The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-31
INDIANA TROOPS IN THE MEXICAN WAR.

monument, says:
As to the sentiment of the question ut
issue. / we'll remember the feeling during
all the days of 1861 to 1865. and how vivid
was the resentment of Ind;anas soldiers
toward jefferson Davis for his dastardly
slurs upon Indiana troops in his report Of
the battle of Buena Vista; and that wher-
ever Indiana soldiers went to the front in
the south they dared everything to show
how false his record was. and that In-
dianians could fight as well as MISSISSIPPI
plans. In this regard tho history of the
Indiana soldiers of both wars is insepara-
bly, i~ntertwined. it cannot be unmade,
and il seems strange hat this should be
forgotten now, and that any soldier of In
DIANA can be found at this late day TO join
Jefferson Davis in his effort TO shame and
belittle the well-autheDticated valor of
Indiana's first five regiments on her roIl of
honor.
Commenting on this, the Indianapolis
News says, editorially:
Mr.. Gookins notes incidentally what the
News has already pointed out-that the
greed and bigotry that mpels this attempt
would work the affirmation of jeff Davis's
charge or cowardico against the hrst nve
regiments that Indiana ever had. for thus
to obiiterate their memory from the monu-
ment would say to the world that the arch.
traitors accusations were affirmed by In
diana.
There has been a vast amount of loOs
talk about jefferson Davis's SANDER of
Indiana troops, and that there is still a
great deal of misinformation extant on
the subject is shown by the fact that
both the above extracts refer to Davis's
charge OF cOwardice against lndiana's
five regiments in the Mexican war. 1t
is well enough to preserve the truth of
history. Jefferson Davis never made
any charge of cowardice against In
diana's five regiments. His charge re-
lated to only one regiment, the Second.
Indiana sent five regiments to the Mex
lean war. Two of them, the Second,
commanded by Col. William A. Bowles.
and the Third, commanded by Col.
James II. Lane, were engaged in the
battle Of Buena Vista. So far as
known, the other three regiments were
never In any engagement. Davls's
charge against Indiana troops. which
was contained in his report as colonel
of the First Mississippi Regiment, re-
lated to the conduct of the Second Reg
iment in the battle of Buena Vista. The
charge was. In effect, that this regiment
broke under q heavy fire from the
enemy, the greater part of it leaving
the field, and that after this only a por-
ton of the regiment participated in the
engagement. The charge in no way
implicated the Third Regiment, which,
it was admitted ON all hands, did its
whole duty.
Whatever SANDER there was in Davis's
4 cfofannpf that thu CananH Do<
broke and fled has been %abundantly
wiped out by the brave conduct of In
diana troops on a hundred battle-felds
since. Nor was the charge of great con-
sequence at the time, even if true, for
many q raw regiment has broken and
fed under similar circumstances. The
Second Regiment was composed of COM
paratively raw recruits. 1t had never
been under fire before, and on this oc-
caslon 1t was exposed TO a CALLING fire
from front and flank. Under these cir
eumstances it would not have been sur
prising if the men had become panic
stricken. The question is, did theyq
On this point let US consult contempo-
rary evidence.
General Wool, who was first in com.
mand on the field in the battle of Buena
Vista, in his official report, after de-
scribing in detail the disposition of the
troops and the early stages Of the en-
gagement, says:
General Lane. .agreeabiy to my orders.
wishing TO bring his infantry within strik-
ing distance, ordered his line to move for
ward. The order was duly obeyed by
LieutenantO'B rien commanding artillery.
The infantry. however. instead OF advance
ing. retired in disorder. and. in spite of the
utmost efforts of their general and his Off
GERS. left the artillery unsupported and fled
the field of battle. Some of them were raj
lied by Colonel Bowles, who. with the
fragment. fell into the ranks of the Missis-
sippi riflemen, md, during the day. did
good service with that regiment. 1deeply
regret to say that most of them did not re-
turn to the field and many of them contin-
ued their flight to Saltillo.
Gen. Zachary Taylor, in his official re-
port of the battle, says the Second In
diana Regiment, which had been ordered
to support the artillery, had fallen
back in disorder. being exposed, as we'll
as the battery, not only to a severe fire
of small arms from the front. but also to
a %murderous cross-fre." Further on i'm
his report he says: Inc second In
diana Regiment, which had fallen back
as stated, could not be rallied. and took
no further part in the action, except a
handful of men who, under it's gallant
colonel. Bowles, joined the Mississippi
regiment and did good service. and
those fugitives who. at a later period in
the day, assisted in defending the train
and depot at Buena VISTA General
Taylor's report makes it more distinct
than General Woors report that it was
only the Second Indiana Regiment
which gave way, but both are explicit
on the point that most of tho regiment
left the field and took no further part in
the battle.
Gen. c. NJ. Wilcox, author of q His
tory of the Mexican War;" published
within the last year, and himself an
actor in the battle of Buena Vista, de-
scribss the disposition of the troops and
says:
Brig..Gen. Joe Lane ordered Lieutenant
O'Brien to advance his three pieces and the
Second Indiana to move forward to their
support. This small body of troops ad-
vanced TO the front. turned to the right and