1 Bucks County
Intelligencer, THE CASE OF LIEUT.
BEANS. July 1, 1862 Page 2
Col. 3 1
THE CASE OF LIEUT. BEANS.
We have received, the following communications for publica-
tion, from an officer of the 104th Regiment, who avers that he
will stand by it in all its length and breath :
CAMP AT WADE’S FARM, NEAR BOTTOM’S BRIDGE,
June 16th, 1862.
Messrs. Prizer & Darlington :—I noticed with a good deal of
surprise and indignation, an article in the Doylestown Democrat
of June 10th, which singles out Lieut. Beans of the 104th Reg-
iment, as having been conspicuous for his courage in the san-
guinary battle of “Fair Oaks” on the 31st day of May. Lieut.
Beans was sick on that occasion, and although he led his com-
pany out; he soon retired, and the company was directed and
encouraged by two Sergeants next in command—the Orderly of
which soon sealed his devotion to his country with his life’s-
blood. No officer or private in the Regiment showed more true
bravery than those Sergeants of Company I. Lieut. Beans went
back to the rear after the first stand, and was not present at the
rally made at our camp, nor at the stand the remnant of the
Regiment made half a mile still further to the rear, where Cor-
coran, Swartzlander, Hendrie, and a number of others fell, and
which Gen. Naglee characterized as having been the severest
fighting of the day. I do not wish to say aught against Lieut.
Beans. I do not call his courage in question. Sickness is a
reasonable excuse for any officer not taking a prominent part.
But it is a scandal upon truthful history to select an officer who
was only partially engaged in a great historic battle, and give
him a prominence over every other officer of the Regiment. At
the same time, it ? made the occasion to insult those officers
of the Regiment who protested against his receiving a Lieuten-
ancy after the Regiment had been organized and for months in
service, and while there were so many young men of the Regi-
ment who had fairly earned the appointment by their services
in getting it filled up.
The course of Lieut Beans previous to the organization of
this Regiment, gave every loyal man a right to question his
patriotism. He made no effort to get it into existence. Had
he been as partriotic as the most loyal man of the Union, his ap-
pointment was still one of questionable propriety. Why should
the non-commissioned officers of the Regiment have their right
to promotion set aside? Was there any question as to their
patriotism? Was it reasonable to suppose that that those who had
been receiving military instruction for months, were less com-
petent than one who was entirely disconnected with any military
organization? Could braver men have been found anywhere
than Orderly Hart or Sergeant Williams, of the company in
which Lieut. Beans received his commission. Orderly Hart too,
was in the regular line of promotion, which was broken to give
place for Lieut. Beans. Every tub should stand on its own bot-
tom. Lieut. Beans should have full credit for courage when he
exhibits it, not because he was Breckinridger, nor because
every Lieutenant and Captain at the time in the Regiment, save
two, protested against his appointment, but because truth is
justice and harms no one. I have no doubt but Lieut. Beans,
himself, disclaims his title to the merit which others have
sought to bestow upon him. No one here suspects him of
having any agency in inserting the article in question, and some
doubt its falsity. When he recover his health, returns to his
post, and opportunity offers to exhibit that heroic devotion to
his country which is so essential to our unity as a great nation,
none will take more pleasure to be a witness to the same than
AN OFFICER OF THE 104TH.
In order that the above article may be better understood, w
copy below the editorial article from the Doylestown Democrat
alluded to by the writer. It is proper to say that Col. Davis
disclaims any knowledge of the matter, and that it proceeded
from another source :
[From the Doylestown Democrat, June 10, 1862.]
It may perhaps be thought invidious to mention any one par-
ticular company or officer of the 104th Regiment, and speak of
their particular acts, when each and every one acted so nobly
and fought so bravely. But as certain individuals took so much
pains to disparage, villify, and denounce Lieut. J. M. Beans and
his appointment, it may not be amiss to say that his fellow-
officers speak of his courage, daring and efficiency in the highest
terms. When the men were hardly pressed, Lieut Beans, with
daring energy and genuine bravery, rallied his men, and they
stood up to work manfully. Yet this is the man who was
“protested,” charged with “disloyalty,” being a “Breckin-
ridger, &c. Some even went so far as to say they “would not
fight by side of him,” and they did not , for they were “at home.”
We only mention this incident to show how far some men will
let political feelings carry them. We would think the blush of
shame would mantle their checks hereafter when they write the
name “Breckinridger;” or are they so callous that neither
shame or blush ever covers their cheeks?
The officers of the regiment who joined in “protesting”
against the appointment of Lieutenant Beans, because of his
doubtful loyalty, were the following:
HOWARD L. ROGERS, Captain of Company A.
W. W. MARPLE, Captain of Company C.
H. Y. PICKERING, Captain of Company K.
W. F. WALTER, Captain of Company H.
A. MARPLE, Captain of Company F.
JAS. R. OREM, Captain of Company B.
JACOB SWARTZLANDER, Captain of Company D.
JAS D. HENDRIE, Q M., 104th Regiment, P. V.
JAMES M. CARVER, Lieutenant, Company C.
J. CATHERWOOD ROBINSON, Lieuten’t, Comp’y C.
ROBT. HOLMES, Lieutenant, Company A
D. B. GROFF, Lieutenant, Company H
G. H. ASHENFELTER, Lieutenant, Company H
M. YARDLEY, Lieutenant, Company K
K SAYERS McDOWELL, Lieutenant, Comp’y K
M LEMNEN, Lieutenant, Company K
E. R. ARTMAN, Lieutenant, Company D
M. M. CROLL, Lieutenant, Company K
JOHN MCCOY, Lieutenant, Company B