The Daily Dispatch: September 19, 1864., [Electronic resource]

The New York Herald, in that strain of exaggeration in which it takes such peculiar delight, says that Grant's campaign in Virginia surpasses anything that Napoleon ever did in the very height of his genius and reputation! There is some difference, not withstanding. Napoleon, for instance, always had an object, and he never failed to obtain it. Grant had an object, it is true, but he did not obtain it. Napoleon always crushed his enemies. Grant's enemies very nearly crushed him before he got to James river, Napoleon, in every instance, had to contend against superior numbers; Grant contended against numbers which were to his own about in the proportion of one to three. Napoleon generally contrived to defeat and disperse the enemy that stood between him and the capital he was aiming at, at the opening of a campaign. Grant not only has not defeated and dispersed the enemies that stood between him and Richmond, but they stand between him and Richmond still. Napoleon always inflicted far greater loss on his enemies than he sustained himself. Grant's enemies have killed for him six men for one they have lost. Napoleon always "fought it out on this line."--that is, he always marched strait to the capital, brushing aside all impediments as though they had been cobwebs. Grant found the cobwebs greatly too strong for him, and was compelled by them to give the capital the cold shoulder, and cross over twenty-five miles below it, where he now lies. Napoleon never lost 150,000 men in attempting to take any capital; Grant did. Napoleon never lost a battle on his advance to a capital. Grant lost every one he fought between the Rapid Ann and the James.

The five great campaigns of Napoleon, after he had obtained supreme power, were those of Marengo, (1800,) Austerlitz, (1805,) Jena, (1806,) Friedland, (1807,) and Wagram, (1809.) We speak of the campaign of Marengo as having been made after he had obtained supreme power, because, though at the time he was nominally but the First Consul of the French Republic, in reality, he was as absolute as his contemporaries, Francis and Alexander, and as he himself ever was, after he had become emperor. Moreover, we speak of these five campaigns because they were all fortunate; and it is to the fortunate campaigns, of course, that the Herald likens this campaign of Grant. In the campaign of Marengo, then, Napoleon crossed the Alps by the great St, Bernard, passed down the Dora Baltea, emerged upon the plains of Piedmont, in the neighborhood of Turin; captured that city; made himself master of all Piedmont north of the Po; seized Milan, the capital of Austrian Italy; became master of all Lombardy, except Mantua; and all this in the space of little more than a week; for the Austrian army was on the other side of the Po besieging Mantua, and he had come upon its rear while he was expected in another quarter. He than crossed the Po and fought the battle of Marengo, which was followed by the capitulation of the Austrian army and the surrender of all Austrian Italy this side of the Brenta. Thus we see the force of a mighty empire struck down at a single blow. Has Grant struck down an empire at a blow since he has been in Virginia?

In the campaign of 1805, the Austrian General Mack pushed his force of eighty thousand men far in advance of Vienna, into the very heart of Bavaria, placing them thus much nearer to the French than they were to the Russians, who were coming on to join them. Napoleon crossed the Rhine in five columns, got in the rear of these troops, defeated them in detachments, shut up what were left in Ulm, compelled the whole to surrender, marched upon Vienna, entered it without resistance, crossed the Danube, defeated the combined Russian and Austrian forces at Austerlitz, and made peace at Pressburg, after a campaign of something less than three months. He "fought it out on this line," and did not turn from it. To have been equal to Napoleon, Grant should have got in the rear of Lee, captured his whole force, marched upon Richmond, and entered it without resistance. This was what the Herald said he was going to do, and it was exactly what he did not do. If Mack had met Napoleon on the plains of Bavaria, fought him a series of battles, repulsed him in all of them, turned him off from Vienna when within nine miles of it, forced him to cross the Danube and take station twenty-five miles above the city, held him at bay there for three months, and forced him to call for one hundred thousand fresh men, he would then have done to him exactly what Lee has done to Grant.

In 1806, Napoleon threw; his army between the Prussians and their capital, routed them at Jena, passed the whole length of Prussia without opposition, picked up one hundred thousand prisoners entered Berlin without opposition, and totally destroyed the whole Prussian army, only two regiments escaping, in a fortnight. If he had been met, beaten repeatedly, and turned off from Berlin, to take a station twenty-five miles beyond it, there to be taken by the throat and not suffered to advance, by the Prussian army, he would have made a campaign such as Grant's is.

We pass over the campaign of 1807 because it presents no analogy to Grant's. In 1809, Napoleon, with inferior forces, defeated the Archduke Charles in Bavaria in four great battles, in four days, drove him to the north of the Danube, out of his way to Vienna, entered that city after a slight bombardment, crossed the Danube in pursuit of Charles, fought the drawn battle of Essling or Aspen, retreated to the Isle of Lodan, crossed the river in about six weeks fought the battle of Wagram, gained a great victory, and made the peace of Vienna. If Grant had defeated Lee, driven him across the James, seized upon Richmond, crossed the river and annihilated Lee's army, he would have done something very like what Napoleon did in this campaign. If Charles, in these four battles, had defeated Napoleon, turned him off from Vienna, and landed him on the other side of the Danube, he would have done what Lee has done to Grant.

The Herald ought to wait to see what object Grant is going to accomplish. In every instance, Napoleon destroyed an army and took a capital. Thus far, Grant has destroyed no army, and he has got possession of the Weldon railroad. Let us remark, in closing, that Grant lost more men from the Rapid Ann to Reams's station than Napoleon lost in all these five great campaigns. Grant is hardly equal to Napoleon. The Herald once said McClellan was, but it has found out its mistake. It is mistaken about Grant, and it will find that out too.