Ball's Bluff Disaster.--Mr. Conkling's Resolution of Inquiry.--
Unsatisfactory Reply of Secretary Cameron.--Second Resolution.--
Second Reply.--Incidental Debate on Slavery.--Arrest of General
Charles P. Stone.--His History.--His Response to Criticisms made
upon him.--Responsibility of Colonel Baker.--General Stone before
the Committee on the Conduct of the War.--His Examination.--Testimony
of Officers.--General Stone appears before the Committee a Second
Time.--His Arrest by Order of the War Department.--No Cause assigned.
--Imprisoned in Fort Lafayette.--Solitary Confinement.--Sees Nobody.
--His Wife denied Access to him.--Subject brought into Congress.--
A Search for the Responsibility of the Arrest.--Groundless Assumption
of Mr. Sumner's Connection with it.--Mr. Lincoln's Message in Regard
to the Case.--General Stone's Final Release by an Act of Congress.
--Imprisoned for One Hundred and Eighty-nine Days.--Never told the
Cause.--Never allowed a Trial.--Appears a Third Time before the
Committee.--The True Responsibility for the Arrest.--His Restoration
to Service.--His Resignation.--Joins the Khedive's Service.
On the day that Congress convened, (December 2, 1861,) Mr. Roscoe
Conkling offered a resolution which was unanimously agreed to by
the House, requesting "the Secretary of War, if not incompatible
with the public service, to report to the House whether any, and
if any, what, measures have been taken to ascertain who is responsible
for the disastrous movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff." A few
days later Mr. Chandler of Michigan offered a resolution in the
Senate, directing an inquiry by a committee of three "into the
disasters at Bull Run and Ball's Bluff." Mr. Grimes of Iowa offered
a substitute which, after various modifications, directed the
appointment of a "joint committee of three members of the Senate,
and four members of the House of Representatives, to inquire into
the conduct of the present war, with power to send for persons and
papers, and with leave to sit during the sessions of either branch
of Congress." The resolutions led to some debate. Mr. Chandler
maintained that "it is the duty of the Senate to ascertain who is
responsible for sending eighteen hundred men across the Potomac,
in two old scows, without any means of retreat." Mr. McDougall
thought a discussion of the question at that time was impolitic.
Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, chairman of the Committee on Military
Affairs, while admitting that many mistakes had been made, asserted
the "the greatest error in the conduct of the war has been the
series of irresponsible proclamations issued by generals on the
field." The joint resolution was adopted by the Senate with only
three dissenting votes (Messrs. Latham, Carlile, and Rice) and by
the House unanimously. Mr. Wade of Ohio, Mr. Chandler of Michigan,
and Mr. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee on the part of the Senate, with
Mr. Gooch of Massachusetts, Mr. Covode of Pennsylvania, Mr. Julian
of Indiana, and Mr. Odell of New York on the part of the House,
constituted the committee.
THE DISASTER AT BALL'S BLUFF.
The Secretary of War, in answer to Mr. Conkling's resolution touching
the disaster at Ball's Bluff, stated that Major-General McClellan,
commanding the army, "is of opinion that an inquiry on the subject
of the resolution would at this time be injurious to the public
service." The answer did not satisfy Mr. Conkling. He immediately
moved another resolution declaring that the communication from the
Secretary of War was "not responsive nor satisfactory to the House,
and that the secretary be directed to return a further answer."
A spirited debate followed, taking a somewhat extended range. Mr.
Conkling said that his resolution related to "the most atrocious
military murder ever committed in our history as a people. It
relates to a lost field; to a disastrous and humiliating battle;
to a blunder so gross that all men can see it,--a blunder which
cost us confessedly nine hundred and thirty men, the very pride
and flower of the States from which they came." . . . "The Bluff
is a mile in length up and down the river, and the landing and
ascent were made in the middle of it. Behind this was a six-acre
lot skirted by woods on three sides. Into this burial-ground, one
by one, as the boat brought them over, went up the devoted seventeen
hundred. . . . Behind them rolled a deep river which could never
be repassed. Before them and surrounding them on every side was
a tree-sheltered and skulking foe, three or four times their
number. . . . In an hour, in less than an hour, the field was a
hell of fire raging from every side. The battle was lost before
it was begun. It was from the outset a mere sacrifice, a sheer
immolation, without a promise of success or a hope of escape."
. . . "On the same side of the river with Leesburg," said Mr. Conkling,
"within a day's march of that place, lay General McCall commanding
a division containing fifteen regiments which marched fully eleven
thousand men. If Leesburg were to be attacked, or if a reconnoissance
in force were to be made in that direction, one of the first wonders
in this case is, that the work should have been assigned to General
Stone's division, divided as it was from the scene of action by a
great river, when the division of General McCall was within a day's
march of the spot, with neither river, mountain, nor barrier to be
traversed."
