views Of their relative merit;
| bu, do not believe that he ever dur
| ing the war said one word to justify
the conclusion Of the London 7ele-
gyabd. Read what Gen. Longstreet
wrote to Gen. Lee on the eve of his
| departure for Tennessee in the fall Of
1868. Under date Of September 18th
| he wrote: "If did not think our
move a necessary one my regrets at
| leaving you would be distressing to
me, as it seems to be with the officers
and men Of my command. Be
lievlng it TO be necessary, hope to
accept it and my other personal in
conveniences cheerfullv and hopefully.
All that we have to be proud of has
been accomplished under your eye and
under your orders. Our affections for
you are stronger if it is possible for
them to be stronger, than our admira-
ton for YOU" Does that read as if
| Gen. LOngstreet was but a luke warm
reluctant follower of Gen. Lee? Is
there anything in the e5rnest and un-
doubtedly honest sentiments here ex-
pressed to confirm the conclusion OF
the London 7eAsyabA that it is "im
possible to read Gen. Longstreet's able
book without perc!eving that he who
knew Gen. Lee better than any other
man, who fought under him or against
him, was distinctly of the opinion that
Gen. Johnston as soldier was his su-
ptrlor?" Be it remembered, too, that
this letter from Gen. Longstreet to
Gen. Lee was written after the Gettys-
burg campaign; and the glowing words
OF admiration and affection employed
in giving expression to the recogni-
ton of the fact that all the glory OF
his command was directly due to the
ability of his commander, are utterly
lrreconcilable with many statements
alleged to have been made by Gen.
LOngstreet touching the invasion oi
Pennsylvania by Gen. Lee in 1863
Gen Longstreet could not claim tc
have entertained the views and senti.
ments now attributed to him when he
penned the letter Of September 18th
1868, without branding himself as a
dlslngenlous hatterer and time-server
When he discussed with Gen. Lee the
line of action most advisable to be
pursued IN the fall of 1868, although
rather more disposed to favor the rein
forcement of our army in the West fol
aggressive movements, while the Ara ,
of Northern Virginia should take the
defensive, nevertheless he went So fa
as to suggest another invasion by Gen
Lee of the enemy's country. In {
letter to Gen Lee under date of Sep
TENDER, 1862, he wrote: 81 do no
know that we can reasonably hope t
accomplish much here by offensive op
erallons unless you are strong enough
to cross the Potomac" With such de
clded views as he is said to entertain
now concerning the Gettysburg cam
palgn 1t is impossible to understand
the suggestion made SO soon there
after as to a repetition of the invasion
of the country beyond the Potomac.
In speaking of Gen. Longstreet'
operations about Knoxville, in No
vember, 1868, the London 2eIegyabl
refers to the mistake then made b,
him, when "from misconception hi
stopped the assaulting column, which
he now knows would infallibly have
carried Knoxville by Storm Clearl,
the reviewer here charges Gen. Long
street, by implication at least, with ths
lack OF that aggressive and, perhaps
audaclous quality which he subsequent
ly condemns in Gen. Lee. The rec
ognltlon OF this lack of aggressivenes:
or Ooldness in Gen. Longstreet is, per
haps, the key to the statement of the
1eItSratA that Gen. Johnston, who
excelled IN defensive tactics, was in
the estimation of Gen Longstreet, su
perlor as a soldier to Gen. Lee, and
prepares us for that disapproval or
the part of Gen Longstreet of the ag.
gresslve tactics 50 often pursued by
Gen. Lee, which the Telegraph dis
covers in his book, and to which i,
gives expression as follows: "Yet we
think all readers of this book will adj
nit that considering the inequality o.
strength brought into the field by the
two belliserents, and of the vast supe-
rorlty of the North, Gen. Lee was far
too fond OF fighting. Many extracts
might be made from, n :, ebou ~,