Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
September 30, 1868
Edgefield Advertiser
Edgefield, Edgefield County, South Carolina
What is this article about?
An editorial in the Louisville Journal mocks Senator Fessenden's claim that General Grant 'never failed yet,' citing Grant's defeats at Belmont, Shiloh, the Wilderness Campaign, and Petersburg, attributing Richmond's capture to Sherman rather than Grant.
Clipping
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
"is Never Failed Yet,"
Senator Fessenden said in his last speech in Maine: "General Grant never failed yet."
Oh Senator, thou apostate from two parties, quite ready to be an apostate from two more, why are you so shameless unless your double apostasy in the past and your contemplated double or treble apostasy in the future makes you so?
You say that General Grant "never failed yet." Didn't he fail at Belmont when opposed by half his own force? Didn't he fail at Shiloh, and were not his troops driven under the banks of the river, helpless, hopeless, despairing, until General Buell in the very nick of time, a nick that Grant had no right or reason to expect, came to his aid?
Was he not defeated with wretched loss in each and every one of the terrible battles fought between the Rapidan and the James? And what did he do upon the James? What but "pipe his eyes" in upon his broad bottom, making no movement, contemplating none, daring none, but proposing to fight it out (meaning to squat it out) on that line?
Was the capture Richmond victory of General Grant? Everybody knows that it was not. Except for Sherman, Grant would have been as powerless as unweaned infancy.
Do you tell us that Grant never failed yet? The military life overflows with failures.—Louisville Journal.
Senator Fessenden said in his last speech in Maine: "General Grant never failed yet."
Oh Senator, thou apostate from two parties, quite ready to be an apostate from two more, why are you so shameless unless your double apostasy in the past and your contemplated double or treble apostasy in the future makes you so?
You say that General Grant "never failed yet." Didn't he fail at Belmont when opposed by half his own force? Didn't he fail at Shiloh, and were not his troops driven under the banks of the river, helpless, hopeless, despairing, until General Buell in the very nick of time, a nick that Grant had no right or reason to expect, came to his aid?
Was he not defeated with wretched loss in each and every one of the terrible battles fought between the Rapidan and the James? And what did he do upon the James? What but "pipe his eyes" in upon his broad bottom, making no movement, contemplating none, daring none, but proposing to fight it out (meaning to squat it out) on that line?
Was the capture Richmond victory of General Grant? Everybody knows that it was not. Except for Sherman, Grant would have been as powerless as unweaned infancy.
Do you tell us that Grant never failed yet? The military life overflows with failures.—Louisville Journal.
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Military Affairs
Satire
What keywords are associated?
Grant Failures
Fessenden Apostasy
Civil War Battles
Belmont Defeat
Shiloh Failure
Petersburg Inactivity
What entities or persons were involved?
Senator Fessenden
General Grant
General Buell
Sherman
Louisville Journal
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Critique Of Senator Fessenden's Praise For General Grant's Military Record
Stance / Tone
Mocking And Strongly Critical Of Grant And Fessenden
Key Figures
Senator Fessenden
General Grant
General Buell
Sherman
Louisville Journal
Key Arguments
Fessenden Is An Apostate From Parties
Grant Failed At Belmont Against Half His Force
Grant Failed At Shiloh, Saved Only By Buell's Timely Aid
Grant Defeated In Battles Between Rapidan And James
Grant Inactive At Petersburg, Squatting On The Line
Richmond's Capture Due To Sherman, Not Grant