Diary of George Templeton Strong: February 2, 1860

After dinner with Ellie to No. 24, where I left her, and then seeing a glow in the southern sky over the roof of the Union Place Hotel, I started in pursuit of the fire. I dog-trotted to Grand Street before I found it. A great tenement house in Elm Street near Grand burning fiercely. Scores of families had been turned out of it into the icy streets and bitter weather. Celtic and Teutonic fathers and mothers were rushing about through the dense crowd in quest of missing children. A quiet, respectable German was looking for his two (the elder "was eight years old and could take care of himself, but the younger had only nine months and couldn’t well do so”). I thought of poor little Johnny frightened and unprotected in a strange scene of uproar and dark night and the glare of conflagration and piercing cold, and of Babbins, and tried to help the man but without success. There were stories current in the crowd of lives lost in the burning house; some said thirty, others two. The latter statement probably nearer the truth. Steam fire engines are a new element in our conflagrations and an effective one, contributing to the tout ensemble a column of smoke and sparks, and a low shuddering, throbbing bass note, more impressive than the clank of the old-fashioned machines. . . .

There is a Speaker at last. Sherman withdrew, and the Republicans elected Pennington of New Jersey (Bill Pennington’s father), who seems a very fit man for the place. Reading Agassiz’s Essay on Classification. Rather hard reading for anyone not thoroughly learned in a score of -ologies. But I can see and appreciate its general scope and hold it to be a very profound and valuable book.

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 6

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, June 26, 1887

NEW YORK, FIFTH AVENUE, June 26, 1887.

Dear Brother: I have just returned from Saratoga and Lake George, and am now arranging for Providence, R.I., where on the Fourth of July there is to be inaugurated an equestrian statue of General Burnside. I was always one of Burnside's personal friends, but after the battle of Chattanooga or Missionary Ridge, and after I had forced my Army of the Tennessee to march by land 450 miles in October, November, 1863, from Memphis to Chattanooga, General Grant, finding the Fourth Corps General Gordon Granger — moving too slow, called on me to go to his relief at Knoxville, which I did effectually and conclusively. Burnside in Knoxville reporting to Mr. Lincoln direct, treated his siege as a question of supplies, viz., that his supplies would be exhausted about December 3d, when want would compel him to surrender. I was therefore forced to march my already weary Army of the Tennessee near 136 miles in four days, or be held responsible for the terrible consequences of his surrender. I forced my men at twenty-six miles a day, and when I got to Knoxville I found inside a fine pen of cattle, and was invited to dine with Burnside at a dinner with a roast turkey, tablecloth, knives, forks, and spoons, which I had not seen for years. My Memoirs described the literal truth, but Burnside's friends thought it hard on him, and now I shall go to the dedication of his monument to apologize for telling the truth. Others may orate, I will not. I will simply assert a personal friendship. Burnside was not a combative man. He was kind, good, and patriotic, as you saw him in the Senate, but he did not come up to the occasion. In war we must use all forces, and now when we look back we recognize the qualities of each. Burnside was a good man, but he was not a war soldier.

The New York papers make out that you and I differ. Of course, we all differ. I stand by the authorities. . . . Mr. Cleveland is President, so recognized by Congress, Supreme Court, and the world. Now, by the Fifth Article of War, made the law before you were born, every officer of the Army of the United States who speaks disrespectfully of the President of the United States becomes a felon the same as one who has committed murder, felony, forgery, treason, or any crime, and could be punished at the discretion of a court-martial. I am still an officer of the army, and cannot violate this law. Of course I know Drum, the Adjutant-General. He has no sympathy with the army which fought. He was a non-combatant. He never captured a flag, and values it only at its commercial value. He did not think of the blood and torture of battle; nor can Endicott, the Secretary of War, or Mr. Cleveland. . . . Still, in Republics majorities govern, and since only one in sixteen go to war, non-combatants always govern. The soldier who fights must take a back seat and apologize for his vehemence in action. Grant had to apologize, Sheridan to shelter himself behind his most proper orders to devastate the Valley of the Shenandoah, and Sherman to be abused and assailed for the accidental burning of Columbia in the day of Republican rule. . . . In 1861-65 we fought for union and right. The soldiers restored to Congress full power, and returned to their civil vocations. Congress surrendered the country to the non-combatants, and now it is questionable whether Lincoln or Jeff Davis was the Union man. Jeff now says he never meant war. He thought that they would be allowed to do as they pleased without war. Lincoln was the assailant, Davis only on the "defensive-offensive."

