Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 2

G >> George S. Boutwell >> Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 2

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF.
_New Orleans, 27 Decr._ 1863.

MY DEAR SIR:--
I have written to the President upon the subject of a free State
organization in Louisiana. It appears quite certain to me that the
course pursued here by the officers to whom the matter is entrusted
will not lead to an early or a certain result. It will not be
accomplished sooner than August or September, and then will be involved
in the struggles of the Presidential contest, and very likely share
the fate of that struggle. It certainly ought not to be dependent upon
that issue, and settled, not only independent of it, but before it
opens. It can be easily done, in March. A Free State government upon
the basis of immediate emancipation can be acquired as early as March
with the general consent of the People, and without any material
opposition, in such a manner as to draw after it _all_ the Southern
States, on the same basis, and by the same general consent. But it
cannot be done in the manner now proposed here. It is upon this subject
that I have written the President. Three months ago I wrote him upon
the same idea but did not send my letter. Subsequent reflection and
inquiry have made the theory so clear to mind that I felt impelled
to put my views before him. I write this as from the request of my
previous letter you may have spoken to him upon the subject of the
Depart't and the reorganization of the State. The election of next
year does not seem as clear to me as it appears to you. I fancy it to
be a struggle between the Democratic Party, backed by the entire power
of the regular army and the People. It will be a contest of great
violence.

* * * * * * * *
The report of General Halleck is singularly incorrect, in its references
to the Department--so much so that it is impossible to attribute them
to anything else but misapprehension of facts. I refer to that which
relates to Galveston, and the movement against Port Hudson in April.
If it were not so palpable, I shd think the Department hostile & shd be
very glad to know if you see or hear anything to indicate such feeling
towards me. General Wilson would probably know the facts.

The Austrian Consul here, said to me the other day that he was confident
that Maximilian would not go to Mexico. He is a sensible and well
informed man, and I have confidence in his opinion. I shall send you
by Satds mail _three_ despatches from Europe of recent date.

Very truly yours,
N. P. BANKS.
M. G. C.
HON. GEO. S. BOUTWELL.

As the conclusion of my remarks upon General Banks, I refer to my final
and unexaggerated estimate of General Banks as given in the chapter on
the Legislature of 1849 (Chapter XIV).

GENERAL SHERMAN, GENERAL SHERIDAN AND GENERAL GRANT.

The death of General Sherman removed the last member of the triumvirate
of soldiers who achieved the highest distinction in the Civil War. In
the Senate one speaker gave him the highest place, but on the contrary
I cannot rank him above either Grant or Sheridan. When we consider the
vastness of the command with which Grant was entrusted through a period
of more than a year, the magnitude and success of his operations, and
the tenacity with which he prosecuted all his varied undertakings, it
must appear that neither Sherman nor Sheridan was entitled to the
position of a rival. As to Sherman, I can say from a long and intimate
acquaintance with him, and under circumstances when his real feeling
would have been disclosed, that he never assumed an equality with Grant.

As between Sherman and Sheridan it is not easy to settle the question
of pre-eminence. For myself the test would be this: Assume that Grant
had disappeared during the Battle of the Wilderness, would the fortunes
of the country have been best promoted, probably, by the appointment of
Sherman or Sheridan? I cannot now say what my opinion would have been
in 1864, but I should now have pronounced for Sheridan. He was more
cool and careful in regard to the plan of operations and equally bold
and vigorous in execution. General Grant expressed the opinion to me
in conversation that Sheridan was the best officer in the army. He
spoke of his care and coolness in the preparation of his plans and his
celerity in execution. Of "the younger set of officers" he placed Ames
(Adelbert) as the most promising.

In one of my last conversations with Sheridan he expressed the opinion
that the improvement in the material of war was so great that nations
could not make war, such would be the destruction of human life.

