c. orres po-ndtTice ? bet ween Gce-n. \M. \ . JherTna.'n anA Major General W S. H an- cock. $a^t Taul, I&7I Class £4fc>7 .1 Book ■Ha H25 •Xv ikJ.9C»*,, fat*/* J*t believe thai because I have not his personal sympathies, my preferences for command -ill not lie regarded, notwithstanding my rank, I shall nut again open the subject; but will add, in conclusion, that I think it an unfor tunate precedenl to establish, that military rank, in time of peace, especially in the assignment of general officers to com- mands of Divisions and Departments, shall not have that con sideration hitherto accorded to it. I am. very respectfully, Your obedient servant. \YI.\FD s. HANCOCK, Maj. G< n. I '. S. A. The above correspondence has been copied from the telegrams and letter- on file in the War Department, and it will be per reived that the following words recently attributed to General Sherman, do not appear in the letter of this gentleman : — •• I am requested by the President to inform you that there i- nothing in your personal relations to Genera] Grant, or in your official relations to hi- administration, that could justify your promotion nOW Or lead you to expert it hereafter.'* The reference in General Sherman's letter to the "relations" which Genera] Hancock "chose to assume towards him (the President) officially and privately." and absolving the President from regarding General Hancock's "personal preferences," is thus explained : At the time the Reconstruction acts were put in operation, General Hancock was transferred from the Depart men i ut' the Missouri to the District of Louisiana. < ieneral < 'rant. as General-in-Chief, modified or revoked one of General Han- cock's orders, to which the latter toofc strong personal exception. Shortly after, by order of the President, 'ieneral Hancock was assigned to the command of the Division of the Atlantic, and came to Washington. He went to < reneral < 'rant's Headquarters, but instead of calling upon him personally, simply registered his name, which was unusual and considered discourteous. General Grant having no knowledge or apprehension thai General Han- cock was offended with him, meeting him on the street shortly afterwards, accosted him in a friendly way: — "Good morning-, Hancock." To this General Hancock made no verbal response, but merely touched his hat and passed on. Some time subse- quent, the two met at a wedding party, when General Hancock turned his back on him. General Grant was also informed that General Hancock. had boasted of his discourtesy to him on the street. When General Hancock issued an order for the removal of certain persons in New < (rleans, a correspondence took place b< tween the two Generals on the subject, when General Hancock used language which was considered disrespectful and insubor dinate to his superior officer. General Hancock is now a Major General in command of i Department. When General Thomas died, there Mere left four Major Generals — Halleck. who had been on the Pacific coast, and had served out a tour of duty; Meade, who was offered the com mand as successor to Thomas, but without change of rank, pre- ferred remaining in Philadelphia. Thus the choice lay between Hancock and Schofield. The matter was submitted to the Presi- dent, who simply directed that Schofield should lie sent to the Pacific, leaving Hancock just where he was — namely, in com- mand of one of the most important military departments in the country." Subsequent ' between '•■ ■' W. T. Sherman I Major General W. S. Hancock, and papers referred to //, ir hereto/on published), as follows : Headquarters Abmi "l mi: United States, Washington, D. <'.. M w 21, 1870. m. W. S. HANCOCK, ( 'ommanding DepH St. Pav '. General: — I cut from the New York World, of yesterday, an article headed. •■ Presidenl Granl insults General Hancock." This article is so bitter in its tone, and si ts so positively, quoting whal the editor or author supposes to be a letter from me to you. which quotation in every word is untrue, that it naturally attracts much attention, and will force General Granl to publish, or cause to be published, the < orrespondence. 1 have looked over this correspondence again, and surely see nothing discourteous in my note — giving you a fair, frank answer to your own question by telegraph from St. Louis. 1 did not an- swer by telegraph for the very reason that it mighl be seen by irresponsible agents, who might give it publicity. I am certain nobody has given even a clue to this matter from my office, and the inference will be universal that it leaked out from your Headquarters, and. from the false quotation, I also feel sure the compiler of the article never read the actual letters, but ga thered up what he supposed to be the facts of the case from some one who did see them. I understood, long ago, that you took exception to General Grant's revocation of certain orders you made in New Orlea the power to do which was specifically imposed on him by the statute, and that when you reached Washington to assume the command of the .Military Division of the Atlantic, you posi tively neglected to call on him personally, but simply recorded your name a> would any strange officer; and that afterwards, when General Grant personally approached you in a familiar way. you touched your hat formally and walked away. < >!' all 10 this I only know from others, not from General Grant ; but he did say you had personally assumed to him an unfriendly atti- tude. Your last letter, acknowledging the receipt of mine, does not complain of a want of courtesy or personal consideration, hut merely of regret that personal considerations should have led General Grant to disregard your superior rank, viz.. the same commission, but an older one, and named (ien. Schofield to suc- ceed General Thomas in t lie command of the Military Division of the Pacific. I think you ought to write me a letter, disclaiming all knowl- edge and connection with this article of the New York World — such a letter as may well be published to counteract its damag- ing effect on all the parties interested, yourself included. I am, truly. Your friend. W. T. SHERMAN, Gera