Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-02-05
ten, FIfz John POrter-The Charges on
which he was Convicted.

Ten. Fltz John POrter-The Charges on
which he was Convicted.
The order dismissing FITz JOHN PORTER
for the service declares him disqualified
from ever holding any position of trust
under the United States government. The
court martial which convicted him was
composed of Major General HUNTER, Pres
ident; Major General HITCHCOCK, Briga-
dier-Generals RUFUS KING, PRENTIss, RICK
ErTs, CASEY. GARFIELD, BUFoRD, and
MORRIS, with Hon. JOSEPH HOLT, the Judge
Advocate General, as Judge Advocate.
He was ably defended by REvERDT JOHN
SON and Mr.. CHARLES EAMEs. The Court
met On Nov. 9th at Washington. The
charges, preferred by Brigadier General
B. L. ROBERTS, formerly Inspector General
of PoPE's army in Virginia, accuse Gen.
PORTER, generally, of wilful disobedience
to orders, whereby lie and the troops IN
der bis command failed to be at given
point, according to the order of General
Pope. and thus deranged plans which had
been formed for the capture Of Stonewall
JAoKsoN's army; also, with neglecsiDg
and refusing to attack the enemy, when
he was in position so to do; and neglect
ing ID order his troops to the front, when
he must have known by the sound of can
non, that battle was raging bat short
distance off. The formal charges are, VIC
iations of the ninth and ffty-second Arti-
Giles of War.
Article ninth provides that "Any officer who shall
disobey any lawful command o
his superior officer shall suffer death, such other
punishment as shall, according to the nature of his
offence, be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a
court martial"
Article ffty-secopd provides that "auy officer
and soldier who shall misbehave himself before the
enemy, run away, or shamefully abandon any tort,
post or ground which he or they may be commanded
20 DEFEND or speak words inducing others to do the
like shall suffer death, such
other punishment as shall be ordered by the
tence of federal court martial"
The specifications recite. first. that on
the 2Sth of August, General PORTER DISC
beyed positive and urgent order of Gen
eral POPE to bring his corps up to the help
of HOOKER and MCDOWELL, at the second
battle of Bull Run; second, that on the
following day, August 29ih, he again dis
obeyed The order of General Pope third,
that on the same DAY he failed to attack
the enemy, though positively ordered to
DO so; fourth, that being ordered on the
eve of the 29tb, to march his command to
the field OF battle and report in person to
General POPE, for orders, he again DISC
beyed, "and did permit one Of the brigades
of his command to march to Centrevllle,
out OF the way of the field of battle, and
there to remain during the entire day of
Saturday, the 30th day of August" at
which time severe battle was fought by
the remainder of the army; fifth, that
In violation of orders, he caused the brig
ade of General Piatt, on the 10Th, to be
greatly delayed in its arrival on the bat
tie field. The specifications to the second
charge relate that be retreated, on the
29th of August, from the enemy, "without
any attempt to engage them, Or aid the
troops who were already fighting greatly
superior numbers, and were relying or
the flank attack he was thus ordered to
make to secure a decisive victory, and to
capture the enemy's army-a result which
must have followed from said flank attack,
had it been made by said General Porter
in compliance with the said order which
he so shamefully disobeyed." That, in the
belief that our army was beaten, he fell
back and made no attempt to go to its
help; and that being in the belief that the
troops OF the said Gen. Pope were sus-
tanning defeat and retiring from the field,
did shamefully fail to go to the aid of said
troops, and did shamefuIly retreat away
and fall back with his army to the Manas-
sas Junction, and leave to the disaster of
presumed defeat, the said army, and did
fail, by any attempt to attack the enemy,
to aid in averting the misfortunes of dis
aster that would have endangered the
capital of the country"
The finding of the Court was, that Gen.
eral PORTER was ''guilty on every one of
the charges preferred"; and the sentence,
which was approved by the President,
cashiered him from the service.
This finding was in accordance with the
evidence given on the trial by Generals
Pope, Mcdowell, Roberts, Lieutenant
Colonel Thomas Smith, Capt. Drake De
Kay and others examined. The unan :
nous testimony of these officers was to
the effect that Gen :ral PORTER could have
brought his troops into action, but did
not; and that if be had done his duty the
rebel army must have been beaten, and
part of it destroyed. The evidence pub
lished in the newspapers while the trial
was IN progress was very imperfect, and
anything but faithful. We therefore copy
from the foil record, as published in the
pamphlet report of the trial, some extracts
from the testimony on which the judg-
ment of guilty was founded.
Gen. Mcdowell was asked:
ssPlease state the ground which you formed
the opinion that if the accused had attacked the
right wing of the rebels, he was ordered, the
battle would have been decisive in our fayorl"
And replied:
"Because, on the evening of that day. I thought
the result de cidedly in our favor as it was
But, admitting that it was merely equally bal
auced, think, and thought. that if the corps of
General Porter, reputed one OF the best, if not
| the best, in the service, consisting of between
| md hirty regiments and inht hat