Boston, September 13, 1862.
My Dear Sir, —
I like your suggestions very much, but I venture to suggest: 1st, that having
perused the report of the testimony . . . printed . . . by order of the Senate,
I do not think any part of the disaster of Bull Run was due to Colonel M., and
I think that on the weight of the evidence he was sick, but not intoxicated. .
. .
2d, as to contractors. I think the department can do nothing
in the direction you propose; Congress might. And I think General Meigs might
properly be appealed to for an opinion. Stanton can know but little about the
matter directly. And I think a part of the rage against him is due to the
contractors who like a long war and were angry that Stanton tried to shorten
it.
3d, as to skulkers and spies. Unless the Generalin-Chief is
in earnest, these reforms are impossible. The department may fulminate
regulations, but in vain, as long as imbecility, disobedience, evasion of duty,
neglect of duty, coldness towards the cause itself, distinguish the
General-in-Chief.
The department is powerless for reform while the army is led
as it now is led and has been led hitherto. It can only give rules and orders,
but it remains for the officers in command to enforce them. The President
persists in retaining those who will not do what you and I think zeal and faithful
service demand. The reform is only possible by a new commander in the field.
Thus believing, I have not the heart to write of these details to the
Secretary.
I am ever faithfully
and most respectfully yours,
John A. Andrew.
SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and
Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 331-2
No comments:
Post a Comment