Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, March 28, 1866

The death of Senator Foot has checked excitement. Senators have put off discussing the veto till next week. Many of them are going to Connecticut to electioneer. Some will accompany the remains of the deceased Senator to Vermont. In the mean time Trumbull will prepare himself to attack the veto with all his power. So with others.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 465

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, March 29, 1866

Attended, with the rest of the Cabinet, the President to the Capitol, — the funeral of Senator Foot. Great interest was felt. He was pater senatus and much loved and respected. Had been twenty-three years in Congress.

He was on the Naval Committee in the first years of my administration and always a firm friend of the Department. This brought him intimate with me and somewhat in collision with J. P. Hale, who was Chairman of the Naval Committee and an opponent and faultfinder, ending with the retirement of Foot from the Committee, much to my regret, for, next to Grimes, he interested himself more in naval matters than any of his associates on the Senate Committee. Although indisposed to complain and always avoiding censorious remarks, he in apologizing for his course in retiring from the Committee stated that the association with the Chairman was unpleasant.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 466

Congressman Rutherford B. Hayes to Lucy Webb Hayes, March 30, 1866

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 30, 1866.

MY DARLING:— I send you the sermon on Senator Foot's death.* Grandma Webb and Mrs. Davis will read it with great satisfaction, I am sure. You remember the Senator. He was the handsome man you heard me speak of. The most senatorial looking of anybody and a genuine good man. His deathbed commission, or rather confession of faith, and triumphant end. is really a very beautiful death. The Senators and Cabinet Ministers and all were much affected by the story.

Affectionately,

R.

MRS. HAYES.

_______________

* Solomon Foot, of Vermont. He died March 28, and was succeeded by George F. Edmunds.

SOURCE: Charles Richard Williams, editor, Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Volume 3, p. 21

Major-General William F. Smith to Senator Solomon Foot, July 30, 1864

College Point, L. I., July 30, 1864.

Hon. S. Foot:

Dear Senator: — I am extremely anxious that my friends in my native State should not think that the reasons of General Grant relieving me from duty was brought about by any misconduct of mine, and, therefore, I write to put you in possession of such facts in the case as I am aware of, and think will throw light upon the subject.

About the very last of June or the first of July, Generals Grant and Butler came to my headquarters and shortly after their arrival, General Grant turned to General Butler, and said: “That drink of whiskey I took has done me good,” and then directly afterwards asked me for a drink. My servant opened a bottle for him and he drank of it, when the bottle was corked up and put away. I was aware at this time that General Grant had within six months pledged himself to drink nothing intoxicating, but did not feel it would better matters to decline to give it upon his request in General Butler's presence.

After the lapse of an hour or less the general asked me for another drink, which he took. Shortly after his voice showed plainly that the liquor had affected him and after a little time he left. I went to see him upon his horse, and as I returned to my tent, I said to a staff officer of mine, who had witnessed his departure: “General Grant has gone away drunk; General Butler has seen it and will never fail to use the weapon which has been put into his hands.” Two or three days after that I applied for a leave of absence for the benefit of my health, and General Grant sent word to me not to go, if it were possible to stay, and I replied, in a private note, warranted by our former relations, a copy of which note I will send you in a few days. The next day the Assistant Secretary of War (Mr. Dana) came to tell me that he had been sent by General Grant to say what it becomes necessary to repeat in view of subsequent events, to wit: That he, General G., had written a letter the day before to ask that General Butler might be relieved from that department July 2, and I placed in command of it, giving as a reason that he could not trust General Butler with the command of troops in the movements about to be made, and saying also that next to General Sherman he had more confidence in my ability than in that of any general in the field. The order¹ from Washington dated July 7, sent General B. to Fortress Monroe, and placed me in command of the troops, then under him, and General Grant said he would make the changes necessary to give me the troops in the field belonging to that department. I had only asked that I should not be commanded in battle by a man that could not give an order on the field, and I had recommended General Franklin or General Wright for the command of the department. I was at the headquarters of General Grant on Sunday, July 10, and there saw General B., but had no conversation with him. After General B. had left, I had a confidential conversation with General Grant about changes he was going to make. In this connection it is proper to state that our personal relations were of the most friendly character. He had listened to and acted upon suggestions made by me upon more than one important occasion. I then thought and still think (whatever General Butler's letter writers may say to the contrary) that he knew that any suggestion I might make for his consideration would be dictated solely by an intense desire to put down this Rebellion, and not from any personal considerations personal to myself, and that no personal friendships had stood in the way of what I considered my duty with regard to military management, a course not likely to be pursued by a man ambitious of advancement. In this confidential conversation with General Grant, I tried to show him the blunders of the late campaign of the Army of the Potomac and the terrible waste of life that had resulted from what I considered a want of generalship in its present commander. Among other instances I referred to the fearful slaughter at Cold Harbor, on the 3d of June. General Grant went into the discussion defending General Meade stoutly, but finally acknowledged, to use his own words, “that there had been a butchery at Cold Harbor, but that he had said nothing about it because it could do no good.” Not a word was said as to my right to criticise General Meade then, and I left without a suspicion that General Grant had taken it in any other way than it was meant, and I do not think he did misunderstand me.

