[
318]
Appendix G
Newspaper article, attack on General Meade, mentioned in letter of December 28, 1863.
see page 164, Vol.
II
(
Wilkes' Spirit of the Times, December 26, 1863)
(From the Washington
Republican)
Battle of Gettysburg—honor to whom honor is due
General Halleck, in his report of the operations of our armies in the field during the past year, in commenting upon the
Battle of Gettysburg, says: ‘To
General Meade belonged the honor of a well-earned victory, in one of the greatest and best fought battles of the war.’
As a public journalist, we cannot allow such a record to be made in the face of the well-known history of the
battle of Gettysburg, now made classic by the eloquence of
Everett, and in view of the important part the gallant
Hooker and his chief of staff performed preliminary to, and during the battle, without entering our solemn protest against it. And in doing this, we do not mean to detract in the slightest degree from the reputation and honor of
General Meade.
It is a matter of history that the army of the Potomac was never in finer drill, or better discipline, or more thoroughly in ‘fighting trim’ than it was when it fought at
Gettysburg.
So much to the credit of
General Hooker.
It is a matter of history that when the column of the rebel army was within a day's march of the capital of
Pennsylvania, and the main body of the rebel army was in
Maryland, following the advances,
Lee, supposing that he had out-generaled
Hooker, and made sure of
Baltimore and
Washington, was startled to find
Hooker across the
Potomac and right on his flank.
So much to the credit of the latter.
It is a matter of history that when
General Hooker was about to direct some of the troops in the field (on
Maryland Heights) under his command to prepare for a blow upon
Lee's flank, before the latter could contract his lines, which would have resulted in
cutting the rebel army in two,
Hooker's plans were interrupted by the
general-in-chief, and at his (
Hooker's) own request, feeling justly indignant at the treatment he had received, he was relieved.
General Lee, in his report to
Jeff Davis, acknowledges he was outflanked and outgeneraled by
Hooker.
So much to the credit of the latter.
It is a matter of history that when
General Butterfield made out his line of marches in
Maryland, he was directed by
Hooker to keep well to the right in order to cover
Baltimore, intending thereby to force
Lee to fight at
Gettysburg or thereabouts.
So much to the credit of
Hooker.
It is a matter of history that
Hooker had formed a general plan of battle: that his
Chief of Staff had that plan; that
Gen. Meade knew it;
[
319]
that, as
Hooker's successor,
Meade had not only the benefit of
Hooker's plans and
necessarily acted upon them, but he also had
Hooker's
Chief of Staff (
Gen. Butterfield) by his side constantly, and, if
General Hooker dislikes to acknowledge the facts briefly cited above in his report, it does not detract any the less from the gentlemanly and soldierlike conduct of
Gen. Meade, who, immediately after the
battle of Gettysburg, in a personal letter to
Gen. Butterfield,
acknowledged his great indebtedness to that officer for his valuable aid, without which, he stated,
he could not have succeeded.
Gen. Butterfield knew all of
Hooker's plans, and was instructed by the latter to communicate them freely to
Gen. Meade,
and we happen to know that Gen. Meade received them, acted upon them, and, after the battle, like a true gentleman, acknowledged his gratitude. So much to the credit of
Gen. Hooker.
It is not a matter of history, but it is a matter of the plainest common sense, that neither
Gen. Meade or any other military chieftain living could have taken the Army of the Potomac, and in so short a time have it well enough ‘in hand’ to hurl it successfully against such a witty, well organized, and well led host,
without aid from his immediate predecessor.
Gen. Meade can ask for no higher honor than that which he acquired by winning such a victory over the best disciplined army the rebels have in the field, in a series of battles which commenced only about forty-eight hours after he assumed command of the Army of the Potomac,
even upon the plans of another!
Mr. Everett, in his oration at
Gettysburg, did not fail to do
Gen. Hooker justice; nor did
Gen. Lee, the leader of the crestfallen and defeated rebel army.
We regret the more, therefore, that the
General-in-Chief of the army of the United States, in making up an official report, which is now a part of the history of the present war, and to whom the country looks for a faithful chronicler of passing military events, should have omitted to do so, especially in view of the signal service
Gen. Hooker has recently rendered by his dashing and daring exploits in the mountain fastnesses of the west, astonishing, even the peerless
Grant, who promptly awarded to ‘Fighting Joe’ and his brave troops the credit so justly due to him and them.
Honor to whom it is due.