--Mr. Richardson of Illinois thought Mr. Conkling's resolution was
calculated "to raise an issue between the House of Representatives
and the army, and divide the country." He thought this would injure
the cause of the Union. In military matters he would "rather trust
the commanding general of the army than a committee of the House."
--Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky protested against "the House interfering
in the conduct of the war and the management of the army by
investigating transactions which are in their nature purely military."
He maintained that "such a policy takes control out of the hands
of men supposed to be competent and puts it in the hands of men
supposed not to be competent." "If," continued Mr. Crittenden,
"we are to find fault with every movement, who not appoint a
committee of the House to attend the Commander-in-chief? Why not
send them with our army so that the power of Congress may be felt
in battle as well as in the halls of legislation?"
--Mr. Lovejoy of Illinois gave a characteristic turn to the debate.
"I believe before God," said he,--"and if it be fanaticism now it
will not be when history traces the events of the day,--that the
reason why we have had Bull Run and Ball's Bluff and other defeats
and disasters is that God, in his providence, designs to arraign
us before this great question of human freedom, and make us take
the right position." Slavery, according to Mr. Lovejoy, was the
Jonah on board the National ship, and the ship would founder unless
Jonah were thrown overboard. "When Jonah was cast forth into the
sea, the sea ceased from raging." Our battles, in Mr. Lovejoy's
belief, "should be fought so as to hurt slavery," and enable the
President to decree its destruction. "To be President, to be king,
to be victor, has happened to many; to be embalmed in the hearts
of mankind through all generations as liberator and emancipator
has been vouchsafed to few."
THE DISASTER AT BALL'S BLUFF.
--Mr. Wickliffe of Kentucky believed we should "preserve the Union
and slavery under it." He wised to "throw the Abolitionists
overboard."
--Mr. Mallory of Kentucky, while not believing slavery to be
incompatible with our liberty under the Constitution, declared that
so far as he understood the feeling of the people of Kentucky, "if
they ever come to regard slavery as standing in the way of the
Union, they will not hesitate to wipe out the institution." Loud
applause followed this remark.
--Mr. McKee Dunn of Indiana, while believing that "if slavery stands
in the way of the Union it must be destroyed," was not yet "willing
to accept Mr. Lovejoy as prophet, priest, or king." He thought
"the gentleman from Illinois was not authorized to interpret God's
providence" in the affairs of men.
--Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, in recalling the debate to the immediate
question before the House, took occasion to protest against the
doctrine of non-interference laid down by Mr. Crittenden. "Has it
come to this," said Mr. Stevens, "that Congress is a mere automaton,
to register the decrees of another power, and that we have nothing
to do but to find men and money? . . . This is the doctrine of
despotism, better becoming that empire which they are attempting
to establish in the South."
The resolution offered by Mr. Conkling was adopted by a vote of 79
to 54, on a call of the yeas and nays. The affirmative vote was
wholly Republican. A few Republicans voted with the Democrats in
the negative. The reply of Secretary Cameron was no more satisfactory
than to the first resolution. He informed the House that "measures
have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous
movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff, but it is not deemed
compatible with the public interest to make known these measures
at the present time." The difference between this answer and the
first, was that the Administration assumed the responsibility of
withholding the information, and did not rest it upon the judgment
of the general in command of the army.
Brigadier-General Charles P. Stone was a graduate of West Point
Military Academy, from Massachusetts. His family belongs to the
old Puritan stock of that commonwealth, and had been honorably
represented in every war in which the American people had engaged.
General Stone served as a lieutenant in the Mexican war with high
credit, and in 1855 resigned his commission and became a resident
of California. It happened that he was in Washington at the breaking
out of the civil war, and in response to the request of his old
commander, General Scott, took a prominent part in the defense of
the capital, considered to be in danger after the rising of the
Baltimore mob. His conduct was so admirable that when the President,
a few weeks later, directed the organization of eleven new regiments
in the Regular Army, he appointed General Stone to the Colonelcy
of the 14th United-States Infantry. After the battle of Bull Run,
when General McClellan was promoted to the command of the Army of
the Potomac, General Stone was selected to command a division which
was directed to occupy the valley of the Potomac above Washington,
as a corps of observation. The Union troops, engaged in the
disastrous battle of Ball's Bluff, belonged to his corps, but were
under the immediate command of Colonel E. D. Baker. The repulse
and slaughter on that melancholy field were followed by excitement
and indignation throughout the country quite as deep as that shown
in Congress. The details of the disaster were greatly exaggerated.