ral. St. Pacj., Minn., Jink 7, 1870. To Gen. W. T. SHERMAN, Washington, D. C General: — I returned last night from Sioux City, and this morning received your letter of May L'lst, which (ien. Greene (my Ass'1 Adj't General,) informs me was opened by him, for the reason that the envelope bore evidence of its being an olti rial paper. As soon as I have learned what lias been published during my absence in reference to the subject matter of your letter, and have disposed of the public business of importance which has accumulated here, a suitable reply will be made. I inclose, for your information, a telegraphic dispatch from Sioux City, which I authorized to lie published on my arrival there from the Upper Missouri. I am, Very Respectfully, Your Od't Serv't, WINF'I) S. HANCOCK, M lie the tacts of the case from one who did see it. or had heard it spoken of. I never have, however, hesitated to -how the correspondence to friends, or to relate to others the decision of the President, when I was asked for the reason why my rank had been disregarded in giving a junior a higher grade of command over my head. There was nothing in the subject, or in your letter, announcing the decision of the President, nor in my letter to you in reply, of a confidential character; and it was manifestly due to me, and proper that the reasons for that decision -1 Id be known. I Bhould have been gratified, therefore, to have had the cor respondence published, as an act of justice to myself; and F am content with the publication as it finally appeared, 9ince it en aide- me to give the denial to certain allegations contained in the article accompanying the full publication. [took especial care to prevent an unauthorized puldication of this correspondence, and as you assume the responsibility oi 14 declaring positively that no clue to it came from your office, and appear to be as well satisfied that it was not derived from any other official source in Washington, I am willing that it may be believed that the knowledge of the correspondence, and of the decision contained in it, may have been derived from my relations of it, as hereinbefore explained; inaccurate versions of it, however, I am not responsible for. The published correspondence explains clearly what was known only to a few persons before, viz: the reasons the Presi- dent ha- given why. on the death of Major General Thomas, I was not assigned to the command of a Military Division, al- though I was the next Major General in rank, and why a junior Major Genera] was assigned over my head to command a Divis- ion, to a higher grade of command than was given to me (a Military Department); and also why I, the only Major General commanding a Department, was not even allowed the choice of a vacani Department in the Military Division in which I was then stationed, the other Department Commanders being but Brigadier Generals, as indeed they are in (lie entire service save where they are of lesser rank. Those reasons were, 1st, that it belonged to his office ( the President's) to select the < Commanding Generals of Divisions and Departments; ami 2d, that the relations I chose to assume to- wards him. officially and privately, absolve him from regarding my personal preference.-, as my claims are styled, which had been previously communicated to him. In acknowledging the receipt of your letter, communicating the above decision of the President, I simply objected to the sufficiency of the grounds given for if. claiming that what I had asked was due to my rank, and regretting that so unfortunate a precedent had been established, (one very likely to be imitated hereafter) that military rank in time of peace, especially in the assignment of general officers to commands of Divisions and Departments, should not have the consideration hitherto con ceded to it. As you properly state, I did not complain of a want of per- sonal consideration ; it was too late for that. I had complained a year ago of a similar disregard of my rank, and no notice was taken of it, nor did it prevent a greater want of consideration 15 in this instance. Nor did I complain of a wanl of courtesy; principles were in question, and I did nol care to consider forms. Your letter i e. in reply to my respectful telegram, would probably be considered by many persons a harsh one; bul it was no doubt the harsh decision you communicated thai made it appear so. The decision was by the highest authority, from which ii" appeal could be taken. I therefore submitted to it, trusting to time I'm' a more jusl consideration. The charges were of a general nature: no specific allegations were men- tioned, nor was there anything in the tone of that decision to invite inquiry into the origin of the causes which led to thai decision; it rather forbade it; and I am sure that no person could have been expected to enter upon explanations under such circumstances. I presume the expression "official and private relations," used by the President, refer* to what transpired on the two occa- sions which you referred to in your recent letter, in which I was accused of having treated the President, (while he was General of the Army,) with disrespect. Had I Keen informed, when the decision was conveyed to me. what were my offenses, I should certainly have noticed them, and if the tacts had not been cor- rectly stated, would have contested them ; but I will herein cheerfully reply to them, as the subject has been thus opened, although I do not recognize that my assignment to a command commensurate with my raid; is in any way properly dependent on I he favor with which I may lie personally regarded by my military superiors. A.s above indicated, this was not the first occasion when my claims were disregarded where my rank was superior. I might, on the first occasion, have expected, from a friendly administration, a command of a Division, as nil my seniors were assigned to Divisions, but I was designated as a Department Commander, [was a Major General, and the senior of all offi- cers commanding Departments. Iliad some personal reasons for desiring a certain Department in the Division in which I