Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-10-06

And 80 little were Gen. Halleck and the Secretary
u War enlightened to the true state of the facts
at they urged the President to dismiss the two
cers whose information he had acted, as though
the President, after he had made their opinions
his own, could honorably punish them for Civ
ing him counsel which he had judged to be more
reliable than that of all his other advisers put to-
.sether For he acted on the advice of Generals
Cochrane and Newton, without thinking it neces-
sary to take either Gen. Burnside or Gen Halleck
or the Secretary of War into his confidence. The
President doubtless knew how much the opinions
~ Gen. Halleck were worth in deciding military
question, but while the latter held the post of &C.
eralin-Chief he should have been treated with the
orms of respect due to his Office
A few weeks later and Gen. Burnside resigned
his command Gen Hooker was appointed to sue
seed him-the same Gen. Il ooker who when
asked by the Congressional Committee on the Con-
duct of the War why the campaign in the Virginia
peninsula had failed, did not hesitate to ascribe
.hat failure "to want of generalship in the COM
4nandsr." The President, having tried in Gen.
Burnside man who had no confidence in him
self, seems to have thought that it would be wise
to try in Gen. Hooker man who had no conf
dence in any body but himself So Gen. Hooker
was placed in command of the Army of the Poto-
mac, though at that very time he was resting un-
der charges from Gen. Burnside calling for his i'm
mediate dismissal from the army of the United
States, the ground Of not having faithfully sus-
tanned his commander in some recent movements
which Gen. Burnside had directed When Gen.
ope made representations to the effect that he had
lot been properly and Loyalty sustained by Gen.
itz John Porter, the latter was subsequently re-
lleved of his command and put on trial, which re-
'sulted in his dismissal from the army. When
General Burnside made similar representations
against General Hooker, and even called for
his summary dismissal without trial, not only
was Gen. Hooker not dismissed the service, hut
his accuser was relieved from command not only
was Gen. Hooker not relieved from command but
he was not even placed on trial; and not only was
he not placed trial, but he received new proof
Of the confidence reposed in him by the Admins
tration. 1t was the accuser in this case who was
ousted from his command, while the accused saw
promoted to take his place.
How poorly Gen. Hooker justified the favoritism
thus shown him is read in the bloody record of the
attic of Charlottesville Crossing the Kappa
nnnock in the opening days of May, 1868, with
hundred and fifty thousand men, he was de-
lted by Gen. Lee with forty nine thousand, and,
ter deplorable losses, retreated across the same
river to find shelter in the entertainments which
he had left but few days before.
Then ensued long delay before Fredericks-
ourg-at least it would have been called 30
uder General Mcclellan, but it was not no.
ticed under General Hooker-during which Gene
al Lee, finding no enemy with courage enough
20 confront him at that point, betook himself by
slow and easy marches to Pennsylvania, which he
invaded in the summer of 1868. In the very crisis
of this daring movement Gen. Hooker was rcmov-
ed from the command of the Army of the Potomac,
the President holding, it seems, that the apo
thegm which points moral against the expcden-
oy of swapping horses while crossing stream"
has application to Generals or to Cabinet officers,
but is reserved exclusively for the benefit of
President situated as he is circumstanced and
circumstance as he is situated" General Meade
ok up the baton dropped by Gen. Hooker, and
most worthily has he welded it from the day when
be repulse1 the army of Lee at Gettysburg down
to the present time.