The official summary of losses, made up with care, showed that the
total number killed, including both officers and men, was 49;
wounded, 158; missing, 714, of whom a few were drowned, and the
great mass taken prisoners. The popular admiration for Colonel
Baker was unbounded, and the suspicion that his life had been
needlessly destroyed created such a feeling as demanded a victim.
General Stone was selected for the sacrifice, and popular wrath
was turned upon him with burning intensity. Rumors and exaggerations
filled the newspapers; and the public, in that state of credulity
which is an incident to the victim-hunting mania, accepted every
thing as true. It was widely believed that Colonel Baker said
mournfully, as he marched to the battle-field, "I will obey General
Stone's order, but it is my death-warrant."
BALL'S BLUFF DISASTER INVESTIGATED.
Goaded by these injurious and unfounded rumors, General Stone, in
a letter to the Adjutant-General of the army, written a fortnight
after the battle, deemed it his "duty to answer the persistent
attacks made through the press by the friends of the lamented
Colonel Baker." He called attention to the "distinct violations
by Colonel Baker of his orders and instructions," and declared that
he was left "to use his own discretion about crossing his force,
or retiring that already over." He found it "painful to censure
the acts of one who gallantly died on the field of battle," but
justice to himself required "that the full truth should be made to
appear." Colonel Baker did not receive the order "as a death-
warrant," for it was delivered to him "at his own request." That
"Colonel Baker was determined to fight a battle" was made evident
by the fact that "he never crossed to examine the field, never gave
an order to the troops in advance, and never sent forward to
ascertain their position, until he had ordered over his force, and
passed over a considerable portion of it." On the 5th of January,
1862, General Stone appeared before the Committee on the Conduct
of the War, and was examined under oath as to every detail of the
Ball's-Bluff disaster which could in any way, directly or remotely,
involve his responsibility as a commander. His answers were frank,
withholding nothing, and were evidently intended to communicate
every pertinent fact. So far as may be inferred from the questions
and comments, the evidence was entirely satisfactory to the
committee.
After the examination of General Stone, many officers of his command
appeared before the committee. The captains and lieutenants, fresh
from private life, whose names he probably did not know, and with
whom he perhaps never exchanged a word, were summoned in large
number. They had remarkable stories to tell about General Stone's
disloyalty; about his holding secret correspondence with the enemy;
about his permitting letters and packages to be taken across the
line without examination; about his allowing rebels to go freely
back and forth; and finally about his passing within the rebel
lines to hold confidential interviews with the officers commanding
the force opposed to him. It is singular that men of the acuteness
and high character of those composing the committee did not carefully
sift the testimony and subject it to the test of a rigorous cross-
examination. The stories told by many of these swift witnesses
were on the surface absurd, and should have been exposed. Publicity
alone would have largely counteracted the evil effect of their
narratives, but the examination was secret, and the witnesses
evidently felt that the strongest bias against General Stone was
the proper turn to give their testimony. The atmosphere was, as
it often is in such cases, unfavorable to the suspected man; and
his reputation was mercilessly assailed where he could not reply,
and was not even allowed to hear. When officers of the higher
grades, who came near to General Stone, who shared his confidence
and assisted in his councils, were examined, the weight of the
testimony was markedly different. General F. W. Lander regarded
General Stone as "a very efficient, orderly, and excellent officer."
Colonel Isaac J. Wistar, who succeeded Colonel Baker in the command
of the California regiment, gave the highest testimony to General
Stone's loyalty, and to the "full confidence" reposed in him by
men of every rank in the brigade with which he was serving. Colonel
Charles Devens who, with his regiment, the Fifteenth Massachusetts
Infantry, had borne an honorable part on the bloody field, testified
that he and the officers of the Fifteenth "had confidence in General
Stone." Colonel James H. Van Allen, commanding a regiment of
cavalry in General Stone's division, gave the most cordial testimony
of his loyalty and high character.
After the larger part of the evidence adverse to General Stone had
been heard, he received an intimation through General McClellan
that it might be well for him to appear again before the Committee
on the Conduct of the War. He obtained leave of absence from his
command, repaired to Washington, and presented himself before the
committee on the 31st of January, twenty-six days after his first
testimony had been given. For some reason which the committee did
not deem it necessary to explain, General Stone was not furnished
with the names of the witnesses who had testified against him in
the dark; their testimony was not submitted to him; it was not even
read in his hearing. He was simply informed by the chairman--
Senator Wade of Ohio--that "in the course of our investigations
there has come out in evidence matters which may be said to impeach
you. I do not know that I can enumerate all the points, but I
think I can. In the first place is your conduct in the Ball's-
Bluff affair--your ordering your forces over without sufficient
means of transportation, and in that way endangering your army, in
case of a check, by not being able to re-enforce them. . . . Another
point is that the evidence tends to show that you have had undue
communication with the enemy by letters that have passed back and
forth, by intercourse with officers from the other side, and by
permitting packages to go over unexamined, to known Secessionists.