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 374-6

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, September 3, 1887

MANSFIELD, OHIO, Sept. 3, 1887.

Dear Brother: Your letter of the 27th came as I was starting for the Ohio Fair. From thence I went to Lancaster, and found all well. . . My trip to the Pacific over the Canadian Railroad was a great success. We travelled 7000 miles without fatigue, accident, or detention. We stopped over at the chief points of interest, such as Toronto, Montreal, Sudbury, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Calgary, Banff, Donald, Glacier House, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, and Tacoma, and yet made the round trip within the four weeks allowed. We did not go to Alaska, because of the fogs and for want of time. The trip was very instructive, giving me an inside view of many questions that may be important in the future. The country did not impress me as a desirable acquisition, though it would not be a bad one. The people are hardy and industrious. If they had free commercial intercourse with the United States, their farms, forests, and mines would become more valuable, but at the expense of the manufactures. If the population of Mexico and Canada were homogeneous with ours, the union of the three countries would make the whole the most powerful nation in the world. I am not so sure but this would be a good thing to do. . . .

Affectionately yours,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 376-7

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, September 6, 1887

NEW YORK, Sept. 6, 1887.

Dear Brother: I am sorry you lost the trip to Alaska, but it will give you an excuse for making it at some future time. I have never been there, and feel little curiosity about it. My judgment at present is that we want no more territory. If we could take in the territory of Ontario it would make a good State, but the vast hyperborean region of the North would embarrass us with inchoate States and Territories without a corresponding revenue. I am dead opposed to any more of Mexico. All the northern part is desert, like the worst parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Further south the population is mixed Spanish and Indian, who never can be harmonized with our race. Eight millions of such people would endanger our institutions. We have already enough disturbing influences.

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 377

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, October 1887

Dear Brother: I am perfectly content to have retired when I did, as the present régime makes Sheridan's command of the army a farce. The army is drifting back into the same old condition, when Jeff Davis was Secretary of War, when secretaries and other clerks gave military orders to General Scott and those under him. In case of a new war, army commanders will be hampered just as we were in 1861.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 377-8

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, January 16, 1885

[January 16, 1885.]

. . . My re-election to the Senate for the fifth time is unprecedented in the history of Ohio, and for this I am indebted to the difficulty of selecting from among younger men of equal claims and calibre. . . .

I also feel that it is the highest point of my political life, for if I live to the end of my term I shall be seventy years old. I have had enough of the contentions of political life and wish now to take a tranquil and moderate course, which, indeed, is the best for the country, now that we have no great, exciting questions to decide. The view expressed in my speech (a well-printed copy of which I will try to send you) is my sincere view of the situation. The dangers before us are election frauds and labor difficulties. These will be local at the beginning, but may involve the whole country.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 366-7

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, after January 16, 1885

I have received your letter of the 16th, and somehow felt unusually gratified that you had been elected senator for the fifth time in the State of Ohio. This is a great honor, and I feel my full share of satisfaction. I believe the Senate of the United States to be the equal in intellectual capacity of any deliberative body on earth….

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 367

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, October 1885

[St. Louis, October 1885.]

The newspapers here now state that the Ohio election has gone fairly and conclusively to the Republicans, and pronounce you as the cause. So, apart from the immediate results and the influence it may have on other elections, it will introduce the "Bloody Shirt" as a part of the Republican doctrine. Of course the name "Bloody Shirt" is pure bosh, like the old political cries of "Black Republicans," "Niggers," etc., etc., so familiar to us in 1860-61. I understand your position to be that by Section 2, Article 14, Amendments of the Constitution, by which Representatives in Congress are apportioned, the South gained in numbers, and yet practically have defeated the main purpose of the Amendment. Now, as Congress had the power to enforce that Section by the Fifth Section, I am asked why it was not done when the Republicans had the Government. So far as I can learn the negroes at the South are protected and encouraged in gaining property and education; also in voting when their vote does not affect the result. But the feeling is universal against their "ruling white men." How force or law can be brought to bear is the most difficult problem I can conceive of, and I think you are perfectly right in making the issue; a good result will follow from its fair, open discussion. My notion is that the negro himself will have to fight for his right of suffrage, but the laws of the United States for electing Members of the House should be made as strong as possible, to encourage the negroes in voting for their candidates, and, if need be, fighting for their right when they have an undoubted majority. . . .

