My dear General,
I return you your manuscript which I have read with pleasure that I cannot describe. Hancock deserves what he has got, and I think many who are now deluded by his pompous eruptions, believing it to be substance, will have their eyes somewhat opened after reading your article.
Hancock has some good points, but having been elevated far above his capacity: he has fallen into the error of men in such a false position, of continued self-assertion and self-inflection. These processes could not be stopped as there's a risk of the subject himself seeing his own ?; glimpses of which, between whiles, necessitate ? efforts to shut out the full view of the spectre.
What you say about the artillery and sequences must commence if not to the judgment of every ???.
My own opinion is that you will have success ? to your ? of Hancock, ???? makes a critic of ? was a politician in the field of battle.
Here is one assertion concerning me, which might provoke controversy and perhaps impair the otherwise full and smashing force of your article. This can be easily rectified. I did not in the strict sense of the term command the 3rd Corps on the 3rd day of July. That Corps owing to its hard service on the 2nd day, was not placed in line of battle on the 3rd. So finding matters, I went to Birney who then commanded, and made an arrangements (looking to eventualities) for him to send me what troops I needed. I actually sent for and got two divisions from Birney, which was under my command, but were first detached from the Hd Qrs of the 3rd Corps. I have been so bewildered with defending several works of mine from the "common sense" of ?, who believe that the less we know the better ? ?, that I came very near forgetting your paper, but I had taken it up before Hawkins gave me your message. You deserve success. Yrs. Truly
To: Gen H. J. Hunt