. . . The next and only other point that now occurs to me is that
you have suffered the enemy to erect formidable fortifications or
batteries on the opposite side of the river, within the reach of
your guns, and which you could easily have prevented." General
Stone's answer was as lucid, frank, and full as could be made to
charges of so sweeping a character. His explanations were unreserved,
and his justification apparently complete and unanswerable against
every form of accusation which the chairman submitted. To the
charge of disloyalty General Stone replied with much feeling, "That
is one humiliation I had hoped I should never be subjected to. I
thought there was one calumny that could not be brought against
me. Any other calumny I should expect after what I have received,
but that one I should have supposed that you personally, Mr.
Chairman, would have rejected at once. _You_ remember last spring
when the Government had so few friends here, when the enemy had
this city I might almost say in his power, I raised all the volunteer
troops that were here during the seven dark days. I disciplined
and posted those troops. I commanded them, and they were the first
to invade the soil of Virginia, and I led them." Mr. Wade here
interrupted, and said, "I was no so unjust as not to mention that
circumstance to the committee." General Stone resumed, "I could
have surrendered Washington. And now I will swear that this
government has not a more faithful soldier, of poor capacity it
may be, but not a more faithful soldier from the day I was called
into service to this minute."
GENERAL CHARLES P. STONE ARRESTED.
Subsequent developments proved that three days before this second
examination General McClellan had in his possession an order from
Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, directing him "to relieve
General Stone from his command of a division in the Army of the
Potomac, and that he be placed in arrest and kept in close custody
until further orders." It is evident therefore that so far as the
War Department was involved, the case had been prejudged, or judged
at least without giving the accused man an opportunity to be heard
in his own defense. It is difficult to understand why his testimony
did not have the effect to recall or suspend the order of arrest,
but despite the candor and evident honesty of his explanations,
the blow fell upon him. Early on Saturday the eighth day of February
General McClellan directed the provost marshal of the district,
General Andrew Porter, "to arrest Brigadier-General Charles P.
Stone at once, and to send him under close custody by first train
to Fort Lafayette, where he will be placed in charge of the commanding
officer, and have no communication with any one from the time of
his arrest." Brigadier-General Sykes, commanding the City Guard,
executed the order, taking General Stone from his bed at midnight
in the hotel where he was stopping, and making him a close prisoner.
Shortly after daylight the following morning General Stone addressed
a note to General Seth Williams, Adjutant-General on the staff of
General McClellan, informing him of his arrest, and adding,
"Conscious of having been at all times a faithful soldier of the
United States, I must respectfully request that I may be furnished
at an early a moment as practicable with a copy of whatever charges
may have been preferred against me, with the opportunity of promptly
meeting them."
To this respectful communication no answer was made, and General
Stone was hurried off to Fort Lafayette, under strict guard, with
an order from General McClellan for his imprisonment. At the fort
the money which he had in his pockets was taken from him, and he
was placed in solitary confinement in a room ordinarily used for
quarters of enlisted men. No letter was allowed to leave him or
reach him without the most rigid inspection. Under this close
_surveillance_, with an armed sentinel pacing before the door of
his room, without opportunity for outdoor air or exercise, he was
kept for forty-nine days. He applied at different times to the
military authorities in Washington for a statement of the charges
against him, for a speedy trial, for access to the records of his
own office and his own headquarters, for a change of the place of
his confinement. To none of these applications was answer of any
kind returned. After he had been nearly two months in prison he
asked that his wife might be allowed to visit him. She was in the
deepest anguish, and her society in his imprisonment could have
subjected the government to no danger, because she would have been
under the same restraint and espionage as her husband. This natural
and reasonable request, made only after his confinement promised
to be indefinite, was peremptorily and curtly refused by the War
Department.