On my return from a short leave of absence on the 19th of July, General Grant sent for me, to report to him, and then told me that he “could not relieve General Butler,” and that as I had so severely criticised General Meade he had determined to relieve me from the command of the Eighteenth Corps and order me to New York City to await orders. The next morning the general gave some other reason, such as an article in the Tribune reflecting on General Hancock, which I had nothing in the world to do with, and two letters which I had written before the campaign began to two of General Grant's most devoted friends, urging upon them to try and prevent him from making the campaign he had just made. These letters, sent to General Grant's nearest friends, and intended for his eye, necessarily sprang from an earnest desire to serve the man upon whom the country had been depending, and these warnings ought to have been my highest justification in his opinion and, indeed, would have been, but that it had become necessary to make out a case against me. All these matters, moreover, were known to the general before he asked that I might be put in command of the Department of Virginia and North Carolina, and, therefore, they formed no excuse for relieving me from the command I held. I also submit to you that if it had been proven to him that I was unfitted for the command I then held, that that in no wise changed the case with reference to General Butler and his incompetency, and did not furnish a reason why he should not go where the President had ordered him at the request of General Grant, and that as General Grant did immediately after an interview with General Butler suspend the order and announce his intention of relieving me from duty there, other reasons must be sought, different from any assigned, for this sudden change of views and action. Since I have been in New York, I have heard from two different sources (one being from General Grant's headquarters and one a staff officer of a general on intimate official relations with General Butler) that General Butler went to General Grant and threatened to expose his intoxication if the order was not revoked. I also learned that General Butler had threatened to make public something that would prevent the President's re-election. General Grant told me (when I asked him about General Butler's threat of crushing me) that he had heard that General Butler had made some threat with reference to the Chicago convention, which he (Butler) said “he had in his breeches pocket,” but General Grant was not clear in expressing what the threat was. I refer to this simply because I feel convinced that the change was not made for any of the reasons that have been assigned, and whether General Butler has threatened General Grant with his opposition to Mr. Lincoln at the coming election, or has appealed to any political aspirations which General Grant may entertain, I do not know, but one thing is certain, I was not guilty of any acts of insubordination between my appointment and my suspension, for I was absent all those days on leave of absence from General Grant. I only hope this long story will not tire you, and that it will convince you that I have done nothing to deserve a loss of the confidence which was reposed in me.

Yours very truly,

Wm. F. Smith,            

Major-General.

P. S. I have not referred to the state of things existing at headquarters when I left, and to the fact that General Grant was then in the habit of getting liquor in a surreptitious manner, because it was not relevant to my case; but if you think at any time the matter may be of importance to the country I will give it to you. Should you wish to write to me, please address care of S. E. Lyon, Jauncy Court, 39 Wall Street, N. Y.

Wm. F. S.

_______________

1 This order was approved by the President in General Order No. 36, adjutant-general’s office, July 28, 1864.

SOURCE: Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benj. F. Butler, p. 1088-90

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 12, 1863

We have information that Stonewall Jackson, one of the best generals in the Rebel, and, in some respects, perhaps in either, service, is dead. One cannot but lament the death of such a man, in such a cause too. He was fanatically earnest, and a Christian but bigoted soldier.

A Mr. Prentiss has presented a long document to the President for the relief of certain parties who owned the John Gilpin, a vessel loaded with cotton, and captured and condemned as good prize. There has been a good deal of outside engineering in this case. Chase thought if the parties were loyal it was a hard case. I said all such losses were hard, and asked whether it was hardest for the wealthy, loyal owners, who undertook to run the blockade with their cotton, or the brave and loyal sailors who made the capture and were by law entitled to the avails, to be deprived. I requested him to say which of these parties should be the losers. He did not answer. I added this was another of those cases that belonged to the courts exclusively, with which the Executive ought not to interfere. All finally acquiesced in this view.

