May 1863–North Star takes a shot at its hometown boy

The Efforts of Union Generals in the Eastern Theatre Comes to Naught and the North Star Takes a Shot at Its Hometown Boy

By Gary Far­row, Danville His­tor­i­cal Society

May 9, 1863 North Star–Radicalism

Noth­ing is more com­mon now, when every­thing depends on a unit­ed North, than for the Rad­i­cals to ful­mi­nate their extreme abo­li­tion notions – ignor­ing both the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Union. Their lead­ers in Con­gress have bold­ly pro­claimed this sen­ti­ment. “Who,” shout­ed the Abo­li­tion­ist Bing­ham, Ohio mem­ber of Con­gress, at the last ses­sion, “in the name of God wants the Cot­ton States, or any oth­er State this side of perdi­tion, to remain in the Union, if slav­ery is to con­tin­ue.” Thad­deus Stevens has uttered, if pos­si­ble, still more extreme sen­ti­ments. It tells the whole sto­ry. They do not want and do not mean to have the Old Union. It is a direct assault upon the loy­al­ty of the Bor­der States, which have fur­nished thou­sands of troops for the Fed­er­al army – of States which have ever claimed the right to reg­u­late their own inter­nal negro pol­i­cy. But the Rad­i­cals make no dis­tinc­tion between those slave states which remain true to the Old Flag, and those which have fought against it so long. Were the seced­ed states to lay down their arms to-day, and pro­pose a full return to loy­al­ty and the Union, these men would say “No” to their sub­mis­sion. And what is more, this class of rad­i­cals has always want­ed, in some way or some­how, to dri­ve off the slave states.

***

But the North­ern Democ­ra­cy and Con­ser­v­a­tive sen­ti­ment arraigns bold­ly this Rad­i­cal trea­son to the Con­sti­tu­tion as they arraign seces­sion, and fight both – one by the bal­lot and the oth­er in the field.

Thad­deus Stevens, born in Danville and raised in the area, had gone on to grad­u­ate from Dart­mouth Col­lege, become a suc­cess­ful lawyer and busi­ness­man and rep­re­sent Penn­syl­va­nia in the US House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. He was one of the lead­ing rad­i­cal Abo­li­tion­ists of his day and chair­man of the pow­er­ful House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee that con­trolled the nation’s purse strings. Rad­i­cal Repub­li­cans also dom­i­nat­ed the US Con­gres­sion­al Joint Com­mit­tee on the Con­duct of the War, which was con­stant­ly berat­ing Union gen­er­als for their inep­ti­tude. The North Star strong­ly sup­port­ed the restora­tion of the Union; how­ev­er, the paper was extreme­ly skep­ti­cal about the Eman­ci­pa­tion Procla­ma­tion, which freed slaves in rebel states. It was clear­ly miffed at the ascen­dan­cy of the rad­i­cal wing of the Repub­li­can party.

May 9 1863 North Star

The march­es and suc­cess­es of Gen­er­al Banks are excit­ing exul­ta­tion and hope, and gain for him that con­fi­dence and regard that his char­ac­ter and deeds mer­it. He is evi­dent­ly using all his ener­gies to car­ry out in his Depart­ment the pur­pos­es of the Gov­ern­ment, and win great advan­tages to be gained hold­ing the Mississippi…

…From the time he left here for Louisiana, he has been the sub­ject of sneers and reproach­es by a class of Rad­i­cals who are always growl­ing at what­ev­er is wise and ben­e­fi­cial, hon­est and tru­ly patri­ot­ic. Mr. Sum­mers “franked” paper gave us, a lit­tle while ago, the fol­low­ing evi­dence of its ami­a­bil­i­ty: — “The rebels have set a high price on [Gen­er­al] Butler’s head for noth­ing, we should thank them. It is not much to be sure, but such as it is, they are wel­come to it.”

Notwith­stand­ing such malev­o­lence  we believe his career is onward and upward, and although we have no sym­pa­thy with his par­ti­san affini­ties, his praise­wor­thy acts in the pub­lic ser­vice shall ever receive our grate­ful acknowledgements.