am now serving, the nature of which reasons were,from long ac- quaintance, well kn '\\n to my military superiors ; and being the senior, and all those above me having Divisions, I supposed the choice would be yielded to me. a- the Department was to be 16 vacant and I was to be assigned to a command. Like reasons had been regarded in other cases, at different times. I entered my protest then against what I deemed a want of due consid- eration, but no notice lias vet been taken of it, although it was made a year or more since. The decision was final, and I obeyed the order. I was sent to a Department then considered the least important of the three in the Division in which 1 was placed. The one I desired to command had three times the number of troops, the other twice the number, that were in the command assigned to me, and both of them were commanded by my juniors. The principle then involved was simply one of prefer- ence and consideration dne to rank, while on the recent occa- sion the principle violated is of a higher order. The customs and tradition- of the service were violated on the firsl occasion; they are also violated in the recent decision, as well as the highest principle upon which rank is given. In your recent letter you speak of Hie decision of the Presi- dent, a- a disregard of "my superior rank in tin sarrn commis- . hni mi older mi,." apparently as if it i> distinguishable in principle, whether General Schofield. a Major General, had been given a higher grade of command over me. a senior .Major Gen- eral, or whether the senior Brigadier General had been given that grade, or as if it were no serious matter to be over- slaughed by a junior Major General. I may lie in error in at- tributing to yon any such opinion, but it' I am not, I beg leave to -ay that the principle involved seems to me to lie the same; tor a Brigadier General i- equally eligible, under proper circum- stances, to command a Division as an officer of higher grade ; but the law establishing military rank does not contemplate that Brigadier Generals shall he placed over the heads of Major Generals, nor that junior Major Generals should be put over the heads of their seniors; and it seems clear to me that the prin- ciple of rank is equally violated whether the senior Brigadier General is placed over my head, or a junior Major General : cer tainly one would not be more agreeable than the other. The rule that would place a junior Major General in a higher grade of command than a senior [Major General, in time of peace, or which nave all the Major Generals save one. (and he not a junior,) Divisions, and that senior Major General, a Department, with 17 Brigadier < fenerals and Colonels, and not allow him a choice of a Departmenl in his own Division, is certainly n violation of the principle upon which rank is established, as well as the customs of military service in all countries governed by law, and would equally sanction thai the Lieutenant General who now coin mands a Division, mighl be placed in command of a Deparl ment, while some one or ;ill of the Major Generals had I>i \ isions. I have thus stated at length the grounds of my complaint, and have, I am sure, established thai I have suffered a degrada- tion of rank in the matters of which I complain. I am i old. a- before mentioned, that the Presidenl claims for his office the right to do what he has done to me. Thai he has the arbi trary power, I cannol bul admit, for I have fell it, bul I do not believe that the exercise of such power i- conferred by existing law-: and if it were allowed bylaw,! maintain thai it should never lie exercised excepl lor valid public reasons. If such reasons are supposed to exist, I certainly have never been in- formed of them : and a- I am loyal to my -o\ eminent ami conn try. ami have. I feel quite sure, discharged with fidelity my duties as a soldier for nearly a generation of service, and was only appointed a Major General shortly before the differences between < reneral < franl as the 1 reneral of the Army, and myself, originated, I cannot believe thai any such valid public reasons exisl why my rank should be so disregarded. Then I am informed that the relations I chose to assume to- wards the President, officially and privately, absolve him from regarding my claims. I have no other knowledge except what is contained in your recent letter, and in the article accom panying the publication of the correspondence before referred to what i- meant by th< ] I i < - i : 1 1 and private relations" forming the basis of the recent action in my case. I will, how- ever, now consider these in detail, beginning with the two oc- currences wherein, a- stated by you, it i- charged that I had acted in an exceptional wayto General Gran I before he became President, and which, from your having mentioned no other. I infer are the only grounds upon which the Presidenl based his action. I will state, while in New Orleans in command of the Fifth 18 Military District, it was proposed by the City Councils, by a vote of those bodies, to go into the election of a judicial officer to fill a vacancy, which was an elective office by the people, and. un- der the Reconstruction Acts (elections being in abeyance,) an appointment to be made by the District Commander. A com- munication was addressed to the Councils by my Assistant Adjutant General, in my absence in Texas, notifying them that their contemplated action was illegal, in violation of the orders of the District Commander (my predecessor,) and contrary to the provisions of the Reconstruction Act-, and warning them to desi-t. After I returned, it was voted at a subsequent meeting of the Councils, to go into an election for the office in question, notwithstanding what had transpired a- above stated. An elec- tion was only prevented by the absence "I' a quorum at the time of going into joint session for that purpose. I called for the minutes of that Council meeting and as6ertained which of the members had voted for this action, and removed them from office, as I had a right to do under the law-, for a contempt of the orders of the District Commander — all