CHAPTER XXIV.

RELATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC.

It cannot be supposed that General McClellan, first deposed as General in Chief, was unmoved when he saw the gradual disintegration of his army. He knew, as did the country, by whom it had been done, and when, after vain appeals for reenforcements, he saw himself about to be overwhelmed, as he believed, by an army double his own numbers, he told the Secretary plainly, "The Government has not sustained this army.""

Up to this time, the conflict between the commander and the Secreretary was at least military in appearance, but after the conclusion of the Seven Days' Battles, the unfortunate Harrison's Bar letter introduced a political element which speedily outweighed every military consideration.

66

The commander, as we have seen, wrote to the President, “a declaration of radical views, especially upon slavery, will rapidily disintegrate our present armies."

He did not realize that opinions had changed. Thousands who voted for the President in the preceding November were opposed to slavery, but had no thought of disturbing it where it already existed. The war opened their eyes; the people at once became radical, radical as to the Union and radical as to slavery, which, thoroughly at variance with the underlying principles of our institutions, was now threatening to destroy them.

The events of this period cannot be comprehended without a glance at our political history. From the beginning to the end of the War of 1812 both parties maneuvered for the Presidential succession. At the beginning of the Mexican War, the General in Chief, a Presidential aspirant in the opposition party, was left unemployed for nearly six months. When finally given the command of the army, which he so brilliantly led to the enemy's capital, he scarcely ever differed in opinion from the Administration, without impugning its motives and attributing its action to political considerations."

Although a recognized and avowed Presidential candidate, a circumstance which must always serve to discredit a commander, it could not be supposed, in a foreign war, that a General in Chief would forego

a Despatch to the Secretary of War, June 28, 1862.

It happened in the Mexican War that the two heroes, Generals Scott and Taylor, entertained political opinions opposed to the Administration. Both, during the war, were mentioned for the Presidency, and at times both reproached the Administration with the desire to sacrifice themselves and their armies. To appropriate the credit for closing the war, the supporters of the Administration at one time proposed to create the office of Lieutenant-General, to be filled not by a soldier, but by the distinguished Senator, Thomas H. Benton.

any opportunity to strike for the honor of his flag. There might be politics in the Cabinet and in Congress, but there could be no politics in an army facing the foe. Equally absurd would it be to accuse an Administration of wishing to sacrifice a commander. Military triumphs might not insure political success, but to encourage defeat would be simply political suicide.

While an Administration might safely trust a political opponent to command an army in a foreign war, the case in a civil war was entirely different. Party lines, which were at first drawn for the Union, were now drawn for the Union and the extirpation of slavery.

It is a well-known fact that in all representative governments professional party leaders usually care more for power than principle. This class within the Administration, already recognized the commander of the Army of the Potomac as the favorite of the opposition. They remembered, too, that notwithstanding the successful termination of the Mexican War, the opposition captured the Presidency by taking a soldier for a leader. It was not surprising, therefore, that they should have demanded that the future candidate be removed at once. But behind the leaders who wished to serve the party, were thousands of life-long antagonists of slavery who saw with alarm, the opposition of a powerful army commander and urged his opponents on.

From this moment there was but one way to escape political execution. Regardless of the lives of his soldiers, he must act-act even should every advantage be against him. If victorious, he might silence his foes; if defeated, he could expect no charity; incompetency would pass for treachery; if he delayed or suspended operations, however satisfactory his reasons, he could plausibly be charged either with playing into the hands of the enemy or seeking to protract the war for personal aggrandizement. Such was the situation he created for himself by stepping outside of his duties to volunteer political views obnoxious to the civil policy of the Government.

It was at this period of the campaign that General Halleck appeared on the scene. Had he been an actual General in Chief, a soldier of the Jacksonian type, he could have cleared at once the military and political horizon. His appointment was evidence that the President was tired of military command. Exactly when the determination to relieve General McClellan was formed, cannot be definitely stated, but the indications are that General Halleck was aware of the purpose before he visited Harrison's Landing.

As has already been stated, when General Porter arrived at Williamsburg he telegraphed that all Confederate troops were leaving Richmond for the North. He then doubled his speed, and on his own responsibility hastened forward to Fort Monroe, en route to the Army of Virginia. Up to his arrival at Williamsburg all of the Army of the Potomac, stripped of its sick and surplus stores, and in the best marching condition, was within a compass of about 45 miles from Richmond.

