The Savannah morning news., 1902-02-09
THE CENSOR CRITICISED.

Editor Of the Morning News: Your
Sunday. correspondent, Maj. Sidney
Herbert, has developed the criticising
and censoring faculty to a keen de-
gree in matters pertaining to West
Point and historical incidents of the
''late unpleasantness. In the issue of
the Morning News of Sunday, Jan. 19,
he calls down Col. Mcclure in his Ran
dom Recollections Of Half Century" in
his article on Gen. r. f. Lee, charging
several errors to the article and ridi-
culing 1.-The solitary horseman," as Col.
Mcclure calls "Col." r. e. Lee. Maj.
Herbert says of the great Virginian,
During his entire connection with the
United States army he never served on
Gen. Scott's staff Capt Lee
was chief engineer of the forces un-
der Gen. John E. Wool"
In your issue of Feb. g alluding to
the above, Maj Herbert writes: II am
surprised that any old soldier from the
army of Northern Virginia should call
in question the veracity of Gen. Robert
e. Lee. And yet, this is done by one
whom / esteem too highly to give his
name, but who writes me as follows:
You criticise Col McClure's article OF
Gen. Lee and deny that he was on Gen.
Scott's staff. F'itz Lee, in his interest
ing and authentic life of the great Vir-
ginian, on page SO, most surely and
plainly says he was on Gen. Scotts
staff Now, a reference to my criti-
cism in Sundays Morning News, Jan.
19, will show that I backed up my
statement with an extract from let
ter written to me by Gen. Robert E.
Lee himself, in which he says: I never
belonged to the military family of Gen.
6fc
cept when in Mexico, when I was at
tached TO the general staff of the
army"
Any of your readers that care to
peruse Maj. Herberts article can read
lily understand Gen. Lees letter was
intended to emphasize a denial of his
being of the military household of Gen.
Scott just prior to the Civil War, and
which Harper persistently affirmed. A
careful perusal of the excerpt from
Gen. Lees letter which Maj. Herbert
asserts as proof positive of his state
ment first made, that Gen. Lee never
served on Gen. Scotts staff" does not
validate Maj. Herbert's assertion for
the very sentence he uses as his back
ing plainly says except in Mexico"
The fact that Gen. r. f. Lee had
been assigned to the general staff of
the army in no way initiates against
the statement of Gen. Fitz Lee. There
is no violation of facts in serving in
the general staff of the army and be-
ing assigned as staff officer to the
military household of the general COM
manding. and Gen. r. L. Lees own
words, except in Mexico" confirm
Fitz Lees narrative.
l think any fairly intelligent reader
will find no difficulty in reconciling
Fitz Lees statement with the word
ing of his uncle's letter. as upon that
sentence, except in Mexico" hinges
the whole question.
For the benefit OF Maj Herbert and
your readers / will quote the para
graph from Fitz Lees Life of Gen. r.
+. Lee"
Engineers are as necessary to an
army as sails to a ship; they locate
lines Of battle, select positions for ar
tillery, make reconnoissances. and upon
their reports, the movements of the
army are based. They draw topograph-
ical maps, construct roads and bridges
and guide troops to positions they had
previously reconnoitered. Scott soon
drew to him from this branch Of the
service, Totten, Foster, J. l.. Smith, r.
e. Lee, Beauregard, Mcclellan. Tower,
Stevens, G. w. Smith and others, and
at once placed Capt. Lee upon his per-
sonal staff This officer when Scott
was assembling the army at Tampico,
for the purpose Of investing and cap
turing Vera Cruz, was with Gen. Wool,
who had been assigned the duty Of in
vading Mexico from the north, while
Taylor advanced from Matamoras, and
Kearny from New Mexico"
I am willing 10 submit TO the readers
Of the Morning News that Fitz Lee IL
correct and place Gen. r.. II. Lees let
ter to Maj. Herbert as substantial evil
dence as proof that our great conn
mander did serve on Gen. Scott's stan
as qualified by the expression, except
in Mexico" q. n. Saussy.