The National tribune., 1899-06-29
THE Ilth MOS PART.
Comrads MeNeal Endeavors to Show Where the Credit
Should be Given as to the Fighting at Robnett.


Should be Given as to the Fighting At Robinett.
EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: In your
issue of Feb. 8 Capt. +. II. Gilmore, 63d
Ohio, called me down on my statement of
Jan. 5, as to the movements of our regi-
ments at Corint.I, Oct. a, 1862. The Cap
McNeal that the 11th Mo. did the work at
Robinett Oct. q, 1862, is far from being
carried out by the facts, much less his
charge that the 63d and 43d Ohio did not
do their duty"
Come, Captain, this is far-fetched. Read
my article again and you will see all that
was claimed about the 11th Mo- was that
they did nothing until the Cad Ohio went to
the rear, when the Johnnies made their
last charge, and when the 11th Mo. was
ordered forward they did their full share in
repulsing the enemy. The Captain says
the position of the 18th Mo. during the
early part of the battle was not such as to
give its members Il good view of the front.
The 11th Mo. suffered little in the first
part of the fighting, from the fact that We
were lying down, not from the lay of the
land. When the rebel artillery shelled our
lines just at daylight some of our guns were
cut off below the lock while in the stack.
This shows there was no well-defined ridge
to shelter the 18th Mo-, as the artillery was
in close range.
My statement that Gen. Stanley was in
the rear of the 63d Ohio, trying to hold them
to the work, is correct. They were doing
all that men could do. The Captain OBJ
jects to me saying the 63d Ohio was not
with the 11th Mo. in the melee around
Robinett, and then says most Of the 63d
Ohio were with the 9th Ohio not near
Robinett, but some hundred yards from the
battery, having melee of their own. This
is admitting my statement to he correct.
The Captain says that, as matter of fact,
the enemy were already breaking as the
11th Mo cana forward in tho "So-calle1
charge"
Then he quotes Gen. Stanley as saying
that the 11th Mo. advanced without firing.
AS matter of fact, after the repulse of the
evening and the reforming of our lines the
11th Mo- occupied the front line vacated by
away when the 18th Mo. came forward
there would have been more of the enemy's
dead or wounded in the rear of the re-
established line, but there were quite a
number. The enemy was quite active up
to the time they met the 11th Mo. The 11th
Mo. did not do it all. They did their full
share and should have some credit.
James A. Fyffe, Color Sergeant, 11th
Mo-, writes me that when the 11th Mo.
went into the "so-called charge he had
eight color guards; that he was severely
wounded, and that seven guards were
advancing and fell close in front of the 11th
Mo. flag, killed by the fire of the 18th Mo.
George H. Daniels writes me that lie fired
IA rounds before the order to cease firing.
w. III. Daniels writes that he fired 10 rounds
before the enemy retreated. Serg't Jos.
Browning writes that he fired IL rounds be-
fore the order to cease firing. This goes to
show that the Captain was sadly mistaken
as to the enemy breaking before the 18th
Mo. came forward. The 63d Ohio re-
pulsed the first charges and did splendid
work in the last charge, while the 18th Mo.
had hand in the latter part of the last
charge. The 63d Ohio was i'm the white
heat of the fight over twice as long as the
18th Mo. There is limited amount of
pounding any regiment can stand, and it is
no discredit to tie 63d Ohio that they fell
back; but it is absurd to say that the 1ftli
Mo. is entitled to little credit, and that all
the credit is due the ODD Oiiio.-JAMES
MCNEAL, Lamborn, Kan.