previous next
“ [176] claim all the honors of that occasion, should have remained utterly silent.” General Harris refers to General Lane's official report, found in the January number, 1877, of the Southern Historical Society Papers, and on examining that I find it — the report — is dated April 10, 1865, eight days, and not fifteen years, after the battle. The same number has a letter addressed to myself by General Lane on this subject, dated May 20,, 1867, a few days over two years subsequent, and the letters of the four officers of Lane's brigade, before referred to, are dated in June, 1867.

And again, General Harris says, on same page: “Sufficient for me to say that what has appeared heretofore has not been printed by any one connected with the brigade, or at their instance; and singularly there has been a great unanimity on the part of foe, friend and stranger in giving the credit of that defence to Harris's brigade.” If we examine the February number of the Southern Historical Society Papers, referred to by General Harris as containing “A soldier's Story of the war,” by Napier Bartlett, giving an account of the defence of Battery Gregg, we will find, pages 84-5, as follows: “The part taken in defence of Gregg by the Mississippians is thus described in the Vicksburg Times: ‘Fort Gregg was held by the Twelfth and Sixteenth Mississippi regiment, Harris's brigade, numbering about one hundred and fifty muskets, &c., &c,’ ” no reference being made to any other infantry as forming a part of the garrison. Napier Bartlett, says General Harris in a letter designed to be an official report, says, “General Wilcox ordered me to take position in front of the enemy, and detain them as long as possible,” and then goes into details such as have already been given; but with this very important addition, “preparations were now made by the enemy for the assault; at this time Captain Walke, Adjutant and Inspector General, of General Walker, chief of artillery, came with orders to withdraw the artillery, and against this I most earnestly protested.” It was not a time, nor was there any occasion for a protest; General Harris should have declined to receive orders of any kind or from any source, unless they came through me, or were given by the corps commander, or by General Lee in person. He had been ordered to report to me by the commanding General, and I had assigned him to the command of Whitworth, and in it were, besides his brigade, four pieces of artillery. His permitting the artillery to be withdrawn, lessened my ability to carry out the instructions of the commanding General, and his not reporting to me that it had been withdrawn was an aggravation of the offense — its withdrawal without authority. I learned how it had been taken off several days subsequently in conversation with General Harris. “The four guns were withdrawn from Whitworth

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Places (automatically extracted)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
N. H. Harris (8)
James H. Lane (3)
Napier Bartlett (2)
C. M. Wilcox (1)
Whitworth (1)
R. L. Walker (1)
Captain Richard Walke (1)
S. D. Lee (1)
Gregg (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
1877 AD (1)
June, 1867 AD (1)
May 20th, 1867 AD (1)
April 10th, 1865 AD (1)
February (1)
January (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: