Summary:
During the fall of 1864, Confederate General Jubal Early met several defeats in
the Shenandoah Valley at the hands of Phil Sheridan's Federals. In this October
letter, Virginia Governor William Smith writes Robert E. Lee to attempt to get
Early removed from command. Smith asserts that the sentiment of Valley citizens,
including a prominent resident of Staunton, ran strongly against Early.
Gen. R. E. LEE:
Richmond,
October 12, 1864.
GEN.:
I have just received your letter of the 10th of October, in reply to mine of the 7th (6th). I had always regarded the summer campaign confided to Gen. Early as presenting that finest opportunity for a great and brilliant success which had fallen to the lot of any of our generals. Up to this time I have regarded it from its commencement to this hour as a most disastrous failure. You are pleased, however, to say: "As far as I have been able to judge at this distance, he has conducted the military operations in the Valley well." Although this is a somewhat restricted commendation, yet I take it as your purpose to comprehend in it the whole campaign; of course you are much more competent to judge than myself, yet, highly as I appreciate the ripeness of your judgment, I am still unconvinced. Believing that Early's campaign was a great disaster, I sought an interview with you that I might freely converse with you upon the peril which his reverses had brought upon a large portion, if not the whole of the State. I informed you that I did so as Governor of the State. You were pleased to express a willingness to change the commander of the Valley army if a successor could be agreed upon in Richmond, and in speaking of the propriety of a successor to Gen. Early, you said that public sentiment had to be consulted, and that, if that sentiment called for a change it ought to be made whether Early was to blame or not. For reasons which I have stated and for the further rear on that I was not well advised, I did not press this view in our conversation. Hearing from a variety of sources, however, that there was much dissatisfaction among people in the Valley, and in the army also, at the management of Gen. Early, I deemed it my duty and in strict accordance with the principle you stated to apprise you of what I considered to be the general sentiment, and, to be more precise therein, gave you extracts from the letter of a highly intelligent gentleman and officer in reference to the state of public opinion in the army. About the time of writing you I had a conversation with one of the most intelligent citizens of the Valley, residing in the midst of Gen. Early's operations, who gave me a sketch of the popular judgment as to his military conduct, and added that that judgment called for a change in the commander of the Valley army. A high official of the State government witnessed the fight at Winchester and expressed similar opinions, and spoke feelingly of the fact that the army in it retreat covered a space of five and twenty miles. It is well known and tacked about that the army threw away its guns and the Secretary of War, as I understood him, had to send arms to Staunton to replace them.
Now, general, after all this, after your concession that public sentiment should decide the question of the commander, I respectfully ask how you were to learn that sentiment? Certainly by communications from some quarter, and what quarter more entitled to respect and appreciation than the Governor of Virginia? Why, sir, since writing the above paragraph I met with a prominent citizens of Staunton, who, after stating that Early had disappointed expectations, asked me why I did not have him relived. I, of course, replied that that was not in my power. Evidences of this description could be multiplied indefinitely. But it seems that charges must be preferred against Gen. Early, and that you must have the name of the accuser. I do not feel myself at liberty to give the names of the officers referred to. But what are the charges-if they may be so termed-stated in the letter from which I quoted? First, that "the army left Waynesborough in the hardest, coldest, and bleakest storm of the season;" secondly, that an impression prevails that he has no feeling for his men, and that his presence awakens no enthusiasm; thirdly, that the army once believed he was a safe commander, but believe so no longer; fourthly, that he was surprised at Winchester and did not expect a general engagement; fifthly, that Gen. Early has fought his army on every occasion in detail; sixty, that he has lost twenty-five pieces of artillery in this campaign; seventy, that the good of the country requires a change in the command of that army. I believe that not one of these points or opinions, except that which alleges a surprise at Winchester, constitutes a proper subject for court-martial. I cannot see how the public service is to be promoted by such a court, and therefore shall certainly take no step to reach such result. But as you seem to think that Gen. Early should be apprised of the accusations against him, you are perfectly at liberty, if you so regard my opinions of his military capacity, to furnish such extracts from my letter as embrace them.
In conclusion, I repeat, I am deeply impressed with the conviction that Gen. Early is not competent to independent command; that the good of the service, by which I am governed, requires that he should be relieved, and that such is the general sentiment of the country through which he has been operating. I trust that results will prove that I have done Gen. Early injustice, and that he will adorn his name with the glory of redeeming our great Valley from a vandal foe.
I am, general, with the highest respect, your obedient servant,
WM. SMITH.
Bibliographic Information : Letter Reproduced from The War of The Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Volume 43, Serial No. 91, Pages 896, Broadfoot Publishing Company, Wilmington, NC, 1997.
