Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 20.djvu/216

 210 Southern Historical Society Papers.

7. It practically abolished the Confiscation law and relieved the Rebels, of every degree, who had slaughtered our people, from all pains and penalties for their crimes.

8. It gave terms that had been deliberately, repeatedly and solemnly rejected by President Lincoln, and better terms than the Rebels had ever asked in their most prosperous condition.

9. It formed no basis of true and lasting peace, but relieved the Rebels from the pressure of our victories, and left them in condition to renew their efforts to overthrow the United States Government and subdue the loyal States whenever their strength was recruited and any opportunity was offered.

The publication of these reasons was absolutely demanded in the interest of the public safety. The expectations which General Sher- man had raised in the minds of the army and the people, that our soldiers only awaited the president's order to return rejoicing to their homes, could not be realized under his terms consistently with the dignity or the safety of the country. This had to be made evi- dent to the people and the army to prevent serious and perhaps dangerous discontent. The Honorable Jacob Collamer, then a Sen- ator from the State of Vermont, .in a letter to Mr. Stanton, dated June 14, 1865, expressed his opinion on this point as follows:

General Sherman promulgated to his army and the world his ar- rangements with Johnston. Indeed, the armistice could not in any other way be accounted for, and the army was gratified with the ex- pectation of any immediate return home. To reject that arrange- ment was clearly necessary, and to do it without stating any reason for it would have been a very dangerous experiment, both to the public and to the army. Indeed, many had serious apprehensions of its effect on the army, even with the conclusive reasons which were given. Should not this view be presented in any and every true manifesto of the case?

It is not necessary here to discuss the terms. No one in his senses will question the good intentions of General Sherman in agreeing to them, but it is the truth of history that they were rejected by the union people of the country at the time as unanimously as they were by the president and his cabinet.

In conclusion, allow me to quote one more authority in support of Mr. Stanton' s view and in condemnation of General Sherman's fearful mistake. The authority will not be seriously questioned by you. It reads as follows :