Upon his return from Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, he
spoke very disparagingly of the military movements and among several
things he said that the French forces were placed where the Germans
would have dictated had they had the power. He added the either of
our armies at the close of the war could have marched over the country
in defiance of both the French and German forces combined. This was a
rash remark, probably; a remark which he could not justify upon the
facts. Without intending to betray any confidence, the remark, as
coming through me, got into the newspapers. Sheridan with a skill
superior to that of politicians caused the announcement to be made
that General Sheridan had never had any conversation with Governor
Boutwell in regard to the Franco-Prussian war.

At the end it may be claimed justly, that they were three great
soldiers--that they served the country with equal fidelity--that they
lived and acted without the manifestation in either of a feeling of
rivalry, and that they earned the public gratitude.

The death of General Sherman was followed to two contradictory
statements from his sons. The younger, Tecumseh, is reported as saying
that his father was never a Catholic, while the older, Thomas, who is
a priest of the Order of Jesuits, had stated over his signature that
his father was baptized as a Catholic, was married as a Catholic, and
that he had heard him say often, "that if there was any true religion
it was the Catholic."

All this may be true and yet General Sherman may not have been a
Catholic. His baptism may have been without his consent or knowledge,
his marriage by the Catholic Church may have been in deference to his
wife's wishes, and because he was wholly indifferent to the matter,
and the remark may have been made in the impression that there was no
true religion, and that the Catholic was as likely, or even more likely
to be true, than any other.

The statement made by Thomas puts an imputation upon General Sherman
that he ought not to bear. Of the thousands that one may meet in a
lifetime, General Sherman was among the freest from anything in the
nature of hypocrisy or dissimulation. Of those who knew him intimately
after the close of the war there are but few, probably, who did not
hear him speak with hostility and bitterness of the Catholic Church.
For myself I can say that I heard him speak in terms of contempt of
the church. On one occasion with reference to fasts and abstinence
from meat of Friday, he said:

"I know better than these priests what I want to eat."

General Sherman was not a friend to the Catholic Church in the last
years of his life and there is no honor in the attempt to enroll his
name among its devotees now that he is dead and cannot speak for himself.

SECRETARY WINDOM

Funeral services were performed February 2, 1891, at the Church of the
Covenant in Washington in honor of Mr. Windom, late Secretary of the
Treasury. He made a good record, if not a distinguished one. As a
member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate he was noted
for fairness, for freedom from bitterness of opinion upon party
questions, and for good sense in action.

He was indisposed to take responsibility and he went no farther than
the case in hand seemed to require. As the head of the Treasury he was
anxious to gather opinions upon matters of general public interest, and
it was in his nature to strive to accommodate his action to the public
opinion, if he could do so without serious consequences. He worked
within narrow limits, the limits set by business and politics. Of
enemies he had but few--of warm friends but few--the many had confidence
in his integrity in the affairs of government, and in his ability to
guide those affairs in ordinary times.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

In a number of the _Edinburgh Review_ is an article on James Russell
Lowell in which the writer errs widely in two particulars as to the
effect of the "Biglow Papers." The writer's name is not given, but
he is not an American and he is ignorant, probably, of America as it
was from 1830 to 1850. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared, I was a
Democrat, and I am quite sure that the publication produced no effect,
not even the least, upon the opinions of Democrats or the action of
the Democratic Party. Upon my knowledge of the Democratic Party I can
say with confidence that the writer is in error when he says: "He
(Lowell) converted many bigoted Northern Democrats to a course of
action in conflict with their old party relations and apparent
interests."

