206

FINANCES

[1863

Fredericksburg, to the excellent reorganization of the Army of the Potomac and to the known confidence of the President and his Cabinet in ultimate success.

When Congress had assembled in December, the nation's finances were at a low ebb. Many of the soldiers had not been paid for five months, and to them all the paymaster was at least three months in arrears, so that by January 7, 1863, the amount due the army and navy had probably reached the sum of sixty millions. The bonds of the government were not selling. Now all was changed. The Secretary of the Treasury had devised a plan for offering the five-twenty bonds to popular subscription through the employment of a competent and energetic general agent, who, by a system of sub-agencies, wide advertising, and other business methods, appealed to the mingled motives of patriotism and self-interest and induced the people to lend large sums of money to the Government. An impetus was given to this process by the general character of the financial legislation of Congress, and in particular by the clause in the nine hundred million dollar loan act which limited to July 1 the privilege of exchanging legal-tender notes for five-twenty bonds. Immediately after the adjournment of Congress the confidence of the people began to show itself through the purchase of these securities. By the end of March, Chase told Sumner that he was satisfied with the condition of the finances, and ere three more months had passed, he could see that his popular loan was an assured success. The subscriptions averaged over three million dollars a day. The Germans were likewise buying our bonds. On April 26, Sumner wrote to the Duchess of Argyll "The Secretary of War told me yesterday that our rolls showed eight hundred thousand men under arms all of them paid to February 28, better clothed and better

we have a credit which is adequate to all our needs."

On January 1, 1863, Burnside told the President that neither Stanton nor Halleck had the confidence of the officers and soldiers and in effect urged their removal, saying at the same time that he himself "ought to retire to private life." Four days afterward by letter from his headquarters, he offered his resignation as Major-General, to which the President replied, "I do not yet see how I could profit by changing the command of the Army of the Potomac."

Shortly after midnight of January 23, Burnside had an interview with the President, in which he asked him to approve an order dismissing Hooker from the military service of the United States on account of "having been guilty of unjust and unnecessary criticisms of the action of his superior officers . . . and of having made reports and statements which were calculated to create incorrect impressions" and in short being "a man unfit to hold an important commission during a crisis like the present.' The order further punished by dismissal three brigadier-generals and relieved from duty Generals Franklin, W. F. Smith and a number of others. Approve this order, said Burnside, or accept my resignation as major-general. On the morning of January 25, the President summoned Stanton and Halleck to the White House and told them that he had decided to relieve Burnside and place Hooker in command of the Army of the Potomac. He asked no advice from either and none was offered.1

Previously Lincoln had talked more than once with

1 O. R., XXI, 941, 944, 954, 998, 1004, 1009; C. W., Pt. 1, 718. Burnside was persuaded to withdraw his resignation and the order therefore ran that he was relieved at his own request from the command of the Army of the Potomac.

208

HOOKER

[1863

members of his Cabinet concerning Hooker. "Who can take command of this Army?" he asked Welles after the second Battle of Bull Run. "Who is there among all these generals?" Without much consideration Welles replied, "Hooker." The President looked approving, but said, "I think as much as you or any other man of Hooker but I fear he gets excited." Blair remarked, "He is too great a friend of John Barleycorn"; whereupon Welles: "If his habits are bad, if he ever permits himself to get intoxicated, he ought not to be trusted with such a command." After the appointment, Welles wrote in his Diary, "I am surprised at his selection."

In his discouragement and growing irritability, Lincoln permitted himself to be guided by public sentiment which had been so serviceable in political affairs; he felt that a vote of the rank and file of the army and of the Northern people would have plainly indicated, “Fighting Joe Hooker.” It is true, as Lincoln wrote in a private letter, that “in considering military merit the world has abundant evidence that I disregard politics";1 and up to this time and afterwards, he showed his respect for the West Point education, although he did not rate it as high as we do at the present day. But in forming our opinion we have behind us the total experience of the Civil War and the records of both sides which attest by severe and thorough practice the inestimable value of the training of our Military Academy.

Although Hooker was a graduate of West Point and had proved an excellent division and corps commander, his appointment to the chief command should never have been considered. Halleck was opposed to it and Stanton, it is said, backed him in his opposition.2 Most of the “old 1 Lincoln, C. W., II, 252.

2 C. W., 1865, I, 175; B. & L., III, 239.

regular officers" were "decided in their hostility to him." Meade, whose opinion was more favorable than that of his associates, thought Hooker "a very good soldier and a capital officer to command an army corps," but doubted "his qualifications to command a large army.'

All the objections to Hooker were known in Washington, and it is surprising that they were not formulated to the President, inasmuch as there were two generals in the Army of the Potomac, John F. Reynolds and George G. Meade, either of whom in respect of character, training and ability was properly qualified for the command. After Fredericksburg it was evident that a change should be made and these generals were both talked of for the place. Reynolds did not want the command and probably would not have accepted it, but if he, Couch and Sedgwick 2 had been called in council by the President or by Stanton and Halleck (an easy matter, as they were only a few hours' journey from Washington), they would unanimously have recommended Meade and, though his seniors,3 would have offered cheerfully to serve under his command. Meade's correspondence with his wife and son is crowning evidence that he would have been an admirable selection. Devotion to his wife and children and religious faith were the distinguishing marks of his private character; and his earnest thought on the conditions of the conflict remind one of the common

1 General Meade, I, 318, 351.

2 Sedgwick commanded the 9th corps at the time of Burnside's resignation. Hooker took command on Jan. 26, 1863, and Sedgwick was transferred to the 6th Corps (with which his name is usually associated) on Feb. 5.

Sedgwick and Couch having been made major-generals on July 4, 1862 outranked Meade. Reynolds and Meade became major-generals on Nov. 29, 1862; but Reynolds is placed just ahead of Meade in the rank list.

4 Published in 1913.

P

210

HOOKER

MEADE

[1863

sense view of Lincoln and of Grant. "This war will never be terminated," he wrote, "until one side or the other has been well whipped and this result cannot be brought about except by fighting." He was popularly known as a fighting general" and stood well with the officers of the army. On the other hand, Wade, Chandler and Covode, Radical members of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, treated him with "great distinction," for he was sound according to the Radical touchstone by virtue of his willingness to command negro troops.1 Meade could have been better known in Washington in January, 1863, than we can now know him up to that time through his private correspondence; hence it must be concluded that Hooker's appointment was an instance of the popular voice overbearing expert opinion. "A superior intellect and long and hard study are required to make an efficient commander," wrote William R. Livermore. Doubt could not exist on January 1, 1863, that, as tried by this standard, Meade's worth was much greater than Hooker's.

2

When Hooker took command, the Army of the Potomac was depressed to a degree that seemed almost hopeless. Desertions were of "alarming frequency." The new general went energetically to work to alter this condition and made his eminent talent for organization felt throughout the army. "The sullen gloom of the camps soon disappeared," wrote Schurz, "and a new spirit of pride and hope began to pervade the ranks." 3 "The morale of our Army is better than it ever was," wrote Meade to his wife on March 30, "so you may look out for tough fighting next time."4 Early in April the President looking "careworn and exhausted" paid Hooker a visit, reviewed the whole

1 General Meade, I, 340, 347, 349, 356, 365.

3 Schurz, Reminiscences, II, 403.

2 Letterman, 101. 4 General Meade, I, 362.