_January 30, 1868_.
Respectfully forwarded to the Secretary of War for his information.
U.S. GRANT, _General_.
_The President to General Grant_.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 31, 1868_.
General U.S. GRANT,
_Commanding United States Armies_.
GENERAL: I have received your communication of the 28th instant,[50]
renewing your request of the 24th,[49] that I should repeat in a written
form my verbal instructions of the 19th instant, viz, that you obey no
order from the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War unless you have
information that it was issued by the President's directions.
In submitting this request (with which I complied on the 29th
instant[51]) you take occasion to allude to recent publications in
reference to the circumstances connected with the vacation by yourself
of the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_, and with the view of
correcting statements which you term "gross misrepresentations" give
at length your own recollection of the facts under which, without the
sanction of the President, from whom you had received and accepted the
appointment, you yielded the Department of War to the present incumbent.
As stated in your communication, some time after you had assumed the
duties of Secretary of War _ad interim_ we interchanged views respecting
the course that should be pursued in the event of nonconcurrence by the
Senate in the suspension from office of Mr. Stanton. I sought that
interview, calling myself at the War Department. My sole object in then
bringing the subject to your attention was to ascertain definitely
what would be your own action should such an attempt be made for his
restoration to the War Department. That object was accomplished, for
the interview terminated with the distinct understanding that if upon
reflection you should prefer not to become a party to the controversy or
should conclude that it would be your duty to surrender the Department
to Mr. Stanton upon action in his favor by the Senate you were to return
the office to me prior to a decision by the Senate, in order that if I
desired to do so I might designate someone to succeed you. It must have
been apparent to you that had not this understanding been reached it was
my purpose to relieve you from the further discharge of the duties of
Secretary of War _ad interim_ and to appoint some other person in that
capacity.
Other conversations upon this subject ensued, all of them having on my
part the same object and leading to the same conclusion as the first.
It is not necessary, however, to refer to any of them excepting that of
Saturday, the 11th instant, mentioned in your communication. As it was
then known that the Senate had proceeded to consider the case of Mr.
Stanton, I was anxious to learn your determination. After a protracted
interview, during which the provisions of the tenure-of-office bill were
freely discussed, you said that, as had been agreed upon in our first
conference, you would either return the office to my possession in time
to enable me to appoint a successor before final action by the Senate
upon Mr. Stanton's suspension, or would remain as its head, awaiting a
decision of the question by judicial proceedings. It was then understood
that there would be a further conference on Monday, by which time I
supposed you would be prepared to inform me of your final decision. You
failed, however, to fulfill the engagement, and on Tuesday notified me
in writing of the receipt by you of official notification of the action
of the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton, and at the same time informed
me that according to the act regulating the tenure of certain civil
offices your functions as Secretary of War _ad interim_ ceased from
the moment of the receipt of the notice. You thus, in disregard of the
understanding between us, vacated the office without having given me
notice of your intention to do so. It is but just, however, to say that
in your communication you claim that you did inform me of your purpose,
and thus "fulfilled the promise made in our last preceding conversation
on this subject." The fact that such a promise existed is evidence of
an arrangement of the kind I have mentioned. You had found in our first
conference "that the President was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out
of office whether sustained in the suspension or not." You knew what
reasons had induced the President to ask from you a promise; you
also knew that in case your views of duty did not accord with his
own convictions it was his purpose to fill your place by another
appointment. Even ignoring the existence of a positive understanding
between us, these conclusions were plainly deducible from our various
conversations. It is certain, however, that even under these
circumstances you did not offer to return the place to my possession,
but, according to your own statement, placed yourself in a position
where, could I have anticipated your action, I would have been compelled
to ask of you, as I was compelled to ask of your predecessor in the War
Department, a letter of resignation, or else to resort to the more
disagreeable expedient of suspending you by a successor.
As stated in your letter, the nomination of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for
the office of Secretary of War was suggested to me. His appointment as
Mr. Stanton's successor was urged in your name, and it was said that
his selection would save further embarrassment. I did not think that
in the selection of a Cabinet officer I should be trammeled by such
considerations. I was prepared to take the responsibility of deciding
the question in accordance with my ideas of constitutional duty, and,
having determined upon a course which I deemed right and proper, was
anxious to learn the steps you would take should the possession of the
War Department be demanded by Mr. Stanton. Had your action been in
conformity to the understanding between us, I do not believe that the
embarrassment would have attained its present proportions or that the
probability of its repetition would have been so great.
