"I don't," said I.
"Be that as it may; whether we are too merciful or too unfortunate as to opportunity, the fact remains that armies are not destroyed; they get away; when we gain a field, it is only the moral effect that remains with us. War is different from the old wars. The only thorough defeats are surrenders. It would take days for Lee's army to shoot down Meade's at long range, even if Meade should stand and do nothing. We may defeat Meade,--I don't see why we should not,--but in less than a week we should be compelled to fight him again, and we should be weaker and he would be stronger than before."
"I have often-wondered," said I, "how the ancients destroyed whole armies."
"Conditions allowed them to do it." said the captain. "In Caesar's wars, for instance, men fought hand to hand, physical strength and endurance were the qualities that prevailed. The men became exhausted backing away or slinging away at each other. In such a condition a regiment of cavalry is turned loose on a broad plain against a division unable to flee, and one horseman puts a company to death; all he has to do is to cut and thrust."
"A victory should at least enable us to hold our ground until we could get reënforcements," I said.
"True; but we should get one man and the enemy would get twenty."
"We could retire after victory," I said.
"Can you believe that General Lee would do that? I do not know that he is responsible for this offensive campaign, but we all know that he is quicker to fight than to retreat. It is astonishing to me that his reputation is that of a defensive general. I dare say his wonderful ability as an engineer accounts for it."
"If we should gain a victory here, would not England or France recognize us?"
"Would it not require a succession of great victories for that? Ever since Lincoln's proclamation there has been no sound hope of European recognition. There was one hope, but that was soon gone."