On the fiftieth day the place of his imprisonment was changed from
Fort Lafayette to Fort Hamilton near by, and the opportunity for
open-air exercise within the fort was accorded him, though always
under the eye of a sentinel. Here he renewed his request for the
charges against him, without eliciting answer. He applied to the
officer in command of the fort to learn of what possible crime he
was accused, and the officer replied that he knew nothing of it;
he was absolutely ignorant of any ground for General Stone's
imprisonment. After striving for more than sixty days to ascertain
the nature of his offense, and secure an opportunity to vindicate
himself, the prisoner adopted another course. He applied for
suspension of arrest with liberty to join the army just setting
forth under General McClellan for the Peninsular campaign. No
reply was made to his request. A few weeks later, when the Union
forces under General Banks were defeated in the valley of the
Shenandoah, he again asked the privilege of active duty, and again
was treated with contemptuous silence. On the 4th of July he
telegraphed directly to President Lincoln, recalling the honorable
service in which he had been engaged just one year before. Reminding
the President of the pressing need which the country then had "of
the services of every willing soldier," he begged to be sent to
the field. With manly dignity he declared, "I am utterly unconscious
of any act, word, or design which should make me less eligible to
an honorable place among the soldiers of the Republic than upon
any day of my past life."
GENERAL STONE'S CASE IN CONGRESS.
Meanwhile the subject had forced itself upon the attention of
Congress. On the 24th of March, Senators Latham and McDougall of
California, the first a supporter of Breckinridge in 1860, the
other a supporter of Douglas, with Aaron A. Sargent, representative
from the same State and a most radical Republican, united in an
energetic memorial to Secretary Stanton, on behalf of General Stone
as a citizen of California. They stated that "the long arrest of
General Stone without military trial or inquiry has led to complaints
from many quarters. . . . Having known General Stone for years,
and never having had cause to doubt his loyalty, we feel it our
duty to inquire of the government through you for some explanation
of a proceeding which seems to us extraordinary." To this memorial
no reply was made, and after waiting nearly three weeks Mr. McDougall
introduced in the Senate a very searching resolution of inquiry,
requesting the Secretary of War to state upon whose authority the
arrest was made, and upon whose complaint; why General Stone had
been denied his rights under the articles of war; why no charges
and specifications of his offense had been made; whether General
Stone had not frequently asked to be informed of the charges against
him; and finally upon what pretense he was still kept in prison.
Mr. McDougall spoke in the Senate on the 15th of April in support
of his resolution, making some interesting personal statements.
General Stone was arrested on the night of Saturday, the 8th of
February. "On the Wednesday evening before that," said Mr. McDougall,
"I met General Stone, dressed as became a person of his rank, at
the house of the President, where no one went on that evening except
by special invitation. He was there mingling with his friends,
receiving as much attention and as much consideration from all
about him as any man there present. . . . Only two evenings after
that, if I remember right, he was the guest under similar circumstances
of the senior general in command of our army [McClellan], and there
again receiving the hospitalities of the men first in office and
first in the consideration of the country. On, I think, the very
day of his arrest he was in the War Department, and was received
by the head of that department as a man who had the entire confidence
of the government, and of himself as one of the government's
representatives. On that evening he was seized, taken from his
home and family at midnight, carried off to Fort Lafayette and
imprisoned, as are men convicted and adjudged guilty of the highest
offense known to the law. . . . I undertake to say upon good
authority that almost presently before his arrest he said to the
present Secretary of War [Stanton], 'Sir, I hear complaints about
my conduct as an officer at Ball's Bluff. I wish you to inquire
into it and have the matter determined.' He was assured that there
were no charges against him, and the secretary advised him in
substance in these words: 'There is no occasion for your inquiry;
go back to your command.' That was the day of the night on which
he was arrested." Mr. McDougall's statement, the accuracy of which
was not challenged by any one, disclosed the fact that while General
Stone was a guest at the White House and at the residence of General
McClellan, the latter had in his possession the order for arrest,
and had held it for several days.
The resolution of Mr. McDougall was debated at some length in the
Senate, Mr. Wade making a fiery speech in defense of the course
pursued by the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and Mr. Browning
of Illinois defending the President, upon whom there had been no
imputation of any kind. Mr. Doolittle suggested that the resolution
be referred to a committee. Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts submitted
a substitute, simply requesting "the President of the United States
to communicate to the Senate any information touching the arrest
and imprisonment of General Stone, not deemed incompatible with
the public interest." Mr. Sumner had "no opinion to express in
the case, for he knew nothing about it;" but "it seemed clear" to
him "that General Stone ought to be confronted with his accusers
at an early day, unless there be some reason of an overbearing
military character which would render such a trial improper." Mr.
Sumner had "seen in various newspapers a most persistent attempt"
to connect him "with the credit or discredit of the arrest." He
declared that from the beginning he "had been an absolute stranger
to it." The arrest was made, he repeated, without his "suggestion
or hint, direct or indirect." He declared that he "was as free
from all connection with it" as "the intimate friends and family
relatives of the prisoner." At the close of the debate Mr. McDougall
accepted Mr. Wilson's resolution as a substitute for his, and on
the 21st of April the latter was adopted by general consent.
