Karl Marx

THE ENGLISH PRESS
AND THE FALL OF NEW ORLEANS?

London, May 16

On the arrival of the first rumours of the fall of New
Orleans,”'° The Times, The Herald, The Standard, The Morning Post,
The Daily Telegraph, and other English “sympathisers”* with the
Southern “nigger-drivers” proved strategically, tactically, philologi-
cally, exegetically, politically, morally and fortificationally that the
rumour was one of the “canards” which Reuter, Havas, Wolff?!
and their understrappers so often let fly. The natural means of
defence of New Orleans, it was said, had been augmented not only
by newly constructed forts, but by submarine infernal machines of
every sort and ironclad gunboats. Then there was the Spartan
character of the citizens of New Orleans and their deadly hatred
of Lincoln’s mercenaries. Finally, was it not at New Orleans that
England suffered the defeat that brought her second war against
the United States (1812 to 1814) to an ignominious end?
Consequently, there was no reason to doubt that New Orleans
would immortalise itself as a second Saragossa or a Moscow of the
“South”.?!?, Besides, it harboured 15,000 bales of cotton, with
which it could so easily have kindled an inextinguishable fire to
destroy itself, quite apart from the fact that in 1814 the duly
damped cotton bales proved more indestructible by cannon fire
than the earthworks of Sevastopol. It was therefore as clear as
daylight that the fall of New Orleans was a case of the familiar
Yankee bragging.

When the first rumours were confirmed two days later by
steamers arriving from New York, the bulk of the English

a Marx uses English words: “sympathisers” and, below, “nigger-drivers”, and

“understrappers”’.— Ed.

pro-slavery press persisted in its scepticism. The Evening Standard,
especially, was so positive in its unbelief that in the same number it
published a first leader which proved the Crescent City’s?”
impregnability in black and white, whilst its “latest news”
announced the impregnable city’s fall in large type. The Times,
however, which has always held discretion for the better part of
valour,’ veered round. It still doubted, but, at the same time, it
made ready for every eventuality, since New Orleans was a city of
“rowdies” and not of heroes.‘ On this occasion, The Times was
right. New Orleans is a settlhement of the dregs of the French
bohéme, in the true sense of the word, a French convict colony—and
never, with the changes of time, has it belied its origin. Only, The
Times came post festum’ to this pretty widespread realisation.

Finally, however, the fait accompli struck even the blindest
Thomas. What was to be done? The English pro-slavery press now
proves that the fall of New Orleans means a gain for the
Confederates and a defeat for the Federals.

The fall of New Orleans allowed General Lovell to reinforce
Beauregard’s army with his troops; Beauregard was all the more
in need of reinforcements, since 160,000 men (surely an exaggera-
tion!) were said to have been concentrated on his front by Halleck
and, on the other hand, General Mitchel had cut Beauregard’s
communications with the East by breaking the railway connection
between Memphis and Chattanooga, that is, with Richmond,
Charleston and Savannah. After his communications had been cut
(which we indicated as a necessary strategical move long before the
battle of Corinth‘), Beauregard had no longer any railway
connections from Corinth, save those with Mobile and New
Orleans. After New Orleans had fallen and he was only left with
the single railway to Mobile to rely on, he naturally could no
longer procure the necessary provisions for his troops. He
therefore fell back on Tupelo and, in the estimation of the English
pro-slavery press, his provisioning capacity has, of course, been
increased by the entry of Lovell’s troops!

On the other hand, the same oracles remark, the yellow fever

a Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part I, Act V, Scene 4.— Ed.
b Marx uses the English word.— Ed.

¢ “The spirit in which the fall of New-Orleans has been met...”, leading article
in The Times, No. 24244, May 13, 1862.— Ed.
4 Too late. From the Latin saying, “Post festum venire miserum est”—“It is a

wretched thing to arrive after the feast” (Plato, Gorgias, 1).— Ed.

¢ Accomplished fact.— Ed.
f See this volume, p. 194— Ed.

The English Press and the Fall of New Orleans 201

will take a heavy toll of the Federals in New Orleans and, finally,
if the city itself is no Moscow, is not its mayor* a Brutus? Only
read (cf. New York”) his melodramatically valorous epistle to
Commodore Farragut, “Brave words, Sir, brave words!”* But
hard words break no bones.

The press organs of the Southern slaveholders, however, do not
construe the fall of New Orleans so optimistically as their English
comforters. This will be seen from the following extracts:

The Richmond Dispatch says:

“What has become of the ironclad gunboats, the Mississippi and the Louisiana,
from which we expected the salvation of the Crescent City? In respect of their
effect on the foe, these ships might just as well have been ships of glass. It is
useless do deny that the fall of New Orleans is a heavy blow. The Confederate
government is thereby cut off from West Louisiana, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas.”

The Norfolk Day Book observes:

“This is the most serious reverse since the beginning of the war. It augurs
privations and want for all classes of society and, what is worse, it threatens our
army supplies.”’4

The Atlantic Intelligencer laments:

“We expected that the outcome would be different. The approach of the enemy
was no surprise attack; it has long been foreseen, and we had been promised that,
should he even pass by Fort Jackson, fearful artillery contrivances would force him
to withdraw or ensure his annihilation. In all this, we have deceived ourselves, as
on every occasion when the defences were supposed to guarantee the safety of a
place or town. It appears that modern inventions have destroyed the defensive
capacity of fortification. Ironclad gunboats destroy them or sail past them
unceremoniously. Memphis, we fear, will share the fate of New Orleans. Would it
not be folly to deceive ourselves with hope?” ¢

Finally, the Petersburg Express:

“The capture of New Orleans by the Federals is the most extraordinary and
fateful event of the whole war.”

: : ‘ ‘ paper

May 20, 1862

a J. F. Monroe.— Ed.

5 This parenthesis, added by the editors of Die Presse, referred the reader to the
report from New York, “Des Biirgermeisters von Neuorleans Erklarung”, published
in the same issue of the paper.— Ed.

© Paraphrase of Falstaff’s words (““Rare words! brave world!”’) from Shakespeare’s
King Henry IV, Part I, Act HI, Scene 3.— Ed.

4 Quoted from the report, “From Fortress Monroe”, the New-York Daily Tribune,
No. 6575, May 1, 1862.— Ed.

© Quoted from the report, “Washington, Thursday, May 1, 1862”, the New-York
Daily Tribune, No. 6576, May 2, 1862.— Ed.

Karl Marx :