Gen. Lee's Strength and Losses at Gettysburg.
By Col. William Allan.
[The following is in reply to a letter of the Secretary, enclosing a letter received from a distinguished foreign critic commenting on Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg. As the letter of our foreign correspondent was a private one we suppress his name, though we do not think proper to withhold Col. Allan's able and conclusive reply.]
My Dear Dr.:
I regret that a press of engagements has prevented an earlier reply to your kind letter, enclosing that of ———— in regard to Bates' Gettysburg.
I hasten to express my acknowledgments to your correspondent for pointing out an error, into which I was led by the fact that Lieut.-Gen. A. P. Hill's report had not been published at the date of my strictures on Dr. Bates' book. In those strictures the Confederate loss at Gettysburg was estimated at not over 21,000 men. The loss actually was:
| In Longstreet's corps (see his report in the Southern Magazine, April, 1874), including the losses at Funkstown and Williamsport on the 6th and 10th of July... | 7,659 |
| In Ewell's corps (see Ewell's report in Southern Magazine, June, 1873), while north of the Potomac... | 6,087 |
| In Hill's corps (see Hill's report in Southern Historical Papers, Nov., 1876), including his loss of 500 at the recrossing of the Potomac... | 8,982 |
| Total in the three corps... | 22,728 |
This was the entire loss, except that in the cavalry. As but a small portion of the Confederate cavalry was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100 or 200 added to the above will cover the entire Confederate loss during the battle and the subsequent retreat to the Potomac. Hence the statement should have been, that the "Confederate loss did not exceed 23,000 men." My error was in underestimating Hill's
