The Richmond Dispatch
September 18, 1868
In this article the Dispatch (in a admittedly clever way) both bashes Grant again and defends the Confederacy.It does this in response the a Republican paper in Buffalo which was criticizing Grant for leaving Unpin soldiers in the terrible conditions at Andersonville (a confederate POW camp).The Dispatch states that the Confederacy tried it best to take care of the Union soldiers at the campout that they simply did not have enough supplies to do any good so they offered up the soldiers. They go on to bash Grant for not accepting the order than go on to critique the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser for its unfair partisan language.
The Buffalo Commercial Advertiser is generally a well-behaved paper - intelligent, and fair for a Republican paper. We confess our surprise at its inexact statement on the meaning of the charge made in the letter of Judge Ould against General Grant - a charge made also by General Butler, and based on plain and undeniable facts. The charge was simply that General Grant stopped the exchange of prisoners, and forbid tho reception of the Andersonville prisoners, whom our Government had offered to give up to the United States authorities without an equivalent. The Commercial asserts that the charge was that General Grant was responsible for " atrocities which were . perpetrated upon Union prisoners by the rebel authorities during the war." General Grant was responsible for their detention at Andersonville. Their treatment was not his directly ; but had he not for bidden their reception when the Confederate Government offered to surrender them they might have been sent home to be taken care of by their friends. The word " atrocities" is inapplicable to their treatment, and is therefore falsely applied. The Confederacy did its best to feed and lodge tho Andersonville prisoners. It informed the Federal Government of its inability to take care of them, and offered them up without an equivalent. Its humane offer was not even noticed. In what respect is there any " horrible wickedness" or " enormity " in this, and how can the word " atrocious" be applied to it ? The Commercial is guilty of the injustice of blind partisantry in its language. England and America.
About this article
“The Richmond Dispatch,” Reconstructing Virginia, accessed August 8, 2022, https://reconstructingvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/1127.