all the while not to do this. In a few words, it seems to me that this describes impartially just how far General Stuart was to be blamed. * * *
Yours very truly,
In the preface of his book, Col. Mosby says:
"These pages have been written as a duty I owe to a soldier to whom great injustice has been done. The statements in the two reports of the commanding general in regard to his orders and the management of the cavalry in the Gettysburg campaign have been generally accepted without question; and the criticisms of his staff officers and biographers on the conduct of the Chief of Cavalry have assumed them to be true. * * I have tried to explain how his name is signed to papers that do so much injustice as well to himself as to General Stuart."
In a note on page 203, Col. Mosby says:
"My criticism of General Lee's report, which I believe he signed without reading, does not imply any criticism of him as a general. * * * * It is doubtful if he ever read it, or if it was even read to him."
On page 209 he further says:
"The report is understood to have been written by a staff officer. * * * It is unfair to Stuart as it says nothing about Ewell having gone several days in advance into Pennsylvania; and that Stuart was ordered to join him with three brigades of cavalry—or that Stuart had authority to cross the Potomac in Hooker's rear—or that he left two brigades of cavalry with Longstreet and General Lee."
As regards Col. Mosby's belief that General Lee signed his reports without reading them, or even having them read to him, Col. W. H. Taylor, whose attention I called to Col. Mosby's note on page 203, of his book, has this to say:
"In reference to Colonel Mosby's note on page 203 of his book, you and I know that General Lee never sent a formal battle report to the Department that was not carefully revised be-
