Trouble in the Republican Camp — Discordant Voices — Gen Greeley Disclaims the ‘"On to Richmond."’
Late numbers of the New York journals exhibit a great deal of discord among the enemies of our country.
There seems to be a universal conviction that ‘"somebody is hurt,"’ and an equally general assurance the ‘"somebody is to blame,"’ and each faction is endeavoring to fasten upon the other the odious responsibility.
The N. Y.
Herald denounces the
Cabinet and demands their resignation.--The New York Union Committee recommends ‘"a thorough purging of the
Cabinet, the Army and Navy of imbeciles and blunderers,"’ and calls for a ‘"monster meeting"’ of citizen, which shall surpass all former ‘"monster meetings,"’ to demand a change in the
Cabinet.-- The
Herald charges to the
Cabinet officers and to the
Senators and Congressmen who have urged on ‘"premature and disastrous movements,"’ the defeats of ‘"Big Bethel,
Vienna and
Bull Run," ’ and asserts that the attempt to abolitionize the invasion will divide and demoralize the
Northern troops.
On the other hand, the
Tribune also berates the
Cabinet, but it considers abolitionizing the movement the very thing for its success.
The Republicans among themselves are by no means a band of brothers.
The
Herald, of the 26th, says:
‘ ’
Popular indignation against the Cabinet.
The news of the late lost battle has produced a very unfavorable impression on the public mind against the
Government and the military authorities.
Last evening the Republicans held caucus meetings in various sections of the city, at which the whole subject was discussed, and the most bitter expressions of indignation uttered against the
Cabinet for permitting the army to fall into the rebel trap at
Manassas Junction.
It was said that the Confederate army, under the guidance of its Government and
Generals, took good care not to fall into the trap
General Scott laid for them at
Arlington Heights; and it was no doubt owing to their wholesome horror of being caught in it that they did not pursue the retreating Federal forces in their confusion and disorder, cut them off from
Washington, and capture that city.
There were various ways of getting to
Richmond without going through
Manassas Junction, and the selection of that route seems like the stubbornness of a bull running his head against a locomotive.
The attack was made against the judgment of
Gen. Scott and
Gen. McDowell, and it is known that the latter had a presentiment of defeat, though he obeyed orders.
There was the most bitter resentment against the
Cabinet for being led away by the blood thirsty, fanatical abolitionists of the party, such as
Hickman,
Wade,
Fessenden,
Sumner,
Lovejoy and
Chandler, and being induced by their clamor's to order a premature advance upon
Richmond, which has so disastrously resulted in the sacrifice and disgrace of our brave troops.
It is the opinion of these Republicans that the present Cabinet are unfit for their position, inasmuch as they listened to such advice, and also because there is not a distinct enunciation on the part of the
Government that the object of the war is not to exterminate slavery or meddle in any way with the rights of property in the
Southern States.
The consequence of abolitionizing the armed movement will be to divide and demoralize our troops, the greater portion of whom enlisted, not to wage war against slaveholders, but to maintain the integrity of the
Union.
It would be hard to say how far the rabid anti-slavery sentiments lately uttered in Congress by those Republican leaders who are supposed to be in the confidence of the
Cabinet had an unfavorable effect upon the
Federal forces who fought near
Manassas Junction on Sunday last.
Certain it is that all soldiers will fight the better by understanding what they are struggling for, and by having their hearts in the cause.
The result of the deliberations of the conservative Republicans at these various meetings was the adoption of the following programmer for a new Cabinet:
Nathaniel P. Banks, of
Illinois,
Secretary of State.
John C. Fremont, of
California,
Secretary of War.
Cornelius Vanderbilt, of New York,
Secretary of the Navy.
Joseph Holt, of
Kentucky,
Attorney General.
In another article the
Herald assails the army officers, and says that the disaster was owing to their inexperience and incompetency.
At the same time it pays as emphatic a compliment to the
Confederate officers.
At the meeting of the ‘"Union Defence Committee,"’ above referred to,
Mr. Moses Grinnell had the assurance to say that ‘"the repulse of the
Union's arms was not a thing unexpected even in
Washington: there were circumstances which led to the belief that the result would be so at first."’ He accused the
Secretary of War of not receiving troops when there might have been an overwhelming force at
Washington, and said there were now over ten or twelve regiments which could be got ready and dispatched to
Washington in as many days.
Captain Marshall, another of the speakers, denounced the
Secretary of the Navy for not closing the ports, and made the remarkable admission: ‘"There is, in truth, no real blockade of the ports at this moment."’
Gen. Wetmore humanely expressed the opinion that ‘"any man who would counsel anything but the utter subjugation of the rebels should be hanged."’
The
Herald, of the 26th, comes out against the same paper's recommendation on the 24th, of a change in the
Cabinet.
