The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-02-07
Col. Bisseli and the Bucl.

Al lengtQ VIC nave SullClent ISnt vi Wills
subject to clear up all the doubts that sur
rounded It. The whole of the correspond
encc between Col. Davis and Col Bisseli has
at last been published, and oil the disputed
points in reference to the acceptance OF the
challenge by Col Bissell, the causes which
led to the challenge, what prevented the
hostile meeting, and Col. Bissell's orn opin-
ion of the legal effect of accepting the chal-
lenge are now set at rest. The correspond
ence was placed in the hands of Col. Richard
son by Jefferson Davis, land, at the request
Of the Hon. John A. Logan, has been pub
lished in the Springfield Register
This correspondence settles the following
points, which have hitherto been disputed
by the Republicans:
LIST. That Col. Davis did challenge Col.
Bissell.
I'd. That EisseIl accepted the challenge.
Sd. That the hostile correspondence did
not arise from the fact that Col. Davis or
any body else had reflected in the remotest
degree on the bravery Of the Illinois volun-
teers, but from what Davis construed into a
reflection by Bissell on the Mississippi regi-
ment; and
Ath. That Col. Biss,ll and his friends at
that time, las Col. Bissell has since then
owned in speeches in this State) believed
that the acceptance Of the challenge of Davis
disqualified him from holding any office in
this State, as is evidenced that the acceptance
Of the challenge was not carried by Gen.
Shields, (who up to this time had acted as
Bissell's " friend, but was carried by Capt.
Cross.
To prove these points, VIC give the follow
ing synopsis Of the correspondence:
On the 2lst day Of February, 1850, Col.
Bissell made a speech in the House of Re-
representatives. at Washington,..in which lie
made statements to which Col. Davis, of
Mississippi, took exceptions. On the 22d
Of February Ohe day alter Col. Davis add
dressed Col Bissell note in substance that,
al Davis am informed that you CBissGlD
in your remarks Of yesterday, asserted, that
at the time it was claimed for the Mississippi
regiment to have passed through the scat
tered files Of the ID Indiana regiment and
met the Mexican forces, the Mississippi Re
giment was not within mile and half OF
the spot wish to know if am correct in
my information" This letter was borne to
Col. Bissell by Col Davis friend, Mr.. Inge.
Col. BrssELL replied to Col. DAVIS in q
note Of the same date, in substance shat he
had received his note, and would state what
he did say in his remarks, which was, that
Eat the time tie I'd Indiana regiment gave
way, the Mississippi regiment was not with
in one and half miles Of the scene OF ac-
ton; that he made no charge against the
Mississippi regiment, but wished to do jus
tice to Others" &C. This reply was borne
by Gen. SHIELDS to Mr.. INGE. When Mr.
ISGE received the reply, he informed Gen.
SHIELDS that it would not be satisfactory to
Col. DAVIS, but that If Col BrssELL would
add that, in his remarks he did not mean to
impute cowardice to the Mississippi regi-
ment, it would be satisfactory. This Col
BIssELL and General SHIELDS, his friend, re-
was addressed to Col. BIssELL by Col. DA-
us, in substance: "You (BisselD say that
you made no charge against the Mississippi
regiment, but claim that the ID Kentucky,
I'd Illinois and portion of the 1st Illinois
regiments met and repulsed the advancing
enemy. This would render it impossible
that the Mississippi regiment could have
met the Mexican forces who followed the re-
treat of the I'd Indiana regiment, or that, in
the language of the Brigadier General COM
handing the Indiana troops Gen Joseph
Lane,) The regiment Of Mississipians came
to the rescue at the proper time to save the
fortunes Of the day To deny the claims Of
the Mississippi regiment is such injustice as
to require of me to ask of you whether you
deny the claim, and give the merit to 9TH
ers"
The letter was borne by Mr. INGa. Col
BIssELL replied upon the same day, (Febru-
airy Esd, 1867 in substance that "his re-
marks had reference to different time and
place from that referred to by Gen. LANE,
and that he does not deny LANES report"
This reply was also borne by Ger. SHIELDS.
When Gen. SHIELDS delivered this reply, he
requested that the correspondence should
cease for the space Of two days, in order that
Col. BIssELL might have time to prepare his
speech for publication. After the expira-
ton of the two days, and on the 9th Of
February, 1850, Col DAVIS again addressed
Col. BIssEIL, in substance as follows: "The
delay of two days asked for in our last in
terview having expired, and no reply having
been received to the inquiry in my last note
Of the 23d, I hare to request that you mW
authorize Il ! friend to arrange acih n1ytriend
Nr. Lnge, the necessary preliminaries"
Col. BIssELL replied on the same day, and
concluded his letter thus:
"Hou reqaire me t, designate n friend TO
arronge preliminaries soih Mr.. Hge-tor
this purpose 1 name Major Cross, IT, S.
army"
This reply was borne by Major CRoss, and
not by Gen. SHIELDS, as before. Mark this.
While the preliminaries were being arrang-
ed by the seconds, or .frienfs Of the parties,
General DAWSON, Of Georgia, and Col. RICH
AnDsoS, Of Illinois, got together for the
purpose of trying to settle the difficulty and
thus prevent meeting Of the parties. They
wrote an agreement to the effect that all the
correspondence subsequent to Col. DAVIS
first letter, and Col BIssELL's reply thereto,
should be withdrawn, and that Col. BIssELL
should add in his first letter, that he did not
mean, in his speech, to impute any eowar-
dice to the Mississippi regiment This
agreement was assented to by Col. BissELL,
and also by Mr. lSGE, for Col. DAVIS. who
stated that it was all he had asked in the
first place. This all appears in the cores.
pondenee.
There is not another word Of comment