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 367-8

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, November 8, 1885

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 8, 1885.

Dear Brother: . . . I have been importuned from every quarter to write or say something about the "Depew" revelations,¹ but have steadily refused anything for publication. But a few days ago Blaine wrote me confidentially, as he wanted information in the preparation of his second volume. I have answered him, sending copies of letters and papers from my private files, which I believe established these points. The attempt to send General Grant along with Lew Campbell to Mexico in October, 1866, had no connection with Congress's final quarrel with President Johnson, which did not happen till after January 14, 1865, and then only because Grant allowed Stanton to regain his office as Secretary of War, after forcing him to contend for it in the courts. Indeed, Grant served in Johnson's Cabinet during Stanton's suspension, viz., from August, 1867, to January, 1868, and was, to my personal knowledge, on friendly terms with Johnson. The real cause for their quarrel was that article in the "National Intelligencer," January 14, 1868, when four members of the Cabinet accused Grant of prevaricating and deceiving the President. I was present when Grant made his explanation of the whole case to Johnson, and I understood the latter to express himself as satisfied. But the newspapers kept it up, and made the breach final and angry.

I do not believe that Johnson ever contemplated the use of force against Congress, and am equally sure that Grant, at the time, had no fear or apprehension of such a thing....

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

_______________

¹ This refers to an interview with Mr. Depew referring to the Johnson-Grant difficulty at the end of the war.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 368-9

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, February 23, 1886

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 23, 1886.

Dear Brother: I owe you a personal explanation as to why I did not come to Washington during my last visit East. After positively refusing to attend the banquet to the Loyal Legion at Cincinnati (President Hayes the Commander), I was persuaded at the last minute that I ought to go. After I had packed my valise, I heard of General Hancock's death, made one or two despatches to General Whipple as Adjutant-General, my former Aide, asking him to communicate with me at the Burnet House.¹ On arrival, I was met by President Hayes and General Cox and others, who explained that [by] the death of General Hancock, the president of the Order of the Loyal Legion, they had been forced to modify their programme, and that I must respond to the memory of General Hancock. I was kept busy all that day by a stream of visitors, and when the company had assembled for the banquet, full four hundred in the room, without notes or memoranda, I spoke for about ten minutes. My words were taken down and sent off without a chance of revision, but I afterwards learned that Mrs. Hancock was especially pleased. At the Burnet House I got all the notices of the funeral, which compelled me to travel to New York. En route was delayed a couple of hours by the flood in Delaware. It was two o'clock at night before I could lie down, and I had to be up at six to go down to the Battery, where the funeral was to commence. We were kept busy till night, when Miles and I went to Elly's² for dinner, and it was midnight when we got to the Fifth Avenue Hotel....

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

_______________

¹ Cincinnati.

² His daughter’s.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 369-70

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, April 3, 1886

ST. LOUIS, April 3, 1886.

Dear Brother: . . . I shall go to California to be in San Francisco August 3d-5th for the Encampment of the G. A. R., when, of course, I shall be forced to say something. It occurs to me that I should say something about the annexation of California to the Union. I know that Webster advised a friend of his as early as 1843-44 to go to California, because it surely would on the first pretext be captured and held by the United States.

I have all the executive documents for 1847, also the special Mexican War correspondence, but I fail to find Corwin's speech where he used the expression that were he a Mexican he would welcome the enemy (the Americans) "with bloody hands to hospitable graves." Can you get this speech for me, or an extract? I know that General Taylor believed that Texas did not reach the Rio Grande but was bordered by the River Nueces, and that the proclamation of war was based on an error that "American blood had been shed on American soil," and now comes Grant, who expresses more than a doubt if the first blood shed—Palo Alto—was not on "Mexican soil." Notwithstanding this, I believe the annexation of California was essential to the world's progress at that date. The Mexicans had held it for a hundred years without material improvement, whereas under our domination it at once began that wonderful development which we now experience. . . .

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 370-1

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, April 6, 1886

SENATE CHAMBER,        

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 6, 1886.

Dear Brother: Yours of the 3d is received. The speech of Mr. Corwin, to which you refer, was made in the United States Senate on the 11th of February, 1847, on the Mexican War. It is a very long speech, and is to be found on pages 211-218. Enclosed is the extract you refer to:

"If I were a Mexican I would tell you, 'Have you no room in our own country to bury your dead men?' If you come into mine we will greet you with bloody hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves." . . . .