This case has once before been pressed upon the President. Senator Foot of Vermont appeared with Mr. Prentiss, and the President then sent for me to ascertain its merits. I believe I fully satisfied him at that time, but his sympathies have again been appealed to by one side.

Mr. Seward came to my house last evening and read a confidential dispatch from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, relative to threatened difficulties with England and the unpleasant condition of affairs between the two countries. He asked if anything could be done with Wilkes, whom he has hitherto favored, but against whom the Englishmen, without any sufficient cause, are highly incensed. I told him he might be transferred to the Pacific, which is as honorable but a less active command; that he had favored Wilkes, who was not one of the most comfortable officers for the Navy Department. I was free to say, however, I had seen nothing in his conduct thus far, in his present command, towards the English deserving of censure, and that the irritation and prejudice against him were unworthy, yet under the peculiar condition of things, it would perhaps be well to make this concession. I read to him an extract from a confidential letter of J. M. Forbes, now in England, a most earnest and sincere Union man, urging that W. should be withdrawn, and quoting the private remarks of Mr. Cobden to that effect. I had read the same extract to the President last Friday evening, Mr. Sumner being present. He (Sumner) remarked it was singular, but that he had called on the President to read to him a letter which he had just received from the Duke of Argyle, in which he advised that very change. This letter Sumner has since read to me. It is replete with good sense and good feeling.

I have to-day taken preliminary steps to transfer Wilkes and to give Bell command in the West Indies. It will not surprise me if this, besides angering Wilkes, gives public discontent. His strange course in taking Slidell and Mason from the Trent was popular, and is remembered with gratitude by the people, who are not aware his work was but half done, and that, by not bringing in the Trent as prize, he put himself and the country in the wrong. Seward at first approved the course of Wilkes in capturing Slidell and Mason, and added to my embarrassment in so disposing of the question as not to create discontent by rebuking Wilkes for what the country approved. But when, under British menace, Seward changed his position, he took my position, and the country gave him great credit for what was really my act and the undoubted law of the case. My letter congratulating Wilkes on the capture of the Rebel enemies was particularly guarded and warned him and naval officers against a similar offense. The letter was acceptable to all parties, — the Administration, the country, and even Wilkes was contented.

It is best under the circumstances that Wilkes should be withdrawn from the West Indies, where he was sent by Seward's special request, unless, as he says, we are ready for a war with England. I sometimes think that is not the worst alternative, she behaves so badly.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 297-9

Diary of John Hay: Monday, December 23, 1863

I took to the Senate to-day the nomination of Schofield as Major General. The President had previously spoken to some of the Senators about it. He is anxious that Schofield should be confirmed so as to arrange this Missouri matter promptly. I told Sherman, Wilson, Harris and Doolittle. Senator Foote also agreed to do all he could to put the matter properly through. But on the nomination being read in Executive Session, Howard of Michigan objected to its consideration and it was postponed. Sherman and Doolittle tell me it will certainly go through when it is regularly taken up.

Lane came up to the President about it, and told him this. Lane is very anxious to have the Kansas part of the plan at once carried out.

Morgan says that Gratz Brown gave to Sumner to present to the Senate the radical protest against Schoflied’s confirmation, and that Sumner presented it to-day. The President sent for Sumner, but he was not at his lodgings.

The President is very much disappointed at Brown. After three interviews with him he understood that Brown would not oppose the confirmation. It is rather a mean dodge to get Sumner to do it in his stead

The President to-night had a dream: — He was in a party of plain people, and, as it became known who he was, they began to comment on his appearance. One of them said: — “He is a very common-looking man.” The President replied: — “The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is the reason he makes so many of them.”

SOURCES: Clara B. Hay, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume 1, p. 141-3; Michael Burlingame, Editor, Inside Lincoln's White House: The Complete Civil War Diary of John Hay, p. 139-43.

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, January 24, 1863

Had a telegram at midnight from Admiral Porter of captures on White River.

Senator Foot yesterday resigned his seat on the Naval Committee. Some disagreement with Hale, the chairman, who plays the part of a harlequin as well as a demagogue, — is, I am told, a constant marplot and very contentious in the Committee, does nothing to assist but much to embarrass and counteract the Department. Grimes also asked to be excused for the same reason as Foot; does not conceal his dislike and detestation of Hale. The Senate did right in refusing to excuse him.

