Appendix to vol. II.
Note a, page 71.SINCE the foregoing pages were printed we have received additional information which compels us to correct a statement relative to General Keyes. He did not arrive on the field of battle at Fair Oaks with Peck's brigade, as we had believed. He was on the ground almost from the commencement of the battle, and some time before the moment when he directed this brigade what position it should take.
Note B, page 148.
Reports of the Federal and Confederate armies, to explain the first book.
The exact strength of this army has never been officially stated, but it is easy to form a calculation. It comprised thirty-seven active brigades, averaging five regiments each. Allowing only four hundred and fifty men to every regiment—that is to say, less than one half of the normal force—we get at the figure of two thousand two hundred and fifty men as the strength of each brigade, making the total number of Confederate infantry eighty-three thousand two hundred and fifty men. The nine regiments of Stuart's cavalry could not count  less than four thousand five hundred sabres, nor Pendleton's reserve less than one thousand five hundred artillerists, while the various staffs, escorts and detachments mustered between four and five thousand, making a total of about ninety-four thousand men. We also obtain this figure through another calculation. In the month of July, a few days after the battles of Gaines' Mill, Glendale and Malvern, the army reports exhibited a total of sixty-nine thousand five hundred and fiftyfour men present in the field. By adding the twenty thousand lost in killed, wounded and prisoners in those battles to the first figure, and five thousand crippled or sick incapacitated for active service after a week of forced marches, we still find the figure of ninety-four thousand men as the actual effective force of the Confederate army on the 26th of June. According to detailed accounts, the following are the losses of this army by divisions from the 26th of June to the 1st of July: Longstreet, 4429; A. P. Hill, 3870; Ewell, 987; Whiting, 1081; D. H. Hill, 3955; Magruder, about 1000; Jones, 832; McLaws, 300; Huger, 1612; Artillery, 44. Total, 18,961, of which number the prisoners amounted to scarcely 900. The losses of Stuart's and Jackson's divisions are not given in this estimate. As the latter had been very much engaged, the aggregate amount of these losses may be estimated at 20,000 men.
Note C, page 251.
Reports of the Federal and Confederate armies, to explain the third book.
Note D, page 293.It is impossible for us to enter into the details of the discussions to which General Porter's conduct on the 29th of August, 1862, gave  rise; but the impartiality which it is our earnest desire to preserve in commenting upon the events of that day, compels us to say a few words on the subject of the accusations directed against that officer We shall pass over in silence the charges of incapacity, cowardice and treason. These are belied by Porter's whole career, who, both as a soldier and a chieftain, had been tried on more than one battle-field, and whose devotion to the cause he served cannot be called into question. We shall only speak of those which rest upon facts or definite specifications. After his defeat, General Pope censured his lieutenant for not having prevented the junction of Jackson and Longstreet, by placing himself between them on the Gainesville and Groveton road. He asserted that this manoeuvre was practicable, and that it would have assured the defeat of the Confederates. It was in consequence of this accusation that Porter was tried and condemned. At a later period, when the facts became more fully known, and the official reports of the Confederate generals were given to the public, it was shown that the junction of the two Confederate corps was effected long before Porter could have reached the point which had been indicated to him. From that moment the principal charges brought against him by the publication of General Pope have been modified and restricted. Pope has blamed him for not having left the Gainesville road, which had been designated to him in his first instructions, to move to the right in the direction of Groveton, and attack the extremity of Longstreet's line; and the junction of the latter with Jackson, conceded to have been accomplished at the outset of the battle, is no longer in question. Thus far the censure is well founded, although it must be acknowledged that, in order to execute such a movement, Porter would have been obliged to change the direction he had been ordered to follow in his formal instructions. It is evident that Porter, when he found himself unable to follow this direction, instead of remaining inactive, should have endeavored to find the enemy, and, notwithstanding the fatigue of his troops, should not have waited for new instructions to take part in the battle, the sound of which reached him on his right. But this kind of censure might have been applied with equal force to many of the generals of both parties during the war, without subjecting them to any other penalty beyond the blame of their chiefs; and the contradictory orders that Pope's lieutenants had been receiving for some days may, to a certain extent, plead in excuse of Porter's fatal hesitation. General Pope has weakened the effect of this second charge by his immoderate course, and by presenting the facts in a  light which does not bear investigation. On the one hand, he asserts that he ordered Porter to attack the enemy's right, and assumes that he wilfully disobeyed him in not fulfilling his instructions. Now, this order, as we have already stated, was only despatched at half-past 4 o'clock, and Porter declared that he did not receive it until the moment when night rendered its execution impossible. The movements of the several corps had been so frequently countermanded, that the officers of the general staff were unable to ascertain the exact position of each, so that the delay in the transmission of that order is not to be wondered at. On the other hand, Pope, in his anxiety to prove that Porter's inaction had permitted the enemy to concentrate all his forces upon that portion of his line which was defended by Jackson, quotes the official report of the latter. But he has made a mistake in the dates, as we have ascertained by examining a collection of Confederate reports on the campaigns of Virginia, published in Richmond in 1864 (vol. II., p. 96); the quotation he produces has reference to the 30th of August, and not the 29th. This explanation will suffice to show how important it is to be circumspect in examining the various documents that have been published on both sides if one wishes to arrive at the exact truth.
