Such a campaign successfully executed at the moment Bragg's army began its march toward the Ohio River, might have proved fatal to the Union. Such a plan the Confederates attempted to execute when the Army of Virginia lay south of the Rappahannock, but were thwarted by its sudden withdrawal to the north bank. It was such a plan, and such a plan only, that was indicated by the appearance of one-half of the Confederate army in General Pope's rear on the 26th of August. This movement the same day was signaled to General Halleck by the telegraph and by the reports of railroad officials, who withdrew their trains toward Alexandria.

The next morning Taylor's brigade, sent by rail to open communication, met a fate not unlike Sacken's and St. Priest's in the campaign of 1814. The enemy's cavalry, screening his movements like a curtain, now appeared near Burke's Station and at Fairfax Court-House. On the 28th, General Haupt reported 20,000 men in and about Manassas the preceding evening. The same day, a colonel from the front reported a large force of the enemy at Fairfax Court-House. Lee and Stuart at the same time were said to be at Manassas, and rumors placing the enemy's forces at 120,000 men, indicated an immediate advance upon Washington and Baltimore.

To sift these reports and rumors, to ascertain where the enemy was and what was his force, there was no cavalry on the 26th and 27th, and up to the 29th, only two squadrons were available to cover the march of any force which might be ordered to repeat Taylor's experiment of the 27th. It is from facts like the above, that military men will judge whether it was likely that an infantry force, destitute of artillery and cavalry, and sent in search of an enemy reported from 20,000 to 120,000 strong, could have accomplished any other result than "the destruction of the troops sent out."

The criticisms on the march of Franklin's corps, have all been based on the assumption that there was a broad pike from Alexandria to Centreville, that this highway was all the time open, and that nothing prevented a junction with the hard-pressed Army of Virginia, save the indifference of the commander of the Army of the Potomac.

The facts as subsequently established were that, from the afternoon of the 26th, till the afternoon of the 28th, from 25,000 to 30,000 Confederates were on the direct line of communication with the Army of Virginia; that from the time General Pope reached Centreville, on the 28th, till the evening of the 29th, no positive information had been received as to his whereabouts; that his cavalry was so used up that not five horses per company could be forced into a trot; that he sent no despatch to the Government till the morning of the 30th, and that Franklin's corps, on the information derived on the night of the 29th, joined him on the 30th, part of it having marched 20 miles.

By no fault of the commander of the Army of Virginia, the opportunity to destroy the Confederate forces was offered and lost on the 28th. On the 29th, the opportunity was alleged to have been lost through the disobedience of General Porter, which has been already discussed. On the 30th, it was affirmed that a victory might still have been gained, had Franklin's corps obeyed the orders of the General in Chief. In answer to the last affirmation, there is but little doubt that had General Pope been able to send a despatch to the General in Chief, immediately on his arrival at Centreville, on the night of the 28th, not only Franklin's corps, but Sumner's, might have joined him,

not on the 30th, but on the 29th. To this want of information, and to nothing else, should be ascribed the failure of the entire Army of the Potomac to participate in the battle that was needlessly forced upon the country, by the effort to unite the two armies along the line of the Rappahannock.

The defenseless condition of the capital on the arrival of Franklin's corps deserves to be noticed. It will be remembered that the sole argument of the advocates of the overland route was that an army advancing in that direction would constantly cover the capital. Led on by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, General Pope testified to the same effect, and in answer to the question whether the forces in front of Washington "could all have left the city with safety to move upon Richmond," replied: "Every man of them." So strictly were his views in accord with those of the War Department, that he was permitted in August, to reduce the garrison to 5,989 men, of whom 2,235 were militia whose term of service would expire before the end of the month."

Of the remaining 3,700, 2,072 experienced artillerymen were also under orders to move to the front, leaving a total of 1,682 as against the 73,000 designated the previous April by the commander of the Army of the Potomac.

