The Thursday edition contained the usual jumble of dispatches reporting on various matters related to the Maryland Campaign. Any reader would be mightily confused. The editors provided the usual summary, context, and interpretation. “Reports from the Army of the Potomac last night cover nothing but success….. Lee’s army, large as it is, will certainly b nihilated before it can get back to Richmond.” A dispatch printed on Thursday erroneously reported that the Federals had reoccupied Harpers Ferry on Tuesday at 7 p.m. Relying on this false information; the editors opined that Federals’ possession of tha point “almost precludes the possibility of the fording of th Potomac by the rebels.” The big news on Thursday was the battle at Sharpsburg. Severa dispatches (sent on Wednesday) reported on Tuesday’s fighting, mainly an artillery battle as the armies readied for the main event. Dispatches sent Wednesday night provided some information on the main fight that day: “The battle has continued all day today, but no official news has yet been received of its results,” one corr spondent wrote. Another dispatch claimed “a glorious victor after a great battle.” This repo noted that “no particulars of th battle have yet been received” but this much was known: “the carnage on both sides was
Barbara Fritchie’s home, Frederi December 2020
awful.” In addition to the news, there was also the usual optimistic speculation: a report fro Hagerstown assured the readers that “the entire rebel army will be captured or killed.”
Friday’s paper provided more detail on Wednesday’s combat. Two dispatches from the Army of the Potomac headquarters, sent Tuesday night and Wednesday, described the action on those two days. These dispatches were accurate, but naturally they accentuated the positive. The Wednesday dispatch did imply that the victory was incomplete. After Burnside’s force crossed the bridge and ascended the hill, “our troops wer forced to retire before a superi force, the rebels knowing that i they lost the ridge the complete rout of their army would be the result. They fought with great desperation.” The army’s dispatch estimated that each side suffered about 10,000 casualties The Press, a Democratic paper, was full of high praise for General McClellan. The editors’ summary commented on the “magnificent victory” achieved on Tuesday and Wednesday and predicted more victories as McClellan’s army “gather[s] up all its energies afresh to smite the audacious enemy.”
On Saturday the Press ran a dispatch printed earlier in the New York Tribune. Through this dispatch, written on Wednesday night, Philadelphia’s readers go an accurate summary of the battle. The dispatch described the positions of the armies at day’s end, with the one road open for the Confederates’ retreat.
The assessment of the results: “Neither [side] can claim a complete victory….” The editors’ summary displayed the usual optimism. McClellan, having won this great victory, “has completely changed the aspect of affairs in the north from gloom and uncertainty to cheerfulness and brightened hope.” The Press magnified McClellan’s achievement by exaggerating Confederate strength, claiming that on Wednesday he had “fought an enemy numerically equal to his own.” Still, the ed tors understood that as great as McClellan’s victory was, its str tegic result was still in doubt. Would Lee’s army be annihilated or captured? The editors said “i is impossible to know.” Another dispatch in Saturday’ paper must have arrived too late for the editors to take int account as they penned their summary. This dispatch, sent from Frederick on the 19th, said that Lee had gotten away. The correspondent seemed to anticipate the severe criticism th was about to come McClellan’s way, and began to make excuses for him. On the 18th, the reader was told McClellan was about to launch an attack on the Confederate left, “when it was discovered that the enemy were apparently posted on our right in some force, and threatening a flanking movement.” The perspicacious general “saw the ruse, and at once changed front, thus checking the Confederate threat. The correspondent p an interesting slant on the Confederates’ escape. Having crossed the river, they “were driven off…in the direction of Winchester.” A careful reader would note that the driving off was done by artillery north of
the stream, not by infantry nipping at Lee’s heels. Lee was certainly appreciative of McClellan’s cautious disposition. Lincoln was not. McClellan failed to follow up his victory a his commander-in-chief wished. He was relieved of command on November 6. A review of the Philadelphia Press in the days before and after the climactic battle at Sharpsburg indicates that readers in the North, at least those with access to daily newspapers in major cities, had information on the Maryland Campaign that was reasonably up-to-date. As for accuracy, we need to repeat and stress the adjective “reasonably.” The correspondents often relayed news gleaned from questionable sources. I get the impression that the reader was implicitly told “take it for what it’s worth Lee was reported to be wounded; Longstreet to be killed; Hill to be captured (which Hill not specified). The Press also published wild overestimates of Confederate strength. These limitations notwithstanding, an attentive reader could stay abreast of developments during the week and by Saturday read a coherent narrative of Wednesday’s battle.
Sources: The Philadelphia Press and much else can be accessed at https://panewsarchive.psu.edu/. My thanks to Stephen Davis and Bill Hendrick for allowing me to see the pertinent passages in their upcoming book which shed light on history’s first draft as read by Atlantans.
Philadelphia is 175 miles or so from Sharpsburg. What about a town in the Confederacy 650 miles away from the action? How long did it take the news to travel to Atlanta? How accurate was the story Atlantans were reading? In their upcoming book The Atlanta Daily Intelligencer Civil War Artillery Book Civil War Artillery Projecti – The Half Shell Book. This ha bound book has 392 pages, and full-color with 850 photograph For more information and how to order visit the website www
Covers the Civil War, Stephen Davis and Bill Hendrick address these questions. As one would expect, the news Atlantans read was less up-to-date, less detailed, and less accurate than the first draft of history read Philadelphians. The first of Lee’s forces to enter Maryland crossed the Potomac on September 4. The Intelligencer reported this news on September 13. On September 17, as Georgia troops were defending the crossing at the Rohrbach Bridge, the Intelligencer’s editor wrote th he had no reliable information on developments in Maryland and that he would not print mere rumors. News of the September 14 fighting at South Mountain reached Atlantans on the 20th. The paper reported the capture of Harpers Ferry on September 21, six days after the event. A on the 21st, the Intelligencer published Lee’s September 8 proclamation to the people of Maryland. The September 23rd edition contained a telegraphic dispatch about the battle fought on the 17th. The report announced a victory in that blood clash, and, with even less accu racy, claimed that the enemy was routed when the fighting renewed the next day. On September 24 the paper referred to a troubling report that Lee was back in Virginia. Ten days after the battle the editor repeated the claim of a Confederate victory and, with no apparent basis but wishful thinking, stated that Lee was s in Maryland, after Lee had been south of the river for five day For a detailed report on the Battle of Sharpsburg, Atlanta readers had to wait until the 28th. This came in a dispatch written just hours after the ba tle ended. It reported the repulse of the Federals. There was nothing on the retreat, of course, and no commentary on the earlier report of the rout to have occurred on the 18th.