Table of Contents:
[Communicated.]The "military editor" at the foot of Capital Square is mistaken — no unusual thing with him, however. I do not wield an editorial pen, do not belong to "the Administration kennel," hold no office the President, and desire none. On , I am no great admirer of " powers that be;" but, unlike the "military editor" aforesaid, I do find some things in the conduct of the President to approve of. Not so with the literary Jomini who prescribes campaigns and pronounces judgment upon military operations from his easy tripped at the foot of Capitol Hill. Nothing that the President or Cabinet can do pleases him. Whatever is good goes to the credit of somebody else; whatever is bad is charged to the account of "Jeff. Davis" or "Bragg." For some time previous to the removal of Johnston the editor attempted to ridicule his movements. When the President relieved him of command, determined not to be pleased, he found fault with the President for his appointment of Hood as his successor. "Hardee had been overslaughed." But it turns out that Hardee had already refused to take command of the army. This made it necessary for Jomini — I mean the "military editor"--to change his plan of assault. Whereupon he suggested that there was a proper man not far distant from Petersburg to whom the command should have been committed, and charged the President with being governed by "a malignant jealously unparalleled outside of the bottomless pit." In these constant changes of position the aforesaid editor violates one of the oldest maxims of the military art: He exposes his rear and flanks to assault. I am surprised that one who acts himself up as a teacher of the art, who aspires to instruct the President, and to point out to our Generals what is beat to be done and what not to be done, should forget his own precepts and leave his rear unprotected. One word more: Can't my friend, the "military editor," find less objectionable English in which to express his ideas and sentiments? Why should he speak of any one as a "yelper in the Administration kennel," as a "tuft-hunter," "who fancies he is climbing up, and pays his way with slaver."The editor claims the right to think and act for himself. Why, then, if the President of the Confederacy presumes to do the same thing, should he be denounced, and accused of being actuated by "a malignant jealousy unparalleled outside the bottomless pit?" I submit to the proprietors of the Richmond Whig, that such language is unbecoming in a Confederate journal. It reminds one of the New York Herald and the Tribune, the greatest curses that ever afflicted a virtuous people. Such language can never hurt the object, whatever it may be, at which it is aimed; it may, however, excite the contempt of intelligent men for those who employ it. I had hoped that the newspaper press, as well as the people of the South, would gain something valuable by the separation from the North. The course of the Whig, and some other papers not far from Richmond, does not afford much encouragement to this hope. For Heaven's sake, let the press be decent. Let it be governed by principle, not prejudice. Let it use argument, not abuse.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.