***

Gen­er­al Ben­jamin But­ler was a “polit­i­cal” gen­er­al, a for­mer gov­er­nor of Mass­a­chu­setts appoint­ed to his mil­i­tary rank by Pres­i­dent Lin­coln. He com­mand­ed the Union troops that cap­tured New Orleans a year ear­li­er and now occu­pied the city. The gen­er­al had earned the sobri­quets “Beast” and “Spoons”: the for­mer for his heavy-hand­ed cen­sor­ship of news­pa­pers in Louisiana and his infa­mous “Gen­er­al Order 28,” which autho­rized his troops to treat the ladies of New Orleans as pros­ti­tutes in retal­i­a­tion for the habit of some women who had tak­en to emp­ty­ing the con­tents of the cham­ber pots from bal­conies on to the heads of Union sol­diers below. The “Spoons” referred to Butler’s rep­u­ta­tion for con­fis­cat­ing sil­ver­ware and oth­er valu­ables from the wealthy.

Gen­er­al But­ler hat­ed Gen­er­al Natha­nial Banks, also a for­mer gov­er­nor of Mass­a­chu­setts, report­ed­ly because they were polit­i­cal rivals, the good press that he enjoyed, and Banks’ rep­u­ta­tion as the most accom­plished of the polit­i­cal generals.

May 9, 1863

Dis­patch­es From Gen­er­al Banks, Wash­ing­ton, May 1

The Nation­al Repub­li­can of May 1 pub­lish­es semi-offi­cial dis­patch­es from Gen­er­al Banks, dat­ed near St. Mar­tinsville, 17th – From them it appears that when Gen­er­al Banks left Baton Rouge, three reg­i­ments of col­ored troops were left for its defense – The results among oth­ers of Gen Banks’ expe­di­tion are: accom­plish­ing a march of over 200 miles; beat­ing the ene­my in three bat­tles – two on land and one on Ground Lake; dis­pers­ing the rebel army; utter­ly destroy­ing the rebel navy; cap­tur­ing the foundries of the ene­my at Franklin and New Iberia, and demor­al­iz­ing the salt works, 10 miles west of the lat­ter place; cap­tur­ing the car­go equipage of the ene­my; also, sev­er­al guns and between one and two thou­sand pris­on­ers, and so derang­ing the plans of the rebels that they can­not for some months, if ever, reor­ga­nize his land and naval forces in that por­tion of Louisiana. Our loss in the two land bat­tles was 800 to 700. Noth­ing could exceed the con­duct of the offi­cers and men in Gen Banks’ command.

The dis­patch­es say we have not only destroyed the army and navy of the ene­my, and cap­tured the essen­tials for the reor­ga­ni­za­tion of his force, but we have also in our pos­ses­sion his ablest offi­cers of the land and sea.

***

May 16, 1863

Gen Hooker’s Repulse. We now have pret­ty accu­rate infor­ma­tion as to the result of the recent advance of the Potomac Army. It was a fail­ure, to say the least – a repulse it would be called by mil­i­tary enti­ties. While we, in com­mon with all loy­al cit­i­zens, sin­cere­ly regret that Gen­er­al Hook­er was not suc­cess­ful in reach­ing Rich­mond, and in destroy­ing the rebel army – while all must deplore the neces­si­ty he was under of re-cross­ing the riv­er, and regret that the advance ter­mi­nat­ed with­out accom­plish­ing any­thing decisive…

From all that we now learn, Gen. Hook­er did the best he could. He was not well sup­port­ed, by some of his troops; and the unex­pect­ed, not to say dis­grace­ful pan­ic of the Eleventh Corps, was a great and fatal injury to his plans.

The Ver­mont Brigade at Fredericksburg

From all accounts it appears that the Ver­mont brigade had heavy work to do at Fred­er­icks­burg; and all accounts also agree that they did their work well exhibit­ing undaunt­ed courage and brav­ery – prob­a­bly sav­ing by their rest­less charge, the corps of Sedg­wick from anni­hi­la­tion. They made the first charge, in con­nec­tion with oth­er troops, when the heights were car­ried by storm; and the next day the 6th reg­i­ment made anoth­er ter­ri­ble and suc­cess­ful charge, when the ene­my, under Longstreet, drove us from the heights, and thus saved the divi­sion. In these encoun­ters, many a brave man fell to rise no more.

***

An offi­cer of the 6th Ver­mont sends to the Green Moun­tain Free­man, the fol­low­ing graph­ic account of the fight at Fred­er­icks­burg; and the part which that reg­i­ment took in it.