The speech of Corwin's is worth reading through, as it gives fully his idea of the injustice of the war with Mexico, which I think was shared by the great body of intelligent people in the North, but was opposed by the cry "Our country, right or wrong!" which perhaps after war commences is the best public policy. . . .

Affectionately yours,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 371-2

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, April 13, 1886

ST. LOUIS, April 13, 1886.

Dear Brother: Your letter was duly received, and the quotation from Corwin's speech will be all I want. I remember the fact that when General Taylor's army marched from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Matamoras, it was generally noted that what few people were encountered south of the Nueces were all Mexicans. Their (Mexican) maps made Texas cease at that line, and our only title to that part of the country was Texas' claim to the Rio Grande as the boundary, so that the army officers, notably General Taylor, always ridiculed the action of the President and Congress—“whereas American blood has been shed on American soil," etc., etc.

Nevertheless war did exist and did continue till we had acquired California, New Mexico, etc. Our payment to Mexico of $15,000,000 at the end of the war was an act of generosity, and made our title one of purchase rather than conquest. Mexico never could have developed California as we did, and without California we could not have filled up the intervening space. . . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 372

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, June 1886

. . . . It is well, too, that the drift of events brings you eastward. You must be aware that the wonder has been that, having the whole country to choose as a home, you should settle upon St. Louis. I could understand it, but many others do not. Almost daily I am asked when the General is coming back to Washington, and always with the earnest hope that it will be soon and to stay. . . .

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 373

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, February 1, 1887

[New York, New York, February 1, 1887.]

. . . . I came near closing without answering the part of your letter most important. I certainly do feel competent to advise about that contemplated trip. Go south via Richmond to Atlanta, Savannah, Jacksonville, Florida, by the St. John's to Enterprise and Sanford, visiting St. Augustine en route. At Sanford go by rail to Tampa, and if the railroad is finished, to Charlotte Harbor on the Gulf side, whence a steamer goes to Havana. Much of the interior of Cuba can be reached by rail, Santa Rosa and Matanzas. The last-named is to me the finest place in Cuba. March and April are good months there. May and June are too hot. You will meet acquaintances everywhere. There are a great many beautiful places along the St. John's River, with good boats, hotels, and accommodations of all sorts, and the same in Cuba. I am sure that the railroad is finished to Charlotte Harbor, but you can learn the best way to reach Cuba from the Post-Office Department. On the Gulf side of Florida, you have the cluster of islands, leaving only the ninety miles of open sea from Key West to Havana, made in a single daylight.

Havana is a very interesting city, though for a week's stay I would prefer Matanzas and the interior bay.

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 373-4

Diary of Lieutenant-Colonel John Beatty: July 27, 1861

The Colonel left for Ohio to-day, to be gone two weeks.

I came from the quarters of Brigadier-General Schleich a few minutes ago. He is a three-months' brigadier, and a rampant demagogue. Schleich said that slaves who accompanied their masters to the field, when captured, should be sent to Cuba and sold to pay the expenses of the war. I suggested that it would be better to take them to Canada and liberate them, and that so soon as the Government began to sell negroes to pay the expenses of the war I would throw up my commission and go home. Schleich was a State Senator when the war began. He is what might be called a tremendous little man, swears terribly, and imagines that he thereby shows his snap. Snap, in his opinion, is indispensable to a military man. If snap is the only thing a soldier needs, and profanity is snap, Schleich is a second Napoleon. This General Snap will go home, at the expiration of his three-months' term, unregretted by officers and men. Major Hugh Ewing will return with him. Last night the Major became thoroughly elevated, and he is not quite sober yet. He thinks, when in his cups, that our generals are too careful of their men. "What are a th-thousand men," said he, "when (hic) principle is at stake? Men's lives (hic) shouldn't be thought of at such a time (hic). Amount to nothing (hic). Our generals are too d----d slow" (hic). The Major is a man of excellent natural capacity, the son of Hon. Thomas Ewing, of Lancaster, and brother-in-law of W. T. Sherman, now a colonel or brigadier-general in the army. W. T. Sherman is the brother of John Sherman.

The news from Manassas is very bad. The disgraceful flight of our troops will do us more injury, and is more to be regretted, than the loss of fifty thousand men. It will impart new life, courage, and confidence to our enemies. They will say to their troops: "You see how these scoundrels run when you stand up to them."