With a garrison thus reduced to less than 20,000 men vaguely relying on the arrival of new levies, the sudden appearance of 25,000 Confederates on the plains of Manassas, is the best proof that can be afforded that the order to withdraw the Army of the Potomac from the Peninsula, instead of facilitating the junction of our forces, served no other purpose than to invite the immediate destruction of the Army of Virginia, on whose fate naturally depended the safety of the capital.

a Barnard's Defenses of Washington, p. 105.

CHAPTER XXIV.

RELATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC.

It cannot be supposed that General McClellan, first deposed as General in Chief, was unmoved when he saw the gradual disintegration of his army. He knew, as did the country, by whom it had been done, and when, after vain appeals for reenforcements, he saw himself about to be overwhelmed, as he believed, by an army double his own numbers, he told the Secretary plainly, "The Government has not sustained this army."a

Up to this time, the conflict between the commander and the Secreretary was at least military in appearance, but after the conclusion of the Seven Days' Battles, the unfortunate Harrison's Bar letter introduced a political element which speedily outweighed every military consideration.

The commander, as we have seen, wrote to the President, "a declaration of radical views, especially upon slavery, will rapidily disintegrate our present armies."

He did not realize that opinions had changed. Thousands who voted for the President in the preceding November were opposed to slavery, but had no thought of disturbing it where it already existed. The war opened their eyes; the people at once became radical, radical as to the Union and radical as to slavery, which, thoroughly at variance with the underlying principles of our institutions, was now threatening to destroy them.

The events of this period cannot be comprehended without a glance at our political history. From the beginning to the end of the War of 1812 both parties maneuvered for the Presidential succession. At the beginning of the Mexican War, the General in Chief, a Presidential aspirant in the opposition party, was left unemployed for nearly six months. When finally given the command of the army, which he so brilliantly led to the enemy's capital, he scarcely ever differed in opinion from the Administration, without impugning its motives and attributing its action to political considerations."

Although a recognized and avowed Presidential candidate, a circum- · stance which must always serve to discredit a commander, it could not be supposed, in a foreign war, that a General in Chief would forego

a Despatch to the Secretary of War, June 28, 1862.

It happened in the Mexican War that the two heroes, Generals Scott and Taylor, entertained political opinions opposed to the Administration. Both, during the war, were mentioned for the Presidency, and at times both reproached the Administration with the desire to sacrifice themselves and their armies. To appropriate the credit for closing the war, the supporters of the Administration at one time proposed to create the office of Lieutenant-General, to be filled not by a soldier, but by the distinguished Senator, Thomas H. Benton.

any opportunity to strike for the honor of his flag. There might be politics in the Cabinet and in Congress, but there could be no politics in an army facing the foe. Equally absurd would it be to accuse an Administration of wishing to sacrifice a commander. Military triumphs might not insure political success, but to encourage defeat would be simply political suicide.

While an Administration might safely trust a political opponent to command an army in a foreign war, the case in a civil war was entirely different. Party lines, which were at first drawn for the Union, were now drawn for the Union and the extirpation of slavery.

It is a well-known fact that in all representative governments professional party leaders usually care more for power than principle. This class within the Administration, already recognized the commander of the Army of the Potomac as the favorite of the opposition. They remembered, too, that notwithstanding the successful termination of the Mexican War, the opposition captured the Presidency by taking a soldier for a leader. It was not surprising, therefore, that they should have demanded that the future candidate be removed at once. But behind the leaders who wished to serve the party, were thousands of life-long antagonists of slavery who saw with alarm, the opposition of a powerful army commander and urged his opponents on.

From this moment there was but one way to escape political execution. Regardless of the lives of his soldiers, he must act act even should every advantage be against him. If victorious, he might silence his foes; if defeated, he could expect no charity; incompetency would pass for treachery; if he delayed or suspended operations, however satisfactory his reasons, he could plausibly be charged either with playing into the hands of the enemy or seeking to protract the war for personal aggrandizement. Such was the situation he created for himself by stepping outside of his duties to volunteer political views obnoxious to the civil policy of the Government.

