Copyright Hy Willism J{*N Ulrich
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright hy Willism J { * n Ulrich i960 THE HCKTHERN MILITARY MIBD IM RBSARD TO RECOHSTRaCTlOH, 1865-1872: THE ATTITUDES OF TEN LEADBKj UMIŒ GENERALS DISSERTATIOH Presented in Partial Fulfillnsent of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Phi losopby in the Graduate School of the Oiio State University By m U A M JŒ3N ULRICH, B.A., H.Ac The Ohio State University 19^9 Approved by AdviS D^artment of History ACKBiaWLEDGMEIfrS The writer must acknowledge his indebtedness to many indivi duals idio were of significant help to him in the preparation and cOTçletîon of this manuscript. ^ thanks must go to Professor Henry H. Simms, History Department, of the Ohio State University, It was he who first introduced me to the subject, and gave invaluable and suggestive advice during all stages of the work. Words cannot express adequately sy p r e d a t i o n for the vast services rendered by the staff of the Ohio State University Library, especially the Interlibrary Loan department. The staff of the Library of Congress gave ^lendid assistance as did Mr. Drag and Mr. DePorry of the Manuscripts Division. Mr. Boyer of the Bcwdoia College Library was very cooperative in permitting me to make use of the Howard Psmers. Special thanks are again extended to Mr. Blanchette and staff of the Essex Institute located at Salem, Massachusetts. They allowed me to inspect the Banks Papers. It is nearly icfflossible to say "thank you" enough to my dearest mother for all her sacrifices and words of inspiration. Like wise a sincere ^>preciation for all her assistance, encouragement and understanding is due my beloved wife. The author, while acknowledging the above assistance, accepts complete responsibility for any mistakes in the manuscript. ¥.J.U. ii TABLE OF COKTEBITS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1 II. GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT..................... 3 III. GENERAL UTNFIELD S. HANCOCK .................... Ii6 IV, GENERAL OLIVER G . HOWARD........................ 76 V. GENERAL JOHN >!. SCHOFIELD................... .113 VI. GENERAL PHILIP K. SHERIDAN..................... ikS VII. GENERAL î-JILLIAI'î T. SHERMAN..................... 179 VIII. GENERAL GEORGE H. THOMAS....................... 208 IX. GENERAL NATHANIEL P. BANKS..................... 21-2 X. GENERAL BENJAMIN F. FuTLÇR..................... 285 XI. GENERAL JOHN A. LOGAN..........................339 XII. CONCLUSIONS................................... 368 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 375 AUTOBIOGRAPHY......................................... 392 111 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIOQ It is the intention of the author to portray historically a cross section of the Northern military mind in its relations to the Southern question, 1865-1872. Ten leading Uniœi generals lave been studied to obtain this attitude. It was found necessary at times to consider subjects before and after the period mentioned in order to clarify or complete more fully a topic. Excluding these departures, I have confined myself to the period of reconstruction commencing with the end of the conflict and ending with the year l8?2o The attitudes of these individuals in regard to the Southern problem clearly crystaSized during this span of eight years. An attempt has been made to deal with the Negro problem, civil rights, labor relations, military governments and other questions related to reconstruction in the South. Since sœne significant military leaders were not included in this stuc^— such, for instance, as Meade, Pope and Sickles— «le might ask what criteria were established for selecting the generals considered. The large amount of material, published and unpublished, suggests these ten officers as the leading and most representative ones in the field. The availability of the material also had to be considered as well as the fact that every writer of history has limitations of time and space. Banks, Butler and Logan were not West Point men while the other seven were graduates of that institu- tioa, and, in varying degrees, all analyzed the Southern situation. In a work of this scope, the author was tempted at times to pursue a subject beyond the limits of the topic, lihen handling the chuter on General 0. 