SENATOR SUMNER AND GENERAL STONE.
The unfounded assumption of Mr. Sumner's connection with the arrest
sprang perhaps from some censorious remarks in the Senate made by
him in December touching General Stone's alleged course in sending
back fugitive slaves. Subsequent intelligence indicated that Mr.
Sumner had been misinformed on this matter, and that the facts did
not inculpate General Stone. But instead of writing to Mr. Sumner
to correct the statements made in his speech, General Stone, most
unwisely and most reprehensibly, addressed to the senator on the
23d of December an ill-tempered and abusive letter. Mr. Henry
Melville Parker of Massachusetts investigated all the facts and
incidents of the case, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sumner,
as an act of revenge for the insolent letter, had caused General
Stone's arrest. But the facts do not warrant Mr. Parker's conclusion.
Aside from Mr. Sumner's public denial on the floor of the Senate--
which of itself closed the issue--he was never known to be guilty
of an act of revenge. That passion belongs to meaner natures.
The dates, moreover, remove the imputation of Mr. Parker. General
Stone's hasty and ill-considered letter was placed in Mr. Sumner's
hands on Christmas Day, 1861. The arrest was made on the 8th of
February, 1862--forty-six days later. The intervening circumstances
nowhere involve Mr. Sumner in the remotest degree.
In answer to the call upon the President for information, Mr.
Lincoln sent a message to the Senate on the 1st of May, saying,
"General Stone was arrested and imprisoned under my general authority,
and upon evidence which, whether he be guilty or innocent, required,
as appears to me, such proceedings to be had against him for the
public safety." The President deemed it "incompatible with the
public interest, and perhaps unjust to General Stone, to make a
more particular statement of the evidence." After saying that
General Stone had not been tried because the officers to constitute
a court-martial could not be withdrawn from duty without serious
injury to the service, the President gave this public assurance:
"He will be allowed a trial without unnecessary delay: the charges
and specifications will be furnished him in due season, and every
facility for his defense will be afforded him by the War Department."
This message on its face bears evidence that it was prepared at
the War Department, and that Mr. Lincoln acted upon assurances
furnished by Mr. Stanton. The arrest was made upon his "general"
authority, and clearly not from any specific information he possessed.
But the effect of the message was to preclude any further attempt
at intervention by Congress. Indeed the assurance that General
Stone should be tried "without unnecessary delay" was all that
could be asked. But the promise made to the ear was broken to the
hope, and General Stone was left to languish without a word of
intelligence as to his alleged offense, and without the slightest
opportunity to meet the accusers who in the dark had convicted him
without trial, subjected him to cruel punishment, and exposed him
to the judgment of the world as a degraded criminal.
Release from imprisonment came at last by the action of Congress,
coercing the Executive Department to the trial or discharge of
General Stone. In the Act of July 17, 1862, "defining the pay and
emolument of certain officers," a section was inserted declaring
that "whenever an officer shall be put under arrest, except at
remote military posts, it shall be the duty of the officer by whose
orders he is arrested to see that a copy of the charges shall be
served upon him within eight days thereafter, and that he shall be
brought to trial within ten days thereafter unless the necessities
of the service prevent such trial; and then he shall be brought to
trial within thirty days after the expiration of said ten days, or
the arrest shall cease." The Act reserved the right to try the
officer at any time within twelve months after his discharge from
arrest, and by a _proviso_ it was made to apply "to all persons
now under arrest and waiting trial." The bill had been pending
several months, having been originally reported by Senator Wilson
before General Stone's arrest.
The provision of the Act applicable to the case of General Stone
was only a full enforcement by law of the seventy-ninth article of
war, which declared that "no officer or soldier who shall be put
in arrest shall continued in confinement more than eight days, or
until such time as a court-martial can be assembled." It was a
direct violation of the spirit of this article, and a cruel straining
of its letter, to consign General Stone to endless or indefinite
imprisonment. Any man of average intelligence in the law--and
Secretary Stanton was eminent in his profession--would at once say
that the time beyond the eight days allowed for assembling a court-
martial must be a reasonable period, and that an officer was entitled
to prompt trial, or release from arrest. The law now passed was
imperative. Withing eight days the arrested officer must be notified
of the charges against him, within ten days he must be tried, and
"if the necessities of the service prevent a trial" within thirty
days after the ten, the officer is entitled to an absolute discharge.
