Executive Office, Iowa., March 20, 1862.
Schuyler Hamilton, Brig. Gen. U. S. A., St. Louis,
Mo.:
Sir:—Your letter of the 7th inst., in reply to mine
returning you certain papers concerning the 2d Regt. Iowa Vol. Infy., is before
me.
I regret to perceive, as I think I do, by the tone of your
letter, that you have taken offense at my action. I certainly did not intend to
offend you, nor do I think my action properly understood can afford just ground
for offense. You doubtless did what you deemed your duty in issuing the order
sent by you and returned by me. I certainly did what I deemed my duty in
returning it. I think you erred in issuing the order; you think I erred in
returning it. I do not take offense that you differ with me, nor do I think
that you should take offense that I differ with you, or think that my action is
intended by me “as a rebuke” to you. This is a great mistake, unless you insist
that an expression of difference of opinion is a rebuke.
You say that but for certain reasons you would publish, side
by side, your “orders” and my letter. I have no objection to such publication
at any time you may think advisable, either for your justification or my
condemnation.
I shall not discuss further the matter in issue between us.
Each of us is doubtless satisfied of the correctness of his position, and
others must decide between us in the future. The flag that our 2d regiment
could not carry open through the streets of St. Louis they did carry proudly
through the storm of battle at Fort Donelson, and planted it first of all
others on the intrenchments of that stronghold of treason. It now hangs on the
chair of the speaker of the house of representatives, and will soon be
deposited among the most sacred treasures of our state in our State Historical
Society. I am content that what I have done in connection with it shall be so
written that all who see may read the record. The “miscreants” of whom your
order speaks either died in upholding it on that bloody day or helped to carry
it over the entrenchments. They may not have entertained as high a regard for
the property of a traitor and rebel, as was required by the orders of their
superiors, and if punishment had fallen on them alone, I perhaps should not
have complained, but when others, as guiltless as either of us, were punished
because they either would not or could not point out those of their comrades
who had violated orders or failed to obey them, the case is, in my judgment,
very different.
I should not have troubled you with this long letter had it
not been that I was satisfied from the tone of your letter that you had taken
offense at my action. Permit me to again assure you that no offense was
intended. I believed then, and from conversation with Col. Tuttle since, am
fully convinced you did what you believed to be your duty, and that the
performance of that duty was painful to you. I then believed and now believe
none the less that you erred, and so said to you frankly. But I cannot admit
that in this there is any cause for offense.
Very respectfully,
your Obdt. Svt.,
Samuel J. Kirkwood
SOURCE: State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa
Historical Record, Volumes 1-3, Volume 2, No. 3, July 1886, p. 324-6
No comments:
Post a Comment