Camp of the 6th Vermont

I am not sure that you have heard all about our move­ments, through the papers, as a corps, but not prob­a­bly as a reg­i­ment. We crossed the riv­er on Sat­ur­day night, the 2nd instant, and moved towards the heights at day-break of Sun­day. About one o’clock P.M. we charged – our right forc­ing one of the strongest works. We passed over a plain half a mile wide, then through a ravine where the rebels slaugh­tered the Irish brigade, in the first attack, last Decem­ber and then up the heights, our reg­i­ment being the sec­ond one on the crest, hav­ing passed by two oth­er reg­i­ments on the charge. The rebels show­ered shells upon us from the heights, but our rapid move­ments pre­vent­ed them seri­ous­ly harm­ing us…

The next morn­ing, with my glass, I watched the rebel fir­ing on the heights; we had won the day before, com­ing in from the north­ward, no one being there to oppose them. You can imag­ine what my feel­ings were. I don’t know whether I was most griev­ed, angered or indig­nant. All we gained was lost! I sup­pose the Gen­er­al thought the rebels were on the road to Rich­mond and he was anx­ious to push on and join Hooker.

The rebels were now on three sides of us, and a four o’clock they charged upon us, start­ing out of the woods with a tremen­dous yell… Our reg­i­ment lay close upon the ground, behind a lit­tle crest. The men were ordered to fire only at the word of com­mand. We wait­ed until the ene­my were with­in twen­ty feet of our guns, then rose, fired, and came on fast, they went back faster. Just our reg­i­ment drove back the line, took near­ly as many pris­on­ers as we had in the regiment.

….We drove the rebels back near­ly a mile, over the entire ground, they had won, and held it unaid­ed until dark, when we were ordered to fall back.

The Colonel and I and many of the line offi­cers now wear rebel swords. The Gen­er­al says the Ver­mont Brigade saved the corps, and I know that had we giv­en way as the oth­er reg­i­ments, did, all must have been lost.

***

But by lat­er in the month, the press had soured on the exploits of Gen­er­al Hooker.

May 23, 1863 North Star–The Cam­paign on the Rappahannock

The New York Evening Post – a decid­ed Admin­is­tra­tion jour­nal – has the fol­low­ing, among oth­er crit­i­cisms, on the recent repulse of our army on the Rap­pa­han­nock. The fact was it was more than a repulse – it was a severe defeat. Gen Hook­er in the first place didn’t have enough men …sec­ond­ly… Hook­er was out­gen­eraled and out-maneu­vered. The mas­ter­ly move­ment of Stonewall Jack­son, in cut­ting his way through the woods, and sud­den­ly in the most unex­pect­ed man­ner appear­ing on our flank, with some 30,000 men, was a bril­liant feat that will long renown to the cred­it of Jack­son, in future his­to­ry. Then, again, in the way of Sedgwick’s corps was pre­vent­ed from join­ing Hook­er, is anoth­er evi­dence of the supe­ri­or strat­e­gy of the rebel Generals.

***

The “Cam­paign on the Rap­pa­han­nock” is bet­ter known today as the Bat­tle of Chan­cel­lorsville. Remem­ber that the Army of the Potomac had seen Gen McClel­lan fired in the fall, suc­ceed­ed by Gen Burn­side, who presided over the Decem­ber deba­cle at Fred­er­icks­burg and then prompt­ly resigned his com­mand. Now it was Gen­er­al Joseph Hooker’s turn.

The Union’s goal in the east­ern the­atre was ulti­mate­ly the destruc­tion of Gen­er­al Lee’s forces and the cap­ture of Rich­mond, the Con­fed­er­ate capi­tol. In order to force the issue, Gen­er­al Hook­er devised an elab­o­rate plan to split his forces with some cross­ing the Rap­pa­han­nock and attack­ing Fred­er­icks­burg again – of which the 1st Ver­mont Brigade was a part – and oth­er forces mov­ing south. His objec­tive was to trap the forces of Gen­er­al Lee.

How­ev­er, Lee’s troops shad­owed Union maneu­vers and col­lect­ed enough intel­li­gence to fig­ure out that Hook­er was plan­ning a two-pronged attack. Hook­er then became timid and took up a defen­sive posi­tion in Chan­cel­lorsville where he was out­flanked by Stonewall Jack­son. Ulti­mate­ly, Lee pushed the Fed­er­als out of Fred­er­icks­burg and the Army of the Potomac again found itself with­draw­ing back towards Wash­ing­ton. This set the stage for Lee’s next north­ern adven­ture, which would end in disaster.