It was at this period of the campaign that General Halleck appeared on the scene. Had he been an actual General in Chief, a soldier of the Jacksonian type, he could have cleared at once the military and political horizon. His appointment was evidence that the President was tired of military command. Exactly when the determination to relieve General McClellan was formed, cannot be definitely stated, but the indications are that General Halleck was aware of the purpose before he visited Harrison's Landing.

As has already been stated, when General Porter arrived at Williamsburg he telegraphed that all Confederate troops were leaving Richmond for the North. He then doubled his speed, and on his own responsibility hastened forward to Fort Monroe, en route to the Army of Virginia. Up to his arrival at Williamsburg all of the Army of the Potomac, stripped of its sick and surplus stores, and in the best marching condition, was within a compass of about 45 miles from Richmond.

To the mind of any professional soldier, the plan would have suggested itself to use the Army of Virginia to decoy the Confederates as near as possible to Washington, and then strike with the Army of the Potomac for the Confederate capital." Writing after the fact, it

a Harrison's Landing was one of the best on the James River. It was on the left bank, about 25 miles below Richmond.-EDITORS.

is now known that Lee left Richmond a day before the retreat began from the Peninsula, and that so confident was he of the complete transfer of operations to Washington that he left but one division to protect Richmond. Had Richmond fallen, Lee in revenge might have carried the war into Maryland and Pennsylvania, but the political effect of losing their capital would not have been less fatal. Besides, being no longer between our two armies, a garrison could have been left in Richmond, after which the Army of the Potomac, either by land or water, could have hastened to join the Army of Virginia, with a view to prevent the enemy from ever recrossing the Potomac.

If these considerations occurred to the mind of General Halleck they were quickly set aside. He did not even reply to General Porter's despatch, but afterwards, practically admitting the triumph of political intrigue, informed him that his motive in sending the despatch was attributed to "the desire to retain the Army of the Potomac on the Peninsula and General McClellan in command." a

In the meantime the conflict between General McClellan and the Secretary of War was already assuming national proportions; the people began to take sides; it became necessary to allay the excitement. In 1814 a village mob had appeared at the doors of the War Department. It needed now but an overwhelming reverse-a second conffagration of the capital-to call forth another mob, this time of more than village proportions.

The President, as much beloved by the Army as the people, again stepped into the breach. Addressing a war meeting held at Washington on the 6th of August, he said:

There has been a very widespread attempt to have a quarrel between General McClellan and the Secretary of War. Now, I occupy a position that enables me to observe that these two gentlemen are not nearly so deep in the quarrel as some pretending to be their friends. General McClellan's attitude is such that in the very selfishness of his nature he cannot but wish to be successful, and I hope he will, and the Secretary of War is in precisely the same situation. If the military commanders in the field cannot be successful, not only the Secretary of War, but myself,—for the time being, the master of them both, cannot but be a failure. I know General McClellan wishes to be successful, and I know he does not wish it any more than the Secretary of War for him, and both of them together no more than I wish it. Sometimes we have a dispute about how many men General McClellan has had, and those who would disparage him say that he has had a very large number, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War insist that General McClellan has had a very small number. The basis for this is, there is always a wide difference, and on this occasion perhaps, a wider one than usual between the grand total on McClellan's rolls and the men actually fit for duty; and those who would disparage him talk of the grand total on paper, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War talk of those present fit for duty.

General McClellan has sometimes asked for things that the Secretary of War did not give him. General McClellan is not to blame for asking what he wanted and needed, and the Secretary of War is not to blame for not giving him when he had none to give. And I say here, as far as I know, the Secretary of War has withheld no one thing at any time in my power to give him. I have no accusation against him. I believe he is a brave and able man, and I stand here as justice requires me to do so, to take upon myself what has been charged on the Secretary of War as withholding from him.

In this speech, the President showed the same magnanimity as when the House of Representatives censured Mr. Cameron for his illegal expenditures in 1861. In both instances the President assumed all the responsibility, this time with much less justice than before.

a Proceedings and Report of the Board of Army Officers in the case of Fitz John Porter, pt. 1, p. 4.

Raymond's President Lincoln's Administration, p. 287.