Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 April 1884 — Fitz John Porter. [ARTICLE]

Fitz John Porter.

The maps, diagrams of marches, and other illustrated testimony that have been called in evidence by the enemies of Fiiz John Porter, will materially aid the historian in proving the incapacity of the man whose headquarters were in the saddle, and tho loyalty of the soldier who did his best to defend his flag under the most adverse circumstances possible. Commenting on these proofs, the military editor of the New York Herald says: “If there ever was a worse campaign than Pope’s—one in which twenty thousand fine fellows were sent to mere butchery, upon orders and operations that were a mere hopeless haphazard of ignorance and presumption—we do not know where to find its history.” Well, possibly the Herald might find its history in some of King Cetewayo’s warfare against the English, but we seriously doubt it. For stumbling against Longstreet and Jackson, Pope wa3 a decided success, but they were the wrong men to stumble against. What were the charges by means of which a prejudiced military court sacrificed Fitz John Porter, to prove that the man in the saddle had more than a spoonful of brains? It was charged that he did not arrive at Bristow at the time prescribed by Gen. Pope. The evidence shows that he was prevented from doing so by the condition of the roads; that had he got there according to Pope’s regulation time, he would not have found the enemy, and that were it not for the foolish order he could have planted himself between Stonewall Jackson and Longstreet. The fault of the blunder may be traced to Gen. Pope having his headquarters in the saddle, or having any headquarters at all, but certainly it should not be laid at the doors of Fitz John Porter. Another charge accused him of disobeying the joint order to himself and McDowell to move toward Gainsville. McDowell and Porter having failed to make out what was meantjby that order, McDowell, as superior officer, relieved Porter from any obligation whatover. The third charge accused him of not going into battle August 29, as directed; that is to say, that he should have gone into action on the flank and rear of Stonewall Jackson’s corps immediately, if not sooner. The officer who carried this order lost his way and) did not reach Porter’s camp until nightfull. But assuming that he had received it in time and obeyed it, whatj would have happened? In order ta whip Stonewall Jackson’s army, numbering two to his one, lie would first have to wipe out Gen. Longstreet’s, force, which was nearly four times stronger than liis own. We do not positively assert that Pope put Longstreet’s army in the way of an attack on Jackson’s corps, but it was there all the same. The following day Pope, with his magnificent army, fell into the pit| from which Providence, by misleading the courier with a jack-o’-the-lantern, had saved Porter, and was forced to, run like a scared wolf, while leaving the flower of his army dead or dying. And now, after Gen. Grant has openly apologized to Gen. Porter for blaming him unjustly, and after a court-martial of select officers has given the verdict that the charges on which he was tried “had no discernible relation to the facts,” and that the findings should be annulled and set aside, some Congressmen are so utterly inoapable of doing an honorable act that they will move) heaven and earth, and raise hell to prevent his being treated justly.— Texas Siftings.