The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1895-02-21
REFUTES THE CHARGE.
A 18th w. Va. Man Says There Was No
Cowardice Mt New Market.


EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: In Picket
Shots of Jan. II, W. L. Webster, 1st n. Y.
battery, makes an attack on the 18th W. Va.
7 will say, without fear of successful contra
diction, that if there was a correct history
OF each regiment in the United States service
the 10Th W. Va. would be shown equal TO
any of them for loyalty, bravery, and en-
durance.
The regiment never made n charge but it
got there in good shape The regiment may
not have been in as many hard-fought bat
ties as some Others but as loyal subjects we
were always found at our posts, and l can
say that the regiment was never surprised or
had TO leave their camp in any other than
good order.
The comrade says it seems very foolish for
comrades to kick against the official records.
In the first place, the 10Th w. Va. was not
at Cloyd's Mountain but they were at New
Market, Va, May Is, 1864, and there was n
battle fought between nine companies Of
the 10Th w. Va. and the batteries of Gen
Sigel's command on the Federal side, against
a Confederate force commanded by Gen.
Breckenridge, who had at least three bri-
gades in action.
Now, Comrade Webster branches off to
history, as he calls it, or rather Battles
and Battle Leaders of the Civil War"
will say that if all the history is as devoid
of truth as this quoted by Comrade Webster
from the so-called history, the best thing to
do with them is to consign them to the
flames; for a baser SANDER never was re-
ported on a regiment.
The morning in question Gen. Sigel
placed his command in camp on the north
side of the Shenandoah River where the
Winchester and Staunton pike crosses said
river The 18th W. Va. had scarcely stacked
arms, when an order came for the 18th w.
Va to move up to the 'front.' Nine COM
panies being present (Co. II having been de-
tailed to 90 back after supplies), fell in, and
moved over the bridge and Oh to the fight
as fast as possible; the balance of the COM
mand did not move then, but did later.
When we reached the field the regiment
moved up little in advance on the left of
the artillery, which was stationed on an
elevation, the ground sloping south, with q
clear field in our front; on the right of the
artillery it was bluffy, with considerable
brush. The cavalry captured the pike, but
took no part in the fight.
The fight was on. Charge one by the
rebels was repulsed in good shape, charge
two with same results. / agree that the
rebels did change their tactics; they sent q
force to take the artillery in flank. There
was nothing to hinder them from coming
within 100 yards or less without being seen,
and just as an assault was made IN the front
they struck the artillery in flank. Hence
the defeat. The question is to settle who
was to blame for the defeat, the 18th w. Va.
or Gen. Sigel, who left his other infantry
three or four miles in the rear. and with his
artillery and one small regiment to support
them attempted to fight force ten times
his equal on their own chosen ground.
The 10Th w. Va. did not leave that field
until the artillery left. As the regiment
retired we passed part of the artillery
stuck in the mud. If the right flank of
tho artillery had been properly protected
there would have been u different face to
that fight. i have it from man who was
in that fight that they suffered more in that
engagement than in any single engagement
they were in during the war, and they were
In from start to finish. His regiment went
in with 800 men and when the roll was
called that evening there were but 90 men
in the regiment
do not claim the 10Th did All the work,
for thought at the time / never saw artil-
leTy Du0ultu 80 well. ne lclI uduk VI Ilat
artillery was safe, for the 18th w. Va. was
there.
As to Gen. Sigel ordering two companies
to perform certain duty and they not
moving, will say once for all that it is a
positive falsehood, for our regiment was
not made of that kind of material. 1t was
impossible for us to advance in the face of
three lines-of- battle. For the life Of me /
cannot see where Sigel wanted them to 60
to, unless he wanted them to run so he could
saddle his defeat on somebody, and they
may have refused to do so.
AS for Col. Curtis acknowledging some
of his troops failed to do their duty, if he
had said one officer who failed to do his
duty it would have been so. He was dis
honOrably dismissed at Strasburg.-THos.
III. MEANS, First-Lieutenant, Co. Ii, 18th
". Va