The veterans of the Third Army Corps assembled here to-day, soldiers
who served under Gen. Joseph Hooker in his division, corps, and army,
re-affirm their lifelong affection for their old commander, their
admiration for his brilliant achievements as one of the prominent
generals of our armies, and protest against the recent revival of unjust
assaults made on his conduct at Chancellorsville. Whether, after _one
of the most noted tactical victories of modern times_, having placed the
Army of the Potomac across the Rappahannock River on the flank of Lee,
he might have gained a still farther advanced position; whether the
failure of the cavalry to fully accomplish what was expected of it;
whether the disaster to the Eleventh Corps and the delay in the advance
of the Sixth Corps,--are to be attributed to errors of judgment of
Gen. Hooker or of the subordinate commanders, are points which will be
discussed again and again with profit to the military student. But we,
who witnessed his successful generalship at Williamsburg, Glendale,
Malvern Hill, Second Bull Run, and Antietam, have no language at our
command strong enough to express our contempt for any one who, twenty
years after the war, affirms that on any occasion in battle, with the
lives of his men and the cause of his country in his keeping, Gen.
Hooker was incapacitated for performing his whole duty as an officer by
either the use of liquor or by the want of it.
We protest against oft-repeated statements that "Fighting Joe Hooker,"
while one of the bravest and ablest division commanders in the army,
was possibly equal to handling a corps, but proved a failure as an
independent commander. Assigned to the Army of the Potomac in
January, 1863, after the disaster at Fredericksburg and the failure of
oft-repeated campaigns, our army demoralized by defeat, desertions, and
dissensions, Gen. Hooker re-organized his forces, stopped desertions,
brought back to their colors thousands of absentees, and in three months
revived confidence, re-established discipline, and enabled his army to
take the field unsurpassed in loyalty, courage, and efficiency, as
was shown at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. We say Chancellorsville
because, although not a victory for us, the campaign _inflicted on the
enemy losses at least equal to our own_; and we say also Gettysburg
because that victory was won by the army Hooker had re-organized, and
led with such matchless skill from Falmouth to the eve of the battle.
Whatever ambition he may have had to command armies, it did not prevent
his cheerfully serving his country under junior officers, giving them
faithful support, and his record shows no instance of his removal from
command by his superiors.
Here in his native State, amid the homes of so many of his old brigade,
the survivors of the Third Army Corps, all witnesses of his genius,
valor, and devotion to duty, indorse his record as a soldier, as a
gentleman, and as a patriot, and sincerely believe that history will
assign to Major-Gen. Joseph Hooker a place among the greatest commanders
of the late civil war.
The italics are mine. "One of the most noted tactical victories of
modern times," applied to Chancellorsville, is refreshing. Equally so is
the exultant claim that "we inflicted on the enemy losses at least
equal to our own." The infliction of loss on the enemy has always been
understood by military men to be an incident rather than the object of
war.
The following reply in "The Boston Herald" of April 11, 1886, explains
itself:--