Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1880-09-16

Marcn 18TH, 1862, i ind that we made
SIX mile march through a drench-
ing rain to the vicinity OF the Chick
ahominy. The roads were deep mud.
Our brigade made halt near a very
line farm belonging TO the distin-
guished Lee family Some members
of the regiment not on duty went to
the fence; over this they spread and
fastened their rubber blankets, as
means OF protection from the rain.
They then went to straw stack and
carried from it armfuls of straw,
which they placed under the blankets
to rest on, as protection from the
mud. Hancock happened along just
thon; he approached them in his u.s.
ual rough manner, and ordered them
immediately to replace the rails on
the fence and to return the straw to
the cattle. This they had to do, and
the waiting soldiers were compelled
to remain in the rain and mud. Han.
cock regarded the value of a little
rebel straw as of more concern to
him than the comfort of volunteer
soldiers"
That statement, I say,is false. Mark
well what he says: 81 too keep a
diary and have brought it along."-
Now if he was giving his statements
from memory, he might say | made
mistake in dates. But we have got
his diary, which says March 10Th,
1862. Now / say without fear of
contradiction, that the Fifth Wiscon-
sin were not in the vicinity of the
Chiokahominy, in fact had not quit
camp IN front of Washington, at that
date. They embarked at Alexandria
for the peninsula, March 23d !; ar.
rived at Hampton, March Goth. Now
we have over a month before the
Fifth regiment fought in the battle of
Williamsburgh, which took place
May 5th, and still we have not got to
the Chickahominy, which was not
reached till about May Esd, 1862
Now if this is true, has he not lied ?
For fear my statements may be
doubted, | refer you to Greeley's
American Conflict, vol. 2, pages 100
and al; also Tuttle's History of
Wisconsin, page 40.
He is also mistaken as to location,
as Lees farm ia not on the Chicka.
hominy river, but at the junction of
the Pamunkey and York rivers. Now,
to shorten this letter, l say that Han
cock is not the kind Of man that
Mr.. Langridge or Castleman repre-
ssnts him to be, and from their false
statements | believe them to be what
we boys IN the rear rank used to call
one of the "dysentary brigade" We
had good many of them about the
time fight was anticipated. If he
wasn't he never would traduce as
brave man as Gen. Hancock proved
himself to be. Truly Yours,
THOMAS MCCAUL,
Late of Co. q, 1st u. S. S. S.
Our enthusiastic Democratic cor
respondent evidently supposes that
he has made an impregnable case,
and has completely annihilated Mr..
LaHgridgs. If he has so deluded
himself, we are happy to say that he
has made a complete failure. Mr..
McCaul fsncies that he has detected
two fatal errors in Mr.. Langridge's
statements, and from them assumes
that not only are all the statements
of Mr.. Langridge incorrect, but also
those of DIR. Castleman and many
other veteran soldiers of the Fifth
Wisconsin. Were the fanoied errors
discovered by Mr.. McCaul real, which
they are not, still they would hardly
warrant his general denial of the
statement of others.
This discrepancy in dates which
Mr.. McCaul points out in Mr.. Ian.
gridge's statement was first called to
our attention by the above communi
cation. Our newspaper experience
at once led US to surmise that it was
the result of one of those provoking
but almost inevitable typographical
errors for which the s'intelligent
comp" and the careless proof. reader
are responsible Where the error
occurred we could not tell. as we
copied she article from the Chicago
Tribune, and not directly from the
HERALD, in which the interview with
Mr.. Langridgs was originally pub
lishsd. Our suspicious were con,
tirmed by the following, which ap,
peared in the HERALD of later date:
I'm the published interview with
Mr.. Charles Langridga concerning
zen. Hancook's treatment of volun-
tser soldiers, the printers made an
error in one Of the dates. The day
that Hsnoook compelled the soldiers
to return the rebel straw, thus com.
pelling them to stand around in the
mud when they might have been
comfortably resting, was given as
March 10. 1t should have been Nav
TO-"
The MS. from which the article
was originally "set up" reads Nav 10
instead of March 10. And in this
respect it agrees with Mr.. Ian.
gridge's diary, which shows its age
and carries In its appearance the
proof of its own commences. This
dispoaes satisfactorily, we think, of
the first error which Mr.. McCaul
isncied he detected, and Mr.. McCaul
is IN error himself in making the
date "Nlay 49," as on that date the
advance was within seven miles #
Richmond. We will now dispose of
the second.
Mir. McCaul says that "Lee's
farm 10 not on the Chickahominy
river bat at the junction of the Pa.
mnnkey and York rivers" "Lee's
farm"is not the place named by Mr..
Laugridge. What be said was. "a
very fine farm belonging to the dis.
tinguished Lee family" If he had
meant the White House estate.
which is situated on the Pamunkey.
he would undoubtedly have callcd it
by that name
II will thus be seen that Mr.. Nc.
Caul has failed to shake the reliabil.
ity of Mr.. Langridgs's testimony in
the least. He did not attompt, only
preaumptively, to say that the