New Orleans Daily Crescent

We have the Memphis Appeal of the 18th inst. before us.

The Appeal is one of the most sensible papers on our exchange list. It is ably and coolly conducted, and when we find a statement in its columns we are disposed to rely upon it.

In three short articles of the Appeal there are sentences we do not precisely understand. There is a great deal intimated, calculated to excite distrust, and too little said to afford a satisfactory explanation. We hope there are no grounds for suspicion, in regard to either high or low officials. If educated, scientific imbecility, has brought all our troubles upon us in Kentucky and Tennessee, we will have to endure them until we find a remedy. That is all. If there has been worse than imbecility, we will also have to abide the consequences. There is no other alternative. If we have been defeated by the folly of an ass, or if disasters have overtaken us because of unfaithful men, the ultimate result is bound to be the same. The subjugation of the South by the North is an impossibility.

In one article the Memphis Appeal says: "Since the reported agreement of Gen. Johnston to surrender Nashville to Buell upon his arrival the impression seems to be that he will fall back to Murfreesboro," etc. When was this "agreement" entered into? Before the evacuation of Bowling Green? Whoever heard of a Commanding General making arrangements to "surrender" the Capital of a great State before it was attacked? Will the Memphis Appeal please enlighten us?

In another article the Appeal observes that "the archives of the State and the specie of the several banks have been removed to a place of safety. No step had been taken up to Sunday night, to remove the large amount of pork, Government stores, ammunition and munitions of war from the city—all of which, unless some disposition has since been made of them, may fall into the enemy's hand."

It works rather strange, to say the least, that the State archives, and the specie of the Banks, could be removed, when the Government agents having absolute control of the railroads could not remove the national stores and munitions of war!

As is said at the head of this article: "What does it mean?"

In the third article the Memphis Appeal remarks that the "fall of Fort Donelson on Saturday last, the evacuation of Bowling Green and the unexplained agreement to surrender Nashville on yesterday, have forcibly engendered the conviction in the public mind that Gen. Sidney Johnston has been outgeneraled by Buell in the progress of army operations in Kentucky. We have no disposition to harshly judge him in this matter, but the fact is too palpable for denial that some of his blunders have at least temporarily transferred the war from Kentucky to Tennessee soil."

The Appeal is very generous. We admire generosity. But, we do not believe that Johnston was "outgeneraled by Buell."

Buell is entitled to no credit, except that which attaches to men of common sense, and we doubt whether he is entitled to that, for he published weeks before he started that he was going to ascend the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers.

"What does it mean?" we say again. Have our Generals "agreements" with the commanding officers of the enemy to surrender important positions, to give up great cities, before they are even attacked? Nashville was in our possession up to the time of writing these lines, so far as we had any intelligence, yet, according to the Appeal, Johnston had made arrangements to surrender it to Buell—long before it was in imminent danger! We do not believe that Nashville is even now in the possession of the enemy. If it is—well, we do not deem it necessary to say anything further at this time.

"What does it mean?" Will the Appeal, or any other friendly journal, please inform us: We will acknowledge to lasting obligations.