implicated having been appointed by my predecessor, under the Reconstruction Act-. I was called upon by General Grant for an explanation. I justi- fied my action upon the claim that I was merely defending the prerogatives of my office, and stated that if overruled, I should make a respectful application to be relieved from command. General Grant sustained me in so far as to state that if the va- cancies had been tilled the matter should rest. < oii-idering the vacancies practically filled, their successors having been ap- pointed,! ><> notified him. Subsequently General Grant reversed hi- decision, and directed me to restore the members of the Councils whom I had displaced, ami of course to turn out those whom I had appointed to succeed them. I immediately exe- cuted the order, but feeling that my usefulness had been im- paired by loss of power and prestige, I asked to be relieved from the command and to lie ordered to St. Louis, hoping thus to avoid being again assigned to a command not purely military. The proposed action of General Grant was a matter known in Xew Orleans nearly a week before I had received any notifica- tion of it. through a letter received there from a prominent gentleman in Washington, interested in Louisiana matters. I Ill was asked if it was true, and replied thai it could not be, for General Grant had disposed of the matter otherwise ; yei it was true, and the early information, as it was conveyed, was made the basis of speculation on Exchange in New Orleans, bui of course without General Grant's knowledge. I was -lad to be removed from thai command; glad of the opportunity thus presented ; I mighl have retained it notwith- standing the humiliation I had experienced, bui my pride for- bade it. It is well known thai I never desired the command; I had my opinions upon political matters, bui had never ob truded them; I merely wished to be a soldier, not a politician; I had been enabled to go through the war. avoiding politics, and by constantly remaining in the Held, to retain the esteem, gen erally. of all parties in the country. 1 did not wish to sacrifice that ••-teem: I therefore did not de-ire to go to New Orleans, and was glad to lie relieved, for I knew I could not satisfy the unreasonable expectations of many patriotic people, if I con lined myself to the latitude allowed me by the law-, and did not ad vance beyond them. I executed the laws faithfully while there. bui not in the interests of partisans. I fell hurt, that as a sol dier defending tin' prerogatives of my office, General Grant, my next commander, had not sustained me. bui had humiliated me in presence of the people whom I had been sent to govern. I did not contesl hi- righl to revoke my action in reference to appointments under the reconstruction laws, but I knew thai the question was merely one of power, as againsl those who wished to have me removed, and who believed it an easy matter to accomplish, after I had declared that, if overruled, I would ask to he relieved, provided they could induce General Granl to revoke my action: and I believed that in this case he had acted upon ex partt statements of parti -an-, and from policy, at a sacri lice of my pride. I therefore was aggrieved, and felt cold to Genera] Grant; and if my manner ha- since shown it. it is at- tributable to this, and not that I meant to treat him in a disre spectful way. I was then ordered toWashington to consult with the Presi dent (Johnson;) and. on leaving New Orleans, without being relieved, was directed by General Granl to transfer my com- mand, an exceptional course in recenl time-, nol applied to 20 others. I was subsequently relieved, in a formal manner, by the President, from command of the Fifth Military District, and assigned to the command of the Military Division of the Atlantic. When I readied Washington, I first called on the President, (Johnson,) at whose instance, as the orders expressed. I had been summoned there. Immediately thereafter I called at Gen- eral Grant's headquarters to report my arrival in the city. I inquired for the Adjutant General, and being shown into his office, met several officers of the Staff whom I knew, and with whom I exchanged the ordinary civilities; I then inquired if they had a Register in which officers arriving could record their uames, (such a book being kept at nearly all Headquarters for thai purpose:) While I had never seen one at General Grant's Headquarters, (for I had usually called on General Grant in per- son.) I presumed, however, that they had one for those officers who merely wished to register their arrival ami address. Hue of the officers replied. "No! have you not seen the General?" I replied I had not; and turning to General Rawlins, said. •• Un- der existing circumstances it is probably as well; and if you will notify the General that I have arrived in the city, and where my residence is. (mentioning it.) he will no doubt send for me if lie de-ire- to see me." I immediately departed; I was nut sent for. Some days afterwards, stepping from a street car in front of the Treasury Building, in Washington, to go into the First Na- tional Bank, I observed General Grant on the pavement in front of the point where I left the car, engaged in close conversation with Ex-Governor Flanders of Louisiana, who was probably the only observing witness to what followed, and to whom I can confidently refer for a truthful statement as to what transpired. When I reached the pavement, and was about stepping on it. General Grant, who was standing probably ten or fifteen feel back from the curb, in his usual manner on such occasions, not approaching me. touched his hat and said. "Good morning, Gen- eral." I lifted my hat, and replied, " Good morning, General," and passed diagonally to the left, towards the door of the bajik, which I had intended to enter. For the reason before stated, I did not feel cordial to him, and so governed my action. I never 21 treated him, however, with disrespect on any occasion, nor have I ever uttered an expression of hostility to him. It was a long time afterwards thai I heard it circulated, and then coming from those