The National tribune., 1902-05-01
What Battery Killed Gen. POLK

EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: 1t is al
ways most difficult thing to con-
vince an eyewitness" that he is
mistaken in his Judgment, especially
bers events that occurred on the
battle line" 40 years ago; SO that how
ever strongly intrenched / may be behind
official documents, | may not he able to
convince Serg't NJ. J. Rupp that he is
wrong when he atiirms that THE credit of
killing Gen. Polk belongs to Knaps Pa.
Battery" | am afraid that though con
WINGED against his will, he will be of the
same opinion STILL
L was not present upon that particular
occasion, though a participant in the At
lanta campaign, serving with the 33d Ind.
Therefore, my contribution upon this sub
ject is based altogether upon official doc
uments incorporated in the Records of the
Rebellion.
On page 223, Series I. Vol. IS. part I.
Reports, Maj.-Gen. ID. S. Stanley, com
handing First Division, Fourth Corps, in
his report of that matter to the corps
commander, says:
The second shot, fred from
rified section of the 9Th Ind. Battery,
exploded i'll group of rebel Generals,
killing Lieut.-Gen. Leonidas Polk"
Again. on page 243, same volume, Brig
Gen. Walter G. Whitaker, commanding
Second Brigade, First Division, also says:
ION the 18th a shell from the
9TH Ind. Battery, commanded by Lieut.
Morrison, fired 3-inch Rodman gun, from
the section commanded by Lieut.. Ellison,
killing Lieut.. Gen. Polk, who, in company
with Gems. Johnston and Hardee, was sur
veying our lines from Pine Mountain"
Again, on page 400, Vol. III, Adjutant
Generals Reports of Indiana, is the fol-
lowing:
AT Pine Mountain the shot that killed
Lieut. Gen. Polk, of the rebel army. was
fired from one of the Rodman guns of the
9TH Ind. Battery"
These documentary extracts should be
conclusive proof that Comrade Rupp is
i'll error, though an eyewitness" This
evidence has not been contradicted, except
by common gossip. The first two reports
were made at the time by disinterested and
unprejudiced officers. The statements
made are straightforward and without a
scmblance of doubt. Had it not been con-
ceGed at that time that the credit belonged
10 the 9th Ind. Battery, is it not reason
ably certain that. without reservation, the
statements would have been strenuously
challenged by interested parties?
If these reports are to be discredited the
question will never be settled. The ques-
ton, Who killed Gen. Polk?" will go
down the corridors of time unanswered,
along with that other important. but I'M
ohSNeItu quelS, w no SlTuch Oily rat
terson?'
Really, the matter is not of sufficient
Importance to warrant continued discus
sion Of it, and | don't suppose the COM
rade (Serg't Sam p. C. Freeman, now
dead who sighted the gun, nor the one who
pulled the lanyard, if alive to-day. ever
claimed any distinction or desired any
nOtoriety for their unerring craftsmanship
upon that occasion.
Only the other day | was surprised to
learn from one who was an officer in the
LIST Mo. Battery, that it was well under
stood that the credit belonged to his bat
terry"
As there were number of batteries in
the same vicinity upon that occasion, and
all of them concentrating their fire in the
same general direction, 1t will not be sur
prising if ''eye-witnesses" can be pro-
duced to show that Gen. Polk was killed
by each of the batteries thus engaged
However, | rest my case and now await
with uncOncern the generous and just
judgment of the future historian.-J. r.
Mcbride, Washington. d. G.