The National tribune., 1902-01-30
A CONFEDERATE'S VIEWS.
Blames Hooker for Disaster at ChancellorB-
VILE and SedEwiek.s s Defeat.

EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: | nota
an article in The National Tribune OF
Dec. 26, 1901, by Charles Porter, Grim
nell, Iowa, in which he would eNculpate
Gen. Sedgwick from the responsibility
for the defeat of Hooker at ChauCellOrS-
vile, Va, May, 1868
/ am an eX-Confedcratc soldier. and
participated in both the attack on Hooker
at Charlottesville and on Sedgwick at
Salem Church. The Confederate army
was to blame for the defeat of Hooker
at Chancellorsville, or, rather, Jackson, OF
the Confederate army, was, and Hooker
was to blame for being ut ChancelloTs-
Vile TO be defeated.
When Hooker crossed the river, he
started to move direct on Fredericksburg,
and at the start had only Anderson's Di-
vision to oppose him. Anderson fell back
until my division (McLaw'Sj arrived to
his support. when Hooker took the back
track for Charlottesville This act at
once placed him at q disadvantages, and
also put him in position which con-
cealed from his observation the smOye-
mcnts of our inferior force, and in addi-
ton gave us all the roads but the ona
through the Wilderness. Thus we could
| conceal Our numbers and our movement,
and had the roads to move on.
/ When Hooker took up his position at
| Charlottesville it was proof that he in
| tended to await our attack in Il place
where he could move or change front only
under great difficulty and uncertainty,
while we had the whole State of Virginia
/ TO manuver in; and with all Tie roads
in our possession, we could move without
any difficulty or uncertainty. Sedgwick
was in the cooped-up position also; but as
| Sedgwick was in Il position assigned him
| by Hooker, Hooker was responsible for
Sedgwick's movements.
Hooker had less men opposed to him,
relatively, than Scdgwick had, and II
seems to me that it was rather Hooker's
/ duty to brush away the Confederate army
and go to Sedgwick than for Sedgwick
to brush away the Confederate army and
go to Hooker
| When we learned that Sedgwick was
pushing back Wilcox upon the rear of
McLaw's Division, we charged HOoker's
! lines in our front, and drove them back
| into the woods between Charlottesville
and the river. As soon as we got Hook
er's army out of the clearing around the
inn our division went Immediately to the
assistance of Wilcox and came up with
him posted at Salem Church; and when
Sedgwick attacked he was. no doubt, sur
prised to encounter the force which he
met. He found Wilcox reinforced, and
| could not but imagine it strange, to say
the least.
! Wilcox was reinforced 10y three bri-
gades of McLaw's Division. namely,
Semm's and WOfford's (GeorgianS), and
Kirshaw's (South Carolinia). We had a
desperate and closeup fight. but repulsed
Sedgwick As soon as we established
connection with Early's Division We
moved on Sedgwick, and he was forced to
cross the river The forces opposed to
Sedgwick at this time We're about 10000
men, and those left to front Hooker num-
bered about 10000. We estimated Sedg-
wick's force at $4,000 and Hooker's at
100000.
1t is plain to see that Hooker was de-
feated by himself and a little assistance
he got from the JOhnnies.-W. \. JOHN-
SON, % s. G.. Atlanta, Ga.