[167]
of the Union army in Virginia, though the precise phrase, “Forward to Richmond,” was not mine, and I would have preferred not to reiterate it. Henceforth I bar all criticism in these columns on army movements.
Now let the wolves howl on!
I do not believe they can goad me into another personal letter. ...
In reply to this the paper was urged by a correspondent to continue its military criticism of the government and its efforts to stimulate the army into activity, but declined on the ground that it had reached its conclusion after “sleepless nights of thought,” and that it could not stand the criticism of itself that followed the disaster of
Bull Run.
Not content with this, it hastened to declare anew, July 29th:
... If the States that hate the Union-mean to destroy the Union, were resolved to make war on the Union-had been willing to depart peaceably, and to arrange quietly and decently the terms of separation, we alone among the people of the free States expressed a willingness to let them go. But they would not go in that way. They set themselves to stealing arsenals, fortifications, and custom-houses, that were the property of the Nation.
From that hour it has never been possible to let them go. ...
On August 6th the
Tribune declared:
... The only hope of the South, did they but know it, is in their defeat.
For the North, defeat, even though only the qualified disaster that comes through compromise and diplomacy, is remediless destruction preceded by years of the bitterest shame, and this we must acknowledge without shrinking, avoid with the forethought of the wise, strive against with the valor of the brave.
That the first of the above paragraphs is
Greeley's, and the last
Dana's, is evident from their form as well as from
