Ypsilanti sentinel. [volume] (Ypsilanti, Washtenaw Co., Mich.) 1843-1900, 1847-06-16
The Indiana Volunteers.

The Picket Guard, an American newspaper
published at Saltillo, contains the result of a
court martial in the cases of Gen. Lane ana
Col. Bowles. We make no apology for giving
the proceedings in full, in justice to those Off
GERS and to the Indiana regiments:
Inquiry in the case Of General Lane.
Fdcts.-That at the battle of Buena Vista,
on the 22d of February, Gen. Lane commanded
the I'd and Sd Regiments Of Indiana Volunteers
and three pieces of artillery under the command
of Lieut.. UBrien. and that the I'd Indiana vol
unteers retreated from the field, without any or-
ders from Gen. Lane, on the 23d of February;
but, through the exertions of Gen. Lane and
other officers, from one hundred and fifty to tive
hundred men of the I'd regiment Indiana Volt
unteers were rallied and attached to the Mis-
sissippi regiment and the Sd Indiana Regiment,
and remained with them on the field If battle
during the remainder of the day.
OpiRion.-The court are of opinion that dur
ing the whole period of the 22d and 23d of Fe-
bruary, lS47, Brig. Gen. Lane conducted him
self as brave and gallant officer; and that no
censure attached to him for the retreat Of the
I'd Regiment Indiana Volunteers.
Inquiry IN the case of Colonel Bo,eles.
Facts-ln reference to the first charge, it
appears from the evidence tina: Col. Powies Is
ignorant of the company, battalion, and brig
ade drills, and that the maneuvre OF the even
ing of the 23d February, indicated in the third
specification Of that charge, was indicative ofan
ignorance of the battalion drill.
In relation to the second charge, it appears
from the evidence before the court that Culohd
Bowles gave the order, "Cease firing and re-
treat that Gen. Lane was present, and that
he had no authority from Gen. Lane to give
such order.
It also appears that Col. Bowles rctrcateA
after having given the aforesaid comman |: bit
that he did mt shamefully run away from the
enemy, nor did he hide himself in any farihe
from the enemy or from his regiment. :"
1t appears, too, that Col. Bowles lisrnonnted
frotn his horse in of his regiment; bur there
is no evidence to show that he did SO 10 protect
himself from the enemy. ~ ..
Thecourt find that the fact of Col. Bowles,
having given the order above mentioned did in
duce the regiment to retreat in disorder,
Col. Bowles gave this order with the ihten-
ton of making the regiment leave its position;
but the court does not find that lie had been
particularly ordered to maintain and defend
it.
Opiaion.-With reference to the first charge,
the court is of the opinion that COL Bowles is
ignorant of the duties of colonel: but the court
would remark that i'll health, and absence on
account of i'll health, have in some degree pre-
vented him from fitting himself for the duties
of that Office.
The court is of opinion that at the time Col:
Bowes gave tie order "retreat," he was under
the impression that the artillery had retreatess
when in fact the battery had gone to an allvan-
ced position under the orders of General ta:;e,
which orders had not been communicated ID
Col. BoMles.
And, in conclusion, the court find that thrn h
ont the engagement, and through the whole
day, Col Bowles cvinced no want of personal
courage or bravery: but that he did manifest
want of capacity and judgement of comman-
der.