EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 10, 1868_.
General U.S. GRANT,
_Commanding Armies of the United States, Washington, D.C._
GENERAL: The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant[35]
would seem to preclude any reply on my part; but the manner in which
publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter
forms a part and the grave questions which are involved induce me to
take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which
have passed between us, the statements of the five members of the
Cabinet who were present on the occasion of our conversation on the 14th
ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me upon the
subject are accordingly herewith inclosed.
You speak of my letter of the 31st ultimo[36] as a reiteration of the
"many and gross misrepresentations" contained in certain newspaper
articles, and reassert the correctness of the statements contained in
your communication of the 28th ultimo,[37] adding--and here I give your
own words--"anything in yours in reply to it to the contrary
notwithstanding."
When a controversy upon matters of fact reaches the point to which this
has been brought, further assertion or denial between the immediate
parties should cease, especially where upon either side it loses
the character of the respectful discussion which is required by the
relations in which the parties stand to each other and degenerates in
tone and temper. In such a case, if there is nothing to rely upon but
the opposing statements, conclusions must be drawn from those statements
alone and from whatever intrinsic probabilities they afford in favor of
or against either of the parties. I should not shrink from this test in
this controversy; but, fortunately, it is not left to this test alone.
There were five Cabinet officers present at the conversation the detail
of which in my letter of the 28th [31st[37]] ultimo you allow yourself
to say contains "many and gross misrepresentations." These gentlemen
heard that conversation and have read my statement. They speak for
themselves, and I leave the proof without a word of comment.
I deem it proper before concluding this communication to notice some of
the statements contained in your letter.
You say that a performance of the promises alleged to have been made by
you to the President "would have involved a resistance to law and an
inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with the
suspension of Mr. Stanton." You then state that you had fears the
President would, on the removal of Mr. Stanton, appoint someone in his
place who would embarrass the Army in carrying out the reconstruction
acts, and add:
"It was to prevent such an appointment that I accepted the office of
Secretary of War _ad interim_, and not for the purpose of enabling you
to get rid of Mr. Stanton by withholding it from him in opposition to
law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering it to one who would, as the
statements and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate was
sought."
First of all, you here admit that from the very beginning of what
you term "the whole history" of your connection with Mr. Stanton's
suspension you intended to circumvent the President. It was to carry out
that intent that you accepted the appointment. This was in your mind at
the time of your acceptance. It was not, then, in obedience to the order
of your superior, as has heretofore been supposed, that you assumed the
duties of the office. You knew it was the President's purpose to prevent
Mr. Stanton from resuming the office of Secretary of War, and you
intended to defeat that purpose. You accepted the office, not in the
interest of the President but of Mr. Stanton. If this purpose, so
entertained by you, had been confined to yourself; if when accepting
the office you had done so with a mental reservation to frustrate the
President, it would have been a tacit deception. In the ethics of some
persons such a course is allowable. But you can not stand even upon
that questionable ground. The "history" of your connection with this
transaction, as written by yourself, places you in a different
predicament, and shows that you not only concealed your design from
the President, but induced him to suppose that you would carry out his
purpose to keep Mr. Stanton out of office by retaining it yourself after
an attempted restoration by the Senate, so as to require Mr. Stanton to
establish his right by judicial decision.
I now give that part of this "history" as written by yourself in your
letter of the 28th ultimo:[38]
"Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_
the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have
to pursue, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to
obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that
Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him,
illustrating my position by citing the ground I had taken in the case
of the Baltimore police commissioners."
Now, at that time, as you admit in your letter of the 3d instant,[39]
you held the office for the very object of defeating an appeal to the
courts. In that letter you say that in accepting the office one motive
was to prevent the President from appointing some other person who would
retain possession, and thus make judicial proceedings necessary. You
knew the President was unwilling to trust the office with anyone who
would not by holding it compel Mr. Stanton to resort to the courts.
You perfectly understood that in this interview, "some time" after
you accepted the office, the President, not content with your silence,
desired an expression of your views, and you answered him that Mr.
