Evansville weekly journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 184?-18??, 1848-08-31
From the Indiana State Journal
oE@y. TAYLOR AND THE SECOND REGI-
- MENT-AGAIN

Gen. TAYLOR was perfectly Justlhabe In say.
ing all that he did say in relation to the retrea
of the Second Regiment, yet, he ought now Il
correct this report to conform to the facts fount
by the Court of Inquiry. That we may know
what those facts are, read the decision of tina
Court
"hquiry in the cnse of Gen. Lane-Facts
That at the battle of Buena Vista, on the 23rc
of February, Gen. Lane commanded the I'd anC
Sd regiments of Indiana volunteers; that OF
the 25d he was in immediate command of th,
I'd regiment of Indiana volunteers and three
pieces of artillery under the command of Lieut.
Brlen. and the I'd Indiana volunteers re-
treated from the field without any orders from
Gen. Lane, on the 23d of February; but thro
the exertions of Gen. Lane and other officers
from one hundred and fifty to two hundred
men OF the I'd regiment of Indiana volunteers
We're rallied and attached to the Mssissippi
regiment and the Sd Indiana regiment, and re-
manned with them on the field of battle dur
ing the remainder of the fight.
Oplnl0n.-The court are of opinion that du-
rIng the whole period of the 22d and 23d of
February, 1917 Brig. Gen. Lane conducted
himself as brave and gallant officer; and tina
no censure is attached to him for the retreat
Of the I'd regiment of the Indiana volun-
teeTs.
Inquiry in the case of Col. Bolrles.-In re-
terence 10 the first charge, it appears from the
evidence that Col BowIes is Ignorant of the
company, battalion, and brigade drills, and
that the maneuvre of the evening of the Odd
February, indicated in the third specification
OF that charge, was indicative of an ignorance
of the battalion drill. go.
In relation 10 the second charge, ii appears
from the evidence before the court. thai Col
Bowles gave the order, ssCease firing and re-
treat; that Gen. Lane was present, and that
ne had no authority from Gen. Lane to give
such an order.
1t also appears that COL Bowles retreated
after having given the aforesaid commando but
that nc did not shamefully run away from the
enemy, nor did he hide himself in any ra-
vine from The enemy, or from the regiment.
1t appears, too, that Col. Bowles dismount
ed from his horse in the rear of his regiment.
but there is no evidence to show that he did
SO to TO protect himself from the enemy.
The court find that the fact of Col. Bowles
having given the order above mentioned, did
induce the regiment TO retreat in disorder
Col. Bowles gave this order with the inten-
ton of making the regiment leave its position:
but the court does not find that he had been
particularly ordered to maintain and defend
it.
Opinion.-With reference to the first charge
the court Is OF the opinion that COL Bowies is |
ignorant of the duties of Colonel; but the court
would remark that ill-health has in some de-
gree prevented him from fitting himself for the
The court is of opinion that at the time Col
Bowles gave the order retreat he was under
the impression that the artillery had retreated
when In fact the battery had gone to an adj
vanced position under the orders of Gen. Lane.
which order had not been communicated to |
Col. Bowles.
And, in conclusion, the court find that
throughout the engagement, and through the
whole day, Col. Bowles evinced no want of
personal courage or bravery; but that he did
manifest want of judgment as command
err"
A commanding officer can only correct his
report from additional facts presented to him
IN an official manner. He can no more do il
on mere rumor than cana Judge on the bench en-
Ter up Judgment upon hearsay testimony. He
must have something before him upon which
TO base his correction. In this instance he has
had nothing upon which to found his correc-
tion.
Neither Gen. Wool, Gen. LANE, or Colonel
DAVIS ever corrected their reports. They re-
manned on file in the War Department, un-
corrected. The proceedings of the Court of
Inquiry were never communicated to General
Taylor. He never saw them except in a news
paper publication; and yet, he is abused be-
cause he has not corrected his report, and not
a word is said because the other officers have
not corrected their reports. Is this dealing ex-
act justice to all men? 1t is true, Gen. Lane
published in the newspapers what he calls his
supplemental report, but why was it not laid
before Gen. Taylor in an official manner?-1
Why was the decision of the court of INQUIRY
not laid before him? For the honor of those
whose duty it was to submit these matters to
him. We hope it may be found that it was not
done for the purpose of preventing his doing
that which he is now denounced for not do
ing.
Gen. Taylor, in his letter to MIR. Dunn, saws
he isyet willing to receive any reports which
may exculpate this regiment. Had the deci-
sion ofthe Court of Inquiry been submitted to
HIM at the proper time, the correction would
long since have been made. Let the blame
rest on those who are guilty, and not upon
Gen. Taylor who has done only what his duty
requires him TO do.
If The I'd Indiana regiment has been SANDER
ed, who has slandered it2 We answer Gen.
JOSEPH LANE. He was the first man that ever
wrote one word against it, and we dare any
man to deny it. Here is the proof See Ex
Doc. No. l, page l8l, and it will be found that
LANES report is dated, Feb 25, 1847-on
page l9l Col. Davis report is dated March I'd
le47-on page l44 Gen. Woods report is dat
ed. March a, l947, and on page 1872, General
Taylorsre is dated, March 6, 1912. Ont
the 9th of March, Gen. Lane corrected his re-
port BY mentioning that he had unintentional-
'y omitted the name of DR.. Johnson; and on
the Path of the same month, he made farther
correction, by substituting the word ''intend-
I'd instead of "Ordercd," but there is not one
word said in extenuation of the retreat of the
Regiment.
The Court of Inquiry was held on the 9th
0fA 4ha+ IL a..