To the mind of any professional soldier, the plan would have suggested itself to use the Army of Virginia to decoy the Confederates as near as possible to Washington, and then strike with the Army of the Potomac for the Confederate capital." Writing after the fact, it

a

@ Harrison's Landing was one of the best on the James River. bank, about 25 miles below Richmond.-EDITORS.

It was on the left

is now known that Lee left Richmond a day before the retreat began from the Peninsula, and that so confident was he of the complete transfer of operations to Washington that he left but one division to proteet Richmond. Had Richmond fallen, Lee in revenge might have carried the war into Maryland and Pennsylvania, but the political effect of losing their capital would not have been less fatal. Besides, being no longer between our two armies, a garrison could have been left in Richmond, after which the Army of the Potomac, either by land or water, could have hastened to join the Army of Virginia, with a view to prevent the enemy from ever recrossing the Potomac.

If these considerations occurred to the mind of General Halleck they were quickly set aside. He did not even reply to General Porter's despatch, but afterwards, practically admitting the triumph of political intrigue, informed him that his motive in sending the despatch was attributed to "the desire to retain the Army of the Potomac on the Peninsula and General McClellan in command." "

In the meantime the conflict between General McClellan and the Secretary of War was already assuming national proportions; the people began to take sides; it became necessary to allay the excitement. In 1814 a village mob had appeared at the doors of the War Department. It needed now but an overwhelming reverse-a second conflagration of the capital-to call forth another mob, this time of more than village proportions.

The President, as much beloved by the Army as the people, again stepped into the breach. Addressing a war meeting held at Washington on the 6th of August, he said:

There has been a very widespread attempt to have a quarrel between General McClellan and the Secretary of War. Now, I occupy a position that enables me to observe that these two gentlemen are not nearly so deep in the quarrel as some pretending to be their friends. General McClellan's attitude is such that in the very selfishness of his nature he cannot but wish to be successful, and I hope he will, and the Secretary of War is in precisely the same situation. If the military commanders in the field cannot be successful, not only the Secretary of War, but myself, -for the time being, the master of them both, cannot but be a failure. I know General McClellan wishes to be successful, and I know he does not wish it any more than the Secretary of War for him, and both of them together no more than I wish it. Sometimes we have a dispute about how many men General McClellan has had, and those who would disparage him say that he has had a very large number, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War insist that General McClellan has had a very small number. The basis for this is, there is always a wide difference, and on this occasion perhaps, a wider one than usual between the grand total on McClellan's rolls and the men actually fit for duty; and those who would disparage him talk of the grand total on paper, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War talk of those present fit for duty.

General McClellan has sometimes asked for things that the Secretary of War did not give him. General McClellan is not to blame for asking what he wanted and needed, and the Secretary of War is not to blame for not giving him when he had none to give. And I say here, as far as I know, the Secretary of War has withheld no one thing at any time in my power to give him. I have no accusation against him. I believe he is a brave and able man, and I stand here as justice requires me to do so, to take upon myself what has been charged on the Secretary of War as withholding from him.b

In this speech, the President showed the same magnanimity as when the House of Representatives censured Mr. Cameron for his illegal expenditures in 1861. In both instances the President assumed all the responsibility, this time with much less justice than before.

a Proceedings and Report of the Board of Army Officers in the case of Fitz John Porter, pt. 1, p. 4.

Raymond's President Lincoln's Administration, p. 287.

This speech, it will be seen, was delivered three days after the order was issued for the withdrawal of the Army of the Potomac from the Peninsula. Seven days later, the heads of the Confederate columns were turned toward the national capital, and as before related, on the 26th of August, they began to debouch on the plains of Manassas.

But one corps of the Army of the Potomac, for lack of transportation, was enabled to join the Army of Virginia, along the line of the Rappahannock; the others were disembarked at Alexandria and sent to the front, those landing after the arrival of General McClellan receiving their orders through him. At last, on the 30th of August, General McClellan informed General Halleck that every man of the Army of the Potomac within his reach had been sent forward. Still a commander, but without an army.