near to General Grant, thai I had "cul him on the street." I always denied this whenever I heard it. ami even authorized the publication of that denial, (a year or more since.) Until the article in the Associated Press, before referred to, I never had heard of the charge thai I had written an insubordinate or disrespectful letter to General Granl : It is nol true, and the records will very readily show thai fact. Nor did I ever before hear the charge thai I had boasted of having "cul him." I had related the facts of our interview. hut nol in a wayto warrant such a charge. I never heard either, until this article appeared, thai I had turned my hack upon General Granl al a wedding, or any other social party; and it' it is in- tended by thai expression to mean what is generally considered by the use of thai term, it is nol t rue. I subsequently mel him, two or 1 hree times during the season, al social parties, and. on the lasl one or two occasions, happen- ing to be near him, made way for him in a deferential manner, which lie appeared to recognize. 1 have met him on no other occasions since. In conclusion, I wish to say, thai my present command is per- sonally agreeable to me in every respeel ; thai I regard St. Paul as a delightful city, and the country and people of my Deparl nient as of the mosl interesting. My objections were nol to the country or the people to whom I was sent, bul to the personal and official treatment complained of against myself. I am. very truly your friend, And obedienl sen ant. WINFD S. HANCOCK. Maj. Gen. C. S. A. Major General W. S. Hancock to General W. T. Sherman. Caroxdelet. Mo., July 10, 1870. General W. T. SHERMAN, Washington, I>. C. General — I delayed mailing my reply to your letter until I received from Ex-Governor Benj. F. Flanders of Louisiana, a" communication in reply to one I wrote to him on the 10th of June, in reference to his knowledge of an interview I had with General Grant, to which he was probably the only witness. I received that reply yesterday, and now send yon a copy, to- gether with a copy of the letter of mine which called it forth. I notice to-day an article in the Associated Press dispatches of yesterday, from Washington, which makes it seem pertinent that I should request you to cause your letter to me, and mine I" you. to he published in full, in order to avoid further error-. My letter to you is long, I know: but I could not well make it shorter, and at the same time cover all the points I desired to refer to. It is to me a matter of regret that it i- so Ion-', as its length will deter many from reading it. I am very truly yours, WINF'D S. HANCOCK. Major GenH U. S. A. 23 Letter of Major General W. S. Hancock, to Hon. B. F. Flan- ders, Ex-Governor of Louisiana, referred to in tin foregoing U ttt r. St. I'm i, Minn., June 10, INTO. Hon. B. !•'. FLANDERS, St. w Orh ans, La. Sib — You will probably recoiled an occasion when you were standing on the pavement in front of Jay ('nuke'- Bank, in Washington, I>. C, in the sprini: of lstis. i>n gaged in close con versation with ( reneral Grant, thai I appr :hed from the street, having lefl a street car, and on arriving at the curb, exchanged certain social formalities with General Grant, who was standing some distance had; from the curb, and listening to you. [recalled this interview to your recollection on a previous occasion, and after I had heard thai General Grant's friends had circulated a reporl that, on the occasion referred to, I had •• cut " the < reneral or treated him with disrespect or indignity. I inclose a -dip from the Associated Press report, dated Wash- ington May 22d last, in which the details of this meeting are pretended to be reported by -nine authority. Will you be pleased as a matter of justice to all parties concerned, to relate what transpired on that occasion, and to state what was the im pression conveyed to your mind at that time by that interview. in reference to the relative bearing of General Grant and my self; also, please state more particularly, whether I treated General Grant with disrespect or with less courtesy than he ex- tended tn me; whether I lifted my hat to General Grant, in re sponse to his salute by his touching his hat, and whether I did not return his salutation of "Good morning, General," as I passed by to enter the door of the First National Bank, a shorl distance up the street from where you were standing; also. whether General Grant approached me or remained standing upon that occasion, and whether he extended his hand. I request from you an early reply. I am, very respectfully, Your ( )li"t Serv't, WINFD S. HANCOCK. 24 Letter of Hon. B. F. Flanders to Major General W. S. Han- cock, in reply to tfo preceding letter, and referred to in Major Gt in ral Ham. i' k's last h ft' r to Gt ?u mi Sherman. New Orleans, July 1, 1870. Mat. Gen'l WINF'D S. HANCOCK, U. S. A. General — I have been absenl from the city, and your letter of June Hi has onlyjusl reached me, which is my apology forthe delay of this reply. Your letter reminds me of an occasion in the spring of L868, when General Grant and myself were coiyversing on the pave- ment in front of -lay Cooke and Co.'s Bank, in Washington, and when yon passed, and salutations were exchanged between < reneral < rrant and yourself. You inclose to me a report of the Associated Press, dated Washington,' May 22d, 1870, in which you say, -the details of this meeting are pretended to be reported by some authority," and you ask me. " as a matter of justice to all parties concerned," to relate what transpired on that occasion, and to state what was the impression conveyed to my mind at the time by that inter- view, in reference to the relative bearing of General Granl and yourself. Yon further ask me, " to state particular! j whether you treated General Grant with disrespect or with less courtesy than he ex- tended to you ; whether you lifted your hat to General Grant in response to his salute by touching Ins hat, and whether you did not return hi< salutation of 'G 1 morning, General,' as you passed by to enter the door of the First National Bank, a Utile higher up the