General Stone's case fell within the justice and the mercy of the
law. The eight days within which he should be notified of the
charges against him had been long passed; the ten days had certainly
expired; but by the construction of the War Department the victim
was still in the power that wronged him for thirty days more. From
the 17th of July, thirty days were slowly told off until the 16th
of August was at last reached, and General Stone was once more a
free man. He had been one hundred and eighty-nine days in prison,
and was at last discharged by the limitation of the statute without
a word of exculpation or explanation. The routine order simply
recited that "the necessities of the service not permitting the
trial, within the time required by law, of Brigadier-General Charles
P. Stone, now confined in Fort Lafayette, the Secretary of War
directs that he be released from arrest."
GENERAL STONE FINALLY RELEASED.
The order simply turned him adrift. He was a Colonel in the Regular
Army and a Brigadier-General in the volunteer service; and the
Secretary, according to the rule of the War Department, should have
given him some instruction,--either assigning him to duty or
directing him to report at some place and await orders. Thinking
it might be an omission, General Stone telegraphed the War Department
that he had the honor "to report for duty." He waited five days
in New York for an answer, and receiving none repaired to Washington.
Reporting promptly at the office of the Adjutant-General, he was
told they had no orders for him, and knew nothing about his arrest.
He then applied to General McClellan, on the eve of the Antietam
campaign, for permission to serve with the army. General McClellan
on the 7th of September wrote to Secretary Stanton that he would
be glad to avail himself of General Stone's services and that he
had "no doubt as to his loyalty and devotion." No answer was
returned by the War Department. On the 25th of September General
Stone, still eager to confront his accusers, applied to General-in-
Chief Halleck for a copy of any charges or allegations against him,
and the opportunity of promptly meeting them. He reminded the
general that two hundred and twenty-eight days had elapsed since
his arrest, and that if he were to be tried for any offense those
who had served under him must be the witnesses of his conduct, and
that from battle and disease these witnesses were falling by hundreds
and thousands; the casualties were so great indeed that his command
was already reduced one-half. General Halleck replied that he had
no official information of the cause of General Stone's arrest,
and that so far as he could ascertain no charges or specifications
were on file against him.
Several weeks later, on the 1st of December, 1862, General Stone
applied to General McClellan, calling his attention to the Act of
July 17, under which any officer arrested had the right to "a copy
of the charges against him within eight days." He therefore
respectfully requested General McClellan, as the officer who ordered
the arrest, to furnish him a copy of the charges. General McClellan
replied on the 5th of December that the order for arrest had been
given him by the Secretary of War, who told him it was at the
solicitation of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, and based
on testimony taken by them. He further informed General Stone that
he had the order, in the handwriting of Secretary Stanton, several
days before it was carried into effect, and added the following
somewhat remarkable statement: "On the evening when you were
arrested I submitted to the Secretary of War the written result of
the examination of a refugee from Leesburg. This information to
a certain extent agreed with the evidence stated to have been taken
by the Committee, and upon its being imparted to the Secretary he
again instructed me to cause you to be arrested, which I at once
did." This discloses the fact that General McClellan was cognizant
of the character of the testimony submitted against General Stone,
and so rigidly withheld from the knowledge of the person most
interested. On receipt of General McClellan's note, General Stone
immediately asked him for the name of the Leesburg refugee and for
a copy of his statement. A member of General McClellan's staff
answered the inquiry, stating that the general "does not recollect
the name of the refugee, and the last time he recollects seeing
that statement was at the War Department immediately previous to
your arrest." General Stone, victim of the perversity which had
uniformly attended the case, was again baffled. He was never able
to see the statement of the "refugee" or even to get his name,
though, according to General McClellan, the testimony of the
refugee was the proximate and apparently decisive cause of General
Stone's arrest.
General Stone applied directly to the President, asking "if he
could inform me why I was sent to Fort Lafayette." The President
replied that "if he told me all he knew about it he should not tell
me much." He stated that while it was done under his general
authority, he did not do it. The President referred General Stone
to General Halleck who stated that the arrest was made on the
recommendation of General McClellan. This was a surprise to General
Stone, for General McClellan had but recently written him that he
had full confidence in his devotion and loyalty. General Halleck
replied that he knew of that letter, and that "the Secretary of
War had expressed great surprise at it because he said that General
McClellan himself had recommended the arrest, and now seemed to be
pushing the whole thing on his [the secretary's] shoulders." The
search for the agency that would frankly admit responsibility was
rendered still more difficult by the denial of the Committee on
the Conduct of the War that the arrest had ever been recommended
by them, either collectively or individually. They had simply
forwarded to the Secretary of War such evidence as was submitted
to them.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ARREST.
General Stone appeared before the Committee on the Conduct of the
War on the 27th of February, 1863--nearly five months after his
release from imprisonment. He was allowed to see the testimony
which had hitherto been withheld from him, and answered all the
accusations in detail with convincing candor and clearness. As he
proceeded in his triumphant response to all the accusations against
him, the committee said "Why did you not give us these explanations
when you were here before?"--"Because," replied General Stone, "if
the chairman will remember, the committee did not state to me the
particular cases. . . . I gave general answers to general allegations."
