It would seem that comment on this is useless. That history should be what the writer “saw, OR THOUGHT HE SAW,” is at least novel.
Chas. E. Estabrook, a Comrade of the Grand Army, and its representative on the Wisconsin History Commission, and its chairman, under date of February 17, 1910, while writing a somewhat lengthy letter, neglects, also, to write of the matter under consideration, but says, among other things:
“The subject of the criticism of the Eleventh Corps, by Haskell, in his account of Gettysburg, was considered by me, and I contemplated writing notes, OR GIVING THE LATER, AND WHAT I THINK THE MORE ACCURATE VIEW. I, however, concluded, in view of the rule which we adopted, to have the other and later account of the Battle of Gettysburg prepared by a Wisconsin man, from the Wisconsin point of view, and some months ago asked a staff officer, who served in that Corps, to write an account of the Eleventh Corps at Gettysburg, which he consented to do. This will be published as soon as practicable after the same is delivered to the Commission.”
It would seem from this that Chairman Estabrook, Past Department Commander, of Wisconsin, Grand Army of the Republic, does not believe the statement made by Haskell in his “Narrative,” and that it is necessary to have another book published to state truthfully what the Eleventh Corps did. It would seem that it is also needless to make any comment on the position taken by Comrade Estabrook, Chairman of the Wisconsin History Commission. It is to be hoped that this staff officer’s book will be written from the stand-point of what he saw, and not from what he thought he saw.
THE HISTORY COMMISSION’S VIEW.
Reuben G. Thwaites, Secretary and Editor of the Wisconsin History Commission, speaking for the Commission, writes thus:
“OPINIONS, OR ERRORS OF FACT, on the part of the respective authors represented, both in original narratives and in reprints issued by the Commission HAVE NOT, NOR WILL THEY BE MODIFIED BY THE LATTER. For all statements of whatever character, the author alone is responsible.
“Could any plainer statement than the foregoing be phrased in the English language, to indicate that this Commission certainly does not endorse whatever criticisms may have contemporaneously been offered by Lieutenant Haskell?”
As the question has been asked us we reply: As Haskell has been dead for more than 45 years, and the foul slanders were made public by the Wisconsin History Commission in November, 1908, defaming President Lincoln, Generals Sickles, Howard, Doubleday, Barlow, Schurz, Geary, Webb, Banes and other officers, and thousands of brave soldiers, it certainly does look to the Comrades of the Philadelphia Brigade as though the Wisconsin History fully endorsed everything that Haskell wrote. Just how the Corps, Brigade and Regimental Associations, Grand Army Posts, Loyal Legion Commanderies, public libraries, the newspaper press, and others to whom this “Reply” will be sent will regard the actions of the Wisconsin Commission and the Massachusetts Loyal Legion has yet to be determined.
Writing further, Secretary and Editor Thwaites says: