previous next
[252] connected “with himself and his command,” he should make erroneous and unreasonable statements — such statements as the truth of history, and justice to participating commands, renders it necessary to be corrected and exposed.

In my previous article, therefore, I cannot mislead the readers of the Historical Society Papers (as suggested by General Longstreet), for I make a direct issue with him as to the correctness of his statements. I show that he not only did great injustice to General Jackson, but to a gallant artillery battalion immediately to his left and between himself and the assaulting enemy; that it was preposterous for his two batteries, only engaged a short time and under less favorable circumstances, to have done the magical work claimed for them.

To any unprejudiced reader, in the quotations given in my former article from General Longstreet's pen, he clearly lays claim to the entire credit of the victory at second Manassas, to the detriment of General R. E. Lee, Jackson or any command on the field.

The Gettysburg article and his official report are not the only two instances on record where he makes the claim of routing the Federals with his artillery. In a letter in the Atlantic Monthly of September to General F. J. Lippett, of the Federal army, dated July 30th, 1870, is the following: “His forces massed against Jackson, you will readily perceive that a slight advance of my batteries gave me an enfilade fire upon his masses that no troops could live under, and this with but little exposure to me. Of course I seized the opportunity--my batteries broke the masses in about five minutes, that appeared about a moment before as formidable and resistless as an avalanche. My command being fully prepared for the emergency, was sprung to the charge as the Federal masses melted away.” Here the claim is again made. Had Colonel Lee's artillery and Jackson's infantry only been included, the above is substantially correct, except as to the five minutes, which conflicts with his Gettysburg article and his official report also.

Colonel Lee's battalion, however, from Longstreet's account, is supposed to have remained idle and not fired a gun during the battle in the evening. It was a battalion of reserve artillery, not attached permanently to Longstreet's corps. Could this have had anything to do with the matter? Would the same omission have occurred had Colonel Walton kept Longstreet's artillery in the same position it occupied on the 29th?

The fact is, General Longstreet has made a great mistake in his

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Places (automatically extracted)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Sort places alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a place to search for it in this document.
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (2)
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) (1)

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
James Longstreet (6)
Stonewall Jackson (3)
R. E. Lee (2)
J. B. Walton (1)
F. J. Lippett (1)
Robert E. Lee (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
July 30th, 1870 AD (1)
September (1)
29th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: