Lincoln had given utterance to a similar thought, "Being

a humble instrument in the hands of our Heavenly Father

if I find my efforts fail, I must believe that for some purpose unknown to me He wills it otherwise." 1 And thus Meade, "It does seem as if Providence was against

The remainder of Burnside's service is marked by desperate energy on his part, making plans to retrieve the disaster by recrossing the river and attacking the Confederates again, by his officers' and soldiers' distrust of him and opposition to his projected offensive movement, by the inefficiency of Stanton and Halleck and the painful perplexity of the President, who restrained his general with this order, "You must not make a general movement of the Army without letting me know." Lincoln had a conference with Burnside in Washington at which Stanton and Halleck were present; but, being sadly in need of expert guidance which his Secretary and General-in-Chief were unable to supply, failed to reach a positive decision. Afterwards he gave a qualified consent to Burnside, who was still bent on crossing the river and delivering another attack. Very different now was his counsel from that which he had been accustomed to give McClellan. "Be cautious," he wrote to Burnside, "and do not understand that the country or government is driving you. Burnside moved his army four miles up the river. "The pontoons, artillery and all other accessories were up in time," wrote Meade, “and we all thought the next morning the bridges would be thrown over and we should be at it. But man proposes and God. disposes. About 9 P. M. a terrific storm of wind and rain set in and continued all night." 3 For the next two days

1 Lincoln, C. W., II, 243.

2 Nov. 13, General Meade, I, 327. 3 General Meade, I, 348.

CH. V

THE CABINET CRISIS

187

it rained incessantly, rendering the roads deep with mud and any movement impossible. But the interference of the elements was most undoubtedly to the advantage of the Union side; for an attack of Burnside's demoralized soldiers on Lee's compact and devoted army would have been merely a further wanton sacrifice of men. Carl Schurz wrote from the army to the President: "I am convinced the spirit of the men is systematically demoralized and the confidence in their chief systematically broken by several of the commanding-generals. I have heard generals, subordinate officers and men say they expect to be whipped anyhow, 'that all these fatigues and hardships are for nothing and that they might as well go home.' Add to this, that the immense army is closely packed together in the mud, that sickness is spreading at a frightful rate, that, in consequence of all these causes of discouragement, desertion increases every day - and you will not be surprised if you see the army melt away with distressing rapidity." 1

The disaster of Fredericksburg brought about a Cabinet crisis as it is called by the contemporary authorities in conformity with English political phraseology. But the procedure when a national calamity calls for prompt administrative action reveals a difference between the English and American constitutions. Lincoln was the head of the Administration, the Commander-in-Chief of the army, and, if anyone other than Burnside was responsible for the defeat on the Rappahannock, it was he. So declared the Democrats without reserve. The Republicans, too, in private conversation and confidential letters, expressed the same conviction, although in public they were cautious and reticent. If the American Government had been like

1 Schurz, Speeches, etc., I, 221.

188

LINCOLN AND SEWARD

[1862

the English, with Lincoln Prime Minister, Congress would probably have voted a want of confidence in him and he would then have resigned or appealed to the country. But as Lincoln had said on September 22, and might now have reiterated with equal force: "If I was satisfied that the public confidence was more fully possessed by anyone else than by me, and knew of any constitutional way in which he might be put in my place, he should have it. I would gladly yield it to him. But though I believe that I have not so much of the confidence of the people as I had some time since, I do not know that all things considered, any other person has more; and, however that may be, there is no way in which I can have any other man put where I am. I am here. I must do the best I can and bear the responsibility of taking the course which I feel I ought to take." In view of this constitutional limitation, the Republican senators in two successive caucuses, assuming to speak for a majority of their party and the nation, reverted unconsciously to earlier English precedents, and by word and deed plainly indicated their belief that the failure to prosecute the war with vigor and success arose from the President being badly advised and dominated by his Secretary of State. A committee of nine was appointed to present their view to the President, who arranged the meeting for the evening of December 18, and who was prepared for the attack, having received Seward's resignation on the previous day this the Secretary had sent him immediately on learning of the proceedings of the Senate caucus.

1

The conversation between the President and the senators was animated and free. Wade said that the conduct of the war was left mainly in the hands of men who had no sympathy with the cause, and that the Republicans of the

1 Warden, 482.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATORS

189

CH. V] West owed their defeat in the recent elections to the President having placed the direction of our military affairs in the hands of bitter and malignant Democrats (meaning McClellan, Buell and Halleck). Fessenden said that the Senate had entire confidence in the patriotism and integrity of the President, but that Republican senators were inclined to believe that the Secretary of State was not in accord with the majority of the Cabinet and exerted an injurious influence upon the conduct of the war. The officers of the regular army, largely pro-slavery men and strongly imbued with the Southern feeling, he continued, had little sympathy with the Republican party. "It was singularly unfortunate that almost every officer known as an anti-slavery man had been disgraced"; he instanced Frémont, Hunter, Mitchell and others. Sumner, Grimes and other senators expressed their lack of confidence in Seward.1

Next day the President told his Cabinet, who were all present except the Secretary of State, that "the point and pith" of the senators' complaint was of Seward; they charged him "if not with infidelity, with indifference, with want of earnestness in the war, with want of sympathy with the country and especially with a too great ascendancy and control of the President and measures of administration." 2 In more homely phrase he described the senators' attitude: "While they seemed to believe in my honesty, they also appeared to think that when I had in me any good purpose or intention Seward contrived to suck it out of me unperceived."3 Finally the President requested the members of his Cabinet to meet the senatorial committee that evening (December 19) at the White House. The senators came in response to his summons to continue the 2 Welles's Diary, I, 195.

1 Fessenden, I, 240.

3 N. & H., VI, 265.

190

THE CABINET AND SENATORS

[1862

conference of the previous evening, although somewhat surprised at having to treat with the members of the Cabinet (except Seward) as well as with the President. He opened the meeting with a defence of the Cabinet and the Administration. "Secretary Chase endorsed the President's statement fully and entirely."1 This was a surprise to the Radical senators who regarded Chase as their leader and had been influenced by his strictures of the President and the Secretary of State. But Chase when thus brought to bay found himself swayed by esprit de corps and by the thought that he and Seward had for many years wrought together in the anti-slavery cause; he therefore stood up manfully for the Secretary of State and for the rest of his associates. Grimes, Sumner and Trumbull were pointed, emphatic and unequivocal in their opposition to Seward, whose zeal and sincerity in this conflict they doubted; each was unrelenting and unforgiving. . . . The President managed his own case, speaking freely and showed great tact, shrewdness and ability. . . . He considered it most desirous to conciliate the senators with respectful deference whatever may have been his opinion of their interference." 2 Fessenden objected to discussing the merits or demerits of a member of the Cabinet in the presence of his associates, whereupon the members of the Cabinet withdrew; though it was nearly midnight, Fessenden and some of the senators remained. Fessenden said to the President: "You have asked my opinion upon Mr. Seward's removal. There is a current rumor that he has already resigned. If so, our opinions are of no consequence on that point." The President admitted that Seward had tendered his resignation, but added that he had not yet accepted it. "Then, sir, said Fessenden, "the question seems to be whether Mr.

1 Welles's Diary, I, 196.

2 Ibid., I, 197.