Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-11-03
AIN ENGINEER HOIST BY HIS OWN pETARD.'

ished in Morning Chronicle Of this city let
ter which purports to be reply to the exposition
we made some days ago in illustration Of the self
convicted contradictions in which that officer has
involved himself, not only by writing at different
times in different sense on the same subject,
(Which any honest man may do,) but by moU
sverring that at the very time when he was writ
ing thus differently he had formed definite opin-
ions in one and the same sense as avowed by him
at the present time.
We can well understand that one who has
been detected in such patent "after-thoughts {"
is under strong temptation to transfer to others
the blame which attaches only to himself and
accordingly we are not at all surprised to dis
cover that General Barnard has the weakness
to betray much irritabiity at the authors of his
exposure, forgetting that in this matter he is his
own acouser, as we have done little except to
cite him As witness against himself, leaving our
readers to draw their own conclusions What Gen.
Barnard conceives these conclusions must neceSsa-
rily be, he makes sufficiently plain, not only by
the bad temper Of his reply, but by pleading in
avoidance of the issue really Joined against him
by his own hand. Until Gen. Barnard has an
swered himself it will be quite useless to call the
editors Of this journal by hard names for no other
offence than that Of putting his own contradictory
statements in immediate juxtapostion.
Gen. Barnard afirms, in his review of the pc
ninsular campaign in Virginia, CHOW being disse-
minated as Republican campaign document
that his opinions on that campaign, as announced
in his I" official report" Urittem under date of
January q, 1868, were no after-thoughts," but
were opinions which he had formed " six months
before that date. We have shown that in q
letter written by him to Mr.. Hurlbert, only a
teao a0eeks before that date, he avowed very differ
emit opinions, even to the extent Of charging upon
the Administrator the responsibility Of the failure
of that campaign. For it was in December, 1862,
that he wrote as follows:
place Of the unity of purpose and iron will in exc
cuton which have been the advantage of the Confederate
military operations, zoe haze been permitted TO haue single
'oA to rule no unity Of plan purpose Not only does
this apply to the direction Of military operations but spsn
10 the Objects Of The odr to the appointment Of the Generals
turbed counseis, frustrated plans The army of
General Mcclellan pushed into The field Than
It dpided under foe different commanders each inde
pendent of the other.
IF have no indication as yet of that command
ing ability and force of will which would, If left untram.
melted create Mnity Of action and eipe for skill in
qaaits tainy possessed BY the head Of the
rebel GoDernment,) we should at least remember Napo.
Icons aphorism that bad General is better than
good Independent of each other AMI acting in the
same theatre Of war;"
Now, if we are to believe what Gen. Barnard
writes to-day, he was in December, 1852, wilful
slanderer of the Administration, for he then
charged upon ii the responsibility Of the military
failure in Virginia, because it had as he then said,
disturbed our couusels or frustrated cur plans'
by political or sectional Influences" and this
he charged, while knowing at that time, and for
five months before, as he moD says, that Gen.
Mcclellan was in reality responsible for the said
failure. If Gen. Barnard has not slandered Gen.
in his report of January 9th, 1868,
and in his more recent review, he certainly con-
victs himself of having gratuitously slandered the
Administration in December, 1862.
As this merely question of dates and not at all
one Of epithets or abusive words we have merely to
repeat that IN December, 1862, Gen. Barnard
threw upon the Administration the responsibility
Of Gen. McClellan's failure in the Virginia Pc
ninsula. In January 1868, one month afterw.rd,
he threw upon Gen. Mcclellan the responsibility
of that failure. In the preface of his political
pamphlet, aoritten this gear, he AYERS that the
opinions written down" in his official report of
January ~, 1868, ",oere no atter-thoxghts SIX
MONTHS BEFORE HAD formed them, and, sohen I
spoke at all, (Dh:ch Ibid not do openly oppressed
them"
Perhaps Gen. Barnard can explain how it
was that in December, 1852, he wrote of the pc
ninsular campaign in one sense, while, as he now
AYERS, at that very time, and for FIVE months
before, he had definite opinions formed in pre-
cisely the opposite sense. We are unable to re-
c,ncie such anachronisms. There is "screw
loose somewhere" in such statements, and their
incompatibility is not at all relieved by railing at
the editors Of this journal for merely making rap
prochement of dates which, when considered in CON-
nection with these several statements, do not hold
we'll together 1t is no more our fault that they will
not consist, than it is our fault that Gen. Barnard
should first garble our language and then point
his exclamation at our want Of grammatical pro-
priety. For instance, he says We have charged
him with "impeaching the truthfulness and can
dor of Gen. Mcclellan by dwelling against IL
[sic] the grossest accusations" What we wrote
in the paper which Gen. Barnard had before him