FOURTH ANNUAL REUNION.

The interest in these annual reunions continued to grow, and a larger crowd than ever assembled in the State Capitol on the evening of October 29th, 1874-among them a large number of our most distinguished officers and most heroic private soldiers. After a fervent and most appropriate prayer by Rev. J. L. M. Curry, D. D., General Fitz. Lee, in well chosen words and appropriate terms, greeted his comrades and welcomed them to their reunion. He stated that the Association was organized for both historical and social purposes, but said that the gathering of historical material had now been turned over to the Southern Historical Society, over which presides the indomitable and "always-tell-the-truth" General Jubal A. Early.

But the social feature of the organization remained, and it was meet that they should gather to revive memories of the brave old days, to grasp the hands of comrades, and to keep fresh the recollections of the gallant struggle we made against overwhelming numbers and resources. After other appropriate remarks, General Lee gracefully introduced, as orator of the evening, Colonel Charles Marshall, of Baltimore, "the Military Secretary and confidential friend of General R. E. Lee."

Colonel Marshall was enthusiastically greeted and was frequently interrupted with loud applause as he delivered the following address: Charics

ADDRESS OF COLONEL MARSHALL.

A

Mr. President and Fellow Soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia-When the Executive Committee honored me with the invitation that brings me before you to-night, I was at a loss to choose from the teeming annals of the Army of Northern Virginia a subject appropriate to the occasion, and one that my information would enable me to present without trespassing too much upon your patience.

The short history of that army is crowded with events and incidents which will furnish material to the historian, the orator, the poet and the painter as long as heroic courage, uncomplaining endurance, magnanimity in the hour of victory, and fortitude under adverse fortune, continue to command the admiration and attract the sympathy of mankind.

But I do not feel at liberty to choose at will from those inci

dents, nor can I venture to utter the thoughts that start first to my mind as I look upon the faces of old comrades in arms, and upon some young faces that remind me of comrades who have passed away. I dare not trust myself to speak to you of those memories of our army life, dearest to the heart of a soldier, but which make no part of the world's history of war. Time does

not permit me to attempt a description of any of the great battles in which you bore an honorable part, nor would such a description, however accurate, as well illustrate the magnitude of the service performed by the Army of Northern Virginia, or afford as clear a view of the difficulties against which it had to contend, and of the burden imposed upon its courage and endurance, as will be derived from the subject to which I propose to invite your attention, if I can succeed in presenting that subject properly. Indeed, it requires no little courage to undertake to fight any of the battles of the war "o'er again."

It has been sixty years since Waterloo, and to this day writers are not agreed as to the facts of that famous battle.

English historians claim that the steadfast lines of the Iron Duke turned the scale of victory, while the Germans, with equal confidence, assert that the glory is due to him for whose coming Wellington is said to have prayed, as he watched the dubious tide of battle. Victor Hugo, with all the light of history before him, has amused every man who ever saw a battle with his description of the field that decided the fortune of Napoleon and of Europe.

It is not fourteen years since our war began, and yet who on either side of those who took part in it is bold enough to say that he knows the exact truth, and the whole truth, with reference to any of the great battles in which the arınies of the North and South met each other?

Was not Mr. Sumner censured by the Legislature of Massachusetts because, prompted in part at least, let us hope, by the love of truth, he renewed in the Senate of the United States after the war a resolution which in substance he had previously brought forward?

"Resolved, That

it is inexpedient that the names of victorics obtained over our own fellow citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the United States."

This resolution would erase from the colors of the United States army such names as those of Cold Harbor, Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, which you have seen inscribed upon captured flags. Now we believe that we won those fights,

and we wonder why a resolution of Congress should be necessary to blot them from the list of Union victories recorded on the standards of its armies.

We think that we know something about the second battle at Manassas, and yet is not General Fitz John Porter, who fought us so stubbornly at the first battle of Cold Harbor, now in disgrace, because it was proved to the satisfaction of a Federa! courtmartial that half the Confederate army was not where we all know it was on the morning of August 29th, 1862? And on our side, have we not read General Joseph E. Johnston's "Contribution of materials for the use of the future historian of the war between the States," and has any one risen from the perusal of that interesting book, without the conviction that its distinguished author is mistaken as to some of his statements, or that all cotemporaneous history is in error?

I will venture to present only two of the perplexities in which "the future historian of the war between the States" will find himself involved when he comes to compare the "material" contributed by General Johnston with the other "material" contributed by official records and documents, which General Johnston seems not to have seen, or not to have consulted:

General Johnston says, page 145 of his "Narrative": "The authors of Alfriend's life of Jefferson Davis and some other biographies represent, to my disparagement, that the army with which General Lee fought in the Seven Days' was only that which I had commanded. It is very far from the truth. General Lee did not attack the enemy until the 26th of June, because he was employed from the 1st until then in forming a great army, by bringing to that which I had commanded fifteen thousand men from North Carolina, under Major-General Holmes; twenty-two thousand men from South Carolina and Georgia, and above sixteen thousand men from the Valley, in the divisions of Jackson and Ewell, which the victories of Cross Keys and Port Republic had rendered disposable."

