The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-04-17
COL. M0SBY TO
COL. ,STRIBLING.
A fOrcefuI Reply to the latter's
Letter.
ABLE DEFENSE OF GEN. STUART,
Colonel Mosby Denies That He As
sailed the Accuracy of Gen. Lees
Reports-The Failure at Gettys-
burg Viewed and Reviewed.
ABLE DEFENSE OF GEN. STUART.
Editor Of Tne Times:

itlAN HUul : fAliil'fifhlif tAN sNs NA-e-
have at last assailed the accuracy OF Gen.
Lees report instead Of as heretofore,
striking at IL over the heads Of Marshall
and Longstrcet. Now. in my answer 20
their assaults on Stuart there was no oc-
casion for me 10 refer 10 the report as
they had not done so. | demonstrated
from General Lees contemporaneous cor
rcspondence with Ewej and Stuart that
the charge they made was untrue, and
that their account Of the evolution OF
the battle was contradicted by the record.
10 refute the argument / had made IN de-
tense Of Stuart, Col. Stribling then came
on the field as Marshalls ally. with cita-
lions from Gen. Lee report In a spirit
Of candor l admitted that they were IN
conflict with orders issued during the
campaign. Col. Striblng must think as
do: otherwise he would not have quoted
the report TO contradict the orders. II
the report agreed with tho corr e5pondence
then it would support my position ana
there would be no controversy. / can
see how there is any more impiety in my
questioning the correctness of General
Lee S report than in Col Stribling s dis
putting the correctness OF his letters. 50
far as Gen. Lees reputation is concerned
/ accounted for the discrepancy on lne
theory that Col. Marshall wro'e MS re-
ports while Gen. Lee wrote his orders.
But Col Stribling insists that he Is equal
" responsible Tor both. Ii is. therefore
col striphng who has called pubic at
tention 10 a difference which nc is unaoIe
10 explain II he couldn reconcile the
report and correspondence he would
have served the case better by silence.
From the mere fact that Gen. Lees let
ter TO Ewell. dated "Chambersburg, June
2S 1863. 1880 A. NJ" in which he tells
EUeI that he had written him last
night" that Hooker had crossed the Poio-
mac. and was moving north, and directed
him 10 move back 20 CashloWh IL tepus-
nant 10 the statement IN Cen Lee IC-
port that the spy brought the hrsl news
mat Hooker was over tine river, and that
he thought until the spy came IN on lne
night Of the 18th that Hooker was sun
In Virginia. Col Striking insists that the
date OF the letter must be wrong. rms
is equivalent 10 saying that II the date
is right the report is wrong. am equal
w willing 10 admit that IL the report IS
right the letter is wrong. 10 reDut the
r,resurnption in favor of the correctness
Of tho date Especially as Gen. Lee was
careful 70 note not only the hour but
the minute Of writing. the burden OF
proof Is on him who impeacnes H. Col
Stribling tried 20 prove by extracts from
FWelTs Rodes' and Earlys reports, that
the time when the dispatch was received
shows that IL must have been written on
the morning Of the 29th, and not the 18th.
Neither Ewell or Rodes says when the
order to return was received. Eariy doc
In support of the presumption in favor OF
the correctness of the date ] contenatn
that all the circumstanual evidence tend
ed 10 conurIn IL and was absolutely incon-
sistent with any other theory.
/ As Gen Lees last orders 20 EweH
u j
and very indefinite. it is highly improba-
HE that he would have reached Cham
bersburg on June 9th. and never write a
line TO Ewell until late At night on June
2Sth. Ewels report shows that the nrst
order he received at Carlisle was the one
from Chambersburg, directing his return.
. That as Early at York received
COPY Of the first order from EWeil on the
afternoon Of the 18th. IL cOult not nave
left Chambersburg CAS- 'ol Marsnall SAYS
and Col. Stribling contends) late az night
OF the 2Sth unless IL was carried by
flying squadron.
g. That as 1t IS clear from Ewelfs re-
port that ne had intended TO leave Car
Isle for Harrisburg early on the morning
Of the 18th. the order 10 halt could not
have arrived there tefcre he had started
if il left Chambcrsburg late on the night
of the 18th. Before Ewell could counter
march south he had to assemble his corps
that was scattered over the country for
aging. Jenkins brigade of cavalry had
been sent on toward Harrisburg.
H.
Col. Stribling says it is ineXcusabIe #
I did not read the foot-note in the war
records To the Chamborsburg lettcr-"nOt-
ed IN the letter book as copied from mem
ory"-dnd that Gen. LOngstrcet has writ
ten that the position OF the dispdtch IN
the letter book shows that II was entered
moro than month after letters u the
same date.
/. I have not asked 10 be- excused for
anything; Il shun no question and l wear
no mask.
.. Longstrect never said anything OF
the kind and Il he had IL would have
made no impression. ! nave no idea he
ever saw General Lees letter book. ln
RELY 70 a letter OF mine in The Times Of
March a. 1895, LOnestreet finding himself
COMPOUNDED 10y the production Of the
Chambersburg letter (Which he never
mentioned iu his book. suggested that
II, might have been copied by STAFF OH
Ger from memory weeks after 30 was
written. Longstreet was then IN Georgia.
the letter book in Baltimore. surely Gen.
Lee ala not have a staff officer wno Woul
be guilty OF such fraud. IL
would have been morally forgery. IT.
person who copied II could not have been
a mere clerk, but some one In confidential
relations with General Lee or General
Lee himself Ny opinion Is that IL was
sent off in haste and Immediately cop
led from memory. There might be some
verbal difference from the original; but
the circumstantial evidence all tends 10
prove that its substance. and especially
the date is correct We know that Ewell
actually did what the letter as n appears
now, directed him 10 do. Wishing to
know the exact truth ! wrote to Mr.. Jo-
seph Bryan requesting him 10 examine
General Lee letter book, which, ] under
stood, was in possession OF the Southern
Historical Society, and ascertain G, in
who's handwriting is the letter To Ewell.
o. in whose Handwriting is the foOt-note;
%, does it appear ms entered in due sue
cession TO the letters OF prior date, or do
letters OF subsequent date intervene. Mr..
Bryan informed me that Colonel Mar
shall had the letter hook. l then asked
Gen Marcus Wright, VINO Is superlntend-
ing the publication Of the war records. 10
get permission 10 inspect the letter book.
Gen Wright informed me that he made
application 10 col. Marshall, but got no
answer / wish Col. Striking had been
as careful as 1 have been to verify what
he writes.
Col Stribling refers TO my statement
that II is understood thst Col Marshall
wrote General Lees reports, but that 1
had personal knowledge OF the fact that
he wrote his confidential dispatches.
After General Stuart's death / reported