CH. XIX.] LINCOLN'S PAINFUL PERPLEXITY 201 Burnside's energy took an almost frenzied turn. In spite of the disaffection in his army, which extended from the highest generals to the privates, he decided to cross the river a few miles below Fredericksburg and again attack the Confederates. He had already commenced operations when the President, to whom had been brought home vividly the feeling in the army towards its commander, sent him this despatch: "I have good reason for saying that you must not make a general movement of the army without letting me know." He suspended the orders for the advance and went immediately to Washington. The knowledge that we have of his conferences with the President, the Secretary of War, and the General-in-Chief show us Burnside perturbed, Stanton and Halleck lacking judgment and decision and unequal to the responsibility that should have been theirs, and Lincoln in a state of painful perplexity which seemed to reach, on New Year's Day, 1863, a culmination. Burnside told the President that Stanton and Halleck "had not the confidence of the officers and soldiers," nor, in his belief, of the country at large. He intimated strongly that they ought to be removed, while he himself "ought to retire to private life." The President, harassed by doubts, wrote to Halleck with pardonable irritation, saying, in effect, Do come to some decision in regard to General Burnside's plan of advance. "Your military skill is useless to me if you will not do this." This resulted in an offer of resignation of his place by the General-in-Chief and the withdrawal of the letter by the President "because considered harsh by General Halleck." 2 No determination was reached. Burnside returned to the army, where, in spite of the almost unanimous opposition of his general officers, he resolved upon another crossing of the river, and wrote the President to this effect, enclosing his resignation in case the movement were disapproved. Lincoln gave a qualified consent, adding an injunction different 1 O. R., vol. xxi. p. 900. 2 Ibid., p. 940 et seq. from that he had been accustomed to send McClellan: "Be cautious and do not understand that the government or country is driving you." He said further, "I do not yet see how I could profit by changing the command of the Army of the Potomac." Burnside prepared for an advance. Franklin said that success was impossible. Hooker, as free and emphatic in the criticism of his present commander as he had been of McClellan, declared that the projected movement was absurd, and the chances of failure nineteen to one. Officers and privates generally agreed with Franklin and Hooker. It was fortunate that the elements interfered in their favor. A severe storm occurred, and rain fell without ceasing. Burnside, tormented by lack of sleep, still persisted with desperate energy. The orders to march were given, but the deep mud made it impossible to move the artillery, the pontoons, the ammunition and supply wagons. The Confederates on the other side of the river bantered the Union pickets, asking if they should not come over and help build the bridges. The movement known in the annals of the army as the "mud campaign" was perforce abandoned, yet Burnside was still stubborn and his excitement did not abate. He prepared an order removing Hooker, Franklin, and many other officers of the army. He went to see the President, and asked for the approval of this order or the acceptance of his resignation as major-general. The President took time for reflection, and concluded to relieve Burnside and place Hooker in command of the Army of the Potomac.8 1 Jan. 8, 1863, O. R., vol. xxi. p. 954. 2 General Order No. 8, Jan. 23, ibid., p. 998. The same order relieved Sumner at his own request; and also Franklin. It was one of the unfortunate results of Fredericksburg that Franklin, who had undoubted military talent, was lost to the service. The Committee on the Conduct of the War injured him in the public estimation by reporting that if he had attacked the enemy in sufficient force, "the plan of General Burnside would have been completely successful." - C. W., part i. p. 67. But see Palfrey, pp. 174-182. "The press has now killed McClellan, Buell, Fitz John Porter, Sumner, Franklin, and Burnside. Add my name and I am not ashamed of the association. If the press can govern the country, CH. XIX.] THE CABINET CRISIS 203 The disaster of Fredericksburg caused a cabinet crisis, as it is described by the contemporary authorities, with deference to English political phraseology. But the procedure when a calamity of state seems to call for radical action shows the difference between the English and the American constitutions. Lincoln was the head of the administration, the commander-in-chief of the armies, and if any one 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. Suppose English conditions to have obtained and Lincoln to have been prime minister. Congress would probably have voted a want of confidence in him and his ministry; his resignation or an appeal to the country would have followed. But as Lincoln said September 22 and might still have said: "I do not know that, all things considered, any other person has more" of the confidence of the people than I have; "and however this may be, there is no way let them fight the battles."-Gen. Sherman to his brother, Feb., 1863, Sherman Letters, p. 189. He had written, Jan. 17, "I hope the politicians will not interfere with Halleck. You [the politicians] have driven off McClellan, and is Burnside any better? Buell is displaced. Is Rosecrans any faster? His victory at Murfreesboro [Stone's River] is dearly bought.”. Ibid., p. 182. My authorities for this account are the Union and Confederate correspondence, O. R., vol. xxi.; reports of Halleck, Burnside, Sumner, Hooker, Franklin, Couch, Hancock, Butterfield, Humphreys, Reynolds, Meade, Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, ibid.; testimony of Halleck, Burnside, Sumner, Hooker, Meigs, Franklin, Meade, Reynolds, Parke, Newton, Cochrane, C. W., part i.; Ropes's Civil War, part ii.; Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi.; Palfrey, Antietam and Fredericksburg; Allan, Army of Nor. Va.; Walker, Second Army Corps, Life of Hancock; Long, Life of Lee; Mrs. Jackson, Life of Jackson; Dabney, Life of Jackson; Taylor, Four Years with Gen. Lee; articles of Longstreet, Couch, W. F. Smith, McLaws, Century War Book, vol. iii.; Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox; Franklin, Reply to Committee on Conduct of the War; Moore, Reb. Rec., vol. x.; Swinton, Army of the Potomac; Letter of London Times correspondent from Lee's Headquarters, Dec. 12, 13, 1862; N. Y. Tribune, Dec. 16, 17, World, 17, 18, Times, 17, Herald, 17, 18; Chicago Tribune, Dec. 17, 18; Boston Eve. Transcript, Dec. 17, 18, Advertiser, Dec. 18, 1862. I am in which I can have any other man put where 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 a caucus of Republican senators, assuming to speak for a majority of their party and of the nation, reverted unconsciously to earlier English precedents, and gave as a formal opinion that the failure of a vigorous and successful prosecution of the war was due to the fact that the President was badly advised by his cabinet ministers. Most of these senators thought that the clog to the administration was Seward, and at their first meeting they passed, although not by a unanimous vote, a resolution declaring that the welfare of the country required his withdrawal from the cabinet. Later, in order to obtain practical unanimity, this resolution was reconsidered and a substitute adopted which asked such changes to be made among the President's constitutional advisers as would secure "in the present crisis of public affairs" better results in the war waged "to suppress a causeless and atrocious rebellion." The radical senators, a prey to long-continued irritation at Seward's conservatism of the last two years and especially embittered at a confidential letter of his to Adams,1 recently published, saw in the resolution nothing more than a demand for his dismissal, while the conservatives probably hoped that a reconstruction of the cabinet might result also in the retirement of one or both of the representative radical members, Chase and Stanton. From his friend Senator Preston King of New York, Seward heard of the action of the senatorial caucus and immediately sent his resignation to the President. December 19 2 a committee of nine senators appointed by the war 1 "It seems as if the extreme advocates of African slavery and its most vehement opponents were acting in concert together to precipitate a servile the former by making the most desperate attempts to overthrow the federal Union, the latter by demanding an edict of universal emancipation as a lawful and necessary, if not, as they say, the only legitimate, way of saving the Union." Letter of July 5, Message and Dip. Corr., p. 124. 2 I follow the date given by Nicolay and Hay. The Washington corre CH. XIX.] THE CABINET CRISIS 205 caucus waited upon Lincoln, presented their formal conclusions, and urged that a change be made in the department of State. The pith of the interview was given in the report he made of it the same day to his cabinet. "While they seemed to believe in my honesty," he said, "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." At this conference with his cabinet advisers, he asked them to meet him again in the evening, and having made a similar appointment with the committee of senators, the two parties came together with equal surprise. Seward of course was not of the company, and one of the senators was absent. A frank interchange of views took place. Feeling that the fate of the nation was perhaps at stake, the senators were open in their criticism of the cabinet and forcible in their attack upon Seward. The cabinet ministers made an energetic defence. The President acted as moderator, but, knowing that the maxim, the king can do no wrong, had no place in American politics, he understood that the prosecutors were indirectly finding fault with himself. The conference was stormy and lasted long. Finally Lincoln said: "Do you, gentlemen, still think Seward ought to be excused?" Sumner, Trumbull, Grimes, and Pomeroy said "Yes." Collamer, Fessenden, and Howard would not vote, and Harris [of New York] said "No." 3 The most important result of the meeting was that it induced Secretary Chase to resign his portfolio the next day.1 In conversation, in private correspondence, in the confidences to his diary, he had dealt censure unrestrained to the President's conduct of the war. At this conference he was therefore between two fires. To be consistent with his spondent of the N. Y. Tribune wrote that this interview took place the evening of the 18th, but the difference is not material. 1 Nicolay and Hay, vol. vi. p. 265; see, also, Joseph Medill to Colfax, Life of Colfax, Hollister, p. 200. |