McClellanfor Peace. 45
Finally, Palfrey writes, page 119:
"Tactically the battle of the Antietam was a drawn battle, with the advantage inclining slightly to the side of the Federals, who gained some ground and took more trophies than they lost. The Confederates, however, held most of the ground on which they fought, and held it not only to the close of the battle, but for more than twenty-four hours after, and then retired unmolested and in good order."
Whether intentionally or not, the omission of all mention of Gen- eral McClellan in the recent event at Antietam was most impolitic from a military, political or social standpoint. He was the general in command. It was his battle, and history will never permit a subordinate commander or any one else to steal the glory. He acted wisely in not attacking Lee on the i8th, for his defeat would have been certain. The position held was a strong one. ALEXANDER. ROBERT CHISHOLM,
Formerly Aid lo General Beauregard.
[From the Baltimore Sun, January 11, 1901.]
McCLELLAN FOR PEACE.
For the Restoration of the Union Against the Political Horde at Washington.
[The following is of interest in connection with the preceding articles. ED.]
The following communication addressed to a gentleman in Balti- more, makes a very interesting contribution to the political history of the Civil War. to the effect that General McClellan in 1862 sought an interview with General Lee with the supposed purpose of making peace over the heads of the governments at Washington and Rich- mond :
BISHOP'S HOUSE, 222 EAST HARRIS STREET, SAVANNAH, GA., January 3, 1904.
MY DEAR FRIEND, Your letter of the ist instant to hand. My recollection of the conversation to which you refer is clear.