F. A. Conkling¹ who, the President says, is "a mighty onhandy man," called to give me a lecture and instructions relative to the appointment of midshipmen. Said Congress had the right to nominate and it was the duty of the Secretary to appoint. He could not tell me where Congress got that right, or the right to locate them in districts. Was compelled to admit that Congress could not dictate or nominate who should be judges of the Supreme Court, or say from what circuit or State the President should select them, but after a little controversy he acknowledged the cases were analogous. Forgetting his first starting-point, he wanted to know by what authority the Secretary of the Navy appointed midshipmen. I referred him to the Constitution and the laws, which I pointed out. Told him the  President by and with the consent and approval of the Senate could make appointments, but Congress could by law confer or vest inferior appointments in the courts of law, heads of Departments, or the President alone; that Congress had, by law, vested the inferior appointment of midshipmen in the Secretary of the Navy, and I had, under that law, made appointments and should continue to do so. After tumbling over the statutes for some time, he found himself unable to controvert my position or to answer me, and left, apparently with a “flea in his ear.” No man ever came upon me more dogmatically, or left more humble.

In answer to Senator Fessenden, who is pushed forward by Preble to urge his restoration, I replied that in my opinion the time had not yet arrived, but, having made known my views, I should leave the subject with the Senate, claiming no infallibility for myself. F. expresses a willingness to take upon himself any responsibility, but did not wish to act in opposition to me, who, he said, had some, but not many, unscrupulous assailants who were anxious to get him in collision with me. He complimented my administration of the Department, which he had honestly sustained because he honestly approved it, and had been annoyed with the mischievous manoeuvres of the Chairman of the Naval Committee, which, however, were well understood in the Senate and did me no harm. Preble's note seeking restoration was surly and crusty. I suggested that on his own account he had better form a different one. Fessenden said he would consult any one I might name. Told him Davis or Smith were pretty good in such matters. F. laughed and said Smith wrote the note.

A California committee was on Tuesday before the Cabinet relative to the gauge of the Pacific Railroad. They gave each their views, — every one, I believe, in favor of the five-feet gauge. When they left, the President proposed a vote without discussion, — not that it should be conclusive but as an expression of the unbiased opinion of each. I was, for the present at least, for four eight and one half, chiefly for the reason that a change could be made from the wide to the narrow at less expense than the reverse; the aggregate cost will be millions less; that usage, custom, practical experience, knowledge proved the superiority of that gauge if they had proved anything, etc., etc. I believe the majority were for that gauge.

The Chronicle contains the argument of Judge-Advocate Holt in Fitz John Porter's case. It seems to have been made after the finding of the Court instead of before, and is sent out with it as if in defense of the decision. The proceeding is singular and will be likely to cause censure. There is much of partisanship on both sides of Porter's case. I have abstained from being mixed up in it, and have not had the time, nor am I called upon, to read the voluminous proceedings and comments. If the conviction is correct, the punishment is hardly adequate to, or commensurate with, the offense. I have thought Porter not alone in fault. More than one appeared to me culpable for the disasters of that period.

There is a change of commander of the Army of the Potomac. Burnside relinquishes to Hooker. I hope the change may be beneficial, but have apprehensions. The President asked me about the time of the Second Battle of Bull Run, when Pope was to leave and McClellan was out of favor: “Who can take command of this army? Who is there among all these generals?” The address to me was unexpected, and without much consideration I named Hooker. The President looked approvingly, but said, “I think as much as you or any other man of Hooker, but — I fear he gets excited,” looking around as he spoke. Blair, who was present, said he is too great a friend of John Barleycorn. I have mingled but little in the social or convivial gatherings of the military men, have attended fewer of the parades than any member of the Cabinet, and have known less of their habits. What I had seen and observed of Hooker had impressed me favorably, but our interviews had been chiefly business-wise and in the matter of duty, but there was a promptness, frankness, and intelligence about him that compared favorably with some others. I remarked, “If his habits are bad, if he ever permits himself to get intoxicated, he ought not to be trusted with such a command,” and withdrew my nomination. From what I have since heard, I fear his habits are not such as to commend him, that at least he indulges in the free use of whiskey, gets excited, and is fond of play. This is the result of my inquiries, and, with this reputation, I am surprised at his selection, though, aside from the infirmities alluded to, he doubtless has good points as an officer.

_______________

¹ A Representative from New York, brother of Roscoe Conkling.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 227-30

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, January 23, 1863

As I anticipated, continued and increasing abuses and much illicit traffic are going on under the army permits issued by General Dix to pass the blockade. It will be difficult to stop the abuse, now that it has commenced. I have sent to Congress a communication with a view to getting an expression of opinion on the subject of League Island for naval purposes. By request of Senator Foot of the Naval Committee, prepared a bill in relation to midshipmen and sent it with a letter.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 226-7