many of the generals who were in some ways subject to criticism, — Johnston, Beauregard, Longstreet, — those who knew them best thought most of them. Fault-find- ing might come from outside. But the officers who lived in intimate contact with their chiefs, and should have seen all the faults there were, are usually enthusiastic in devotion and reverence. Do we need better testimony that, in spite of faults, the chiefs were men of heroic stamp and of genuine greatness?
That Beauregard was a general who studied, thought, reflected is not disputable. He read widely on the cam- paigns of great commanders. Napoleon especially, and the military maxims printed at the end of the little vol- ume on Manassas must be of profit to professional men.
Indeed, it is in this field of brains, of the intellectual side of military matters, that we come across the gen- eral's most curious and most interesting characteristic — French, possibly ; at any rate, to some degree — his ex- traordinary activity and fertility of invention and imagi- nation. Not D'Artagnan was more ready with a sudden device or a long-laid scheme for helping a friend or out- witting an enemy. The time which others spent in drilling, or social relaxation, or kindly sleep, was consecrated by Beauregard to devising plans of all kinds worked out in minute detail with adaptation to all possible contingencies.
Naturally, this planning dealt in the main with the grand strategy of the general's own campaigns. Yet he had plenty of imagination to spare for minor matters or
�� �
