General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, March 10, 1876

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES,

ST. LOUIS, Mo., March 10, 1876.

Dear Brother: I have purposely refrained from writing to you my opinions and feelings on the terrible fate that so suddenly has befallen General Belknap, because I want to say truthfully that I have never asked you to advocate my cause or to be compromised by my mistakes. I am proud of your position in the Senate, and would not have you to risk it by even the faintest partiality to your brother. But people will ask you what was the real reason why I left Washington; did I have knowledge of frauds and peculations? and was I not bound to reveal them? You may answer positively that I had no knowledge except what Congress and the President had. It was not my office to probe after vague rumors and whispers that had no official basis. The President and Belknap both gradually withdrew from me all the powers which Grant had exercised in the same office, and Congress capped the climax by repealing that law which required all orders to the army to go through the General, and the only other one, a joint resolution that empowered the General to appoint "traders."

The consequence was that orders to individuals of the army went over my head to them, and reports went back without coming through me, as required in every military service on earth. . . .

I have now from Moulton two letters, and from Dayton one. In all which is stated that the new Secretary, Judge Taft, has spoken kindly of me, and expressed a desire to meet me in Washington. I will not go to Washington unless ordered, and it would be an outrage if Congress, under a temporary excitement, should compel my removal back. I came out at my own expense, and never charged a cent for transportation, which I could have done. I can better command the army from here than from there. The causes that made a Belknap remain and will remain. . . .

If you see Judge Taft, say to him that my opinion is that I can fulfil any general policy he may prescribe, and enforce any orders he may give better from St. Louis than Washington.

Affectionately, etc.,

W. T. SHERMAN.

There are two ways to govern the army, its generals, and the other through the staff. If orders and instructions are made to individuals composing the army direct by the Adjutant-General, and not through the commanding General, the latter is not only useless but an incumbrance, and had better be away. But if Secretary Taft is willing to trust me to execute and carry into effect his orders and instructions, all he has to do is to order, and he will find me ready.

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 348-9

Salmon P. Chase to Alphonso Taft, April 28, 1861

washington, April 28, 1861.

My Dear Sir: To correct misapprehensions, except by acts, is an almost vain endeavor. You may say, however, to all whom it may concern, that there is no ground for the ascription to me by Major Brown of the sentiment to which you allude.

True it is that before the assault on Fort Sumter, in anticipation of an attempt to provision famishing soldiers of the Union, I was decidedly in favor of a positive policy and against the notion of drifting — the Micawber policy of “waiting for something to turn up.”

As a positive policy, two alternatives were plainly before us. (1) That of enforcing the laws of the Union by its whole power and through its whole extent; or (2) that of recognizing the organization of actual government by the seven seceded States as an accomplished revolution — accomplished through the complicity of the late administration and letting the Confederacy try its experiment of separation; but maintaining the authority of the Union and treating secession as treason everywhere else.

Knowing that the former of these alternatives involved destructive war, and vast expenditure, and oppressive debt, and thinking it possible that through the latter these great evils might  be avoided, the union of the other States preserved unbroken, the return even of the seceded States, after an unsatisfactory experiment of separation, secured, and the great cause of freedom and constitutional government peacefully vindicated — thinking, I say, these things possible, I preferred the latter alternative.

The attack on Fort Sumter, however, and the precipitation of Virginia into hostility to the National Government, made this latter alternative impracticable, and I had then no hesitation about recurring to the former. Of course, I insist on the most vigorous measures, not merely for the preservation of the Union and the defense of the Government, but for the constitutional re-establishment of the full authority of both throughout the land.

In laboring for these objects I know hardly the least cessation, and begin to feel the wear as well as the strain of them. When my criticizers equal me in labor and zeal, I shall most cheerfully listen to their criticisms.

All is safe here now. Baltimore is repenting, and by repentance may be saved, if she adds works meet for repentance. Soon something else will be heard of.

Yours truly,

S. P. Chase.

Hon. Alphonso Taft.

SOURCES: Samuel Wylie Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, 1860-1861, p. 366-7