The time had now come to relieve him. The news of a victory at the front being the only justification needed, the occasion was not long delayed; at 5.30 a. m., August 30, General Pope, near Groveton, wrote to General Halleck:

We fought a terrific battle here yesterday with the combined forces of the enemy, which lasted with continuous fury from daylight until dark, by which time the enemy was driven from the field, which we now occupy. Our troops are too much exhausted yet to push matters, though I shall do so in the course of the morning, as soon as Gen. F. J. Porter comes up from Manassas. The enemy is still in our front, but badly used up. We have lost not less than 8,000 men killed and wounded, but from the appearance of the field the enemy lost at least two to one; he stood strictly on the defensive, and every assault was made by ourselves. The battle was fought on the identical battlefield of Bull Run, which greatly increased the enthusiasm of the men. The news just reaches me from the front, that the enemy is retiring toward the mountains; I go forward at once to see. We have made great captures, but I am not able yet to form an idea of their extent. Our troops behaved splendidly.a

This despatch was received at 3.20 p. m., and that very day, August 30, the following order was issued from the War Department, signed by the Assistant Adjutant-General:

The following are the commanders of the armies operating in Virginia: General Burnside commands his own corps, except those that have been temporarily detached and assigned to General Pope; General McClellan commands that portion of the Army of the Potomac that has not been sent forward to General Pope's command; General Pope commands the Army of Virginia and all the forces temporarily attached to it; all the forces are under the command of Major-General Halleck, General in Chief.

Under this order the Army of the Potomac practically ceased to exist. At 2.30 p. m. on the 31st, General McClellan telegraphed:

* *

*

* * * Under the War Department order of yesterday I have no control over anything except my staff, some 100 men in my camp here, and the few remaining near Fort Monroe. I have no control over the new regiments-do not know where they are, or anything about them, except those near here. Where I have seen evils existing under my eye I have corrected them. I think it is the business of General Casey to prepare the new regiments for the field, and a matter between him and General Barnard to order others to the vicinity of Chain Bridge. Neither of them is under my command, and by the War Department order I have no right to give them orders.b

In military affairs it matters not whether a custom has its origin in the Constitution, in the laws, or in repeated usurpations; it ultimately becomes as binding in one case as in the other. When Mr. Pierce

@Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, vol. 2, p. 186, Supple

ment.

b McClellan's Report, p. 181.

approved the Attorney-General's opinion, in the controversy between General Scott and Mr. Davis, and stated that it would "be regarded as the settled doctrine as to the relation of the President to the respective heads of department," the command of the Army passed to the Secretary of War."

Save in a few judicial proceedings, such as the approval of the dismissal of an officer by sentence of court-martial, the President's name need never be mentioned to the Army; a letter or order signed "By order of the Secretary of War," might be his own order or the order of the President; whether or not it implied the President's direction, it did imply confusion; the Army could never know whom it was obeving. Rather than twist and contort such a simple expression as "By order of the Secretary of War," it would have been better to substitute the term "War Department" and leave officers to guess who was the oracle.

The custom, however, at this particular time, had a peculiar advantage. If the Secretary's orders implied the President's direction, there was no reason why an order from the Adjutant-General should not imply the Secretary's approval, and by another implication, the approval of the President. The Adjutant-General again was recognized as the organ of the General in Chief, precisely as the Secretary was the organ of the President. By applying the principle enunciated by the Attorney-General and acted upon by the Secretary of War, the Adjutant-General might issue in his own name all the orders to the army, and if his authority were disputed, he might say that all his official instructions, when not issued in his proper right, were valid and lawful because they implied either the direction of the President, the Secretary of War, or the General in Chief."

If a department commander, a Harrison or Jackson, ventured to remind him that he was but the organ of his civil or military superior; that except in certain cases he had no right to issue any instructions in his own name, and that the regulations expressly stated when any official shall write by order, he shall state by whose order," he could complacently reply that he was acting by the authority of any one of the civil or military officers, all of whom were superior to a department commander.

It was at one of the most dangerous crises of our history that an order was issued open to all the foregoing objections. Already quoted, it bore the caption War Department," and without any phrase "by order," or "by whose order," was signed "E. D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General." The purpose of the order was very apparent, but whose order, if not that of the officer who signed it, was not so obvious. It was not the order of the General in Chief, although it is plain that before it was published he was aware of the nature of its

@On the 31st of August, 1855, Hon. Caleb Cushing, Attorney-General of the United States, ruled: "As a general rule the direction of the President is to be presumed in all instructions and orders issuing from the competent Department.

"Official instructions issued by the headquarters of the several Executive Departments, civil and military, within their respective jurisdictions, are valid and lawful without containing express reference to the direction of the President."

And again, Hon. Jeremiah H. Black, Attorney-General, ruled July 31, 1860: “An official act done by the head of a Department, is the act of the President, and no appeal lies from the former to the latter."-EDITORS.

This, the theory of multiple command, is not new to the Army, and in past years was acted on frequently by the chiefs of bureaus in the War Department. The establishment of a General Staff, with the Chief of Staff representing the President and Secretary of War, has put an effectual stop to this practice.-EDITORS.