Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 9.
Reverend J. William Jones, Ed.

“ [51] ‘Tell General Johnston the head of that column has not made its appearance. I have sent to the rear for information, and as soon as I learn the cause of its detention he shall be informed.’

Ten, eleven, half-past 11 o'clock came, and General Johnston began to show signs of impatience. I was again sent back to know of Bragg

” why the column on his left was not yet in position. “I received identically the same answer he had given earlier in the morning. At last half-past 12 o'clock came and no appearance of the missing column, and no report from Bragg. He (General Johnston, with staff officers) and myself rode to the rear until we found the missing column standing stock still, with its head some distance out in an open field. General Polk's reserves were ahead of it, with their wagons and artillery blocking up the road. General Johnston ordered them to clear the road, and the missing column to move forward.”

In “an open letter to Colonel William Preston Johnston,” of August 28, 1878, I note, comparing this declaration with the antecedent clause in the text, page 562, viz.: “Ruggles's division did not come up promptly and Polk's corps was held motionless by its delay.” “We find that there is an error involved; which horn of the dilemma will you take” ?

Munford continues: “There was much chaffering among those implicated as to who should bear the blame.” “It does not appear that I was or could have been present at that time.”

“ It was charged on General Polk, but the plucky old bishop unhorsed his accusers on the spot.”

“If General Bragg was present I have no doubt that he vindicated the conduct of my division.”

“I believe,” continues Munford, “their commander, General Ruggles, was finally blamed,” page 564. “There was sharp controversy then, and afterwards, as to where the fault lay.”

In my open letter of “August 28, 1878,” I continue: “It is somewhat remarkable that to-day, for the first time, I meet with this statement, and as I had not an opportunity then to rebuke the authors of it, I now resent it, with a deep sense of the wrong.”

“ Had I been present it is possible that, as I was not ‘unhorsed’ myself, I could have ‘broken a lance’ with ‘the plucky old bishop’ had he presumed to reflect blame upon me.”

I then, in continuation, said: “Do you assume that I was a party to this ‘sharp controversy’ in person ‘then’ or ‘afterwards,’ or was ”