Arizona republican., 1914-04-25
TRIAL OF FITZ-JOHN PORTER

One of the most interesting trials connected directly with the Civil War was that of Fitz-John Porter. who was brought up before a courtmartial in 1862, and for a time was deprived of his command Porter was a member of family eminent for their fighting quail ities, and descendant of David Porter, the naval commander of the revolution.
 F'itz- John Porter served during the Mexican War and during the Civil War he rose rapidly until he became a major general of volunteers. He was engaged prominently in the second bat tie of Bull Run. fought August 29th and 30th 1862. The Union Army was de- feated and charges were brought against Porter for his inaCtion on the first day He was deprived of his com mand but was restored to duty at the request of General George B. McClel- Ian, and took part in the Maryland campaign.
 On November 27. 1862. General Por- ter was arraiGned befort courtmartial in Washington charged with disobeying orders at the second battle of Bull Run and on the 2lst of January 1863. he was cashiered and forever disqualified from holding any office under the gov crnemnt." The justice Of this verdict has been the subject of much contro- versy
 The reasons given by Porter for his failure to go into action when ordered were: First. that he considered him. | self under General McDowells orders. who told him that they were too far to the front for the battle; and. ] second, that the enemy was in such 1 heavy force in his front that he | would have been defeated had he | attacked.
 | General Mcdowell stated before the | court martial that. so far from say ] ing that they were too far front for | battle. he directed General Porter. | before leaving him to put his corps 1 into action where he was and that | he (McDowelD would move further 1, to the right and go into battle there. The officers who sat in judgment 1 over Porter were Major Generals 1 David Hunter and F. A. Hitchcock l and Brigadier Generals Rufus King, B. NJ Prentiss. James E. Ricketts, | Silas Casey, James A. Garfield, x. l B. Buford. and J. P. Slough, with i Colonel Joseph Holt, Judge Advocate | General of the Army as Judge Ad- I yocate
 The charges exhibited to the court | were preferred by Brigadier General
 Benjamin $. Roberts. Inspector Gen. 1 eral on General Pope's staff at the time of the occurrence. The first charge. laid under the ninth article of war, alleged five instances of dis obediance of orders the second oharge, laid under the fifty second article of war, contained four alega = ton covering two acts of misbehavior 1 in the presence of the enemy on the 29th and 30th
 The court found the accused guilty of having disobeyed three of Gen. eral Pope's orders. guilty, also hay ing "shamefully disobcyed' the latter order, and of having retreatcd with out any attempt to engage the enc
 my; but not guilty of having per mitted Griffin's and Piatt's brigades to leave the battlefield and go to Centreville The charge of having feebly attacked the enemy on the 30th was withdrawn
 In substance the charges on which
 Porter was convicted were tWo--that he disobeyed General Popes order to
 march at 1 d. m. on the 2Sth, and
 that in disobedience of orders, he
 failed to attack, but retreated. on the 29th.
 The sentence of the court martial was delivered on the 10th of January
 1863. On the Fist of January this sentence was approved by President
 Lincoln. During the next fifteen years General Porter continually ap- piled for a rehearing of the case, in
 he light of evidence newly discov-
 cred or not available at the time of
 lis trial
 On the 12th of April, 1878. Presi- dent Hayes appointed d board of of
 ticers consisting of Major Genera
 John M. Schofield, Brigadier Genera , Alfred II. Terry, and Colonel George
 w. Getty, to examine the new evi-
 dence in connection with the old The new evidence consisted largely
 Of the testimony and the official re-
 port of the confederate officers whicf
 could not have been known at tn,