For this broad statement there is no evidence. The first break came
in 1848 and it was due to rivalries in the Democratic Party. If the
"Biglow Papers" played any part it was too unimportant to produce an
appreciable result. They were treated as a fortunate _jeu d'esprit_
that everybody enjoyed, but the Democratic Party did not change its
policy nor did it lose adherents. The Mexican War was prosecuted
and bigotry political and religious continued to flourish. They may
have contributed though, insensibly, to a public opinion that became
formidable in the end but the effect was not as perceptible as was
the effect of Garrison's legend that slavery was a covenant with hell
and a league with death, which had its place at the head of the
_Liberator_ through successive years. Nor do I believe that "it
revolutionized the tone of Northern society." Indeed, there is a
"tone" of Northern society that has not been revolutionized to this
day. The South is still the land of gentle birth. The slave-holder
still lives as a man of breeding and the owner of estates. The negro
is still of an inferior caste and in some circles the days of slavery
were the great days of the Republic. When the "Biglow Papers" appeared
Mr. Lowell had not achieved distinction. Society did not know him to
follow him. It cared nothing for what he thought, and it was only
amused by what he said. The Lowell of 1840 was not the Lowell of 1890.
Nor can any series of statements be more untruthful and absurd than
the statements of the writer that "thenceforth it became creditable to
advocate abolition in drawing rooms, and to preach it from fashionable
city pulpits to congregations paying fancy prices for their pews. In
the workshops, the barrooms and other popular resorts the laugh was
turned against the slave-owners; the ground was prepared for the popular
enthusiasm which recruited the armies that exhausted the South, and
Lowell must share with Lincoln and Grant the glory of the crowning
victories."

If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same space, it is
my fortune not to have seen that work. The circulation of the _Boston
Courier_ in which the papers were printed was very limited. It did not
go into barrooms nor into workshops. It was read chiefly by the
converted and semi-converted abolitionists. As to fashionable pulpits
thenceforth preaching abolition it is to be said that there was only
one leading pulpit, Theodore Parker's pulpit, in which abolitionism was
tolerated until years after the appearance of the "Biglow Papers." As
to society, it is to be said that in the Fifties Charles Sumner, a
Senator, was ostracized for his opinions upon slavery.

It is nearer the truth to say that what passes for society in New
England never tolerated abolitionists nor encouraged abolitionism.

The one writing which in an historical point of view contributed most
largely to recruit the armies of the Republic during the Rebellion was
Webster's speech in reply to Hayne. The closing paragraph of the
speech was in the schoolbooks of the free States, and it had been
declaimed from many a schoolhouse stage.

Lowell deserves credit for what he did. He chose his place early and
firmly on the anti-slavery side, but it is absurd and false to say that
thenceforward and therefor abolitionism became popular and abolitionists
the sought for or the accepted by society. Mr. Lowell was the son of a
Boston Unitarian clergyman. In the Forties he had not gained standing
ground for himself, to omit all thought of his ability to carry an
unpopular cause.

Indeed, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the
whole array of anti-slavery writers and speakers had not accomplished
the results which the reviewer attributes to the "Biglow Papers."

Indeed, should there be a signal reform in the fashion and cost of
ladies' dresses it might with equal propriety be attributed to Butler's
poem "Nothing to Wear."

GENERAL GARFIELD AND GENERAL ROSECRANS

The statement is revived that General Garfield, when chief of the staff
of General Rosecrans in the campaign which ended at Chickamauga was
false to Rosecrans. The allegation and the fact are that he wrote to
Mr. Chase, then in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, that Rosecrans was incompetent
to the command. Garfield's statements, as I recall the letters, were
free from malice and the professional and ethical question is, "Was
Garfield justified as a citizen and soldier, in giving his opinion to
the Administration?" His view of Rosecrans was confirmed by events, and
it may be assumed that the opinion was free from any improper influence
when the letters were written. On this assured basis of facts I cannot
doubt that Garfield did only what was his duty. Neither the President
nor the War Department could obtain specific knowledge of the officers
in command except through associates and subordinates unless they
trusted to newspapers and casual visitors to the army. The struggle
was a desperate one and the volunteer army was composed of men who were
citizens before they were soldiers and they remained citizens when they
became soldiers. Garfield was of the citizen soldiery and to him and
to the country the etiquette of the army and the etiquette of society
were subordinate to the fortunes of the nation. Of General Rosecrans'
unfitness for any important command there can be no doubt. After the
disaster of Chickamauga, Rosecrans was relieved and General Thomas was
put in command and General Grant was ordered to the field. He met
Rosecrans at Nashville where they had an interview. From General Grant
I received the statement that Rosecrans had sound views as to the means
of relieving the army; "And," said General Grant, "my wonder was that
he had not put them in execution."

