Part 3 (1/2)

So make it certain that our answer to the Ma.s.sachusetts Commandery be strong and clear. What Haskell wrote he wrote in ignorance. He paraded with the stragglers and prisoners behind a fighting Brigade and thought he was leading a Division.

Now, Frazier, let this denial of Haskell's claim be strong and yet courteous. He is dead. Gibbon is dead. Hanc.o.c.k dead. What a time to proclaim this falsehood.

Sincerely yours, (Signed) ALEX. S. WEBB, Brevet Maj. General, U. S. A.

NOTE NO. 2.

WHAT LINCOLN SAID.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg:

”But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”

And yet the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, Commandery of Ma.s.sachusetts, and the Wisconsin History Commission, in so far as they authorized, or are responsible for the publication of the Haskell ”Narrative” of the Battle of Gettysburg, are surely, surely doing what they can to detract from what the living and the dead did there.

NOTE NO. 3.

FOR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.

A typewritten copy of this reply of the Philadelphia Brigade a.s.sociation, before being placed in the hands of the printer, was sent to the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, Commandery of Ma.s.sachusetts; to the Wisconsin History Commission, and to the Governor of Wisconsin, asking if they had any explanation to make as to the statements contained in Haskell's ”Narrative,” advising them that we would gladly give it in our printed book.

As yet no reply has been received from the Loyal Legion of Ma.s.sachusetts, and for this grave discourtesy we are at a loss to account, unless it be that after consideration the facts submitted did not warrant them in defending the position in which they were placed, and to acknowledge themselves in error would, to some extent, at least, stultify themselves.

The Governor of Wisconsin, who is an ex-officio member of the Wisconsin History Commission, writes under date of February 24, 1910, scarcely referring at all to the matter under consideration, i. e., the conduct of the Philadelphia Brigade in the Battle of Gettysburg. He does, however, say that the purpose of the Commission is to publish such material as from considerations of rarity or general excellence it is deemed desirable to disseminate. Haskell's book certainly comes under one of these cla.s.ses. We do not believe that among any writings of either Union men or Confederates in all the United States, such a rare book as Haskell's can be found. The Governor of Wisconsin says that Haskell in his story to his brother puts down in his letter ”what he saw, or thought he saw.”

It would seem that comment on this is useless. That history should be what the writer ”saw, OR THOUGHT HE SAW,” is at least novel.

Chas. E. Estabrook, a Comrade of the Grand Army, and its representative on the Wisconsin History Commission, and its chairman, under date of February 17, 1910, while writing a somewhat lengthy letter, neglects, also, to write of the matter under consideration, but says, among other things:

”The subject of the criticism of the Eleventh Corps, by Haskell, in his account of Gettysburg, was considered by me, and I contemplated writing notes, OR GIVING THE LATER, AND WHAT I THINK THE MORE ACCURATE VIEW. I, however, concluded, in view of the rule which we adopted, to have the other and later account of the Battle of Gettysburg prepared by a Wisconsin man, from the Wisconsin point of view, and some months ago asked a staff officer, who served in that Corps, to write an account of the Eleventh Corps at Gettysburg, which he consented to do. This will be published as soon as practicable after the same is delivered to the Commission.”

It would seem from this that Chairman Estabrook, Past Department Commander, of Wisconsin, Grand Army of the Republic, does not believe the statement made by Haskell in his ”Narrative,” and that it is necessary to have another book published to state truthfully what the Eleventh Corps did. It would seem that it is also needless to make any comment on the position taken by Comrade Estabrook, Chairman of the Wisconsin History Commission. It is to be hoped that this staff officer's book will be written from the stand-point of what he saw, and not from what he thought he saw.

THE HISTORY COMMISSION'S VIEW.

Reuben G. Thwaites, Secretary and Editor of the Wisconsin History Commission, speaking for the Commission, writes thus:

”OPINIONS, OR ERRORS OF FACT, on the part of the respective authors represented, both in original narratives and in reprints issued by the Commission HAVE NOT, NOR WILL THEY BE MODIFIED BY THE LATTER. For all statements of whatever character, the author alone is responsible.

”Could any plainer statement than the foregoing be phrased in the English language, to indicate that this Commission certainly does not endorse whatever criticisms may have contemporaneously been offered by Lieutenant Haskell?”

As the question has been asked us we reply: As Haskell has been dead for more than 45 years, and the foul slanders were made public by the Wisconsin History Commission in November, 1908, defaming President Lincoln, Generals Sickles, Howard, Doubleday, Barlow, Schurz, Geary, Webb, Banes and other officers, and thousands of brave soldiers, it certainly does look to the Comrades of the Philadelphia Brigade as though the Wisconsin History fully endorsed everything that Haskell wrote. Just how the Corps, Brigade and Regimental a.s.sociations, Grand Army Posts, Loyal Legion Commanderies, public libraries, the newspaper press, and others to whom this ”Reply” will be sent will regard the actions of the Wisconsin Commission and the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyal Legion has yet to be determined.

Writing further, Secretary and Editor Thwaites says:

”If Haskell's account was worth reprinting at all (and we thought it well worth doing), the only course open to us, as historians, was to present it just as it was originally issued, and not in the emasculated form adopted by the Dartmouth editor, and the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyal Legion; changes of such character in a contemporary doc.u.ment are unwarranted, and utterly ruin it as historical material.”

As this seems to be a question of ethics between history makers, it is up to the Dartmouth editor, and the Ma.s.sachusetts Loyal Legion to satisfy the Wisconsin Commission why the unwarranted emasculation was made of the Haskell ”Narrative.”

The Wisconsin History Commission concludes its letter of explanation and excuse to the Philadelphia Brigade a.s.sociation in these words: