Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1865-08-24


with this report lying before him, General
llalleck published to the world that he had
ordered an investigation but suppressed
the fact that the investigation had been
made six weeks before the publication of
his report, and that my action had been
fully maintained.
Although Lhave suffered public wrong, ]
feel too deep an interest in the great issue
for national existence now being tried en-
the battlefield, to add new disturbing ele-
ment 10y making public vindcation. But
| would be unworthy Of the cause in de.
fence OF which drew my sword were | to
allow any personal consideration to prevent
me from placing on record u statement Of
facts as set forth in this paper.
Having waited in vain for further rcply
from Gen IIalleck, on the 18th of January,
1863, Exhibit E), l wrote to you that II
had patiently remained under the public
censurc of Gen. Halleck for the period Of
four months, believing that time and inves-
tigation were only necessary to secure the
al proval of my course, and | requested to
be informed whether my conduct in the
evacuation of Cumberland Gap met with the
approval or disappro>a al of the General in
Chief. To that communication Gen. Hal
leck has not found i convenient to reply {;
but in his letter of Feb sth, 1868 Exhibit
Feb. 4th, 1868 Exhibit g., Gen. lIalleck
says The facts, as ao,o presented, .iusti-
fled General Morgan's retreat. What
facts? Gen. Hallcck possessed no facts on
$ the Sth Of February 1868, which he did not
know on the I'd of December, leG2, when he
published his censurc report.
In his letter of February 4th, 1868, Gen.
Wright simply re-atlirmcd the facts and
opinion already stated by him, in his official
report ofthe investigation, made October
18th, 1862. And in reply to Gen. Wright
letter Of Feb. 4th 1868, Gen. Hallcck says,
in his letter Of Feb. 9th, 1863 "ln this
letter (of Feb 4th) and your former letter
(Oct. 10, 1862. you fully cxonerated Gen.
berland Gap. No further investigation vii
therefore be made In substance, Genera
Wrght's letter of Feb. 4, 1868, and his re
port Of October II, 1862, are identical a:
Gen Hallcck admits Upon what principle
then, did he publicly ccnsure my course up
on receiving the first letter, and prirdtcl,
justify my conduct on receiving the second
when both sustained my action?
Gen. Hulleck expresses regret that
Gen. Wright did not make full and forma
investigation at the time it was ordered. -
And yet, when Gen. Halleck penned the ex
preston Of that regret, he knew that the
investigation was as full and formal as il
could have been made except by Court ot
Inquiry or Court Martial He says that
such an Investigations was due to Genera
Morgan, as well as to Cen Wright and the
Government. If due to me, why did Gen.
Hallcck refuse to grant me Il Court Martial
or Court Of Inquiry? If due to the Gov
ernment why did not Gen. Halleck procure
an order for Court of Inquiry, or himself
order Court Martial? Gen. lIalleck ough,
to know that Gen. Wright had not the
power TO order "A Court of Inquiry; ht
1aleck) refused me II court, and did no
order one himself; but on the contrary III
ordered the investigation to be made by
-, single officer-seectcd that officer himself
% and at this late day he grudgingly and lri
rdtcly iustites my conduct on the report o
that officer.
Gen. IIallcck further says: Genera
Morgan represented his force asabc to hole
Cumberland Gap against any number o
troops which the enemy could bring agains
: him. He was almost boastful in his conf
dence that he could do this. On these as
surances the government believed that the
post would be held by us, and serve as
=, serious obstacle to the retreat of Genera
, Bragg 5 army"
g. Gen IIalleck strangely confounds "force
with Subsistence. Ibid holdmy position
than my own-the enemy completely sur
rounded, hut did not attack me. And haC
l. not Gen. llalleck failed to open communica
ton between Lexington and Cumberlan,
Gap as he promised to do Exhibit Ii J, tha
} stronghold would be ours to-day.
| had sufficient force to beat the enemy i
he had attacked me, but had not subsistence
l. sufficient to keep my troops two week
-, longer from starvation.
~ In his report of Dec ., 1862, Gen Hal
leck says that just before the evacuation,
reported had several weeks supplies
but in his letter Of Feb. s, 1868, he assert
that in a dispatch Of Sept II, 1862, uHege
II, to have been written by me six days belor
ee the evacuation, said that | had supple
tie for seventy or eighty days. But in tina
he that he (Nlorgan) stated in his dispatc
r. that his supplies were limited" How
ut then, does Gen. Halleck reconcile the asser
re ton of seventy or eighty days supplies witt
O. his admission that reported that my sup
IN plies were limited? Hesays that | sostate
IS in my dispatch of Sept. IT,, 1862; but den
having written such dispatch to Genera
al Ilaleck, Gen. Wright or any other person
u No such dispatch was written by or for me
an and if any purporting to be such is in ex
istencc, denounce it as forgery.
1g In my official report to Gen. Wright, OC
/ tober IL, 1862, Exhibit u, l said; 20
~ the 9th Of September last Exhibit J) l ad
~ dressed letter to Maj. Gen. Wright, b
III one of my aids de. camp, uih a rerJdi mes
y, sage that by cutting mules ace could hoM on
lit sirty doys Exhibit X J; but on the 18th q
a September the able and energetic divisio
ry quartermaster informed me that it was in
On possible longer to feed the mules and sug
k, gested that they should be sent to the Obi
n, River. l further stated that my troop
al had been six days without bread, and tha
n DeCourcy had failed to obtain the hope
ng for supplies at Manchester. These fact
Id were all before Gen. Hallcck while he WI
Id writing his report of Dec. 3, 1862, for whic
ce he so ungraceiully apologies in his lette
to Gen. Wright of Feb. g. 1863.
ce Gen. Halleck further says: Had h
OF (Morgan's) true condition been know
NJ measures might have been taken to reiey
ur him.
h. Does Gen Halleck mean to say that h
It, did not do all he was able to do at Big Hill
h, Richmond and Lexington? Does he adm
at that he did not cause Bragg and Smith I
Oh be driven from Kentucky at the earliest POI
re sible moment? If so, then it is certain thu
n Gen. Halleck is responsible for the loss
m, Cumberland Gap; for the enemy maintaine
M his position i'm the heart of Kentucky on