street from where we were standing; also whether Genera] Grant approached you on that occasion or remained standing, anil whether he extended his hand 01" not* ' My recollection of the occasion referred to is quite fresh and i- a- follows: You passed (as I supposed from the street car which had stopped opposite the Bank,) directly to the Haul; about thirty feci from General Granl and myself, who stood conversing on the side « alk thai distance below. Salutations, free, natural, and courteous, were exchanged on both sides, by touching or lifting the hat. 1 saw nothing in ( leneral < Irant's demeanor towards you, or yours to him, to indi cate constraint or coldness. Had there been any such manifes tation I should have noted it. We were talking of Louisiana affairs al the time, and the impression lefl on my mind was that, under the circumstances, the greeting on both >iilc~ was ra ther pleasant than otherwise. There was no nearer approach than I have said, and there was no extending of hands. The distance alone would have precluded that. We continued our conversation ; you passed into the bank, and thus the interview ended. Wry Respectfully, Your <>b"i Serv't, BENJ. !•'. FLANDERS. General W. T. Shepmas to Major General W. S. Hancock: Headquarters Army of the United States, Washington, I>. C, July 18, 1-7". BAL W. S. HANCOCK. Cum/';/ Ihji't of Dakota. Gi jeral — 1 have new (lie honor to acknowledge the receipl of your several letters of June 7. July 9, and July 10, with the copy of that of Benj. F. Flanders, all of which were promp laid before the President, and by him carefully read. [ have this moment returned from him, and before leaving, asked if I should write anything specific from him; and his an swer was, " No !" All I can therefore say is that they (the Jet ters,) have been submitted to him. and will remain with me marked private. Without you insist on their publication, I will keep them a- now; bul if yen reiterate a de-ire to have all the respondenee published, I will submit your request again to him. 26 This whole matter being one between you two, I refrain from offering any advice, further than the usual tender of my services to establish a better understanding between yon. With great respect, Your ( >h"t Serv't, W. T. SHERMAN, G( II, 11(1. Major General W. S. Hancock to General W. T. Sherman: St. Pali, Minx., Aitccst 12, 1870. To General W. T. SHERMAN, ComTg Arm;/ of th United States, Washington, I >. ( '. General — I have the honor to acknowledge tlie receipl of your communication of July 18th. I retjuesl that you will sub- stitute t he 7th ultimo for the 7th inst., and 21s1 of .May for 21sl ultimo, in the firsl sentence of my communication to you of the !>th of July, to correct error- of date-. When I reached Sioux ( 'it v. on June 3d, having learned that it wa- supposed by many people that I had incited the publication of the article or article- which led to our first correspondence being published, I seized the first occasion to authorize the pub- lung of a dispatch, in which I denied all knowledge of the matter, and pledged myself thai I would notice in detail the charges against me contained in the Associated Press report of May 22d, accompanying the publication of the aforesaid corres pondence between you and myself. And on the 7th of June, on arriving at St. Paul from Sioux City, I received your letter of May 21st, wherein you informed me that, owing to certain injurious statements in the newspaper article, a copy of which you inclosed, the President would be forced to publish the correspondence to which it referred; and it was accordingly published on the following day. You appeared to think also, that 1 ought to write you a letter for publication, in order as you stated, to counteract the dam- aging effects to myself as well as others, resulting from the newspaper article referred to. I had already acted in thai spirit in the brief dispatch from Sioux < !ity, published before receiving your letter. Anil in compliance with the invitation contained in your letter of the '2 1st of May, as well as in performance of ilic promise contained in my dispatch from Sioux <'ity. I wrote in yon my letter of the 'Mli of July. I of course, intended thai that letter should be published, as the allegations against me covered by it had been widely circulated through the public press, and were injurious, to me as well as offensive to the public and the President. Ii was a matter of justice to all, and especially to mc thai my reply should be as widely circulated as the allegations againsl me, in order to remove the impression made on the public mind that I had frequently treated the Presidenl with disres peel : and assuredly so if the Presidenl was noi satisfied with the explanations I had given. I therefore il<> noi consider that my letter to you is properly disposed of by marking it private, and tiling it away a< you mention. ( )n the 1Vl Serv't, WINFD S. HANCOCK, Major <>< ii> ral TJ. S. A. General W. T. Sherman to Jf>ij<:>r General W. S. Hancock: Headquarters Army "i the United Si mis. Lancaster, Ohio, August 23, 1870. General W. S. HANCOCK, Commanding Dep't of Dakota, St. Paul. General — Yours of August 12th was forwarded to me here. and I will send it to General Grant, with an indorsement asking him to telegraph yon direct, to publish your former letter to me it' lie approves. If you do not hear from him direct, it will lie for you to act as you think best. I cannol approve or advise any publication at all. Your disclaimer, published at Sioux City, was as complete as that of your letter, though not so cir- cumstantial. As to the command of the Military Division, it has been again and again decided that the command of a Department or Mili 29 tary Division cannol be assumed as a matter of rank, I ml is one of assignraenl by t he President. General Sheridan's absence is temporary; maj be short or ong at his pleasure; and I understand that the President offered him, in person, to construe him as still on duty, to the extent i hat his pay is not to be affected. < »n many former occasions this same course was pursued, viz: When I was sent to Mexico, Department Commanders reported direct to Army Headquarters; the same when General Thomas' death left the command vacant for a time. I will beat Chicago on Saturday, and at Omaha September 2, and at St. Louis about October 1st : I mt prefer not to be drawn into this controversy with General Grant. As it is personal, 1 prefer that he and you should settle it, or let it drop. Surely I have no desire to do you an act of injustice or un- kindness. Truly yours, \Y. T. SHERMAN, General. Major Horace Porter, Secretary to tlu President, to Ma- jor General W. S. Hancock. Long Branch, N. J., September 7. 