Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 05.pdf/283

278 General Lee's report puts quite a different face on the whole proceeding, and his account is as follows:

It was not all Longstreet's battle then, and Jackson and his men had something to do with it. That Longstreet's troops, when once turned loose, fought with all the dash and gallantry possible, no one will pretend to deny; but it seemed an almost interminable period before they were brought into action, and often was uttered the anxious enquiry, by those who for four days had been confronting and fighting Pope's accumulating columns, "Will Longstreet never begin"?begin?" [sic] Is it to be wondered that General Lee had come to the conclusion that Longstreet was very slow, however well he fought when once in action?

It is to be observed that General Longstreet, in his account of this battle in the article in the Times, says that "General Jackson did not pursue," while General Lee says: "Their repeated efforts to rally were unavailing, and Jackson's troops, being thus relieved from the pressure of over-whelming numbers, began to press steadily forward, driving the enemy before them." The inference to be gathered from Longstreet's statement is that Jackson took no further part in the battle after the troops were repulsed from his front, but he (Longstreet) won the victory. The fact is that General Longstreet always proved himself incapable of doing justice to the troops of others who fought in conjunction with his own. To show how different it was with a truly great soldier, who could afford to accord to his comrades their due share of the glory won in battle, the following extract is given from General Jackson's report in regard to the same battle. He says: