"CARONDELET P. O.,
"ST. LOUIS CO., MO., _December 28th, 1876_.
"MY DEAR GENERAL,--Your favor of the 4th inst. reached
me in New York on the 5th, the day before I left for the West.
I intended to reply to it before leaving, but cares incident to
departure interfered. Then, again, since my arrival here, I have
been so occupied with personal affairs of a business nature that I
have deferred writing from day to day until this moment, and now I
find myself in debt to you for another letter in acknowledgment of
your favor of the 17th, received a few days since.
"I have concluded to leave here on the 29th (to-morrow), p.m., so
that I may be expected in New York on the 31st inst. It has been
cold and dreary since my arrival here. I have worked 'like a Turk'
(I presume that means hard work) in the country, in making fences,
cutting down trees, repairing buildings, etc., etc., and am at least
able to say that St. Louis is the coldest place in the winter, as
it is the hottest in summer, of any that I have encountered in a
temperate zone. I have known St. Louis in December to have genial
weather throughout the month; this December has been frigid, and the
river has been frozen more solid than I have even known it.
"When I heard the rumor that I was ordered to the Pacific coast I
thought it probably true, considering the past discussion on that
subject. The _possibilities_ seemed to me to point that way. Had
it been true I should, of course, have presented no complaint,
nor made resistance of any kind. I would have gone quietly if not
prepared to go promptly. I certainly would have been relieved from
the responsibilities and anxieties concerning Presidential matters
which may fall to those near the throne or in authority within the
next four months, as well as from other incidents or matters which
I could not control, and the action concerning which I might not
approve. I was not exactly prepared to go to the Pacific, however,
and I therefore felt relieved when I received your note informing me
that there was no truth in the rumors.
"Then, I did not wish to appear to be escaping from responsibilities
and possible dangers which may cluster around military commanders
in the East, especially in the critical period fast approaching.
'All's well that ends well.' The whole matter of the Presidency
seems to me to be simple and to admit of a peaceful solution. The
machinery for such a contingency as threatens to present itself has
been all carefully prepared. It only requires lubrication, owing
to disuse. The army should have nothing to do with the selection
or inauguration of Presidents. The people elect the President. The
Congress declares in a joint session who he is; we of the army have
only to obey his mandates, and are protected in so doing only so
far as they may be lawful. Our commissions express that! I like
Jefferson's way of inauguration. It suits our system. He rode alone
on horseback to the capitol (I fear it was the 'old capitol'),
tied his horse to a rail-fence, entered, and was duly sworn; then
rode to the Executive Mansion, and took possession. He inaugurated
himself simply by taking the oath of office. There is no other legal
inauguration in our system. The people or politicians may institute
parades in honor of the event, and public officials may add to the
pageant by assembling troops and banners; but all that only comes
properly after the inauguration, not before, and it is not a part of
it. Our system does not provide that one President should inaugurate
another. There might be danger in that, and it was studiously left
out of the Charter. But you are placed in an exceptionally important
position in connection with coming events. The capitol is in my
jurisdiction also, but I am a subordinate, and not on the spot, and
if I were, so also would be my superior in authority, for there is
the station of the General-in-Chief.
"On the principle that a regularly elected President's term of
office expires with the 3rd of March (of which I have not the
slightest doubt), and which the laws bearing on the subject
uniformly recognize, and in consideration of the possibility that
the lawfully elected President may not appear until the 5th of
March, a great deal of responsibility may necessarily fall upon
you. You hold over! You will have power and prestige to support
you. The Secretary of War is the mouthpiece of a President; you
are not. If neither candidate has a constitutional majority of the
Electoral College, or the Senate and House, on the occasion of the
count, do not unite in declaring some person legally elected by the
people, there is a lawful machinery already provided to meet that
contingency and decide the question peacefully. It has not been
recently used, no occasion presenting itself, but our forefathers
provided it.
"It has been exercised, and has been recognized and submitted to
as lawful, on every hand. That machinery would probably elect Mr.
Tilden President and Mr. Wheeler Vice-President. That would be right
enough, for the law provides that in a failure to elect duly by the
people, the House shall immediately elect the President, and the
Senate the Vice-President. Some tribunal must decide whether the
people have duly elected a President. I presume, of course, that it
is in the joint affirmative action of the Senate and House, or why
are they present to witness the count if not to see that it is fair
and just? If a failure to agree arises between the two bodies there
can be no lawful affirmative decision that the people have elected a
President, and the House must then proceed to act, not the Senate.
The Senate elects Vice-Presidents, not Presidents. Doubtless, in
case of a failure by the House to elect a President by the 4th of
March the President of the Senate (if there be one) would be the
legitimate person to exercise Presidential authority for the time
being, or until the appearance of a lawful President, or for the
time laid down in the Constitution. Such course would be peaceful,
and, I have a firm belief, lawful.
"I have no doubt Governor Hayes would make an excellent President.
I have met him, know of him. For a brief period he served under my
command, but as the matter stands I can't see any likelihood of his
being duly declared elected by the people unless the Senate and
House come to be in accord as to the fact; and the House would,
of course, not _otherwise_ elect him. What the people want is a
peaceful determination of this matter, as fair a determination as
possible, and a lawful one. No other administration could stand the
test. The country, if not plunged into revolution, would become
poorer day by day, business would languish, and our bonds would come
home to find a depreciated market.
"I was not in favor of the military action in South Carolina
recently, and if Genl. Ruger had telegraphed to me or asked for
advice, I would have advised him not under any circumstances to
allow himself or his troops to determine who were the lawful members
of a State Legislature. I could not have given him better advice
than to refer him to the special message of the President in the
case of Louisiana some time before.
"But in South Carolina he had had the question settled by a decision
of the Supreme Court of the State--the highest tribunal which had
acted on the question--so that his line of duty seemed even to
be clearer than the action in the Louisiana case. If the Federal
court had interfered and overruled the decision of the State court
there might have been a doubt certainly, but the Federal court only
interfered to complicate, not to decide or overrule.
"Anyhow, it is no business of the army to enter upon such questions,
and even if it might be so in any other event, if the civil
authority is supreme, as the Constitution declares it to be, the
South Carolina case was one in which the army had a plain duty.
"Had General Ruger asked me for advice, and if I had given it, I
should, of course, have notified you of my action immediately, so
that it could have been promptly overruled if it should have been
deemed advisable by you or other superior in authority. General
Ruger did not ask for my advice, and I inferred from that and
other facts that he did not desire it, or that, being in direct
communication with my military superiors at the seat of government,
who were nearer to him in time and distance than I was, he deemed
it unnecessary. As Genl. Ruger had the ultimate responsibility
of action, and had really the greater danger to confront in the
final action in the matter, I did not venture to embarrass him by
suggestions. He was a department commander and the lawful head of
the military administration within the limits of the department;
but, besides, I knew that he had been called to Washington for
consultation before taking command, and was probably aware of the
views of the administration as to civil affairs in his command.
I knew that he was in direct communication with my superiors in
authority in reference to the delicate subjects presented for
his consideration, or had ideas of his own which he believed to
be sufficiently in accord with the views of our common superiors
to enable him to act intelligently according to his judgment and
without suggestions from those not on the spot, and not as fully
acquainted with the facts as himself. He desired, too, to be free
to act, as he had the eventual greater responsibility, and so the
matter was governed as between him and myself.
"As I have been writing thus freely to you, I may still further
unbosom myself by stating that I have not thought it lawful or wise
to use Federal troops in such matters as have transpired east of
the Mississippi within the last few months, save so far as they
may be brought into action under the article of the Constitution
which contemplated meeting armed resistance or invasion of a State
more powerful than the State authorities can subdue by the ordinary
processes, and then only when requested by the Legislature, or, if
it could not be convened in season, by the Governor; and when the
President of the United States intervenes in that manner it is a
state of _war_, not peace.
"The army is laboring under disadvantages, and has been used
unlawfully at times, in the judgment of the people (in mine,
certainly), and we have lost a great deal of the kindly feeling
which the community at large once felt for us. 'It is time to stop
and unload.'
"Officers in command of troops often find it difficult to act
wisely and safely when superiors in authority have different views
of the law from theirs, and when legislation has sanctioned action
seemingly in conflict with the fundamental law, and thus generally
defer to the known judgment of their superiors. Yet the superior
officers of the army are so regarded in such great crises, and are
held to such responsibility, especially those at or near the head
of it, that it is necessary on such momentous occasions to dare
to determine for themselves what is lawful and what is not lawful
under our system if the military authorities should be invoked, as
might possibly be the case, in such exceptional times when there
existed such divergent views as to the correct result. The army
will suffer from its past action if it has acted wrongfully. Our
regular army has little hold upon the affections of the people of
to-day, and the superior officers should certainly, as far as lies
in their power, legally and with righteous intent, act to defend the
right--to us--the _law_ and the institutions we represent. It is a
well-meaning Constitution, and it would be well if it should have an
opportunity to be recognized as a bulwark in support of the people
and _the law_.
"I am, Truly Yours, (Signed) "WINFD. S. HANCOCK.
"_To General W. T. Sherman_, "_Com'd'g Army of the U. S.,
Washington, D. C._"