criticism. But it is hoped that this course has been avoided; and that
what censure is dealt out to Gen. Hooker in the succeeding pages will be
accepted, even by his advocates, in the kindly spirit in which it is
meant, and in which every soldier of the beloved old Army of the Potomac
must uniformly refer to every other.

There is, moreover, no work on Chancellorsville which results from
research into all records now accessible.

The work of Allan and Hotchkiss, of 1867, than which nothing can be more
even-handed, or more admirable as far as it goes, adopts generally the
statements made in the reports of the Confederate generals: and these
are necessarily one-sided; reports of general officers concerning their
own operations invariably are. Allan and Hotchkiss wrote with only the
Richmond records before them, in addition to such information from the
Federal standpoint as may be found in general orders, the evidence given
before the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and newspaper
correspondence. At that time many of the Federal reports were not to be
had: such as were at the War Department were hardly accessible. Reports
had been duly made by all superior officers engaged in and surviving
this campaign, excepting only the general in command; but, strange to
say, not only did Gen. Hooker refrain from making a report, but he
retained in his personal possession many of the records of the Army of
the Potomac covering the period of his command, and it is only since his
death that these records have been in part recovered by the Secretary of
War. Some are still missing, but they probably contain no important
matter not fully given elsewhere.

Although Hooker testified before the Committee on the Conduct of the
War: "Without an exception I forwarded to that office"--the War