[Rarebooks] Rare John Fitz Porter broadside, 1880

[Powers Rare Books]

I can offer...

      [BROADSIDE].  A Western Republican's View of Fitz John Porter's 
Case.  No place [St. Paul?], No date [1880].

      Appx. 16 1/2 by 15 inches (text area measures 14 1/2 by 13 
inches), printed in four columns with large italic headline at the top. 
  Creased twice at the folds, with faint remains of mounting at the 
lower edge of the verso (not affecting any text), with a blue pencil 
note at the bottom of the last column, "Also 8, 10" & 12."

      At the Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas) in April 1862 General 
John Pope's troops were decisively defeated by Lee and the 
Confederates.  Pope laid the blame for his failure on Fitz John Porter, 
claiming that he had been disobedient and disloyal and exhibited 
misconduct in not obeying Pope's orders to strike Stonewall Jackson's 
right flank.  Porter's defense was that Pope's orders were vague and 
conflicting, and that Longstreet had already arrived, extending 
Jackson's line and making his maneuver impossible.
      At his court martial Porter was found guilty and cashiered on 
January 21, 1863, and immediately set out to clear his record.  In 1879 
he was granted a review of his case by a board of general officers who 
found in his favor.
      The text of this broadside consists of two excerpts from the St. 
Paul's Pioneer Press, the first dated March 4, 1880, the second dated 
March 6.  In the first the anonymous author argues stridently in 
Porter's favor and urges that Porter not only be given his full back 
pay but be allowed to once again hold military rank.  "The Government 
which wronged him can restore only a small part of what was junjustly 
taken.  It cannot give back to him the years of his manhood that have 
been wasted and embittered, nor place him in the exalted ranks his 
qualities of a soldier have earned him in twenty years of active 
service.  But it can restore the rank that was taken from him, and the 
pay he would have earned by continuous service in that rank.  This is 
all the Government can do, and the least it can honorably do is all 
that it can.  No unworthy partisan sentiment or lingering prejudice of 
the mad days of the war should restrain honest Congressmen of both 
parties, who have read the testimony taken at West Point and comprehend 
its bearing, from voting for the Randolph bill, to restore Porter to 
the rank of colonel in the regular army with commission and pay to date 
from 1863.  It does not matter how much money this takes from the 
Treasury.  The nation cannot afford to count dollars when a great wrong 
is to be righted."  It also blasts General Logan who was apparently 
then arguing in Congress that only the president could restore Porter.  
"Porter's wrong is not such that a pardon can touch it.  It is 
negative, not positive; exclusive, not punitive.  The President can go 
through the barren form of pardoning him, but he cannot restore him to 
the rank he was deprived of, much less return him the pay he has lost, 
without the authority of Congress."
      In the second excerpt the author takes closer aim at Logan.  "The 
extraordinary production," the author says, "which Gen. Logan has been 
reading to the Senate for four successive days as his speech on the 
Porter case, is said by our Washington correspondent to have been 
prepared with great care.  There is no doubt of it.  Whoever prepared 
it took immense care to make it one consistent and unvarying lie from 
beginning to end; to include in it the entire series of exploded errors 
and misconceptions on which the original findings of the court-martial 
were based, and to exclude from it the entire chain of since 
established facts which forced the advisory board to the unanimous 
conclusion that those findings were wholly erroneous and unjust."  He 
goes on to review the facts of the case, Porter's attempts at justice, 
and compares a portion of Logan's speech with the findings of the 
review committee, closing with, "We need not comment on the relative 
weight of these two opinions.  The latter will be accepted by all 
candid minds as conclusive.  It will stand as the truth of history.  
The former is the evanescent froth of faction."
      A rare broadside showing the fall-out from one of the great 
battles of the Civil War.  Not in OCLC.  The note at the bottom which 
read, "Also 8, 10" & 12" might refer to further notices on the subject 
in the St. Paul paper for the 8th, 10th, and 12th.  If that guess is 
correct, it might offer evidence that this broadside was printed in St. 
Paul, rather than further east, since the original owner would have to 
be in St. Paul to know what subsequent issues of the paper said.

$750 plus shipping.

Greg Powers
Powers Rare Books
344 Orange Street
Manchester NH  03104
603-624-9707
powersrarebooks at comcast.net
http://www.powersbks.com
Member: ABAA, ILAB, NHABA