Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877: Read in the Senate and House of Representatives May 23, 1878 — John Shaqi
Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877: Read in the Senate and House of Representatives May 23, 1878Pennsylvania. General Assembly. Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877
History
Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877: Read in the Senate and House of Representatives May 23, 1878
Pennsylvania. General Assembly. Committee Appointed to Investigate the Railroad Riots in July, 1877
The conduct of the Fourteenth and Nineteenth regiments has been
severely criticised by some, but many considerations are to be taken
into account in coming to a just conclusion in regard to these men. The
mob was made up in part of their neighbors and their fellow-laborers,
and it was hard for them to take up arms to assist the sheriff in
enforcing the law as against men having so much of their sympathy. This
accounts for their dilatory movements in assembling when first called
out, and the failure to report of many of their men. Their officers
were to blame for allowing them to mingle with the mob, or rather for
allowing the mob to mingle with them, and for the lack of strict
discipline on Saturday, the 21st of July. Neither the officers nor men
were to blame for their mismanagement on the night of the 21st, General
Brown being alone responsible for that order.
This conduct of General Brown was unaccountable, until it was
ascertained that he had been for some time previous suffering from
severe physical ailments which had seriously affected his mind, and
that he was not responsible for a failure in judgment at the time. It
is no wonder the order called forth the indignant protest of Colonel
Gray, but coming as it did from a superior officer, it was reluctantly
obeyed. These regiments were afterwards sent to the coal fields, and
there acquitted themselves like true soldiers.
As to the dispute between Colonel Norris and General Brinton, it is
important only in treating of the conduct of General Brinton. The
Adjutant General, in his evidence before your committee, stated that
his duty was to assemble the troops, and that the command devolved upon
the senior major general, (in the absence of the commander-in-chief,)
who was General A. L. Pearson. He further stated that when General
Pearson came to the Union depot hotel, before relieving him of his
command, he was particular to ask him if he had left General Brinton in
command, and that General Pearson replied that he had left him in full
command. If General Brinton was in command, he had a right to act on
his own judgment. But while General Latta's statement is correct when
applied to him as Adjutant General, yet it must be remembered that he
had assumed to act for the commander-in-chief, and gave orders to
General Brinton during the night, and assumed the direction of the
troops. It is evident that General Brinton considered himself bound to
obey the orders of the Adjutant General, and we take it for granted
that he was. The important question then is, did General Brinton
disobey the orders of General Latta? It is clearly proven and conceded
by all parties that General Brinton did not receive the written order
given to Captain Aull to convey to him until the 1st day of August, a
week or more after it was dated. Colonel Norris says in his testimony
that he did not deliver it as an order to General Brinton; that he did
not consider he had a right to do so, but that he told him that Captain
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account