| |
Larry Purtell
Little Meadows, PA, USA
Posts: 719
 | | From the London Times, July 20 | | Posted on: 7/18/2010 3:12:16 PM | This article is seven pages long. I have presented here only the first page. Use this lnk to read the entire article.
http://www.nytimes.com/1863/08/03/news/war-america-comments-english-press-national-victories-gettysburgh-vicksburghhow.html?scp=4&sq=London&st=p
THE WAR IN AMERICA.; Comments of the English Press on the National Victories at Gettysburgh and Vicksburgh.HOW THE LONDON TIMES GETS OVER THEM. A SENSIBLE AND FRIENDLY VIEW. THE LONDON TIMES SCARIFIED. From the Star, 21st. VIEWS OF THE REBEL ORGAN. From the London Herald, 20th. ANOTHER FRIENDLY VIEW.
Published: August 3, 1863
From the London Times, July 20.
No portion of modern history has repeated itself so often or to completely as that of the American war. The tide of battle returns at almost regular intervals to the same ground, with results so similar in the tale of slaughter, with so little visible effect on the main issues, that even fresh events scarcely redeem the blood-stained chronicle from a mournful kind of monotony. Two battles on the field of Bull Run, two battles before Fredecicksburgh, are the repetitions of incidents in four disastrous attempts by the Northern States to invade the South. On the other hand, the second advance of the Southern army into Maryland and Pennsylvania seems to have brought with it nearly the same results as the first. The three days' fighting at Gettysburg ended like those of Antietam. A hurried march northward of the Federal army to protect Washington, an obstinate conflict, closed by a drawn battle, and a deliberate retreat of the Confederates into Virginia, make the second Southern incursion a close counterpart of its predecessor. The similarity extends even to the details of the two operations. The indecisive battle of Antietam was not renewed, and Gen. LEE withdrew the whole of his force in good order during the night, while the Federals could not pursue it with any effect. Precisely the same incidents have occurred again as the results of the battle of Gettysburgh. The action terminated by the close of the night on the 3d of July was not renewed, and on the morning of the 4th Gen. MEADE found his opponent had retired from his position. At first it was not known whether the Confederates had really retreated, or whether Gen. LEE was manoeuvring to obtain a position for another engagement. But on the 5th and the following days it appeared that the Confederates were retiring in good order, with all their artillery, toward the Potomac.
Whether the second Southern invasion is to be regarded as a failure depends entirely on the purpose with which it was undertaken. Was it merely a "raid" on an enormous scale, or an inroad for the conquest of territory? With the experience the Southerners gained when they first tested the disposition of Maryland, they could have had no sanguine hope of popular support on their second appearance in the State, though in greater numbers. But this time they did not limit their incursion to the territory in which there undoubtedly a considerable amount of latent "Southern opinion;" they made a wider sweep into the more northern and more doubtful State of Pennsylvania. The peaceful associations connected with this State appear to have had a moral influence on the people, for the apathy they exhibited in such extraordinary circumstances astonished and almost scandalized even New-York. That they would give no aid to the invaders was certain, but they were also perfectly indifferent to the Southern occupation. A spiritless people and a fertile soil are exactly the elements of temptation to an enemy in a time of civil war. The temptation is not lessened when that enemy is in great need of things abundantly possessed by those it hates. As a raid, therefore, the Southern army may have effected a successful operation, though the Confederacy is as far as ever from obtaining permanent possession of an inch of Northern-territory. The Pennsylvanians drove hard bargains with the small force sent by New-York to defend them. But if it is difficult to argue with the master of many legions, it is impossible to bargain closely with the legions themselves. The Southern army was numerous enough to regulate the market, and during their stay there is little doubt that "prices ruled in favor of the buyers." In fact, for a considerable time the Southerners have made the war support itself, and supplied their enormous army at the cost of one of the most wealthy districts of the North Politically, the object of the invasion remains obscure, and appears even hopeless. But if the purpose was to gain supplies, the motive of the operation is clear enough. It was a calculation in which the material advantage to be gained was balanced by a possible loss in the process.
---------------
"My goal is to live forever. So far, so good.
|
| Red Bailey
Dewey, AZ, USA
Posts: 840
| | Re: From the London Times, July 20 | | Posted on: 7/18/2010 5:27:10 PM | It's interesting that the 'it was merely a raid' thinking ocurred so early after the battle.
However, Lee's incursion into Pennsylvania included three days of ANV attacks against the AOP, and I doubt that those events fit in with the 'merely a raid' theory.
---------------
'War is often the result of the failure to reason' - Anonymous
As usual,
Red
|
| KP
Belle Vernon, PA, USA
Posts: 269
| | Re: From the London Times, July 20 | | Posted on: 7/19/2010 7:10:23 PM | I agree, Red.
Maybe that comes from being so far from the scene of the action.
---------------
With respect,
KP
|
| |
|
|
|