The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-14

in repeating i in the offensive manner and that TOO,
Ia rue lace OF iaets too numerous ana 100 wen authenticated
| 10 be denied OF esaded"
Is not that impeaching the veraciiy of General Tay
As there ioafer in the lowest pureus OF any street so
obluse that he could not understand such language
maj q And would not gentlemen OF a high sense OF
military honor feel IL sensiby There be but one
opinion amongst men of honor and men OF intelligence in
regard 10 such lang uage.
httle further on he says:
- made report thai battle, (Busna VsS far il
came onder my observation General Taylor also made
report and the question now 70 be presented s Did he
report relative my commando He did not, aud here is
the proof"
This is a very strange assertion will not comment
upon it but il my duty present the facts to the Sen
ate and each gentleman can draw his conclusions
from them General Lane then goes 10 make
exact copy of General Tayors report found in the
published documents He then makes what purporls TO
ne copy OF his own report to General Wool,
which will be found 10 differ in what General Lane con-
sders very material pontone that was the subject OF
his third supplementary report TO General Taylor Now,
it is very strange that gentleman should be able max
exact copy Of the report OF General Taylor but should
fall into in making copy OF his report 10
General Wool and that the mistake should be Identical
with matter deemed of much importance to make
i the subject matter OF his third supplementary report
dsed" Yet this word "intsnded not in his original
report was the correction made by him until the oath
OF March, ls47-nineeen days after General Taylors
report was made and one day after General Taylor had
refused cour-martia to try Colonel Bowes. II will
take good deal Of ingenuity to reconcile all this 4
But he finds particular fault with that part OF General
| Taylors report where he says:
:. The I'd Indiana regiment which had fallen back as
stated could not be rallied and took further in the
aeon except hsadn, OF men, under It's gallant Colonel
services" &c.
To this he replies, by showing that in his report
he had stated that Those troops were Immediately raj
lied and fought throughout the whole day like veterans
few OF them regret TO say did not return to the field
at ALL"
Here he has not quoted correctly from his own report
His words are, These troops the most of them,
Immediately rallied, and fought during the whole day like
veterans few OF them, regret to say. did not return
to the field at ALL"
Now in his quotation no makes this extract apply TO
the I'd regiment alone In speaking alone OF this reg
ment he says. "Ihose troops" &c-hat is, all OF Them
OF course.
But in his published report the remark applies as much
TO the Arkansas cavalry, and of the Illinois regi-
ments il does to the I'd Indiana regiment it, indeed, il
does not apply to them entirely By examining il, will
be seen that he speaks Of Two classes OF tIoops-,he
first those not under his command and those which he
commanded
command he says These troops, the most OF Them i'm
mediately rallied" &c But when speaking of those
under his command he says shall attempt to make
no apology for their retreat" &c-and dss grace must
attach to those who did not return.
II he intended to say that he most OF the I'd regiment
returned, he conadcts Col Davis, who said that
only 'smnA party " and he also contradcts the
OF inquiry in his own case-by whom the number
fixed at from $50 10 900 But il was after thought
win Zen. Lane 10 lnat When speaking OF those
troops who rallied in his report of 25th February ls47
he intended TO say that the most of the Cd Indiana reg
ment rallied. And this will appear by reference to his
original report printed There the sentence commen.
cling 'These troops the of Them we've Immediately
rallied, &C., follows Immediately after his reference
the Arkansas cavalry and illinois regiment without
the commencement of new paragraph that ii
evidently intended TO apply to all the troops who had
treated: whereas in the circular published in the Dem-
ocat as republished in the State Sentinel, he makes
this sentence, These troops, SIC, commence par
agaph in that part which purports to be extract from
his original report, and Immediately after he makes it
apply to the I'd Indiana regiment only
And is by this mode of stating the that he jusi
hes himself IN speaking oil the statement OF Gen. Ta5 or
THIS statement is mol true"
II Gen Taylors statement regard to the numbers
who were rallied &c, were untrue why did not General
Lane correct in supplemental report before the
Of inquiry' He made three such reports, and did
for to it, And he must have known that this not
of the questions TO be investigated by the Blu,
he did not think fit 10 denounce this statement untrue
until Gen Taylor became candidate for the presidency,
and until he Just about to start to Oregon.
by denouncng II as untrue, ne expressly contiadcts
Col. Davis and Gen Wool. Col Davis calls them a
small party" and GeH. Wool a" fragment" who raj
lied and by saying that the most OF them rallied be
contradcs the finding OF the OF inquiry, where
the number was fixed at from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred.
He charges Gen Taylor with a suppression OF the truth
in not stating the fact Of the ralyng of these men"
Gen. Taylor gave credit TO those who rallied with Col
Davis, for he says they did good service and TO the
others who defended the train at the depot at Buena
Vista The only question which he left doubtful
TO the number that did good seruice' under Col
Davis. Nobody reported the number him. and there
fore he compelled 10 leave II to be learned from the
other reports.
| suppose this publication OF Gen Lanes was a sort OF
make peace TO the Indianians whom he had assaed
with much violence than any other officer OF the
army had done | suppose this a sort OF savo"-
depreciation of the wrath OF his fellow citizens He
perhaps wished 10 concilaie the gentlemen OF the second
Indiana regiment by putting II the ground that they
were not "ordered 10 advance, but that it merely
intended" they should advance IL IL intended, il
nnnht N hay hpan dnna AMI mot hlyt haap dana
who is to blame for the consequences
Other remarks might be made this part OF the paper,
which would show discrepancy between the report
originally made and this publication the ndianians
he tries 10 show that from other regiments deser ed
besides those from the second Indiana
With the permission OF the senator from Mississippi
II Mr.. DAvIs,] would call his attention things
that said in this part Of the publication Gen. Lane
says:
There are two material facts known to erybody upon
that hed-known to General Taylor when he hi,
port, and which imbodied ia my Iepor-wheh facts
Cen Taylor does not aludc wit first that the
immediately rallied, and ght all day
aud contrast them. General Taylor fhey coud
be arsd, ard took ln,hsr part rho txcspt
hnwdfi OF oho rallied AWder s gallant Col Bo,res
This statement la my report state the a1air
Just IL occurred, giving the whole truth ,hep
knew for was not then that Bowles had given
order TO retreat expressly stated that those toops
Immediately rallied, and fought throughout the
day like few OF them, regret ay, did not
return to the field at all.
| Again
The fact that he gave the order to retreat
established, and that he gave without authority from
any else THIS, taken In xiou with the
stated ia my official port of the battle those troops
Immediately rsiiied and fought during the whole day