Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 24.djvu/146

 under what mental and optical delusion some people may labor dur- ing the excitement of such an occurrence, or else, what deliberate lying they will do in order to make their own part in the affair appear as great as possible.

This article has been written simply in vindication of historical truth, and in justice to the heroic dead and of the living, as well.

In further verification of the foregoing, I refer to Judge Grimsley, of Culpeper, Va., and Colonel R. H. Dulany, Welbourne, Va.

JOHN C. DONOHOE. Hnghesvi/le, Va., May 8, 1896.

[From the Philadelphia Times, March 14, 1896.]

A PARALLEL FOR GRANT'S ACTION.

Here is a Comparison of his Campaign in 1864 and Lee's

in 1862.

THEIR STRATEGY WAS SIHILAR.

And the Losses Incurred in the Wilderness and the Subsequent Bat- tles were About on a Par with Lee's Losses in the Seven Days' Battle and Those Succeeding it. Leslie J. Perry's Interesting Argument.

When General Grant, having been made lieutenant-general, came East and assumed direction of the armies operating against Rich- mond, the war had been in progress three years; about a dozen great battles had been fought between the two principal Virginia armies, in which alone the aggregate losses in killed and wounded were over 90,000; half as many more had fallen in scores of lesser actions all to no purpose, for, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps equal losses had been inflicted on the Confederates, the situation of the beliger- ents in Virginia remained substantially the same as when the first battle of Bull Run occurred in 1861.

Retaining Meade in command of the Army of the Potomac, but casting his personal fortunes with that magnificent but unfortunate