New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-05-27
GEN. EgTLER.

Beaurcgarls operations against Gen. Butter
are receiving an energetic cooperation rom TWO
or three journals in this city, which complain OF
his management, and assert that his campaign
has failed. II is sufficient to say that neither OF
these journals knows what were the OBJECTS OF
Gen. i,rtler's movements, nor how far be has
accompli,hcd them. nor whether the failure, il
any there be. is due TO mistakes of bis. Their
censurc is, TO say the least, premature, and the
eyprcs,ion Of it while Gen. Butler occupies his
present position is neither generous nor just.
The basis of these complaints has been sup
plied nv IN article said to come from an officer
under Butlcr's command. His criticisms ore:
/. That when Gen. Butler began operations
against Fort Darling ho omitted to intrench
himself. 3 That the Rebel attack on Monday
week was successful by reason of the absence OF
the proposed works. 3. That after his right had
been turned he ordered the withdrawal Of the
Tenth Corps from the left, although Gen. Gill
more reported himself able and DESTROYS to hold
his ground. The three points may be stated
more summarily in one, viz: That Gen. Butler
disagreed with Gen. Gilmore as to the conduct
Of the campaign.
We are far from supposing that these charges
originate with Gen. Gilmore, or are approved
by him. or that he has failed to give Gen. But
Ter a cordial support. The indiscreet friends Of
Gen. Gilmore who have put his name so promi-
nently in opposition to Gen. Butler, have done
him no service, and will do Gen. Butler no
harm. Their objections cannot be sustained.
To the two first, the answer is that the Rebel
attack on Monday was a surprise, for which
the brigade OF division commander on the
right may have been responsible, but for which
Cen Butler was not There is no reason 10
suppose it could have been prevented by in
trenchmcnts, which il would have been easier
to pass than il was TO cludc the pickcts. The
fog covered everything, and no rifc-pits could
have stopped an invisible advance. To the
third point there are two answers. First: 1t is
not for a corps commander who judges with
reference to his own corps only, to say what Isl
best for the whole army. Secondly: Although
Gen. Gilmore held strong ground on the left,
Nv lhl AAA' I'm VI NNiiN NAN wa NV"
the rest Of the army if he remained.
Gen. Butler seems 10 have found himself
unable TO recstablish bis right, and in that case
the retirement Of Gilmore would sooner or
later have become a necessity. II was probably
wise to order it while junction could be eff
fccted without further loss. But at all events
there is no evidence that even tends to show
that Gen. Butler acted otherwise than with
sound military discretion. And We may add, |
there is no cvtscnce except from an anonymous
letter. writer, that Gen. Gilmore entertained
the opinion attributed 10 him.
Undoubtedly there is a feeling Of disappoint-
men, that Gen. Buffers forces should have
proied inadequate to do tho work which was
popularity expected Of him, and that feeling is |
taken advantage Of to create an opinion of his
We decline to cooperate in such an
At this moment we do not con
slider the removal Of General in active service
as a matter for newspaper discussion. The d-
rcction Of this campaign il in the hands of
Lieut. Gen Grant, and the responsibility is with
him. So long as he is satisfied with Gen. But
Ter, ii belongs TO nobody else 10 complain.