The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1915-12-24
A STRONG DEFENSE
OF GEN. LONGSTREE1

Col. O. G. Thompson, in Laurensgille
Herold.
Dear Herald:
1t was with no purpose to keep, or
begin anew, an agitation over those
old charges, started up long after the
close OF our great war, about Long
streets having blundered at Gettys-
burg that l wrote the article that ap-
pears in the October number of the
| Confederate Veteran. l have neither
the time nor inclination for tnat sort
Of thing now. But, as Bill Arp was
wont to say, '1They won't hush"
Please publish what DR.. Douthat, an
officer of Pickett's division, says, and
also Corporal Smiths car5-a witness
for each side. OF those who survive,
OF both sides, most if not quite all
would give similar testimony. 1t aas
been left to those who never had any
experience at the front to keep up
this misleading peryersion of history.
These things are of interest to all sur
viYors, especially to those of Long
streets corps, and to a great many Of
the younger generation.
Dr. Douthat is an acknowledged his
torical authority on Gettysburg, as ne
was in the battle and has thoroughly
studied it.
Following is my article which ap-
peared in the recent issue of the Con-
federate Veteran:
A review of the article by w H.
Thompson in the June number of the
Veteran prompts me to make this de-
fense of my old commander. l give
Mr.. Thompson due credit for his laud
atoTy description of Longstreet, as
loyal, stubborn fighter. This COM
mendation is in happy contrast to the
mass of embittered literature in which
Longstreet's critics have dealt with
the subject, "Who Lost Gettysburg?"
There is, however, a vein running
through the article that is suggestive
of "damning with faint praise"
Now, as to Gettysburg, shall men-
ton several facts which ought to con-
vince not only those who had eXpe-
rience at the front, but the younger
generation also, that their existence
would have been utterly inconsistent
with the theory of Longstreet's being
responsible, or in any manner at fault,
for the failure at Gettysburg.
First, Longstreet was second in COM
mand of the grand Army of Northern
Virginia, leading the first great corps.
If for any cause Lee had been dis
abled, Longstreet would hare been in
command of tn army; certainly tenn
porarily. WHAT becomes Of Our exalted
estimate Of the peerless Lee and Of the
! Confederate authorities who would re-
tain in command an. officer of hign
rank after such a blunder or insu-
/ bordination (some say treason) as
Longstreet is charged with at Gettys-
| burg?
Secondly, if Longstreet had been
guilty, as his critics charge, why was
there not some criticism at the time,
some court of inquiry, suspension from
command or court-martial?
Thirdly, does not every survivor who
had experience at the front know that
had Longstreet been guilty of the half
that has been charged the rank and file
would have heard and known of it?
Was there ever during the war an Off
! Ger of rank guilty of a great blunder
or detection in any of our battles but
every private knew of it? Who Of the
First corps OF any other corps ever
heard of these baseless charges until
after General Lees death?
Fourthly, let's see now what fol-
lowed this allaged blunder or defec-
ton. just sixty days from Gettys-
burg, Longstreet, the ''old war horse"
of Lee, was leading as fine a body OF
troops as ever organized for battle
the division of Hood and McLaWs-
to Chickamauga's bloody field, there to
command the left wing of the army in
the only great victory won in the
West. Following Chickamauga, he was
rendered the command of the Army of
Tennessee, which, for well-known rea-
sons, ne declined.
Mr.. Thompson says he was slow at
Chickamauga and Knoxville. l was
with my command at both. Who of the
old corpse ever heard of his being
slow at either place? He also says
T ongstreet was ordered to reach the