Stanton "would have to appeal to the courts." If the President reposed
confidence _before_ he knew your views, and that confidence had been
violated, it might have been said he made a mistake; but a violation of
confidence reposed _after_ that conversation was no mistake of his nor
of yours. It is the fact only that needs be stated, that at the date of
this conversation you did not intend to hold the office with the purpose
of forcing Mr. Stanton into court, but did hold it then and had accepted
it to prevent that course from being carried out. In other words, you
said to the President, "That is the proper course," and you said to
yourself, "I have accepted this office, and now hold it to defeat that
course." The excuse you make in a subsequent paragraph of that letter
of the 28th ultimo,[38] that afterwards you changed your views as to
what would be a proper course, has nothing to do with the point now
under consideration. The point is that _before_ you changed your views
you had secretly determined to do the very thing which at last you
did--surrender the office to Mr. Stanton. You may have changed your
views as to the law, but you certainly did not change your views as
to the course you had marked out for yourself from the beginning.
I will only notice one more statement in your letter of the 3d
instant[39]--that the performance of the promises which it is alleged
were made by you would have involved you in the resistance of law. I
know of no statute that would have been violated had you, carrying out
your promises in good faith, tendered your resignation when you
concluded not to be made a party in any legal proceedings. You add:
"I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion by your recent orders
directing me to disobey orders from the Secretary of War, _my superior_
and your subordinate, without having countermanded his authority to
issue the orders I am to disobey."
On the 24th[39] ultimo you addressed a note to the President requesting
in writing an order given to you verbally five days before to disregard
orders from Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War until you "knew from the
President himself that they were his orders."
On the 29th,[40] in compliance with your request, I did give you
instructions in writing "not to obey any order from the War Department
assumed to be issued by the direction of the President unless such order
is known by the General Commanding the armies of the United States to
have been authorized by the Executive."
There are some orders which a Secretary of War may issue without the
authority of the President; there are others which he issues simply as
the agent of the President, and which purport to be "by direction" of
the President. For such orders the President is responsible, and he
should therefore know and understand what they are before giving such
"direction." Mr. Stanton states in his letter of the 4th instant,[41]
which accompanies the published correspondence, that he "has had no
correspondence with the President since the 12th of August last;" and
he further says that since he resumed the duties of the office he has
continued to discharge them "without any personal or written
communication with the President;" and he adds, "No orders have been
issued from this Department in the name of the President with my
knowledge, and I have received no orders from him."
It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the duties of the War
Department without any reference to the President and without using his
name.
My order to you had only reference to orders "assumed to be issued by
the direction of the President." It would appear from Mr. Stanton's
letter that you have received no such orders from him. However, in your
note to the President of the 30th ultimo,[42] in which you acknowledge
the receipt of the written order of the 29th,[43] you say that you have
been informed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any order limiting
his authority to issue orders to the Army, according to the practice
of the Department, and state that "while this authority to the War
Department is not countermanded it will be satisfactory evidence to
me that any orders issued from the War Department by direction of the
President are authorized by the Executive."
The President issues an order to you to obey no order from the War
Department purporting to be made "by the direction of the President"
until you have referred it to him for his approval. You reply that you
have received the President's order and will not obey it, but will obey
an order purporting to be given by his direction _if it comes from the
War Department_. You will not obey the direct order of the President,
but will obey his indirect order. If, as you say, there has been a
practice in the War Department to issue orders in the name of the
President without his direction, does not the precise order you have
requested and have received change the practice as to the General of
the Army? Could not the President countermand any such order issued to
you from the War Department? If you should receive an order from that
Department, issued in the name of the President, to do a special act,
and an order directly from the President himself not to do the act, is
there a doubt which you are to obey? You answer the question when you
say to the President, in your letter of the 3d instant,[44] the Secretary
of War is "my superior and your subordinate," and yet you refuse
obedience to the superior out of a deference to the subordinate.
Without further comment upon the insubordinate attitude which you
have assumed, I am at a loss to know how you can relieve yourself
from obedience to the orders of the President, who is made by the
Constitution the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and is
therefore the official superior as well of the General of the Army
as of the Secretary of War.
Respectfully, yours,