Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu/538

506 president's request, went to see him. He did not complain that his agreement with Johnston was disapproved. It was the publication that constituted the gravamen of the offence, its tone and style, the insinuations it contained, the false inferences it occasioned, and the offensive orders to the subordinate officers of Gen. Sherman which succeeded the publication. These he bitterly resented at the time, but before Mr. Stanton's death they became fully reconciled.

Preliminary to the disbandment of the National armies they passed in review before President Johnson and cabinet and Lieut.-Gen. Grant &mdash; the Army of the Potomac on 23 May, and Gen. Sherman's army on the 24th. Sherman was particularly observed and honored. He took leave of his army in an eloquent special field order of 30 May. From 27 June, 1865, to 3 March, 1869, he was in command of the military division of the Mississippi, with headquarters at St. Louis, embracing the Departments of the Ohio, Missouri, and Arkansas. Upon the appointment of Grant as general of the army on 25 July, 1866, Sherman was promoted to be lieutenant-general, and when Grant became president of the United States, 4 March, 1869, Sherman succeeded him as general, with headquarters at Washington. From 10 Nov., 1871, to 17 Sept., 1872, he made a professional tour in Europe, and was everywhere received with the honors due to his distinguished rank and service. At his own request, and in order to make Sheridan general-in-chief, he was placed on the retired list, with full pay and emoluments, on 8 Feb., 1884. He has received many honors, among which may be mentioned the degree of LL. D. from Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and other universities, and membership in the Board of regents of the Smithsonian institution, 1871-'83.

A thorough organizer, he is also prompt in execution, demanding prompt and full service from all whom he commands. He is an admirable writer, and goes at once to the very point at issue, leaving no one in doubt as to his meaning. His favorites are always those who do the best work in the truest spirit, and his written estimate of them is always in terms of high commendation. Without being a natural orator, he expresses himself clearly and forcibly in public, and as he is continually called out, he has greatly developed in that respect since the war.

In personal appearance he is a typical soldier and commander, tall and erect, with auburn hair carelessly brushed and short-cropped beard, his eyes dark hazel, his head large and well-formed; the resolution and strong purpose and grim gravity exhibited by his features in repose would indicate to the stranger a lack of the softer and more humane qualities, but when he is animated in social conversation such an estimate is changed at once, and in his bright and sympathizing smile one is reminded of Richard's words:

&ldquo;Grim-visaged War has smoothed his wrinkled front.&rdquo;

His association with his friends and comrades is exceedingly cordial, and his affection for those allied to him is as tender as that of a woman. A life of Gen. Sherman has been written by Gen. Manning F. Force in the &ldquo;Great Generals&rdquo; series (New York, 1898), and he has published &ldquo;Memoirs of Gen. William T. Sherman, by Himself&rdquo; (2 vols., New York, 1875; new ed., 1885). &mdash; His brother, John, statesman, b. in Lancaster, Ohio, 10 May, 1823, after the death of their father in 1829, leaving the large family with but limited means, the boy was cared for by a cousin named

John Sherman, residing in Mount Vernon, where he was sent to school. At the age of twelve he returned to Lancaster and entered the academy to prepare himself for college. In two years he was sufficiently advanced to enter the sophomore class, but a desire to be self-supporting led to his becoming junior rod-man in the corps of engineers engaged on the Muskingum. He was placed in charge of the section of that work in Beverly early in 1838, and so continued until the summer of 1839, when he was removed because he was a Whig. The responsibilities attending the measurements of excavations and embankments, and the levelling for a lock to a canal, proved a better education than could have been procured elsewhere in the same time. He began the study of law in the office of his brother Charles, and in 1844 was admitted to the bar. He formed a partnership with his brother in Mansfield, and continued with him until his entrance into congress, during which time his ability and industry gained for him both distinction and pecuniary success.

Meanwhile, in 1848, he was sent as a delegate to the Whig convention, held in Philadelphia, that nominated Zachary Taylor for the presidency, and in 1852 he was a delegate to the Baltimore convention that nominated Winfield Scott. His attitude as a conservative Whig, in the alarm and excitement that followed the attempt to repeal the Missouri compromise, secured his election to the 34th congress, and he took his seat on 3 Dec., 1855. He is a ready and forcible speaker, and his thorough acquaintance with public affairs made him an acknowledged power in the house from the first. He grew rapidly in reputation as a debater on all the great questions agitating the public mind during that eventful period: the repeal of the Missouri compromise, the Dred-Scott decision, the imposition of slavery upon Kansas, the fugitive-slave law, the national finances, and other measures involving the very existence of the republic. His appointment by the speaker, Nathaniel P. Banks, as a member of the committee to inquire into and collect evidence in regard to the border-ruffian troubles in Kansas was an important event in his career. Owing to the illness of the chairman, William A. Howard, of Michigan, the duty of preparing the report devolved upon Mr. Sherman. Every statement was verified by the clearest testimony, and has never been controverted by any one. This report, when presented to the house, created a great deal of feeling, and intensified the antagonisms in congress, being made the basis of the canvass of 1856. He acted with the Republican party in supporting John C. Frémont for the presidency because that party resisted the extension of slavery, but did not seek its abolition. In the debate on the submarine telegraph he showed his opposition to monopolists by saying: &ldquo;I cannot agree that our government should be bound by any contract with any private incorporated company for