The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1899-10-18


my fought mainly on the defensive in a
naturally strong, well-defended posi-
ton, from which the Army of North
ern Virginia throughout two days at
tempted to dislodge it. To be sure.
this was pot the case on the first day,
when the battle was in the open, yet
on this day the Confederates, at first
badly handled. SUI red more heavily
than their enemy. Therefore, aside
from all other considerations, in view
OF these undisputed facts, no one of
intelligence now doubts that the Con-
federate losses were very much greater
than the totals shown by the official
summaries quoted above. Very few
doubt that they really exceeded the
Federal losses by at least 5000 men.
On the first and second days the loss
es were not very different; on the third
day the Confederate losses were at least
$500 in excess of the Federal. On
the retreat Lee also made some heavy
losses.
More than ten years ago, before the
Gettysburg volumes Of the official war
records were issued, Major E. G.
Dawes, of Cincinnati, had published in
the Century Magazine a luminous re.
sumo of the Confederate strength and
losses at Gettysburg, showing almost
conc'csively that Lee had not less than
$4,000 men on the field, and that his
losses were not less than 26,000in the
campaign. Col. Livermore, of Bos-
ton, another able commentator on the
Civil War, has made it clear that the
Confederate losses were not less than
$4,000. Mr.. J. w. Kirkley, of the
war records Office, with all the records
now extant at his command, has
concluded that the aggregate exceeded
27, 900.
have made a careful study Of the
question. examining reports and cor
respondence, and other official and
unofficial data relating to Gettysburg,
collating and comparing the results
obtained by others with my own data,
accumulated during several years
membership Of the war records publ
cation board. By this painstaking
I can definitely assert that the
Confederate records themselves con-
tain the absolute proof that the Con-
federate army numbered at Gettys-
burg fully $4,000 men of all arms, and
that its losses exceeded $1,000 men
killed, wounded and missing. It is
easy for experts who understand the
hidden meaning uf military correspon-
dence and returns Of strength and
losses to deduce negatively that Lee
must have lost first and last in the
Pennsylvania campaign more than
30. 900 men.
Notwithstanding the irreconciliable
discrepancies above noted in the off,
cial summaries as we'll as the INSULT
cient data upon which they are based,
ms ny Confederate writer's and orators
still cling to this aggregate Of 26,451
as the total of Confederate losses with
a pertinacity somewhat surprising.
This insistence upon an error, as now
generally conceded, is not. as many
suppose, wholly matter of sentiment
and sectional pride with them, as in
dicating that their soldiers were the
more destructive fighters They are
compelled to stick to these figures and
shut their eyes to their real losses,
some 1000 greater certainly cs we now,
know: or inevitably confess that
Lees army at Gettysburg was indeed
much stronger than Southern histo-
rians allege.
The Union reports of los as cover
every sort aud grade Of casualty, the
slightly wounded, as well as tie Sc
riously and mortally wounded men.
Such was not the case in the Confed-
crate service. The slightly wounded
in battle were carefully excluded from
SUCH repOfCS, lot the reasons set out
in the following formal order of Gen.
Lee himself, which is significant of
the general Confederate system of con-
cealmsnt of their strength in the field.
and losses in battle, perhaps for wise
and adequate purpose, because it un-
doubtedly misled the Union command
ers during the war, and it has been
stumbling block to historians ever
since:
Headquarters Army of Northern vir-
ginia,
May IA, 1868.
General Orders, No. 63.-The prac-
tice which prevails in the army of in
/ nlud;nrr In tho l;st of aaruaI4;aa 4Lana