This one fact expresses enough of the weak side of Rosecrans as a
military leader to warrant the opinion given to Chase by Garfield,
and that opinion having been formed upon a knowledge of facts and of
Rosecrans as a military man and not from prejudice or rivalry, Garfield
should be honored for his course, rather than condemned.

GEORGE BANCROFT

The death of Mr. Bancroft at the age of more than ninety years removes
one of the few men in private life who can be ranked as personages. He
was, perhaps, the only person in private life whose death would have
received a semi-public recognition from any of the rulers of Europe.
Such a recognition was accorded by the Emperor of Germany, and chiefly,
as it is understood, on account of the friendship which existed between
Mr. Bancroft and the grandfather of the present Emperor.

Mr. Bancroft's long and successful career as a writer and diplomatist
would seem to be evidence of the presence of qualities of a high order,
and yet no one who was near him accepted that opinion. His
conversation was not instructive, certainly not in later years, nor was
he an original thinker upon any subject. He was an enthusiast in
politics in early and middle life, and while his mental faculties
remained unimpaired his interest in political movements was great--and
usually it was in sympathy with the Democratic Party. He was an
adhesive man in politics, capable of appearing to be reconciled to the
success of his opponents and ready to accept favors from them in the
way of office and honors and yet without in fact committing himself
to their policy.

He was a laborious student, and he had access to standard and in many
particulars to original authorities. At the commencement of his history
he erred in denying with much confidence the claim of the visits of the
Northmen to this continent in the ninth and tenth centuries.

That early claim seems to be supported by evidence which is nearly, if
not absolutely, conclusive. Of all his chapters that on Washington
was most attractive to me and it is quite the equal of Mr. Everett's
oration, that yielded a large sum of money, that the orator applied to
the purchase of Mount Vernon. Mr. Bancroft aimed to illustrate his
history by an exhibition of philosophy. This feat in literature can
be accomplished successfully only by a great mind. First the events,
then the reasons for or sources of, then the consequences, then the
wisdom or unwisdom of the human agencies that have had part in weaving
the web, are all to be considered. Examples are Gibbon and Buckle.

GENERAL GRANT AS A MAN AND A FRIEND

The simplicity of General Grant's nature, his frankness in all his
intercourse with his fellow men, his freedom from duplicity were not
touched unfavorably in any degree by his rapid advancement from the
ordinary pursuits of ordinary men to the highest places in military
and civil life. There was never in his career any ostentatious display
of power, never any exercise of wanton or unnecessary authority.

He disliked controversy even in conversation, and his reticence when
not in the company of habitual companions and trusted friends was due
in part to his rule of life on this subject.

From the many years of my acquaintance with General Grant I cannot
recall an instance of a reference to theological opinions upon
controverted topics of faith.

The humanitarian side of his nature was strong, but it was not
ostentatiously exhibited--indeed it was concealed rather than
proclaimed. It was made known to me by his interest and by his lack of
interest in appointments in the Treasury Department.

Of salaried places he controlled the appointment of General Pleasanton
as commissioner of internal revenue, and of that only.

On several occasions he suggested the designation of a person named for
employment in some menial and non-salaried service. The person named
was in every instance the widow or daughter of some soldier of the war.
At intervals, not widely separated, he would bring the subject to my
notice. Thus, without a command, I was forced to follow his suggestion.

The purity of his conversation might have been a worthy example for the
most carefully trained person in etiquette and morals. My intercourse
with General Grant was intimate through many years, and never on any
occasion did he repeat a story or a phrase that contained a profane
remark or carried a vulgar allusion. He had a relish for untainted wit
and for genial humor, and for humor he had some capacity. He was not
an admirer of Mr. Sumner and a trace of irony may be found in a remark
attributed to him: When some one said: "Mr. Sumner does not believe
in the Bible," General Grant said: "No, I suppose not, he didn't write
it."