SOURCE: John Beatty, The Citizen-soldier: Or, Memoirs of a Volunteer, p. 35-6

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, December 4, 1884

ST. LOUIS, Mo., Dec. 4, 1884.

Dear Brother: . . . We have several posts of the Grand Army here, one of which, Frank Blair Post No 1, invited me to assist in the dedication of their new hall. I could not well decline, and attended. The hall was well filled, but it is against the customs and rules for reporters to be present. I saw none, but there must have been two at least who reported what little I had to say differently. Still my speech was most imperfect and condensed, emphasizing what I said of Jeff Davis, and induced somewhat by the regular speaker of the evening, who preceded me.

I congratulated them upon having secured so good a hall in so good a neighborhood; said that I was glad to see the interest manifested; that it was well for old soldiers thus to meet to interchange the memories of the war, and to impress its lessons on the rising generation; that I noticed a tendency to gloss over the old names and facts; that it was not a war among the States," a war of "secession," but a "conspiracy" up to the firing on Sumter, and a "Rebellion" afterwards; that, whilst in Louisiana long before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, I saw evidences of the "conspiracy," among them the letter written in January by Slidell and Benjamin, then United States Senators under the oath, written on paper dated "United States Senate," etc., addressed to T. O. Moore, Governor of Louisiana, to seize the United States Arsenal at Baton Rouge; that afterwards, during the progress of the war, I had seen letters of Mr. Davis—a chest full at Jackson, Miss., sent to Washington—proving such "conspiracy," and subsequently I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the States of the Confederacy, in 1865, talked of "separate State action," another name for "secession," he, as President of the Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee's army against it. I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured letter-book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing.

Mr. Davis, in a card addressed to the "Republican¹" of this city, published by it and generally copied, pronounced this false, calls on me to produce the identical letter, or to stand convicted of being a slanderer. Of course I cannot for an instant allow Mr. Davis to call on me for any specific document, or to enter up judgment on the statement of a newspaper. Still, I believe the truth of my statement can be established. I will not answer Mr. Davis direct, nor will I publish anything over my signature, but I will collect evidence to make good my statement. The particular letter shown me at Raleigh may be in the public archives at Washington, as I am sure that the box or chest was sent from Jackson, Miss.; but I apprehend that the papers gathered at Fayetteville, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill University were of those taken in hand by my two adjutants, Generals Sawyer and Rochester, brought to St. Louis, assorted and arranged as part of the records of the "Division of the Missouri," and sent to Chicago at the time General Sheridan relieved me. These records were consumed in the great fire of Chicago, 1871, but of the existence of such a letter I have not a particle of doubt. Of course I cannot recall the words, but the general purport was such as to recall to my mind the old fable of the Farmer and the Ox: "It makes all the difference in the world whether your bull gores my ox or mine yours."

I have made some inquiries of Col. R. N. Scott, in charge of the Rebellion Records, Union and Confederate, and if the correspondence between Mr. Davis and the State Governors is among these records, Mr. Davis will have his letter. I am not the custodian of the records of the war, which fill many buildings in Washington. As to Davis' opinions at that date, January and February, 1865, I can, I think, obtain secondary proof, being promised an original letter from Thad. Stevens² to Herschel V. Johnson, captured and still retained by a sergeant in the Union Army.

As to the "conspiracy," the proof is overwhelming. As to Davis' opinions in the winter of 1864-65, I am equally satisfied, but may not be able to prove by his own handwriting. . . .

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

_______________

¹ Newspaper.

² See following letter.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 362-5

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, December 7, 1884

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 7, 1884.

HON. JOHN SHERMAN,
        Washington, D.C.

Dear Brother: In my letter a few days since, I referred to a letter of Hon. Thad. Stevens. I meant, of course, Hon. A. H. Stephens of Georgia. I now enclose a copy of that letter under cover of a note to Col. R. N. Scott, in charge of the General Records. I want you to read that letter carefully and then send it to Scott to be preserved among the archives. Such letters contain more real truth than official papers. It was from such papers that I gained the most valuable information of the actual condition of facts. Hundreds of similar letters reached me, and I fear we were not careful enough in their preservation.

They make up the unwritten history or traditions of the war, one of the principal objects of the Grand Army of the Republic.

