repulsed, another took its place and pressed forward as if determined, by force of numbers and fury of assault; to drive us from our positions.
So impetuous and well-sustained were these onsets as to induce me to send to the Commanding General for reinforcements; but the timely and gallant advance of General Longstreet, on the right, relieved my troops from the pressure of overwhelming numbers and gave to those brave men the chances of a more equal conflict.
As Longstreet pressed upon the right, the Federal advance was checked, and soon a general advance of my whole line was ordered.
Eagerly and fiercely did each brigade press forward, exhibiting in parts of the field scenes of close encounter and murderous strife not witnessed often in the turmoil of battle.
The Federals gave way before our troops, fell back in disorder, and fled precipitately, leaving their dead and wounded on the field.
During their retreat the artillery opened with destructive power upon the fugitive masses.
The infantry followed until darkness put an end to the pursuit.
After giving his statement of the operations at Second Manassas
, to show the official relations between.
and himself, General Longstreet
gives two letters, one from Colonel Taylor
and the other from General Lee
, to show the kindly personal relations that existed between himself and General Lee
and his staff, a matter which no one will pretend to controvert, but which all will say ought to have prevented General Longstreet
's insidious efforts to undermine the military fame of one who had been so kind, so indulgent, so magnanimous to him under all circumstances.
It may be observed here, that, while General Longstreet
has given a letter from General Lee
to him, written since the war, to show their kindly personal relations, he has never yet given the full text of that letter of January, 1864, from which the brief extract before alluded to was taken, though the extract is repeated in the first article in the Times
Referring to the points made in the last-named article, General Longstreet
says in the second article:
These points I supported with the most particular proof.
Not a single one of them has been controverted.
The truth of a single fact, or the correctness of a single opinion laid down in that article, has not been disproved.
Very few of them have been questioned-none of them overthrown.
If it be true that very few of his facts and opinions have been questioned, and none of them overthrown, then why the necessity for another article to sustain them, and whence the cause of all this complaint of attacks on himself?
If he has sustained by proof a solitary fact or opinion that has been in dispute, I am not aware of it. Take, for instance, the question as to the order for the attack on.the second day of the battle.
Besides his own declaration, he has adduced the letters of four gentlemen as his proof on that question.
Three of these gentlemen know nothing of an order to attack at sunrise, or at any particular time, but one of them, in a part of his letter which was suppressed, says he was of the impression, from certain circumstances, that an order was given for an attack at as early an hour as practicable on the second; and the fourth says he knows of no order to attack at sunrise, and does not think such an order was given, for reasons which he states, and which I have shown to be entirely unsatisfactory.
This is his whole proof on the question