Saturday, August 15, 2015

Diary of Salmon P. Chase: Sunday, September 28, 1862

At Dr. Payne's in morning — sermon excellent. Home in afternoon. In the evening went to War Department about expedition to Charleston; my idea being to have New York regiments sent to Louisville, and Mitchell's and Garfield's brigades withdrawn thence and sent to Port Royal with Garfield when an immediate attack should be made on Charleston which would be sure to fall. Did not find Stanton at Department. Went to Halleck's and found him there. Had some general talk. Was informed by Halleck that the enemy was moving to Martinsburgh. “How many?” —  “150.000” — “How many has McClellan?” — “About 100.000.” “Where Pennsylvania troops, said to have joined him though raised only for emergency?” “All gone back.” — Had talk about draft. He showed me a letter to Gamble, insisting that all officers of drafted militia above Regimental should be appointed by the President. I expressed the opinion that the principal of drafting Militia was erroneous — that the law should have provided for drafting from the people an army of the United States. He agreed. — I asked him his opinion of McClernand. He said he is brave and able but no disciplinarian; that his camp was always full of disorder; that at Corinth he pitched his tents where his men had been buried just below ground, and with dead horses lying all around. The cause of the evil was that his officers and men were his constituents.

Leaving Halleck, Stanton and I rode together to Columbia College and back to his house. I stated my wish concerning the two brigades and Charleston. He said nothing could be done. The New York Regiments must go to McClellan, who absorbs and is likely to absorb everything and do nothing. At Stanton's, saw for the first time Genl. Harney, who mentioned several circumstances to show Frank Blair's misconduct in Missouri matters. He said it was not necessary to fire a gun to keep Missouri in the Union. I thought him certainly mistaken.

SOURCE: Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 97-8

No comments: