Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1863-05-28
From the First brigade.
CAMP lsT VI. BRIGADE, ,
MAY 10, 1868. (

EDITOR RUTLAND HERALD: | notice
a letter in the Burlington Times of the
18th inst, dated the 9th inst, signed
Vermont" and to its mis-statements |
wish to allude | am not going into the
details of the battle, as Col. Grants Off
cial report of the 9th inst. gives correct
account of the doings of each regiment,
and due praise and credit is given TO
each regiment.
vermont says "the Sd fell back, f"
which is under stood here that it fell
bask" because it would or could not hold
posiuon,-when the fact is it was ordered
to the light of the 3D. and then to the left
of the brigade, to prevent flank by the
enemy.
He says: i" the 9Th was obliged TO re-
tire, as the troops on their left 1.-THE 10Th
New Jersey and Sd Vermont) fell back"
Not so the 5th fell back because it vas
ordered back, and when 1t got back to the
main line the Sd had not moved at all, but
! went soon after, as state above, following
the 9Th regiment to the left of the brig
AIDE.
The Goth New Jersey was not on pick
ct, but fought we'll for time, broke, rail-
| led, and fought again on the right of the
9th.
"Vermont " tenders his thanks to the
half-dozen men VINO fell in with co. !, 9th
Vermont, and fought till dark" Is he
| personally indebted to them ? | get the
| impression from the letter that the 9th
Vermont did all the fighting, or at least
was the only regiment that did not "fall
back" Could it have done it all alone
Will not "Vermont" "tender his thanks
to the I'd, Sd, 4th and 9Th also?
Gould the 9th have taken all the prison
ers if it had been all alone Or if the
rest of the regiments did fall back
1t did all the good fighting az!
! Didn't the haf-dozen men of the Goth
take single prisoner? That is bad for
the Goth.
We are ready to say that the 9th fought
we'll and braveIy; that it fought like a
Vermont regiment, and did nobly.
But Why must Vermont" detract and
belle the rest of the Vermont regiments
They all did WELL Bat Vermont" stops
not here. He says: " if the whole Of the
Vermont regiments had teen olJoced tc
charge with the 6 h, they might have cap
tured thousand prisoners. Doubted. -
But who was to protect our TANKS m an
time ? Why slur and condemn Col. Grant
for his action here. He saw danger or
the left OF the brigade, and provided for
it, and the result soon showed, that that
point protected saved us from being en-
tirelv cut off by large force. Every
regiment did as well as regiment ever
could do, and it shows mean spirit Il
praise one at the expense OF four as good
regiments as ever met and drove an en-.
envy.
1t is said that the Vermont brigade
saved the 9th corps. " Vermont" implies
that all the rest but the 9th "faIl back p
ergo, the 9th Vermont saved the 6tf
corps. Immortal 'Vermnt"!
But surely, if, as Vermont implies
the other re iments did not stand up like
men, but needlessly fell back" is it no
reproach to the State2 And is ".Ner
mont" so ready to publish our reproact
to The world2 Rather he and all of u
had better hide our heads in shame. Blu
we have no need. The brigade tough
long and well, against superior force
We repulsed them and took many prison
ers-got safely over the river with all ex
cept the brave men We left dead ant
wounded on the field.
Will Vermonters at home be kim
enough TO read the official report of Co
Grant. Of May 9th | ask this that tn
mis-statements of "Vermont" may not b
believed. The tendency of the letter is t
cast cloud upon the honor and drawer
of the rest of the Vermont regiments.
S. p.
P. $. VIII the Burlington Times b
kind enough to copy. ). Z.
BAD OMEN FOR President LINCoLl
) The New York Herald dominates hi
for reelection.