Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-06-16

IL will be remembered that in our paper Of SAturds,
last we took some exceptions the accuracy aud gener
hy OF the remarks Of the New York Evening Post when
In referring to the reported appointment of Gen. Barnard
~ the On OF Engineer of the Army of the Poomsc under
Gen. Grant it ventured incidentally to express the opinion
that that officer had advised against the delays of Gen
hcCieian Returning to this subject in its number OF
Tuesday last, the Post says:
The National Intelligence criticises some remarks we
made Few days ago upon the appointment of Gen Bar
nard u be Chief Engineer OF the Army Of the Po
saying; These statements far from beipg accurate
AZ they were taken from Gen Barnsrds cal port
referred 10 tbat TO ascertain If bad mad vertentiy mis-
represented bis views. bu fad that he correctly
quoted in our columns.' The Intellgencer adds:
Our contemporary will take the trouble to ad with
care tne report OF Gen Barnard to which refers il will find
that Geu McC Ian had ed Sonlhern army
Imkwh mmt date on coming in front of ts defeusive
Of his Chief Engineer in doing So Gen Mcclellan in his
report refers to The opinion OF Gen Barnard under
from the stempt TO ny the mys works at York;,
by coup de main
We have looked in vain through Gen Banards report
Tor any passage sying the assertion Of the lnegence
Barnard, but that OF Mcclellan This officer asserts,
eighteen months after the event. that Gen Barnard who
was his chief engineer expressed the judgment that these
coud not with any reasonable certainty be carried
by assault"
II our contemporary looked in vain through Gen. Bar
iui ohy PaSfdBe our sCdCemcht,
only shows how cursory the examination it gives to
the report from which it had previously extracted
largely BY turning to page 81 of Gen. Barnsds report
printed by Van Nosrasd under the authors supen-
tendrnce The Post will be able to read as follows:
Ho,oeper may be committed to any oppression of pro-
fsssiona opinion 10 the contrary, U certainly did suggest
I'D my opinion that the lines of Yorktown should
have been assaulted"
1t will thus be seen that Gen. Barnard acknowledges
haan
ion against the opinion contained the report which
the Post refers We suppose it to this professional
opinion" that Gen. Mcclellan sludes when he says that
bis chief engineer expressed the judgment that those
works could not with any reasonable certainty be carried
by assault
While we are advertpg to this topic may remind
the reader that Gen Barnard in his official report writ
ten in the year 1863 long after Gen. McCellans removal
from command designates great bunder the omission
to open batteries at Yorktown fast az they we're
completed He says:
The siege having been determined upon we should
have opened batteries the place fast they
Completed The effect the troops would have b. in
spring 1t would have hghtened the siege and shortened
our abors and besides would have had the credit Of
dri ing the enemy from Yorktown by f. rec of arms,
Whereas as 1t we only induced him to evacuate for
prudential reasons."
When ke was under EXAMINATION by the /" War Commit
date Of his official report-Gen. Barnard explained the
origin of this bubder follows We quote from Vol. l.
of the War Committee report, p. $685.
Question. Why not batteries opened fast
Completed
Geu BARNARD The idea was to produce more COM
plrte fl ct When they opened.
ieston Whose dea ihat1
Gen Barnard 1 cannot ray Isuppose the error Of
not doing il belongs much 10 any body else
fbe idea was to get the batteries ali ady and produce
decisive feet at once when they should be opened
On the whole, it is evident that Gen. Barnard in writ
log his report. stood in little of his professional
opnons given from day to day. aud evidently considers il
proof Of Iucapacity in Gen Mcclellan that he suffered
himself to be auenc-d by the couuses of his chef
gineer 1t to be hoped that Gen. Barnard will be able
to report himself happy the advice no shall give
to Gen Grant, that Gen Grant with the advantage
Knowing the difference between Gen. Barnards profe
sonal opinonr" and bis oc al reports, will be wary
giving too much weight to the former