The Secession of Virginia. 359
been the ^/a?z f Was \\. not exactly ihdii which saved us at Chan- cellorsville ? And something like it at Second Manassas ? In both instances, with far greater difficuhy of accomplishment, and \yith more to discourage. Far be it from a tyro like me, to presume to criticise Johnston and Beauregard's wisdom. But surely if the latter can tickle his fancy with what would have happened if Jackson or Desaix had been in Ewell's place, orif Ewell had taken upon himself the responsibility of inaugurating that battle without orders, in the face of the fact that the chiefs had had a whole night in which to reverse or modify their plans, surely we may be excused for imagining what would have been the effect, after Ewell did act upon the order as soon as he knew it had been sent, if they had let him, alone. If it was " too late" for him to go on, it needed but a glance ^t the hour and the distance to see that it was too late for him to withdraw and reach the battlefield in time to be of any use. All honor to General Beauregard. Doubtless, many will join me in the sentiment, that had his splendid abilities and wise counsels been better appreci- ated, the " Cause" might not have been " lost." But he has done injustice to one of the most able, noble, self-sacrificing, and patriotic generals who went down with that cause, and the best excuse / can make for him is, that in the light of subsequent events, he has dwelt upon what would have been the result if he had entrusted his orders to responsible officers instead of, to use his own words, " the worst set of GUIDES and COURIERS I ever employed;" or, when it was "too late" for General Ewell to render any assistance on our left, he had let him alone until the wish has begotten the thought — that with a Jackson on our right, "the movement would not have balked." Better judges than I am — ^Jackson himself to begin with — know that there was " Jackson " enough in Ewell for any duty.
The Secession of Virginia.
BY J. WM. JONES.
[The following, written in the New York Examiner, in reply to a so-called historical statement of Mr. Rossiter Johnson, is put in'our records at the request of a number of gentlemen whose opinions we respect.
It is, of course, not a full treatment of the question, but merely a hit back at Mr. Johnson's misrepresentations.]
i„,