I know that, with a view to an early termination of a state of affairs
so detrimental to the public interests, you voluntarily offered, both on
Wednesday, the 15th instant, and on the succeeding Sunday, to call upon
Mr. Stanton and urge upon him that the good of the service required his
resignation. I confess that I considered your proposal as a sort of
reparation for the failure on your part to act in accordance with an
understanding more than once repeated, which I thought had received your
full assent, and under which you could have returned to me the office
which I had conferred upon you, thus saving yourself from embarrassment
and leaving the responsibility where it properly belonged--with the
President, who is accountable for the faithful execution of the laws.
I have not yet been informed by you whether, as twice proposed by
yourself, you have called upon Mr. Stanton and made an effort to induce
him voluntarily to retire from the War Department.
You conclude your communication with a reference to our conversation at
the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday, the 14th instant. In your
account of what then occurred you say that after the President had given
his version of our previous conversations you stated them substantially
as given in your letter; that you in no wise admitted the correctness of
his statement of them, "though, to soften the evident contradiction my
statement gave, I said (alluding to our first conversation on the
subject) the President might have understood me the way he said, namely,
that I had promised to resign if I did not resist the reinstatement.
I made no such promise."
My recollection of what then transpired is diametrically the reverse of
your narration. In the presence of the Cabinet I asked you--
First. If, in a conversation which took place shortly after your
appointment as Secretary of War _ad interim_, you did not agree either
to remain at the head of the War Department and abide any judicial
proceedings that might follow nonconcurrence by the Senate in Mr.
Stanton's suspension, or, should you wish not to become involved in such
a controversy, to put me in the same position with respect to the office
as I occupied previous to your appointment, by returning it to me in
time to anticipate such action by the Senate. This you admitted.
Second. I then asked you if, at our conference on the preceding
Saturday, I had not, to avoid misunderstanding, requested you to state
what you intended to do, and, further, if in reply to that inquiry you
had not referred to our former conversations, saying that from them I
understood your position, and that your action would be consistent with
the understanding which had been reached. To these questions you also
replied in the affirmative.
Third. I next asked if at the conclusion of our interview on Saturday
it was not understood that we were to have another conference on Monday
before final action by the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton. You
replied that such was the understanding, but that you did not suppose
the Senate would act so soon; that on Monday you had been engaged in a
conference with General Sherman and were occupied with "many little
matters," and asked if General Sherman had not called on that day. What
relevancy General Sherman's visit to me on Monday had with the purpose
for which you were then to have called I am at a loss to perceive,
as he certainly did not inform me whether you had determined to retain
possession of the office or to afford me an opportunity to appoint a
successor in advance of any attempted reinstatement of Mr. Stanton.
This account of what passed between us at the Cabinet meeting on the
14th instant widely differs from that contained in your communication,
for it shows that instead of having "stated our conversations as given
in the letter" which has made this reply necessary you admitted that my
recital of them was entirely accurate. Sincerely anxious, however, to
be correct in my statements, I have to-day read this narration of what
occurred on the 14th instant to the members of the Cabinet who were then
present. They, without exception, agree in its accuracy.
It is only necessary to add that on Wednesday morning, the 15th instant,
you called on me, in company with Lieutenant-General Sherman. After some
preliminary conversation, you remarked that an article in the National
Intelligencer of that date did you much injustice. I replied that I had
not read the Intelligencer of that morning. You then first told me that
it was your intention to urge Mr. Stanton to resign his office.
After you had withdrawn I carefully read the article of which you had
spoken, and found that its statements of the understanding between us
were substantially correct. On the 17th I caused it to be read to four
of the five members of the Cabinet who were present at our conference on
the 14th, and they concurred in the general accuracy of its statements
respecting our conversation upon that occasion.
In reply to your communication, I have deemed it proper, in order to
prevent further misunderstanding, to make this simple recital of facts.
Very respectfully, yours,