o severe a rebuke from the general commanding, and
particularly sorry that the general commanding feels that his
instructions have not been obeyed; but nothing can occur to prevent
the general from continuing his hearty co-operation to the best of
his ability in any movement the general commanding may direct.

I have the honor to be, general, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
LEWIS RICHMOND,
Assistant Adjutant-General."

The answer was of course conclusive, but it leaves the difficult
problem, how came the reprimand to be written which General
McClellan could not have dictated, as the interruption of Burnside's
movement was caused by a message from himself? The blank for the
name of a staff officer who was to sign it, and the indication of
his rank and position point to Lieutenant-Colonel James A. Hardie as
the one for whom it was prepared, but Colonel Hardie must have
demurred to signing it, since Colonel Richmond's answer implies that
General Seth Williams's name was finally attached. All of us who
knew General Williams and his methods of doing business will be slow
to believe that he volunteered a paper of that kind. He afterward
served on Burnside's own staff and had his confidence. The
responsibility must fall upon General Marcy, the chief of staff, and
most of the officers of that army will be likely to conclude that he
also would act only by the direction of McClellan or of some one
whom he regarded as having decisive authority to speak for him in
his absence.

I have already referred to an error contained in General Porter's
report of the battle of Antietam, where he says that "Morell's
division in reporting to General Burnside relieved his corps, which
was at once recalled from its position in front of Antietam bridge."
[Footnote: Official Records, vol. xix. pt. i. p. 339.] I mention it
again only to say that since this was not only contrary to the fact,
but is unsupported by the records, to accept it and to embody it in
his official report certainly indicates no friendly disposition
toward Burnside. To that extent it supports any other circumstances
which point to Porter as the hostile influence which becomes so
manifest at McClellan's headquarters after the 14th of September. I
know by many expressions uttered by Burnside during those days and
afterward, that though he was deeply grieved at some things which
had occurred, he did not waver in his loyal friendship to McClellan.
He uttered no unk