enemy was "hurriedly thrown over the moon!" the one being quite as practicable as the other, Kearny being on my right, half a mile from Hooker, (who was on my left,) and six of my regiments and three batteries, Cooper's, Kerns's, and Randall's, in the interval hotly contesting the ground with part of Longstreet's division, which, I am proud to say, after hard fighting, recoiled before the Pennsylvania reserves. The simple fact is, the enemy was thrown over by Sumner (for the meeting with Sumner and Hooker was altogether unexpected by the enemy, and they were disordered by their rencontre with Seymour) on to my centre, as established by the testimony of Colonel Roy Stone heretofore given; and repulsed as I have just stated. In a letter to me, dated Columbus, Ohio, February fourteenth, 1864, in reply to inquiries of mine, General Heintzelman says: "About five o'clock it was reported to me that the Pennsylvania reserves had given way. Knowing that if the enemy made much progress in that direction Kearny's division and the troops on the right of him (Slocum's division, etc.) would be cut off from the rest of the army and from our line of retreat to the James River, I rode forward." Here is good presumptive proof that the "stubborn resistance" of the reserves prevented McClellan's army being cut in two. Heintzelman's temporary headquarters were at the crossing of Charles City road, about six hundred yards in my rear. On reaching the further edge of the pine woods, in my rear, and seeing my men "emerging from the woods," and Sumner preparing to resist the advance of the enemy, he directed his chief of artillery to shell the woods in his front, (in my rear,) and his letter then goes on: "I stopped myself at, I suppose, half-way across the open space (on his return to his headquarters) to take another look to be satisfied that the enemy would be checked or driven back. (Where was my division at this time?) Whilst halting here I was struck on the arm by a ball from one of the enemy's sharp-shooters, I presume, in the woods in front; also one of my staff was hit." How the sharp-shooters got into the woods, in the rear of the Pennsylvania reserves, and in part, at that time, occupied by two regiments of my reserve brigade, it is difficult to see; but as it appears, from his own report, that these wounds were contusions from spent balls, it is presumable that the shots were fired over the heads of my men when engaged at close quarters with the enemy in front of these woods. In order to explain to the reader what was going on in my division at this time, I extract a passage from my letter to General Heintzelman, dated March twenty-ninth, 1864: "Now, my dear General, had you, after posting De Russy's battery, ridden through the narrow strip of woods in front of you, a little to the right of where you saw my men emerging from the woods,' you would have found me in the open field in front, with the centre of my division; and General Meade, with his brigade, on the right of the divi sion; and six regiments of the Pennsylvania reserves and three batteries, at that very moment, blazing away at the enemy, who was advancing with great steadiness to close quarters, but was driven back with great slaughter from every point of my right and centre. Before you started to return, you placed De Russy's battery on the right of Sumner's artillery, with orders to shell the woods in your front. Soon after this shelling commenced, General Meade rode up to me and reported that the shells from those batteries were falling among his men,' and requested me to cause them to cease firing. I immediately sent my aid-de-camp, Captain Scheetz, to state the facts to the officer commanding the battery, and request him to cease firing, as my troops were in his front. In the mean time shells began to fall about the centre of my division; there is no mistake about this, as some of them exploded over my own head. Captain Scheetz returned and reported that he had delivered my message, but that the officer commanding the artillery refused to stop firing without orders from his own General. I then directed him to seek the General commanding the troops, and repeat my request. The horse of my aid was killed on the way, and he did not find the general. The firing, however, ceased not long afterward, the enemy having been repulsed by me." It will be seen by the foregoing extract that, while I was steadily resisting a heavy pressure from the enemy in front, I was subjected to "a fire in the rear from my friends. I trust that this plain and unvarnished explanation of the rather crude passage in General McClellan's report, above quoted, will be sufficiently intelligible to the public and all concerned. Reference may at any time be made to General Meade, and the officers of both his and my own staff. I must still refer to another passage in General McClellan's report. On the same page (137) he says: "Late in the day, at the call of General Kearny, General Taylor's First New-Jersey brigade, Slocum's division, was sent to occupy a portion of General McCall's deserted position, a battery accompanying the brigade. They soon drove back the enemy, who shortly after gave up the attack." Had this been true, it would have been the most ungenerous and ungrateful expression-the deserted position!-ever used by a commanding general toward a general officer, who had fought his division for four hours against superior numbers, even if overcome. But the check given to Lee by my division on the New-Market road, having, in the judgment of more than one Federal, and at least one confederate general, "saved McClellan's army," it makes the stigma attempted to be cast on the division the more glaring and unpardonable. I have within a short time been unofficially informed that General McClellan, desirous of smoothing over the unmannered epithet, has written to the Adjutant-General at Washington, requesting leave to change his phraseology to the following, namely: "A portion of General McCall's position, from which he had been driven by superior numbers.' he makes this statement: "The number of guns captured by the enemy at this battle was twentytwo, three of which were lost by being run off the bridge during the final withdrawal." Previously to this, however, I had, on receiving the official copy of General McClellan's report, written to General Heintzelman, to ask whether The number of guns, then, lost by McClellan this term "deserted," had also been derived from in this battle was nineteen. Soon after I read his report. Heintzelman disclaimed the author- the letter to Mr. Lincoln above quoted, I wrote ship, and sent me a printed copy of his report to General William F. Barry, General McClellan's of the battle. chief of artillery during the Peninsula campaign, In this report he says: "Seeing that the ene-requesting him to refer to his reports and to inmy were giving way, (this refers to their sudden form me how many guns he had reported lost by repulse by Sumner and Hooker, upon whom they my division at Gaines's Mills, and received the unexpectedly came while following Seymour,) I following reply: returned to the forks of the (Charles City) road, where later in the day I received a call from General Kearny for aid. Knowing that all General Sedgwick's troops were unavailable, I was glad to avail myself of the kind offer of General Slocum to send the New-Jersey brigade of his division to General Kearny's aid. I rode out far enough on the Charles City road to see that we had nothing to fear from that direction, and returned to see the New-Jersey brigade enter the woods to General Kearny's relief. A battery accompanied this brigade. They soon drove back the enemy. It was now growing dark." On comparing Heintzelman's statement just given with that of McClellan given above, it is evident that the latter is a transcript of the former, in part. I would that I might, for General McClellan's credit, say a transcript entire and correct. But I am constrained to say that it is incomprehensible how General McClellan could have happened to substitute General McCall's position for General Kearny's position. WASHINGTON, March 10, 1864. MY DEAR GENERAL: Your note of seventh in stant is just received, and finds me on the eve of departure for the South-west, whither I am ordered for duty with General Grant's armies. I regret extremely that my papers relating to the Peninsula campaign are all packed up, and have been sent away, and that I have no better reference than my memory to enable me to answer your queries. I can, however, state in general terms that the guns lost by field batteries belonging to your division were but a very small portion of the whole number lost at Gaines's Mills. Faithfully yours, WILLIAM F. BARRY. With respect to the guns lost at Nelson's farm or New-Market Cross-Roads, it is a fact well known that after Randall's battery was taken by the enemy and retaken by the reserves, (see Colonel Bollinger's report,) the guns could not be removed for want of horses, forty odd of those Having written to General Heintzelman on belonging to the battery lying dead on the this subject, he replied to me in a letter dated ground; and I am authorized to say that RanColumbus, Ohio, March twenty-fourth, 1864, as dall applied to General Heintzelman, after nightfollows: "I had some discussion with General | fall, for men to drag his guns off the ground, Kearny, some time after, he saying that he but was refused by that officer on the plea that never asked for reinforcements, though when I "it would bring on a renewal of the battle." recalled what had occurred, he acknowledged For instance, General Meade says to me in a letthat the message he had sent virtually amounted ter dated Headquarters, Army of the Potomac, to that. Whether Kearny's division, or any March second, 1864: "I have always maintained part, was driven back, or if so, how far, I cannot that these guns (Randall's battery) were not lost now remember." From the foregoing it is seen by the division, but were abandoned by the army. that the First New-Jersey brigade, under General "It is notorious that they remained all night Taylor (Kearny's old brigade) was offered by in their original position on the field, outside the Slocum for Kearny's support, and reported by line of the enemy's pickets, the enemy having Heintzelman to have entered the woods to Kear-withdrawn from the field after dark, and not reny's relief, under his own eye. It is therefore incontrovertible that General McClellan's report in this connection is not in accordance with facts. There is still one more remark of General McClellan's that requires my notice. In his letter to the President, dated "Harrison's Bar, James River, July fourth, 1862," (his report, page 142,) he asserts: "We have lost no guns, except twenty-five on the field of battle, twenty-one of which were lost by the giving way of McCall's division under the onset of superior numbers." The General should have been a little more careful what he wrote to Mr. Lincoln, or perhaps a little more cautious what he published. By turning to page 127 of his report, it will be seen that in the account of the battle of Gaines's Mills turning till eight o'clock the next day, when their skirmishers advanced in order of battle, and finding these guns, took possession of them. I have this from 'Randall, who, being aware of it at the time, applied to Kearny, and, I think, to Heintzelman, for authority and men to drag his guns off, but was refused on the ground it would bring on a renewal of the battle; and at one o'clock the division with the army moved on to Malvern Hill. When I say I had it from Randall, I mean the fact that the enemy did not take possession of them (the guns) the evening of the battle, but fell back and left them for us to drag off if we chose. The fact that they took possession of them the next morning, about eight o'clock, I got from Doctor Collins, Third regi McCall's position, from which he ha by superior numbers." Previously to this, however, I } the official copy of General M written to General Heintzelm this term "deserted," had als his report. Heintzelman di ship, and sent me a printe of the battle. In this report he says ' my were giving way, (t) repulse by Sumner and unexpectedly came w returned to the fork where later in the General Kearny General Sedgwic' was glad to av General Slocur of his divisior out far enou that we had and returr |