The question of the
Indian war on the Plains was again brought forward. No one, it appears, has any
knowledge on the question. The Secretary of War is in absolute ignorance. Says
he has telegraphed to General Grant, and General G. says he has not ordered it.
McCulloch wanted to know the probable expense, the numbers engaged, etc.
Stanton thought McCulloch had better state how many should be engaged; said
General Pope had command. Harlan said he considered Pope an improper man, was
extravagant and wasteful. Thought twenty-two hundred instead of twenty-two
thousand men was a better and sufficient number. This whole thing is a
discredit to the War Department.
McCulloch inquired
what should be done in regard to appointing officers of customs, revenue, etc.,
who could not take the oath which Congress prescribes. Speed advocated delay in
making appointments. There was some favor of a modified oath. I queried whether
the President was not empowered by the Constitution to select and nominate, and
the Senate, if it chose, to confirm, independent of this restriction. In other
words, was the President's constitutional prerogative to be thus narrowed by
Congress? Seward said the President had signed the law, which in its operation
was undoubtedly embarrassing to the Administration and injurious to the
country. I remarked his signature could not make the law constitutional, if it
was not constitutional; that one executive could not in this way tie up his
successor. I was therefore for appointing good, true, honest men, whether they
could or could not take this oath. Stanton was for appointing them without the
oath, because the States are yet in rebellion. They were to be considered
provisional appointments, and the law of Congress was inoperative until after
the Rebellion was wholly suppressed. No other one indorsed or controverted this
view, except as they had previously expressed their individual opinions. But
the result was unanimous that the appointments should be made; that the current
business of the Administration and the country must go on, notwithstanding
unwise and ill-considered legislation.
Questions in
relation to pardons were discussed. The President said that few had been
granted, notwithstanding the clamor that was raised. No one who had been
educated at public expense at either the Military or Naval School, no officer
of the Army or Navy, no Member of Congress who had left his seat, no member of
the Rebel government who had deserted and gone into that service, had been
pardoned, nor did he propose at present to pardon any one of that class. It was
understood that neither Davis, Stephens, nor any member of the Rebel Cabinet
should be paroled.
The cases of Orr of
South Carolina and Bennett of Kentucky came up. There was a kindly feeling
towards Orr, but not towards Bennett. Orr had resisted secession but was
compelled to go with his State, reluctantly and resistingly. Bennett went of
his own accord and was a traitor to his State as well as the Union. Yet Bennett
was, and is, urgently presented for pardon by Union men as well as others. This
whole question is to be a troublesome one, and requires careful and discreet
management. To some extent the action of the government must depend on the
conduct of the Rebels and the people themselves. If they continue to organize
themselves in opposition to the government, and strive to elect men on that
basis, they will provoke stern measures towards themselves. One difficulty is
whom to trust. All have violated their obligations as citizens by going into
rebellion, and, if pardoned, will they act in better faith hereafter? Many
Union men, in heart and sentiment, were forced by the State governments under
which they lived into the Rebellion.
No comments:
Post a Comment