General Grant was attracted by a horse driven by a butcher. He
purchased the animal at the cost of five hundred dollars. He invited
Senator Conkling to a drive behind the new horse. The Senator
criticised the animal, and said: "I think I should prefer the five
hundred dollars to the horse." "That is what the butcher thought,"
said General Grant.

He was sincere and devoted in his friendships, but when he discovered
that his confidence had been misplaced, a reconciliation became
impossible. With him there could be no genuine forgiveness, and his
nature could not tolerate any degree of hypocrisy. All voluntary
intercourse on his part had come to an end.

There was a time when a demand for my removal from office was made by
some Republican Senators and by the New York _Herald_, to which he gave
no attention.

The imperturbability of spirit which was indicated in his conversation
and movements was deep-seated in his nature. I was with him in a
night trip to New York; when the train was derailed in part. As the
wheels of the car struck the sleepers, he grasped the back of the seat
in front of him and remained motionless, while many of the passengers
added to their peril by abandoning their seats.

On a time General Grant received a pair of large roan horses from his
farm in Missouri. He invited me to take one of the horses and join him
in a ride on the saddle. I declined the invitation. I was then invited
to take a seat with him in an open wagon. When we were descending a
slight declivity one of the horses laid his weight on the pole and
broke it, although the parts did not separate. General Grant placed
his foot upon the wheel, thus making a brake and saving us from a
disaster. General Grant's faculties were at command on the instant
and under all circumstances.

When the Ku Klux organizations were active in the South, the President
gave members of Congress to understand that he would send a message
with a recommendation for punitive legislation. Upon reflection he
came to doubt the wisdom of the measure, especially as the use of the
military forces at New Orleans and elsewhere had been criticised in the
country. While the subject was thus undisposed of, I received a
message from the President which ended with a request that I should
accompany him to the Capitol. On the way he informed me that he
doubted the wisdom of a message and that he intended to so inform those
to whom he had given encouragement. At the interview which followed
several members who were present urged adherence to the original policy.
While the discussion was going on, the President returned to his
original opinion and wrote a message which was transmitted to the
Congress after one or two verbal changes that may have been suggested by
Secretary Fish or Secretary Robeson.

General Grant's sense of justice was exact and he did not spare himself
in his criticism. He said to me in conversation, what is indicated in
his Memoirs, that he assumed some responsibility upon himself for the
removal of General Warren at Five Forks. He had known that General
Warren was disqualified by natural defects from command in the field,
and hence that it was an error on his part that he had not assigned
Warren to duty at a station.

Again he said to me that his final campaign against Vicksburg was the
only one of his campaigns that he could not criticise adversely when
tested by reflection and experience.

During my term of service an appointment of some importance was made by
the collector of New York. The appointment was approved by me. In the
meantime some opponents of the appointee approached the President. Upon
his suggestion the appointment was suspended. After a delay I received
a letter from the President dated June 28th, 1869, in which he says:
"If it should still be the pleasure of Mr. Grinnell to confer the
appointment before tendered, let it be so, so far as I am concerned.
I am not willing knowingly to do anyone injustice as I now am led to
believe I may have done in the case of General Egan."

In the month of December, 1884, there were paragraphs in the newspapers
which justified the apprehension that General Grant was suffering from
a cancer. In the late days of the month, I called upon him at his
house in New York. He was then in good health, apparently. I found
him in his library engaged in the preparation of articles for the
_Century Magazine_. In the days of our more intimate acquaintance he
had said to me that it was his purpose to leave the history of his
campaigns to others. He referred to that remark and said that his
financial embarrassments had forced him to change his purpose. As I
was about to leave, he referred to a difficulty in his throat that he
had noticed for about six months. He expressed the fear that he had
neglected it too long. I avoided any serious remark in reply. Soon
after my return to Groton my daughter received a letter from him, which,
in photographic copy, I here give. It contains his parting words to
me and my family. It is a precious souvenir of my acquaintance and
service with a man who was great and good above any estimate that the
world has placed upon him.

I called upon him in the month of June. He rose to receive me. His
power of speech was much impaired, and our interview was brief. The
final parting was a sad event to me.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25