Note E, page 367.The part played by Burnside at the battle of Antietam has been the subject of a long and heated discussion in the North. General Mc-Clellan in his excellent report has severely, but without bitterness criticised the insufficiency of his lieutenant's attack upon the right wing of the Confederates in the early part of the day. He particularly censures him for having kept his army corps inactive, which might have been employed elsewhere if the passage of the river had been found impracticable. Mr. Swinton goes still farther, and accuses Burnside of having through his inaction prevented McClellan from driving the enemy's army into the Potomac. The biographer of Burnside, Mr. Woodbury, has replied to these accusations with great warmth, blaming McClellan, on the other hand, for not having ordered Porter to make the same effort that he had exacted from the Ninth corps. He seeks to justify Burnside for not having crossed the Antietam before two o'clock by showing the heavy losses experienced by his corps. This explanation is not satisfactory for two reasons; in the first place, because the greater part of these losses were sustained after  the passage, in the battle fought on the other side of the river with A. P. Hill's troops—a battle which would not have taken place if the passage had been effected a few hours sooner—and also because the successive attacks, made with insufficient forces, cost a larger sacrifice of life than would have been incurred in a single general attack made at the outset. It will presently be seen that Burnside, having become general-in-chief, did not have the same scruples in hurling his divisions against the formidable position of Marye's Hill. Finally, Mr. Woodbury states that Lee would not have committed the fault of stripping his right in the presence of the whole of the Ninth corps. This assertion is contradicted by the report of the Confederate general himself, who says that he had left the defence of the approaches to the bridge of the Rohrersville road to Toombs' brigade alone.
Note F, page 582.Several writers who have sought to throw the responsibility of the defeat upon Franklin have stated that he was ordered to make a general attack upon the enemy's right, and that the attack on Marye's Hill was not to take place until after the success of this decisive movement. An examination of the documents written at the very time of the action completely disproves this assertion. We give below the entire text of Burnside's order to Franklin. The reader will judge for himself:
The despatches hourly sent by General Hardie, who was with Franklin, to Burnside's headquarters, show, moreover, that the latter, being informed of the dispositions made by the commander of the left wing, had no fault to find, and that he gave the signal of attack to Sumner at a moment when he was well aware that this wing was not yet seriously engaged. This plan differed entirely from that which had been discussed for the last two days. In consequence of this change and the new attack to be made upon Marye's Hill, Franklin had no alternative but to strictly obey the text of the instructions he had received. His corps commanders were of the same opinion. Burnside, not having yet been tried as their commander-in-chief, had no right to expect more from his lieutenants than the literal execution of his orders; and when these orders were vague or contradictory, those who received them could not supply the deficiency by that initiative action which a subordinate will often venture upon, when sure that he has divined the intention of his chief; and that such conduct will meet with approval. Hence the uncertainty and timidity which naturally characterized the movements of the Federal army, and caused it to lose half its valor, without detracting from the bravery of the soldiers or the capacity of the generals.