THE MEADE-SICKLES CONTROVERSY.

I. A LETTER PROM GENERAL MEADE. J

Headquarters, Military Division op the At-lantic, Philadelphia , March 16th, 1870.

[Private.]

[Colonel] G. G. Benedict, Burlington, Vt .

Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the13th inst., as also the copies of the “ Free Press,”with editorials and comments on the address ofColonel [W. W.] Grout before the Officers’ Societyand Legislature of the State.

I have carefully read your articles and feelpersonally under great obligations to you for theclear and conclusive manner in which you havevindicated the truth of history. I find nothing tocorrect in your statements except a fact you men-tion, which is a misapprehension.

I did not invite General Humphreys to be mychief-of-staff till after the battle, because I did notsee him after assuming command till I met him onthe field, and besides I relied on him as a mainstayin handling the Third Corps, and did not wish towithdraw him from that position. 4 .

I did ask General [Seth] Williams to assume theduties in addition to those of adjutant-general, buthe declined. I also asked General Warren, thentty chief-of-engineers, to act temporarily as chief-of-staff, but he also declined taking on himselfadditional duties. Under these circumstances Iasked General Butterfield to remain till I had timeto make permanent arrangements [see p. 243].On the third day General Butterfield, having beendisabled by being struck with a fragment of aspent shell, left the army, and a few days after-ward General Humphreys accepted my invitation.

My defense against the charges and insinuationsof Generals Sickles and Butterfield is to be foundin my testimony before the Committee on the Con-duct of the War. I have avoided any controversyWith either of these officers — though both haveallowed no opportunity to pass unimproved whichpermitted them to circulate their ex-parte state-ments, and, as you justly say, to distort history fortheir purposes. Both perfectly understand whatI meant by my ante-battle order, referring to PipeCreek, also my instructions to Butterfield on themorning of the 2d, which he persists in calling anorder for retreat, in the face of all my other acts,an d of the fact that I did not retreat when I couldhave done so with perfect ease at any moment.Longstreet’s advice to Lee [to move from his rightUpon General Meade ’s communications] was soundmilitary sense; it was the step I feared Lee would^ a ke, and to meet which and be prepared forw hich was the object of my instructions to Butter-field, which lie has so misrepresented. Now, let

J FromtlioPhiladelphia “Weekly Press.” — Editors<( The substance of these editorials in the Burlington

Free Press ” will he found in the appendix to the secondedition of Colonel Benedict’s work, “ Vermont at Gettys-ourg.”_ Edjtors.

4 According to General A. A. Humphreys’s statement

me tell you another historical fact. Lieutenant-General Ewell, in a conversation held with meshortly after the war, asked what would have beenthe effect if at 4 p. m. on the 1st he had occupiedCulp’s Hill and established batteries on it. I toldhim that in my judgment, in the condition ofthe Eleventh and First corps, with their moraleaffected by their withdrawal to Cemetery Ridgewith the loss of over half their numbers in killed,wounded, and missing (of the 6000 prisoners welost in the field nearly all came from these corps

MAJOR- GENERALJOHN-lMvEYNQLD SU-S-V

MONUMENT IN THE GETTYSBURG CEMETERY.

in the first day), his occupation of Culp’s Hill, withbatteries commanding the whole of Cemetery Ridge,would have produced the evacuation of that ridgeand the withdrawal of the troops there by theBaltimore Pike and Taneytown and Emmitsburgroads. He then informed me that at 4 P. M. onthe 1st he had his corps, 20,000 strong, in columnof attack, and 011 the point of moving on Culp’sHill, which he saw was unoccupied and commandedCemetery Ridge, when lie received an order fromGeneral Lee directing him to assume the defensiveand not to advance ; that he sent to General Leeurging to be permitted to advance with his re-serves, but the reply was a reiteration of the

to the Committee on the Conduct of the War, GeneralMeade , on assuming command of the army at Frederick,expressed his desire to appoint General Humphreys hischief-of-staff, but that officer wishing to retain commandof his division in the Third Corps during the impendingbattle, the decision was postponed. — Editors.

413