The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-14
DR.. Humphreys VS.. His Critics
in re Battle of New Market.

RI .hnse who have criticised my history
of 10 New Market battle had given
proper care to the reading of that MS
) tory they would have saved themselves
and others from some trouble for 1t mas
in II the corrective of all the errors into
which they have fallen.
l. It is @ history, and not a mere mem
DRY story, No class of men knows petter
than the old soldiers themselves the utter
Iinreliability of nero memory. Forty
years change the real into fiction IN
memorys page ms thoroughly as mod
ern cartoon changes the appearance OF
Its subject. While preparing my history
I corrected my own memory frequently.
and used that OF others, as well MS all
available documentary evidence. was
writing history, and spent severai years
in making 1t up. gathering Information
from every source.
2. My critics have drawn upon their
own memories alone for their story. This
is their condemnation. Not one of them
has produced single document against
me! If they have examined the sources
o! historical information, they have found
out that INhave been there before them
and that my history was based upon
them. Hence, recourse to memory.
8. These critics fatty contradict the
documentary records of the case. Mr.
Wolfe, for example, fatty contradicts
both the official report of Colonel George
d. Wells. of the enemy. and that of
Colonel George NJ. Edgar, of our SIDE
These both tell the truth when they say
that the front line gave way before the
whitening fire of the enemy, and leave
no room for doubt that IT was the sup
porting line that dashed upon and routed
the enemy's line of battle, and captured
the artillery-two guns. These reports
were submitted at the time. and are off,
ciaI. 1t is folly to deny them.
A. AS to General G. C. Wharton, re-
GREETED as much as any man that he
wrote that unfortunate paper for tho
stanton yindicator. / am not respon-
sible for Its contents. No man will deny
that had the Twenty-sixth and Fifty
first changed front TO right and charged
down the enemy's line instantly after
clearing their front, our casualty list
would have been much less and the enc
my's much greater. and the victory a
veritable Waterloo for the enemy. In
stead, we We're lying idle while our COM
rades were being shot down in their
fierce battle. This Is Misrepresentation
history, 1 am sorry to say. Responsibility
Is not far to seek.
8. II any man has any documentary EVIL
dence bearing upon the battle, I am
deeply anxious that he should put 1t on
record. or allow me to see 1t. I have
no desire to do injustice to a child-cer-
tainly none to Confederate soldier. 1t
was my love of truth and righteousness
that sent me into the Southern army. and
certainly age. experience and suffering
have not diminished 1t.
g. Since writing my history have re-
ceived some information that would have
been useful when writing, but Is not
such as TO change the substance OF the
narrative. and therefore will not be used.
at least for the present.
Z. Finally, ] am not colonel-only an
humble minister of the gospel in the Pres
bytertan Church.
G. w. HUMPHREYS.
P. S.-Lieutenant Carter Berkeley stated
in the Stanton yindicator that the Sixty
second Regiment lost two hundred and
forty-fve men out of five hundred and
fifty at the battle of Newmarket. That
is more than double the loss of the Fifty
first. as reported by Mr.. Wolfe.
l am more than gratihed to know that
no one has presented a single item OF
authentic disproof of any statement l
made. When It comes to mere recollec-
lions versus ceports and other documen-
tary evidences. readers must mako their
choice, j take the reports always. with
out hesitation. G. w. H.
Jackson, Ca