Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-11-21
INor.h AM rican Review. |


martial was Governed in the city of Wash
ington for the trial of !. NaJor-aenefai flt
John Porter, of the voluA 1teer Iorcs' IN
court consisted of nine members ana
judge. advocate-the judge '-aosocate gem
raj of the army.
The charges against G< neral fortt
were:
Fsrst-Disobeiience of orc ers unds
the ninth article of war.
Second Misbehavior before III snen,
under the fifty second article of wal
Under the first charge there vert snre
specifications of which the court Il 'un
Porter guilty. These were, substantial ~
FyTst-Disobedience to the order &C
August 81, requiring him to march frsA
morning of the 2sth and be at Bristos
station by daylight.
Seeomd-Disobe diencs on August ~.
while in front of the enemy, to the Joint
order to Mcdowell AID Porter, dirscti. q
them to march towards Gainesville and
establish communication with the other
corps.
Third Disobedience on August 20,
while in front of the enemy, to what is
Known as the $50 p. m. Ordsr," requiring
Porter TO attack the ensmy's flank and
rear.
Under the second charge the specifics
lions upon which Porter was tried and
convicted were in substance:
Figst-Shameful disobedisnce to the 4:3O
p. N. order OF Aug. %, while in sight of
the field and in full hearing of its artillery;
and retreat from advancing forces of the
enemy. without attempting to engage
them or to aid the troops who were fight
ing greatly superior numbers, and who
would have secured decisive victory and
captured the enelny's army but for Por-
ter's neglect TO attack and his shameful
disobedience.
Second-Failure Of Porter all that day
to bring his forces on the field when within
sound of the guns and in presence of the
enemy and knowing that severe action
of great consequence was being fought
and that the aid of his corps was greatly
needed, and his shameful falling back and
retreat from the advance of unknown
forces of the enemy without attempting to
give them battle.
Third-Shameful failure of Porter on
the same day, while a severe action was
fought, to go to the aid of General Pops's
troops, when he believed that they were
being defeated and were retiring from the
field, and his shameful retreat and falling
back under these circumstances, leaving
the army to the disasters of a presumed
defeat: and failure, by any attempt to at
tack the enemy, to aid in averting disas-
ter which would have endangered tho cap
ital.
These are the accusations that were
made against Gen. Porter for his part and
failure in the battles generally known as
those Of the second Bull Run campaign.
The court found him guilty of the charges
and specifications. If he was so guilty the
punishment awarded was not commensur-
ate with the offense committed. believe
lawyers have taken exception to the forma-
ton of the court and to some of its technl-
cal rulings; but neither at the time nor
since has Gen. Porter attempted to evade
the consequences of his acts by any special
pleadings, or by taking advantage of any
technical error in the composition of the
court or the method of ITS being ordered,
but has relied entirely upon his innocence
of all the charges and specifications, and
would not be satisfied with an acquittal on
any other ground than that of his entire
innocence.
1t will be seen from the foregoing that
General Porter's alleged misconduct was
embraced in three separate cases of DISC
bedience of orders; one on the 9th of
n%AA
sarily from the enemy, by that act en-
dangering other portions of the army with
which he was cooperating.
1t will be seen that, though these ofenses
we're alleged to have been committed in
August. 1862. he was continued in the COM
Knand of an army corps until some time in
November following, taking an active part
in the battles of the day following the date
of the last charge, and in command of the
defenses of Washington On the west bank
of the Potomac, and also at the battle Of
Antietam, some weeks later. It would
look at first very singular that an officer %
wantonly derelict in the performance of his
duty, as Gen. Porter was alleged 10 have
been on the 9th and 18th of August
should have been continued in 80 impor-
tant place as the command of an army
corps, when so much was at stake as there
was on the 30th of August, and in the O.
ferses Of Washington and in the later bat
Ties in Maryland. when the invasion of the
North was threatened. These facts would
indicate to an unprejudicea mind that the
charges against Porter were an after
thought, to shift the responsibilities OF
failure from other shoulders and to place
them upon him.
In regard to his disobedienee of the
order of the 9th of August he is alleged
TO have without justification deferred his
march from Warrenton Junction to Bristoe
Station from o'clock until 3 of the morn.
ing of the 18th. It was about 10 O'CLOCK
on the night OF the 9th when Porter re-
ceived the following order:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF VIRGINIA,
+'BR1sroE STATION, Aug. 81, 1882, $50 P. n
GENERAL: The major-general com
manding directs that you start at o'clocl
and come forward with your whole corps,
or such part of it as IS with you, SO rs tx
be here by daylight tomorrow morning
Hooker has had very severe action viii
the enemy, with loss of about 300 killet
and wounded. The enemy has been driver
- =