By some disagreement or want of confidence in General McLaws by the commanding General, he was relieved of his command, and General Kershaw being the senior Brigadier General of the division, was placed in command.  What the differences were between General Longstreet and his Major General were never exactly understood by the soldiers.  While General McLaws may have been a brave soldier and was well beloved by officers and men, still he was wanting in those elements to make a successful General of volunteer troops—­dash, discipline, and promptness in action.

General Longstreet had bent all his energies to the repairing of the railroad through East Tennessee and Virginia, and as soon as this was accomplished, a limited number of soldiers were furloughed for twenty-one days.  A large lot of shoes and clothing was sent us from Richmond, and this helped to make camp life more enjoyable.  Not all the men by any means could be spared by furlough even for this brief period, for we had an active and vigilant foe in our front.  Most of the men drew their furloughs by lot, those who had been from home the longest taking their chances by drawing from a hat, “furlough” or “no furlough.”

While in winter quarters, during the spasm of chicken fighting, a difficulty occurred between Lieutenant A and Private B, of the Third, both good friends, and no better soldiers were ever upon a battlefield.  These are not the initials of their names, but will answer the purpose at hand, and that purpose is to show the far-reaching results of the courtmartial that followed, and a decision reached under difficulties, that the most learned jurist might feel proud of.

I will say for the benefit of those not learned in the law of army regulations, that for an officer to strike a private he is cashiered, and for a private to strike an officer the penalty is either death or long imprisonment with ball and chain attachments.

Now it appeared to the officers who composed the courtmartial, Captain Herbert, Lieutenant Garlington, and the writer of this (all parties of the Third), that Lieutenant A had knocked Private B down.  The officer appeared in his own defense, and gave in extenuation of his crime, that Private B had hit his (Lieutenant A’s) chicken a stunning blow on the head while they were “petting” them between rounds.  Now that decision of the courtmartial astonished our Colonel as much as the men who were parties to the combat themselves.  Now it read something like this—­time, dress parade: 

“Whereas, Lieutenant A, of Company ——­, Third South Carolina, did strike Private B, of same company and regiment, with his fist in the face, that he should receive the severest of punishment; but, whereas, Private B did strike the game chicken in the hands of Lieutenant A, without cause or provocation, therefore both are equally guilty of a crime and misdemeanor, and should be privately reprimanded by the Colonel commanding.”