1870. M vi. Gen'l VV. S. HANCOCK. ('. S. Army. General The President directs me to say that General Sher m has forwarded to him your letter of the 12th ult., addressed to the General of the Army, requesting him to publish a pre vious letter of yours, dated 9th of July last, and that he has informed the General that he has i bjection whatever to his giving your letter to the press. lie will be glad, at any time, I" accord yon every facility for correcting or explaining statements which attribute to you mo tives which yon may not have possessed. He cannot feel otherwise than gratified, to learn from your letters to General Sherman that you deny having treated him with intentional disrespect, and de-ire- to assure you that, in Ins 30 official action towards you, he lias nol been influenced in the least from any motives of a personal nature. In regard to your not having been assigned to the command of the Military Division, during the absence of Lieutenant (ien- eral Sheridan, to which you allude in your letter, he directs me to say thai the only motive was a desire to prevent a reduction in General Sheridan's pay while that officer is traveling in Europe, through its active armies, at his own expense, in order to add to his military experience, and to obtain such knowledge as may tend to increase the efficiency of our own service. Had General Sheridan been granted an ordinary leave of absence, and another officer assigned, for the time, to his command, his pay would have suffered the usual reduction, while the pay of the officer so assigned could not have been increased. Very Respectfully, Your Ob't Serv't. HORACE PORTER, Sec'y. Major Gnu rut YV. S. Hancock in General W. T. Sherman: St. Paul, Minn., October •"., ]s7n. Gen. W. T. SHERMAN, Commanding Army of tht United States, Washington, J>. C. General — Your- of the 23d of August reached me on the :: l st of the same month, and its receipt would have been acknowledged sooner but for my departure soon afterwards for Pembina, whence I have just returned. I do not desire, as I indicated in my last letter, any more than yourself to prolong this discussion, and would merely acknowl edge the receipt of your last letter, but for some statements contained in it, which I think call for and justify a reply. I will therefore confine myself to them. I had regarded and conducted tlii- discussion as an official matter, and do not consider it, as you appear to do, a purely per- sonal controversy between General Grant and myself. 81 And I cannol understand why, under the circumstances, you should no!, a- you state, approve or advise any publication of our correspondence. V.r do I think your remark is correcl thai my disclaimer, pub lished al Sioux City, was as complete as my letter of July 9th. My dispatch from Sioux City was a mere general denial of cer tain points, not conclusive on a critical examination, and did not cover the promise which I made in t hat dispatch to disabuse I lie public mind a- to the charges against mo in the article accom panying tin- publication of the prior correspondence. General Sheridan's absence in Europe may be temporary or prolonged, lmt the occasion for it was such that it was presumed, when he went away, that it mighi not lie of short duration. Although I have not had a desire to command General Sheri- dan's Division, during hi- temporary absence, yet it -coin- to me. that a due regard for the intention of the law. and to my position, furnished sufficient reasons why. in such absence, if his Division i- necessary to he maintained, with all it- appropriate staff officers, exercising authority at Division Headquarters, I, the senior officer in that command, and otherwise eligible by my rank to command a Division, should exercise what authority mii: ht lie necessary, from time to time, unless an officer superior to me was placed in command; and in my case it appears thai there i- no senior to me in the Army, of appropriate rank, who ha- not already the command of a Division; and a- I have lie- fore -tated a- a principal ground of my complaint, a junior to me ha- such a command. Placing the General of the Army in command of a Division, when he had the duties of hi- own of lice far removed from and outside of ii- limit-, can lie lmt nominal, practically, and ha- had the appearance 10 the Army, and to the public, thai such assignment was intended t., present my having a command of a Division, especially a- no explana- tion ot' this extraordinary course had been announced, and a- it i- well known that the General of the Army could not. so lon«* a- he exercises the function- of hi- own office, be required to take such a command, inferior to hi- rank. I do not assert that a Division might not he broken up. and Department Commanders directed to report to Armj Head quarters; lmt I do contend that if a Division he maintained, 32 neglecting to assign I lie senior officer in it, to it-- command, is an exceptional case, and is injurious to that officer; and that when Department Commanders are ordered to report direct to Wash- ington, the placing the General-in-Chief in nominal command of it, does not alter the merits of the case. Had it been desired to preserve General Sheridan's full emol- uments, alone, it could readily have been done, practically, by directing the Department Commanders to report direct or not, and authorizing the next senior officer, ( myself.) while retaining command of his Department, to give such orders as might be necessary, with Division authority, if circumstances arose re- quiring