Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-10-30
From the 9th Vermont Regiment-vin-
dicatiOn from recent newspaper at
Camp Tyler, Chicago, ILL.,, }
October rs, 1862, (

Camp Tyler, Chicago, ILL.,,
October 25, 1862,
EDITOR RETnAND HERALD :-Dear ST. -
The Burlington Times of October 18th con-
tains the following paragraph:
SHAMEFUL CONDUCT.
We are assured upon excellent authority that
some of the officers in the 9th VT Regiment
were so wanting in self respect and patriotic
feeling that after the capture of Harper'6 Fer
ry they sold their equipments, swords, field
glasses, overcoats, &C., to the rebel officers.
We should not credit the statement which is
SO. disgraoeful to the recreant poltroons, were
it not attested by one of the best officers in
the service of the State and country"
This is by no means the first attack made
upon the Inflated 9th by this sheet. Almost
every issue that has come to us for the last
fortnight has contained some report OF lnsub-
ordination or riotous acts perpetrated by the
soldiers of the 9th, such as refusing to do
guard duty defying the authority of the of
ficers burning barracks, &C., &c, all of
which are totally false or grossly misrepre-
| sented. .......... ..-..... .
And now, as if not satisfied with making
| the rank and file out as knaves and rowdies,
| it makes this most libelous and fagitious at
tack upon the officers of the regiment thai
ever defled the white surface of an innocent
medium. We are accused of being guilty of
shameful conduct" of having lost our
"sslf respect and patriotism" In short and
in fine we are no longer men but rec,eaHt pol
troons, because, forsooth, as is alleged some
of the officers sold their equipments, field glass
es, swords, revolvers, overcoats &c. to the reb-
oil officers all Of which is attested by 'one of
| the best officers in the State.n .
Now, Mr.. Editor, must deliberately and
| above my own signature affirm that the above
accusation is false rot only in its verbal die
very excellent officer referred to is, nor do |
care, but it is perfectly apparent, as | will
show you by candid statement of facts, that
the author of the libel is sctuated by malicious
motives with which the Times seems to be IN
lively sympathy. Admitting for the moment
the accusation to be true, that at the surren-
der of Harper's Ferry, the officers of the 9th
did dispose of certain side arms and field
glasses, and that rebel officers paid us money
for them does it necessarily follow that we
were recreant to our trust in so doing? that
we sacrificed our manhood that we were lost
to every patriotic sentiment? that we made
ourselves plotroons? Who has constituted the
TS~es our Judge? Or if he is self constitu-
ted will he please state TO the people of Yer
mont candidly the condition and ciroumstan
ces in which we were placed, and the motives
that might have actuated us, and then he may
pass his judgement, but not before. He has
no right to do it before Has he done this
Or has he not rather heard with biased mind
the statement Of some prejudiced officer, jump
ed at his conclusions, and meanly arragned us
before the public with lie.
What means has either the Times or its
superlatively excellent officer of knowing the
circumstances which may or may not have in
fuenced our actions at the time
In the first place every officer IN the regi-
ment looked upon the white flag that acknowl-
| edged the rebels our victors az the inevitable
sentence of each one of us, to a winters berth
in Richmond prison. We had not the slight
est hope of retaining our personal effects, save
the clothes upon our bodies We had receiv-
ed no pay and few of us had any money
Now, admitting that some Captain or Lieu
tonant did receive $500 or $1,000 for his
revolver from a rebel officer, surprising that it
would be taken from him anyway, is it any
body's business but his own2 Was it so very
shameful to replenish an empty pocket, with
which to go into Dixie with SIX months I'M
prisonment in prospect. Is the Times so ex-
ceedingly pure and good that it sees evil in
| such a transaction.
Or, il some officer had some article of
clothing which he was unable to carry with
him for want of transportation, is it Indicative
of total loss of self respect that he received
$500 for it instead of leaving it common
property for the lousy legion of rebel privates
around US