The Evening Post: A Century of JournalismNevins, Allan
History
The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism
Nevins, Allan
New York post
Meanwhile, the Northern armies failed to make progress. When in
December, 1862, the criminally incompetent Burnside attacked Lee’s
entrenched army at Fredericksburg, and was flung back with the loss of
nearly 13,000 men, an outburst of anger came from the whole New York
press. “The Late Massacre” was the heading the _Evening Post_ gave its
editorial of Dec. 18, in which, three days after Burnside fell back, it
could not understand why he was not already removed. “How long is such
intolerable and wicked blundering to continue? What does the President
wait for? We hear that a great, a horrible crime has been committed; we
do not hear that those guilty of it are under arrest; we do not hear
even that they are to be removed from the places of trust which they
have shown themselves so incapable to fill.” The Democratic press,
led by the _Herald_, demanded the reinstatement of McClellan, while
the radical press wanted an entirely new general. Once more, like the
_Tribune_, _Herald_, and _World_, the _Evening Post_ blamed Lincoln for
his generals’ mistakes. “The President has required too little from his
agents; his good nature has led him to be less strict toward them than
he ought to be, while at the same time his confidence in himself and
his advisers has led him, unfortunately, to deny himself that general
counsel of the nation by which he might have benefited had he kept up
confidential relations between himself and the people.” Yet it had
praised the choice of Burnside, calling him an energetic, calm, and
judicious leader, who had the prestige of success in his favor.
As the spring campaign of 1863 opened, the _Post_ reflected the
renewed hopefulness of the North. It was not pleased by the selection
of Hooker to be the new commander, but it was encouraged by his rapid
reorganization of the army and restoration of fighting discipline. The
new advance had the old result--disaster. On May 7, lamenting Hooker’s
ignominious defeat at Chancellorsville, the _Evening Post_ condemned
his strategy as incomprehensible. It was quite right in its general
verdict, and in a number of specific criticisms, as when it said that
the disposition of the forces under Sedgwick had been insane. But we
can hardly say as much of its censure of Hooker and the Administration
for an alleged failure to use the needed reserves. There were 60,000
men among the Washington defenses, it declared, who might have been
replaced by militia and thrown into the battle. As a matter of fact,
Hooker had failed to employ 35,000 fresh troops right at hand; his army
was large enough, and much too large for his capacity to handle it.
It fell back across the Rappahannock, and the stage was set for Lee’s
descent upon Pennsylvania.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account