such action, which would rarely occur, if at all. That would not have been an objectionable expedient, if the motive for it were publicly known, and would have enabled General Sheridan to he gratified in the matter of emoluments, and would have preserved my pride as well. I think you are in error in stating that when you went to Mex- ico your Department Commanders reported direct to Washing- ton, (I was, I believe, one of them,) and I think your Division was maintained, and that your Assistant Adjutant General prac- tically commanded it; hut. whether I am mistaken in this or not, I am satisfied, and I believe the army so consider it. that a command so exercised is not in accordance with the intention of our laws oi- with the customs of the service, nor consistent with the object for which rank is given, no more than that an officer while absent in Europe should maintain a command here. Such practices are autocratic, and not in harmony with our system, whatever recent precedents there may have been in this direction. If, as you slate, Department Commanders in the Pacific Divis- ion were, on General Thomas' death, ordered to report direct, I do not know that Division authority was extinguished in the meanwhile, nor that the General-in-Chief was placed nominally in command of it ; yet as General < >rd, the senior, had no claim to command a Division permanently, by his rank, I cannot co incide with you that it is in any event a parallel case to mine. Again, while I have not denied that the Presidenl has, by virtue of hi- office as Commander-in-Chief,. the right to assign the Commanders of Divisions and Departmenl-. I know of no 33 warrant in the law for«the proposition you announce, thai the command of a Department or Division cannot be assumed as a matter of rank, but is one of assignment only. I'lie laws governing rank in the Army, are, as to this matter, ( lie same now a^ before the late civil war: and then ii was nev- er doubted but that the senior in rank, in the Line of the Army on duty within any command, had the right by virtue of his superior rank, and ii was his duty, to assume the command, un less the President should otherwise specially direct, according to the nature of the case. This rule was absolute, and universally applicable throughout the Army, and i~ in accordance with the theory upon which rank i- given; and the customs of the Army were always in accordance with it. The rights of rank, as to command, arc similar for every grade and every command. Different views of the law and practices, may have arisen within the last few year?, in regard to the rights of rank as to the command of Military Divisions and Departments, but there can be no good reason for them, and whatever confusion there may have been on the subjeel is probably attributable to the precedents established in the .Military Districts under the Re- construction Acts, lint which were not applicable outside of t hem nor within their boundaries after they have ceased to exist, and perhaps in some degree to the precedent during the war. of a law long since repealed, giving the President the extraordinary power to place a junior in command over his seniors. In conclusion, I ask your indulgence for troubling yon with tlii— unexpected continuation of the correspondence. As the claims I have made have not been recognized, I re quest that our entire correspondence (unpublished) may be published, thai the nature of them may be generally under !. and not alone my letter of the Oth of Julv last. I am. very respectfully, Your ( )li"t Serv't, W. s. HANCOCK. Maj. Gt m ral U. s. . 1. 34 Major General W. S. Hancock to Major Horace Porter, Secretary to the President: St. Louis, Mo., < >■ tobee 10, 1870. Major HORACE PORTER, S( '•'// to ///< J'ri sidt nt. Sir — Your letter of September 7th, written by direction of the President, was received by me only the day previous to my departure for Pembina, from which post I have Imt recently re- turned. I am gratified that the President has authorized the publica- tion of my letter of 1 he 9th of July last, but if was and is my desire that the full correspondence be published, in order that the subject may be clearly understood". There are some points in your letter to which I would reply, but having covered the same in a letter written to General Sherman, in reply to his last letter to me, and which will, with- out doubt, be brought to the attention of the President, it appears to l>e unnecessary to recapitulate what I therein stated. I am, very respectfully. Your Ob'l Serv't. WINFTJ S. HANCOCK. Major G< n< ral JJ. S. .1 . General W. T. Sherman to Major Genera? W. S. Hancock: Headquarters Army of tjii: United States, Washington, I>. C, October 1">, 1870. General W. s. HANCOCK. CornS 1 g D&pH St. Paul, Minn. General — You are aware that I have been absent for some week-. I am just in receipt of a letter from General Porter, a copy of which I inclose. This letter I had expected would have been sent to yon direct, as I requested of the President ; but 35 though late, you are mm fully authorized to publish your letter to me, <>i' July 9th, IS70, with such explanation as will make ii> late publication plain in your friends. yours i nil v. W. T. SHERMAN, Gt lit rul . P. S. 1 had jus) written the above, when your letter of Oc- tober 3d was received. Inasmuch as you are to be in Washing ton on tin' 17th in>t.. I will direct this letter and inclosure to he retained and handed you in person, and I construe the Presi- dent's consent to embrace the publication of any letters you may have received or written on tlii< subject. W. T. SHERMAN, General. Major Horace Pouter, Secretary 'o tin President, to General \\. T. Sherman. I."V. Braxch, N. ■!.. Septemisjek li. I>7< General W. T. SHERMAN, Com'dff Army of thi f ■ States. General — The President directs me i<> acknowledge the re- ceipt i>f Gen. Hancock's letter to you of the L2th ult., requesting you to publish a previous letter, dated 9th July last. The President has no objection to your giving the letter to the press, as General Hancock desires. Very respect fully. Your Ob't Serv't, HORACE PORTER. BJa'12