It says Old Abe has ‘"put down his foot"’ against any change in the
Cabinet, and seems, on the whole, to think that he is right.
It intimates that he is himself to blame, and has been acting under the malign influences of the
Tribune and
Times It says: ‘"the only bond of adhesion among the various party elements enlisted in our heroic armies is the glorious bond of the
Union."’ In another article, it says:
‘ ’
Shifting the responsibility — the President really to blame.
The President, the
Cabinet, the military advisers of the
Government, and the Congressional busy bodies and assistant advisers, are all in a flutter before the storm of popular indignation excited by the gross blunder of the
battle of Bull Run.
They present a spectacle which, if the occasion of it were not so serious, would shake the whole nation with laughter.
Each shouts out his innocence of the crime, and turns State's evidence against his next neighbor.
Congressmen retail private conversations in their speeches, and Cabinet officers button-hole reporters with desperate zeal.
The whole affair is the sublime of the ridiculous, and reminds one of a squad of schoolboys, hauled up before the
head master, all more or less guilty, and all telling tales.
Here is a choice bit, the design of which is to shield
Secretary Cameron from the charge of refusing the cavalry regiments, so greatly needed at the late battle: ‘"
Secretary Cameron has accepted regiments which have been (afterwards) refused by
General Scott, who, with his peculiar iteration of manner, replied, 'I don't want any cavalry, sir — I don't want any cavalry, sir. My plan of campaign doesn't require any cavalry, sir.'" ’ As if
Secretary Cameron did not know
General Scott's plan, and whether it required cavalry — an arrogance which, of itself, ought to decide his withdrawal from the
Cabinet.
The Hon. Mr Richardson, member of Congress from
Illinois, rolls his ball at the head pin, however, and nails the
President him self to the rack as the author of the whole blunder.
The N. Y.
Times gives reasons for a change in the
Cabinet and against a change in the
Cabinet.
But the richest development is an address from
Horace Greeley upon matters and things in general, and the conduct of the
Tribune in particular, in the nature of an apology for the ‘"
On to
Richmond"’ follies that have been spotting that luminary of the Republican party.
According to
Mr. Greeley the
Tribune is a many-headed monster, for which nobody in particular is morally responsible, but into which everybody pitches everything.
‘"I am charged (we quote) with what is called 'opposing the Administration,' because of that selection, and various paragraphs which have from time to time appeared in the
Tribune are quoted to sustain this inculpation.
The simple fact that
not one of these paragraphs was either written or in any wise suggested or prompted by me, suffices for that charge."’
Italies not ours!
Thus, we see, here,
imprimis, the
Tribune edits itself!
Nevertheless, the editor announces that he believes in pretty much what
Mr. Nobody has written.
But the watchward, ‘"Forward to
Richmond!"’ is not mine, or anything of like import.
I wish to evade no responsibility, but to repel a personal aspersion.
So with regard to the late article urging a change in the
Cabinet.
While I know that some of the best material in the country enters into the composition of that Cabinet, I feel that changes might be made therein with advantage to the public service.
Yet I did not write, and I did not intend to have published, the article calling for a change of Cabinet, which only appeared through a misapprehension.
I shrunk from printing it in part because any good effect it might have was likely to be neutralized by the very course which had been taken — that of assailing me as its supposed author.
So it seems the article got in
itself! Unlucky Editor-in.
Chief! Nevertheless, adds the editor, insinuatingly:
‘
I have no desire in the premises but that what is best for the country shall be done.
If the public judge that this great end — an energetic and successful prosecution of the war — will be most surely subserved by retaining the
Cabinet as it is, I acquiesce in that decision.
The end being secured, the means are to me utterly indifferent.
’
Only acquiesces!
Mr. Seward owes his thanks!
I wish to be distinctly understood as not seeking to be relieved from any responsibility for urging the advance of the
Union Grand Army into
Virginia, though the precise phrase ‘ "Forward to
Richmond!"’ is not mine, and I would have preferred not to iterate it. I thought that the army, one hundred thousand strong, might have been in the rebel Capital on or before the 20th instant, while I felt that there were urgent reasons why it
should be there if possible.
‘"On to
Richmond,"’ in blazoned paragraphs, three weeks continually, are not mine — against my preference; but the rascally
Subs would put it in, in spite of me, H. G.!
And now, if any one imagines that I, or any one connected with the Tribune, ever commended or imagined any such strategy as the launching of barely thirty thousand of the one hundred thousand Union volunteers within fifty miles of
Washington, against ninety thousand rebels enveloped in a labyrinth of strong entrenchments and unreconnoitered masked batteries, then demonstration would be lost on his closed ear. But I will not dwell on this.
If I am needed as a scapegoat for all the military blunders of the last month, so be it!
Individuals must die that the nation may live.
If I can serve her best in that capacity, I do not shrink from the ordeal.
