Preparation for a general engagement was made.  McLaws was ordered to throw forward, Wofford on his extreme left, supported by cavalry, while Jenkins was to send two of his brigades, under General Law, far to the right, on the flank and rear of the enemy’s left.  Law was first to make the attack on the enemy’s flank, then the columns in front were to advance and make direct assault.  But the “best laid plans of mice and men oft’ gang aglee.”  Law missed his line of direction—­failed to come upon the enemy’s flank, night was upon us, and it must be remembered that all these movements took time, thus giving the Union Army an opportunity, under the sable curtains of night, to “fold their tents and gently steal away.”

General Longstreet, in his book written nearly thirty years after the occurrence of Cambell’s Station, severely criticises General Law, who commanded the two flanking brigades, and in withering and scathing terms directly charges him with the loss of a great victory.  He quotes one of his staff officers as saying that it was the common camp rumor that General Law had made the remark “that he could have made a successful attack, but that Jenkins would have reaped the credit of it, hence he delayed until the enemy got out of the way.”  This is unjust and ungenerous to a gallant and faithful officer, one, too, who had, by his many and heavy blows in battle, added largely to the immortal fame of Longstreet himself.  That there was a laudable ambition and rivalry among all officers and men in the Confederate Army, there can be no question—­an ambition to outstrip all others in heroic actions, noble deeds, and self-sacrificing, but jealously never.  As for treachery, as General Longstreet clearly intimates in the case of General Law, why the poorest, ragged, starved, or maimed soldier in the South would not have sold his country or companions for the wealth of the Indies, nor would he have unnecessarily sacrificed a life of a comrade for the greatest place on this continent, or the fairest crown of Europe.  It must be remembered in this connection that there were personal differences between the corps commander and General Law at times, and with one of his division commanders, all during our Western campaign.  That General Law was obstinate, petulant, and chafed under restraint, is true, but this is only natural in a volunteer army, and must be expected.  And had General Longstreet, so rigid a disciplinarian as he was, but a breath of suspicion at the time of disobedience, lack of courage, or unfaithfulness in his subaltern, General Law would have been put under immediate arrest, and a courtmartial ordered.  The old General, in several places in his memoirs, makes uncomplimentary remarks and insinuations against some of his old compatriots in arms, but these should not be taken seriously.  It will be remembered by all the old Confederates in this connection that during the period just succeeding the war mighty social convulsions took place in the South—­political