The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1906-05-31

i
boards go Ca" This battalion got in
J to the fight an hour or more before
I their brigade and fought independently
| or 1t. The troops under Robbins, Tur-
ner and Arnold are the only Confed-
crates, so far as I can learn, that did
heavy fighting In East Woods (10).
There were no better troops in the Con-
federate army; they suffered a loss in
| killed and wounded of nearly one-half,
and probably inflicted still larger
numerical loss upon the Union troops.
Omcial Reports.
| We will next look at the Official Re-
ports bearing on the subject (See Vol.
XIX, Part I. Official Record. War Of
the Rebellion, U. s. Govt Printing Of
| fce.)
I. In ieut.-Col. Fillebrown's I'D
report doth Me- there Is no mention
Of the event. nor is there anything else
| that has the merit Of being both true
and worth recording. (See Page 489.)
Ordinarily he was one Of the most
genial and accommodating Of men: but
when sick and vexed, as plainly he
was when he made that report. he
| could dash of just such a tumble and
send 1t in to headquarters before the
| ink was dry.
run over and kicked in the bowels by
Col. Beals horse just at the moment
Col. Beal himself was wounded; and
when. but for the untimely kick, Jim"
| might have led US on to victory and
covered himself with glory.
II. In Col. Jacob Higgins's (125th
| Pa.) report we have
Previous to this Gen. Mansfield fell.
| some of my men carrying him Off the
field on their muskets until a blanket
was procured" page 4s2, Vol. XIX
1t cannot be determined from the re-
port exactly when or where this" was;
but It was plainly early In the morning
| and before the 125th entered West
Wood. where (and not in East WOODY
they fought.
This report annoyed me much when
| first saw 1t in 1887, but Col. Higgins
has written to me that he knows moth
ing personally Of the event. but report
ed 1t because officers whom he trusted
assured him 1t was 80.
III. Col. Knipe (46th Pa.), who
made the brigade report, simply men
lions that Mansfield was wounded.
~. In Gen. Crawfords report we
read:
Gen. Mansfield. the corps commander,
had been mortally wounded. and was
borne past my position to the rear"
(Page 4s5. Vol. XIX. Part ID
This position Is not defined further
than to state that it was "Miller's"
Woods. or East Woods" as we now
call them.
v. Gen. Williams, commanding First
Division, and succeeding Mansfield in
command Of the corps. says:
While the deployment (of the
Twelfth Corpse was going on and before
the leading regiments were fairly en-
gagged. 1t was reported to me that the
veteran and distinguished commander of
the corps was mortally wounded" page
Ats. Vol XXX
vi. Gen. Geo. III. Gordon, command
ing Third Brigade. First Division. says:
Gen. Mansfield had been mortally
wounded at the commencement OF the
action. while making a bold reconnois-
sance OF the woods through which we
had just dashed" page 495. Vol. XXX
VII. We find the following in the re-
port OF Gen. Edwin v. Sumner, com
manding Second and Twelfth Corps"
He also commanded the First Corps
upon his arrival in our part Of the field,
Gen. Mansfield, a worthy and gallant
veteran, was unfortunately MORALLY
wounded while leading his corps into
action" page 275. Vol. XXX
VIII. Gen. Hooker. commanding
First Corps and having the Twelfth
under his orders, makes no mention
OF the wounding.
TX. Gen. Mcclellan. commanding the
Union Army, thus refers to the deploy-
| ment OF the Twelfth Corps:
During the deployment that gallant
veteran, Gen. Mansfield. fell mortally
wounded while examining the ground in
front OF his troops" page Sc, Vol
XIX
1t should be. stated that Vol. XIX was
not published until October, 1875
years after the battle.
Besides these unsatisfactory official
1 reports, we have the following anthem
tic accounts, that have been made pub
| lie from time to time. and should have
furnished the world with the truth.
noticed that the newspapers Of the day
had little to say about the event; ac-
cordingly. few weeks after the battle
| wrote an account and forwarded it
to my father, who sent 1t to the Hon
Benjamin Douglas, a prominent citi-
zen Of Middletown, Conn, Mansfield's
nome. Mr.. Douglas acknowledged the
receipt, and showed his appreciation
when we were publishing our regi-
mental history G2) by furnishing
gratis the portraits of the General.
This letter was published in the Port
land, Me-. papers.
The regimental history, published in
1871. has a very minute account OF the
event. About 700 copies Of 1t were
sold.
The report for 1862 Of the Adiutant-
General Of Maine also has a narrative
OF the battle. embraced in the report
OF Col. Beal, who returned to duty be-
fore the end OF the year. page "A,
main report.)
Generals and STAFF Did Not Witness,
A singular phase in this case Is the
fact that none Of Gen. MansfeId's sub
ordinate commanders excepting Gen.
Crawford, and none OF Mansfield's star.
witnessed the wounding. In the three
| days ne was our commander none OF
US saw a sfan officer with him. II was
only vague memory Of q lost and for
gotten general order. and the reference
to Capt. Dyer" in the Generals Me-
mortal volume, (13) that suggested the
possibility there was a STAFF. In 1890
| 10 94~1 made special and persistent
EFFORT to learn who his STAFF were: also
who was the orderly and who the col
ored servant that we saw with him.
The orderly and servant we have not
round. After much writing 1 learned
that Samuel M. Mansfield, uD a son
or the General. had been appointed an
Aid, but had not been able to toin his
father. Maj. Clarence II. Dyer. at that
time Captain and A. A. G.. had ac-