General Stone stated further to the committee that he ought himself
to have asked for a Court of Inquiry after the reverse at Ball's
Bluff. "The reason why I did not," he continued, "was this: While
General McClellan was at Edward's Ferry, he showed me a telegram
which he had written to the President to the effect that he had
examined into the affair at Ball's Bluff and that General Stone
was entirely without blame." "After the expression of that opinion,"
said General Stone, "it would not have been respectful to ask for
a Court of Inquiry. It was given by the highest authority and sent
to the highest authority, and as a soldier I had no right to ask
for justification except of my superiors." Subsequently, on the
occasion of Mr. Conkling's speech "severely criticising" General
Stone's conduct in connection with the affair at Ball's Bluff, the
General applied to the aide-de-camp of General McClellan, as likely
to be informed of the Commander's wishes, to know if he "should
ask for a Court of Inquiry," and the reply was "No." He then asked
if he should make a statement correcting the mistakes in Mr.
Conkling's speech. The reply was "Write nothing; say nothing; keep
quiet." The committee asked General Stone, as a military man, "Who
had the power to bring you to trial?" He answered "When I was
arrested, the General-in-Chief, General McClellan, had that power.
I know I should claim that power if any man under my command were
arrested."
GENERAL STONE'S RESIGNATION.
The responsibility for the arrest and imprisonment of General Stone
must, according to the official record of the case, rest on Secretary
Stanton, Major-General McClellan, and the Committee on the Conduct
of the War. It is very clear that Mr. Lincoln, pressed by a thousand
calls and placing implicit confidence in these three agencies, took
it for granted that ample proof existed to justify the extraordinary
treatment to which General Stone was subjected. General Stone is
not to be classed in that long list of private citizens temporarily
confined without the benefit of _habeas corpus_, on the charge of
sympathizing with the Rebellion. The situation of those persons
more nearly assimilates with that of prisoners of war. It differs
totally from the arrest of General Stone in that the cause of
detention was well known and very often proudly avowed by the person
detained. The key of their prison was generally in the hands of
those who were thus confined,--an honest avowal of loyalty and an
oath of allegiance to the National Government securing their release.
If they could not take the oath they were justifiably held, and
were no more injured in reputation than the millions with whose
daring rebellion they sympathized. But to General Stone the
government permitted the gravest crime to be imputed. A soldier
who will betray his command belongs by the code of all nations to
the most infamous class--his death but feebly atoning for the injury
he has inflicted upon his country. It was under the implied
accusation of this great guilt that General Stone was left in duress
for more than six weary months, deprived of all power of self-
defense, denied the inherited rights of the humblest citizen of
the Republic. In the end, not gracefully but tardily, and as it
seemed grudgingly, the government was compelled to confess its own
wrong and to do partial justice to the injured man by restoring
him to honorable service under the flag of the Nation. No reparation
was made to him for the protracted defamation of his character, no
order was published acknowledging that he was found guiltless, no
communication was ever made to him by National authority giving
even a hint of the grounds on which for half a year he was pilloried
before the nation as a malefactor. The wound which General Stone
received was deep. From some motive, the source of which will
probably remain a mystery, his persecution continued in many petty
and offensive ways, until he was finally driven, towards the close
of the war, when he saw that he could be no longer useful to his
country, to tender his resignation. It was promptly accepted. He
found abroad the respect and consideration which had been denied
him at home, and for many years he was Chief of the General Staff
to the Khedive of Egypt.
It is not conceivable that the flagrant wrong suffered by General
Stone was ever designed by any one of the eminent persons who share
the responsibility for its infliction. They were influenced by
and largely partook of the popular mania which demanded a victim
to atone for a catastrophe. The instances in which this disposition
of the public mind works cruel injury are innumerable, and only
time, and not always time, seems able to render justice. Too often
the object of popular vengeance is hurried to his fate, and placed
beyond the pale of that reparation which returning reason is eager
to extend. Fortunately the chief penalty of General Stone was the
anguish of mind, the wounding of a proud spirit. His case will
stand as a warning against future violations of the liberty which
is the birthright of every American, and against the danger of
appeasing popular clamor by the sacrifice of an innocent man.
Throughout the ordeal, General Stone's bearing was soldierly. He
faced accusation with equanimity and endured suffering with fortitude.
He felt confident of ultimate justice, for he knew that it is not
the manner of his countrymen "to deliver any man to die before that
he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license
to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him."