Civil War Letter - Second Rebuttal of Soldier's Complaints - February 1864

 Chenango Union, Norwich, NY, March 2, 1864

Camp of 89th Reg., N.Y. Vols., Folly Island, Feb. 11, '64

Sir:  In your issue of January 27th, we find an article written by B. Hunter, in which he accuses the officers of our Regiment of all manner of meanness towards their men, such as clothing their "darkies" from soldier's dues, embezzling "back rations," and getting the soldiers' money by the black arts of gambling, &c.  As our (Co E) is the only one in the Regiment from Chenango (in which County your paper is published and has a large circulation) the opinion there would naturally be, with those not acquainted with the facts, that our Company commander is one of those cruel, thievish, and gambling officers, which he (Hunter) chooses to call them. To refute his slanderous lies is our object is writing this.

1st.  There is no such person in the Regiment as B. Hunter; therefore it was written by some villain who chooses darkness rather than light, to give vent to his unjust falsehoods.

2d. In regard to officers clothing their "darkies" and charging it to the soldiers is a complaint that none, but an idiot would think of uttering, for at the end of each month we receipt for all clothing drawn by us in that time, on rolls in which each article is set opposite our names in print, thereby leaving no chance for an officer to cheat us, even if he felt so inclined.

3d. "Back Rations"  He says you can give no better idea of back rations to a soldier, than to say "ghost."  With Company E the idea of comparing back rations with a ghost would be simply ridiculous for we are now using from three to twelve dollars worth every week; thus what we buy with money accrued from back rations, together with what we draw every ten days, makes our fare such that none would think of complaining, but some miserable cur who was half starved at home.

4th. He accuses the officers of getting the money from the men by gambling.  Now this is a crime which cannot be substantiated against our officers; if one could, he need not wait until he wore a citizens dress to have revenge, for an officer guilty of such a crime would be dismissed from the service in disgrace, the moment it could be brought to light.

Lastly.  He says how quick a private will find himself court martialed if he offends an officer. We of course cannot call our officers liars or knaves, nor tell them we will do this or that, or won't do this or that; but any soldier who conducts himself in a soldier-like manner, need have no fears of a court martial or abuse from his officers. I don't think your correspondent (Hunter) is such a soldier; he is probably one of those filthy, slovenish, lazy and miserable curs, which are to be found in every regiment, but we are thankful we have but few in ours.  He may think he is doing us a favor by writing such falsehoods, but he is not.  The members of Company E resent an insult offered to our brave, honorable, and gentlemanly Captain, as soon as if directed to themselves.

Yours, &c. A.L. Sackett, In behalf of the members of Co. E.