Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Letter to Editor
October 29, 1812
The Rhode Island Republican
Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island
What is this article about?
In a letter to Mr. Simons dated October 29, 1812, from Newport, 'A Soldier' defends the Brigade Major's rigorous inspection at a Warren military review on September 29, 1812, against criticism in the Columbian Post-Boy, emphasizing the need for vigilance in condemning faulty U.S. guns during wartime.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
NEWPORT.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1812.
COMMUNICATION
Mr. Simons—I observed in the Columbian Post-Boy, of the 3d ult. printed at Warren, an article on the subject of the Military Review, at that place, on the 29th Sept. in which a reflection, that I think totally undeserved, was cast on the official duty of the Brigade Inspector.
The writer says, "the Inspector General [meaning the Brigade Major,] is to be censured for nothing but inspecting too close."
At the present alarming crisis, I think, the duty of our Brigade Majors cannot be too rigorously enforced. Besides if we look at the exact situation of the present case, we shall find, that the Brigade Major not only did his duty, but is to be commended for the impartiality of his conduct. The guns, marked U. S. and condemned by him, were previously examined by the Inspector appointed by the United States, and were by him condemned!—Now, this being the case, I ask any candid man whether the Brigade Inspector would have done his duty, had he approved guns, which were co-demned by a higher authority? As I before remarked, at a time, like the present, those officers appointed to the duty of examining guns, &c. ought to be extremely vigilant in the discharge of their duty, as every thing depends upon the promptitude and faithfulness of this officer.
A SOLDIER.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1812.
COMMUNICATION
Mr. Simons—I observed in the Columbian Post-Boy, of the 3d ult. printed at Warren, an article on the subject of the Military Review, at that place, on the 29th Sept. in which a reflection, that I think totally undeserved, was cast on the official duty of the Brigade Inspector.
The writer says, "the Inspector General [meaning the Brigade Major,] is to be censured for nothing but inspecting too close."
At the present alarming crisis, I think, the duty of our Brigade Majors cannot be too rigorously enforced. Besides if we look at the exact situation of the present case, we shall find, that the Brigade Major not only did his duty, but is to be commended for the impartiality of his conduct. The guns, marked U. S. and condemned by him, were previously examined by the Inspector appointed by the United States, and were by him condemned!—Now, this being the case, I ask any candid man whether the Brigade Inspector would have done his duty, had he approved guns, which were co-demned by a higher authority? As I before remarked, at a time, like the present, those officers appointed to the duty of examining guns, &c. ought to be extremely vigilant in the discharge of their duty, as every thing depends upon the promptitude and faithfulness of this officer.
A SOLDIER.
What sub-type of article is it?
Persuasive
Informative
What themes does it cover?
Military War
What keywords are associated?
Military Review
Brigade Inspector
Gun Condemnation
War Crisis
Officer Duty
What entities or persons were involved?
A Soldier.
Mr. Simons
Letter to Editor Details
Author
A Soldier.
Recipient
Mr. Simons
Main Argument
the brigade major should be commended, not censured, for condemning u.s.-marked guns already rejected by a u.s. inspector during a military review, as rigorous enforcement of duty is essential at the current alarming crisis.
Notable Details
Reference To Article In Columbian Post Boy Of Warren On 3d Ult.
Military Review At Warren On 29th Sept.
Guns Marked U.S. And Previously Condemned By U.S. Inspector.