General Johnston states in a note the sources of his informa

tion.

He says "General Holmes told me, in General Lee's presence, just before the fight began on the 31st (of May), that he had that force (fifteen thousand men) ready to join me when the President should give the order." He then refers to other evidence, which he says is in his possession, going to show that the reinforcements brought by General Holmes to General Lee, and which took part in the "Seven Days" Battles, amounted to fifteen thousand men.

As to the twenty-two thousand from South Carolina and Georgia, General Johnston says: “General Ripley gave in this number. He

brought the first brigade, five thousand men. General Lawton told me that his was six thousand; General Drayton that his was seven thousand. There was another brigade, of which I do not know the strength."

Now the "future historian" ought not lightly to doubt the accuracy of any statement of General Johnston, and upon that high authority he would record that before the battles of the "Seven Days," General Lee received from three of the sources mentioned by General Johnston reinforcements to the number of thirty-seven thousand men, who took part in those engagements which resulted in dislodging General McClellan from his position on the Chickahominy.

And yet how hard the "future historian" will be put to it to reconcile "Johnston's Narrative" with the official reports made at the time. In the first volume of the official reports of the operations of the Army of Northern Virginia, published by authority of the Confederate Congress, at page 151, will be found General Holmes' statement of the number of men brought by him to take part in the battles around Richmond during the "Seven Days.'

General Holmes there says, that upon crossing the James, river he was joined on the 30th June by General Wise with two regiments of seven hundred and fifty-two bayonets and two batteries of artillery, and adds: "The effective force under my orders thus amounted to six thousand infantry and six batteries of artillery," being less by nine thousand infantry than General Johnston's "Narrative" assigns to General Holmes. General Johnston says that Ripley's brigade was five thousand strong, and that General Ripley so informed him.

There may have been that number of men borne upon the rolls of the brigade, but we have General Ripley's official report of the number of troops under his command that actually took part in the battles around Richmond.

At page 234, volume 1 of the official reports already referred to, General Ripley says: "The aggregate force which entered into the series of engagements on the 26th of June was twentythree hundred and sixty-six, including pioneers and the ambulance corps."

The "Narrative" puts the force under General Lawton at six thousand men, but before the "historian of the war" ventures to make use of this contribution to his materials, he will do well to look at the official reports, at page 270 of the first volume, where he will find that General Lawton gives the force which he carried into the battle of Cold Harbor, on the 27th June, 1862, as thirty-five hundred men.

I have not been able to find General Drayton's report of the part taken by his command in the battles around Richmond-if he did take part in them-and therefore cannot compare the number assigned to General Drayton in those engagements by General Johnston's "Narrative" with any official documents, but if the reports of Holmes, Lawton and Ripley be correct, they brought less than eleven thousand eight hundred and sixty-six men to participate in those battles, instead of twenty-six thousand as stated by General Johnston.

Ripley and Lawton, according to their reports, had five thousand eight hundred and sixty-six men in the "Seven Days"" battles, instead of eleven thousand, according to Johnston's Nar

rative.

It follows, therefore, that Drayton's brigade, and the other, whose strength General Johnston says he does not know, must have made up the rest of the twenty-two thousand men who we are informed came to General Lee from South Carolina and Georgia to aid in driving McClellan from the Chickahominy— that is, those two brigades, Drayton's and the unknown, must have numbered about sixteen thousand men.

General Johnston says that General Drayton told him that his brigade was seven thousand strong, so that the unknown brigade must have numbered nine thousand to make up the twenty-two thousand from South Carolina and Georgia.

It may have been so. There may have been a brigade in General Lee's army nine thousand strong, but in speaking about it before you, I think it safer to refer to it as the "unknown brigade." And in this connection let me suggest to the future historian of the war that before he writes Drayton's brigade down as contributing seven thousand men to the army around Richmond in the "Seven Days'" Battles, it will be well for him to inquire whether that brigade joined the army at all until after McClellan had been driven from the Chickahominy and the army had marched northward upon a new campaign.

He will find no trace of this brigade in the reports of the Seven Days' Battles, although they are so much in detail as to include the reports of captains of companies.

A Confederate brigade seven thousand strong would probably have taken some part worth reporting, and its name ought to appear in the official account. .

Drayton's command will be found mentioned in the official reports of subsequent operations of the army at Manassas and in Maryland.

As to the "unknown brigade," that, I think, will turn out to