0. Howard, for exançîe, an effort had to be mads to refrain from delving too far into purely Freedman* s Bureau affairs. The latter were considered only as they ha^. s ?se relation to the general's opinions on recœistructio; ^ South. In discussing General Grant the writer has tried to detk. œaîy with issues that might show his attitude toward the prdblems of the South and its reunion with the Horth. A considerable amount of state history and politics had to be left cut Then handling General Sheridan. Much that was wholly political, though very Interesting, had to be eliminated from the ch^ters on Generals Bai&s, Butler, and Logan. One must remember that this is not a full account of the reconstruction of the South, but a narrative of wxat ten Union generals thought of the problems of that complicated era of United States history. Now that the fratricidal struggle was over, how would these military men bdiave and think? Would they be harsh and vindictive or mild and magnanimous? CHAPTER II GENERAL ULYSSES S. G R M T Iî>. any discussion of General U. S. Grant's attitude toward the South during the period of reconstruction, it would be well to give a few background facts regarding his politics. The graduate of West Point appeared to have been little cœïcemed about politics. The first vote idiich he cast was for James Buchanan in 1856. It has been stated that he voted in this fashion "because he had no confi- 1 dence in the capacity of Colonel Fremont. ..." Even though he ted decided to support the Democratic candidate, he could not be classi fied as a Democrat. He leaned to the views of moderate men as typified by Bell and Crittenden.^ "You may judge. that I am strongly identified with the Democratic party," Ulysses wrote to his father, "such is not the case. I never voted an out-and-out Demo cratic ticket in my life. I voted for Buchanan. to defeat Prémont but not because he was my first choice." The candidates were selected by him on the basis of their fitness for office.^ Ijames Grant Wilson, General Grant, 79» ^Charles A. Dana and James H. Wilson, The Life of Ulysses S. Grant, Gener^ of the Armies of the United States, itl. Hereafter^ this work will be cited as Dana and Wilson, Grant, General of the Armies* J. Cramer, Ulysses S. Grant, Conversations and Unpublished Letters, 2U. Sept. 237 “hereafter, this work will be cited as Cramer, Conversations and Letters. Even though Jesse Grant) his father, spoke at the Ohio Republican Convention in 1865,^ Ulysses vas still not an official Republican. A member of Grant's staff related that the general "had no strong political bias, and, . • no political ambition," but the ^Democrats claimed him; the Republicans distrusted him. Grant vas a strong unionist vhen the vsr betveen the States commenced. Writing from Corinth, Mississippi on August 3, 1862, to his fether the general said, "I am sure that I have but one desire in this var, and that is to put down the rebellion. I have no 'hobby' of ny own vith regard to the Segro."^ Grant vas kept under vraps in regard to political and other vievs during the conflict and for 7 s<Kae time after by his influential advisor, John A. Ravllns. It has been set forth by a public figure, vith long political e:q>erieace, that "General Grant was not a trained statesman. His methods of action were direct and clear. His conduct vas free from duplicity, 8 and artifice of every sort was foreign to his nature.” V h e New York Times, July 2, 1865. ^Adara Badeau, Grant in Peace. Fr«a Appomattox to Mount McGregor. A Personal Memoir, 33. Hereafter, this work will be cited as Bad'^tu, Grant in ^eace. ^Cramer, Grant, Conversations and Letters, 61. 7 James H. Wilson, The Life of John A. Rawlins, 1»32. Reminiscences . A r . slttitvdQ of moderation toward South Carolinians vas detected in Grant vken. he wrote to his sister, Mary, on April 29, 1861. In part, he informed her that Great allowance should be made for South Carolinians, for the last generation have been educated, from their infan^, to l o ^ upon their Government as oppressive and tyraani® cal and only to be endured till such time as t h ^ might have sufficient strength to strike it down. Toward the Old Dominion, however, he felt quite differently. "Virginia, and the other "border states, have no such excuse and are therefore 9 traitors at heart as veil as in act." The disposition of General Grant toward the late rebels and their States can be seen in his correspondence vith Lee before the final c^itulation at J^jpomattox. Grant in one of those letters called for the ending of hostilities, for a conclusion to the pouring of blood. He refdsed to accept the responsibility for any further action. The terms of surrender were written by him with sincere sytspatiiy for his proud antagonist. The officers were to give their prœaises not to have recourse to military action against the Korth until properly exchanged. The arms were to be turned over to the officers ^pointed by Grant, but this was not to include the officers* side arms or their baggage and horses. He further promised that officers and men of every rank would "be allowed to return to their hoaes, not to be disturbed by the United States authority so 9 Jesse Grant Cramer, Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to his Father and his Youngest Sister, 13^7-78, 29. ” long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside. The Cwfederate historian, Pollard, pointed out that the conduct of Grant "exhibited some extraordinary traits of magnanimity." The affair had been caaducted "with as much simpli city as possible.