Table of Contents:
Lates Fale Embode.The London Journals indulge in a variety of comments upon the struggle before Richmond on the first of May and the 1st of June some as a Federal victory, others as a drawn battles, with others again as a success for the Confederates. The London Times, in its consumption, then it must be very hard for a Confederates-General to win in the Northern States. In memories of the first day's fight, the Confederate and half a mile of the Federal battle field nineteen guns, and all the baggage, and yesterday lost the victory. There Federal General's dispatch, army in the Federal newspapers, all agree, that the second day's fight was a hard struggle, but result in much less circumstantially stated in their general officer's report. The London Times thinks it ... day drawn battle. The fight as the .... brought about the of troops had been thrown, Federal line. This .... ‘"When we have yielded the customary the combative instincts of the Indian springs what is there more to say to. All, this heroism and bloodshed is as useless and as wicked as. If it had been exhibited between his in a Public amphitheater. It proved nothing and it decide nothing. In all probabilities will not hasten or arrest the fall of Richmond if it did, it would have no effect on the word in history or even upon this miserable war. This battle of two days talks no more than that both parties are strong campaign to shed each other's blood, and weak strength to continue to do so. We remark in this battle of Richmond, and other recent engagements, that a practice is rife with the Federal Generals which we never before heard of except among the leaders of Asiatic soldiers. It is constantly stated that cavalry are placed behind the Federal soldiers to drive them off upon the enemy. In the recent case it is related that fugitives were shot by troops sent after them by their own Generals. May it not be that many more than these few who are thus or pistoled into the battle are kept in this contest against their wills. Is there no hope that the crime of this madness has arrived. If not, all that we have seen is but a harmless game to what we shall see. now that the heats of summer are coming on."’ The London Daily News treats the affair as a decided victory for the Federals, and advances evidence to show that McClellan was not taken by surprise. It says there can be little doubt that the Confederates intended to inflict a crushing blow and that they failed in their object. The article concludes by treating the news as illustrating the soundness of British policy in refraining from useless mediation at the present juncture of affairs. The London Morning Star claims a victory for the Federals, and the London Daily Telegraph thinks that the balance is against the Confederates. The London Morning Post takes a contrary view and says: ‘ "After an interval of but six days the unpleasant task has been again imposed on the Federal Generals of confessing themselves worsted by opponents whom they affirmed to despise. No one can read the dispatch of General McClellan, without being convinced that it fells the story or a and defeat." ’ The London Morning Herald thinks that General McClellan's plans have been disturbed, and it may even turn out that they have been spoiled by the vigilance and enterprise of the enemy. The London Herald believes that the Confederates are likely to defend Richmond to the last extremity, and that one attack will now succeed another until the city is entered, or the Federals routed and driven across the Chickahominy. In a second article on the affair before Richmond the London Times argues that such battles cannot fail to have a strong effect on the mind of the Northern peoples as showing the difficult task they have undertaken. ‘"The truth is,"’ says the Times, ‘"that every successive month shows more clearly the impossibility of restoring the Union by force of arms."’ After expatiating on the delusion of the North as to the powers of resistance in the South, the loyalty of the slaves to their masters, &c., the article concludes as follows: ‘ "The Americans are too shrewd not to see and understand these things, and should the hot weather lead to a suspension of hostilities, we are inclined to hope that the voice of reason will once more be heard. Our letter from New York gives, no doubt, a truthful picture of the terror which restrains men from saying what they think. But when we find that a member of Congress and a representative of New York has the courage to rebuke the savage passions of his people, we are encouraged to hope for some change. The speech, or rather pamphlet (for it was never spoken,) of Mr. Benj. Wood is but the repetition of what we have been saying for months. He asks, 'What is the use of a Union of unwilling States, driven into companionship at the point of the bayonet and held there thereafter by military power! If not brought back by negotiation, they are lost to us forever. To conquer them may be possible, but to hold them in subjection, having conquered them, would in itself be a final repudiation of the first principles of republicanism.' Such is the language of a man who sees the madness of his countrymen, and will save them if it be possible. May be find followers as bold and plain spoken. Then, indeed, we shall begin to believe in the ninety days of Federal prophecy. Let the Northern people once perceive that the choice is between a peaceful settlement and a bootless war, gathering new horrors every day, and they will not refuse the advice even of England. " ’ The London Daily News defends General Butler's New Orleans proclamation as to the treatment of ladies against the strong interpretation which had been put upon it by secessionist sympathizers in England, but rejoices, nevertheless, that as soon as the authenticity of Butler's proclamation was ascertained at Washington, he was superceded as military commandant at New Orleans. The Daily Telegraph urged that Butler's proclamation has not been properly noticed, as President Lincoln does not appear to have cancelled it, or to have cashiered the General. The Liverpool correspondent of the London Times, (Mr. Spence,) whose effusions are strongly Secessionist, writes in favor of the policy of mediation, although he admits that this is not the time to put it in force. He thinks that when mediation is proposed it should be done by the general voice of Europe. The Army and Nary Gazette says: ‘ "Lord Lyons, our able and zealous Minister at Washington, may be expected in London shortly.--The American journals will, no doubt, make many extraordinary surmised, and indulge in many strange statements respecting the motives of his Lordship's journey at this moment. We believe he is coming home on private business, as he has not been in England since the death of the Admiral, his father." ’ In the House of Commons, on the 16th, Mr. Hopwood gave notice that on the 1st of July he should move a resolution that it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to use every exertion consistent with the maintenance of peace to bring the warfare now raging in America to a conclusion. It was reported in Paris that M. Perigyny had failed in his mission to London respecting American affairs.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.