The National tribune., 1886-09-02
FIGHTING THEM OVER
What Our Veterans Have TO Say About
Their Old Campaigns
ANTIETAM.
To Whom Does the Honor Of Taking the Bridge
Bei0nEl

To Whom Does the Honor Of Taking the Bridge
BelonEi
To THE EDITOR: have noticed in The
NATIONAL TRIBUNE Of different dates since
my reply filing exceptions 10 the statement
made In relation 20 Antietam that COmrade
Walton made a very pleasant and interesting
story irving 70 make IL plain that The oOth
Ohio did GO down the left and cross the creek,
came up on the opposite side aud caused the
Johunies TO get up and get. And IN The issue
ofJuly Is Comrade Edwards, of the same regi-
ment comes 10 the front with a good long
statement approving Comrade Naltons hrst
statement and criticizing mine, and giving the
credit of the taking of the Burnside bridge TO
the nth Ohio, which j have no doubt was
very gallant regiment. But must differ with
the comrade where the Burnside bridge is con-
cerned In the issue of July D COmrade wal
ton takes up the Ratchet again and proceeds TO
chop right into Comrade Reed, of the 5lst Pa,
and TO give me another lick or two. All right
comrade; / can stand the wbacking, as was
there and have got some Of the JOhnnies iron
that was passed out for my benefit IN the shape
OF a piece of shell weighing ID ounces. But,
comIade it was received after that bridge was
taken and after you had made your advance TO
the front. We were occupying the hlll TO the
left of comfeld and were exposed 10 raking
fire of shell from rebel battery in front on
aMther hill. We were lying down behind
ed il in taking this same bridge aud in our iirst
occupation of this hill. We were simply hold
ing the hill at the point of the bayonet, when a
shell exploded just in rear of our line, killing
Lieut. Holbrook, and the piece spoken OF be-
fore lodging in my knapsack, penetrating two
pieces of shelter tent and an overcoat and
making a dish out of a tin plate. But this has
nothing TO do with the point at issue, and The
only point have disputed or wish 10 dispute
is simply this: In your first statement you say,
1T the bridgel had been taken and lost sew
eral times prior TO this by charge and counter
charge" Now / claim the bridge was never
lost after being taken, but was in our hands
from the time we first gained possession. Aud
my statement was correct 30 far as gave IT, III
il was written by an officer. But, Comrade
Reed, you and cannot have any words as TO
which regiment ID was, whether the 5lst Pa. or
the 5lst N. Y, that was ahead in that charge
According to my vision at the time shall
have TO agree with Gen. Walcott's statement,
but do not contradict your statement, rs 1t
would be impossible for any one In the rear OF
your two regiments 10 be positive In relation TO
that.
Now, Comrade Walton, you need not waste
any more time trying to prove that the 3Oth
Ohio did go down and cross and come mp on the
other side OF Antietam Greek, as j say do not
now dispute nor have disputed IL before. But
that you accomplished the capture of the bridge
il
vivid recollection Of the Johnnes being right
there when the bridge was taken and doing
their level best TO continue TO keep it. Now
you quote the Century. BE so kind as TO look
on page 80 in this same June number from
which you quote and see If you can find any
thing in the shape OF a copy of a photograph
taken al the time Of the 5lst Pa. and 5lst N.
Y charging that bridge and taking il, too. But
there is no nesd OF il, as you acknowledge in
your reply to me, And now as 10 the honor OF
the capture of the bridge, don't know any
thing about IT," Comrade you never ought TO
have claimed the honor Of its capture, TO keep
aud to hold, after being taken and lost several
times if you did not know anything about it.
think j did, and i think i have proved that
did.
Now, Mr. Editor, please 10 excuse me from
any more controversy in this matter We will
talk about something good TO eat, rs Comrade
Walton says.-WILBUR A. POTTER, Co. A, 2lst
Mass. East Tempieton, Mass.