Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 23.djvu/353

 The Longstreet- Gettysburg Controversy. 347

street's report, which had never before been in print, and which he contradicted five times in his papers in the Times.

This series of papers excited wide interest among Northern and European military crities, as well as among our own people.

As I did not, personally, write either of the papers, but published all that reached me without note or comment of my own, I may say- that most of them were able, clear, and of rare historic value, show- ing deep research and a thorough knowledge of the subject, and that the series (which may be found in Volumes IV, V, and VI of Southern Historical Society Papers), thoroughly established these points:

POINTS ESTABLISHED.

1. General Lee made no mistake in invading Pennsylvania.

2. After the brilliant victory of the first day, the Confederates ought to have pressed forward and occupied the Gettysburg heights, and General Lee ordered General Ewell to do so, but excused him when he afterwards explained that he was prevented by a report that the enemy were advancing on his flank and rear.

3. We would have won a great and decisive victory on the second day had Longstreet obeyed the orders which there is overwhelming proof General Lee gave him, to attack early in the morning, or, had he carried out the orders which he admits he received to attack at n o'clock that morning, but which he managed to put oft until 4 o'clock that afternoon.

4. With the great results to be attained, and the confident ex- pectation of winning, General Lee made no mistake in attacking on the third day.

5. We should have pierced Meade's centre, divided his army, smashed to pieces his wings before they could have reunited, and captured Washington and Baltimore, had Longstreet obeyed orders on the third day, and made the attack at daybreak simultaneously with that of Ewell; or made it, as ordered, with his whole corps, supported by A. P. Hill, instead of with a bare 14,000 men against Meade's whole army, while the rest of our army looked on, ad- mired, and wondered while this "forlorn hope" marched to im- mortal glory, fame, and death.

But I did not mean to go into any discussion of these points, and will only add, as completing the history of the controversy, that Longstreet afterwards continued the fight by publishing in the Cen- tury several articles, in which he bitterly criticises General Lee,