Affectionately yours,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 365

Senator John Sherman to General William T. Sherman, December 10, 1884

UNITED STATES SENATE,        

WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 10, 1884.

Dear Brother: . . . I can see how naturally you spoke of Jeff Davis as you did, and you did not say a word more than he deserved. Still he scarcely deserves to be brought into notice. He was not only a conspirator, but a traitor. His reply was a specimen of impotent rage. It is scarcely worth your notice, nor should you dignify it by a direct rejoinder. A clear, strong statement of the historical facts that justified the use of the word "conspirator," which you know very well how to write, is all the notice required. Do not attempt to fortify it by an affidavit, as some paper says you intend to do, but your statement of the letters seen by you and the historical facts known by you are enough. I have had occasion, since your letter was received, to speak to several senators about the matter, and they all agree with me that you ought to avoid placing the controversy on letters which cannot now be produced. The Records have been pretty well sifted by friendly rebels, and under the new administration it is likely their further publication will be edited by men who will gladly shield Davis even at the expense of a Union soldier. The letter of Stephens to Johnson is an extraordinary one. Its publication will be a bombshell in the Confederate camp. I will deliver the copy to Colonel Scott tomorrow. One or two paragraphs from it go far to sustain your stated opinion of Jeff Davis. . . .

Very affectionately yours,

JOHN SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 365-6

General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, February 28, 1882

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 28, 1882.

HON. JOHN SHERMAN,

        United States Senate.

When a senator or member of Congress discovers in some newspaper a statement which he considers offensive to himself, he rises to a question of privilege, and makes his statement of facts. Now when an outsider finds himself misrepresented in the Congressional Record, I suppose he may rise and make his statement of facts.

In the Congressional Record, Saturday, February 25th, the Hon. James B. Beck is reported as having said that General Sheridan had come to Washington at an expense to the United States of a thousand dollars, to assist in having his father-in-law, General Rucker, made a brigadier-general and quartermaster-general for the purpose of being retired with increased pay. I know that General Sheridan was ordered to come to Washington by Secretary of War Lincoln, for an entirely different matter, at an expense of not to exceed $200, viz. eight cents a mile, coming and going by the shortest possible mail route, according to a law made by the Congress of which Mr. Beck was a member.

Mr. Beck is further reported to have said that General Sherman was in the habit of travelling, with his large staff, in palace cars at the expense of the United States, nominally to inspect posts, but really for pleasure. Now this is so totally untrue, and so diametrically opposed to my usage, that I am simply amazed. Not a cent can be drawn from the Treasury of the United States without the warrant of law. I never hired a palace car in my life, surely not at the expense of the United States, for no quarter-master would pay the voucher, and if such voucher exist, it can be had on demand of any senator.

General Sherman, like every army officer, is entitled by law, and receives eight cents a mile when travelling on duty. My duty and inclination carry me to the remotest parts of our country, where travel usually costs from ten to twenty-five cents a mile.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

I think the law ought to provide me a palace car, and I think Mr. Beck agrees with me, and supposes such to be the fact. I have not a particle of doubt he supposed such to be the fact, else he would not have asserted it on the floor of the Senate; but I beg you will on some opportune occasion tell him it is not true, but on the contrary, that the Government expects me to make tours of the Indian frontier chiefly at my own cost. The general or lieutenant-general draws the same travelling allowance as a second lieutenant. No more and no less.

The general of a department has the right to inspect every post of his command, so the General of a division is expected to be familiar with the condition of every post within his sphere of command; and, of course, the commanding general has a similar right. Without this right an intelligent commander would be impossible. By this system I am kept informed of everything pertaining to the military establishment in peace as well as war, and the constant inquiries by Committees of Congress can thus alone be answered, and I will not alter or change my plans to suit Senator Beck.

I believe it is construed as discourteous to refer to a senator in debate by name,—thus you are addressed as the Honorable Senator from Ohio,—but I infer the rules of the Senate are not so punctilious about the names of outsiders. Thus Senator Beck spoke of Generals Sheridan and Sherman by name, and not by office.

We are not ashamed of our names, and have no objection to their free use on the floor of the Senate. We fear nothing, not even a positive misstatement, but it surely adds nothing to the dignity or manliness of a senator to attempt to misrepresent an absent officer of the common Government, sworn to obey its laws, and to submit to such measures as it, in its wisdom, may prescribe. . . .

W. T. SHERMAN,        

General.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 353-5