According To Hurst's Book Report

Another battle that the Confederates won was Chancellorsville. Hurst describes how the Union was not prepared for the battle and that contributed to their downfall which the Confederates could interpret as an excuse. “The truth was that neither the commander of the corps nor of the respective divisions whose duty it was to guard the flank had made any preparation to meet the enemy in that direction; The attack of his massed column of 20,000 was a surprise from which the men could not recover- a shock which they could not resist” (p. 56). Yet this is a one-sided view as Hurst was part of the Union Army. South Carolina’s Free South newspaper described the Unions position in the Battle of Chancellorsville differently than Hurst’s account by focusing …show more content…
159). One explanation for the questionable Southern journalist reports during Sherman’s march was the fact that Southeastern states did not have reliable sources to begin with, which made writing objective pieces difficult. “The newspapers of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina had to depend for news about Sherman’s advance and Wheeler’s hit-and-run tactics on newspaper exchanges that were hardly better informed then they” (Andrews, 1970, p. 469). Thus having unsatisfactory sources results in less than substantial information on the Civil War and results in journalists embellishing stories to keep readers interested. The Rutland Weekly Herald did not shy away from being critical of the North, even when it was evident that Sherman and his army were winning the war. “So much for Sherman’s great and glorious ‘Christmas Gift’ to the Union” (“Effects of the Capture of Savannah,” 1864). It is difficult to figure out what this journalist is alluding to, as Sherman did successfully capture the port of Georgia. Opposing newspapers still had critical, and misleading comments during coverage of the Civil War. As Hurst talks about in his journal, the above comment is laughable, as this Union newspaper was grasping through thin air for a negative thing to say about this upset. Since the Union had …show more content…
The Telegraph & Confederate newspaper did not hide their political views when they reported on their prediction for the Union’s demise. “Sherman’s situation is daily growing more precarious, and we may confidently hope for his complete overthrow and destruction” (“The Situation,” 1864). This comment is misleading, as by 1864, the Union had conquered both Georgia and Atlanta and seems to be a last ditch effort to reassure the Confederates that they could still win the war. This comment might have been written around the time of Sherman’s March to the Sea since this newspaper is dated November 24, nine days after Sherman began his famous march. The Atlanta Confederacy was hopeful that Johnston’s troops would ultimately herd the Union back to Tennessee. “We have before us a letter from one of the highest official sources in the Army of Tennessee, from which we extract the following: ‘we are in superb spirits. The Yankees have got to fight for Atlanta, and when they do fight, we are certain to whip them as decisively as the sun is certain to rise on that day” (Sachsman, Rushing, & Morris, 2008, p. 171). The decision to not name their source makes it less reputable, and once again the Confederates tried to turn something negative into a positive. This further explains why it was such a surprise to the Confederate citizens that the Union won. Yet even some Northern papers were surprised that the Union defeated the