<h2><SPAN name="XVII" id="XVII"></SPAN>XVII</h2>
<br/>
<p><i>General Scott's Plans—Criticized as the
"Anaconda"—The Three Fields of
Conflict—Frémont Appointed
Major-General—His Military
Failures—Battle of Wilson's Creek—Hunter
Ordered to Frémont—Frémont's
Proclamation—President Revokes Frémont's
Proclamation—Lincoln's Letter to
Browning—Surrender of
Lexington—Frémont Takes the
Field—Cameron's Visit to
Frémont—Frémont's Removal</i></p>
<br/>
<br/>
<p>The military genius and experience of General Scott, from the
first, pretty correctly divined the grand outline of military
operations which would become necessary in reducing the revolted
Southern States to renewed allegiance. Long before the battle of
Bull Run was planned, he urged that the first seventy-five
regiments of three months' militia could not be relied on for
extensive campaigns, because their term of service would expire
before they could be well organized. His outline suggestion,
therefore, was that the new three years' volunteer army be placed
in ten or fifteen healthy camps and given at least four months of
drill and tactical instruction; and when the navy had, by a rigid
blockade, closed all the harbors along the seaboard of the Southern
States, the fully prepared army should, by invincible columns, move
down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, leaving a strong cordon
of military posts behind it to keep open the stream, join hands
with the blockade, and thus envelop the <SPAN name="page232" id="page232"></SPAN>principal area
of rebellion in a powerful military grasp which would paralyze and
effectually kill the insurrection. Even while suggesting this plan,
however, the general admitted that the great obstacle to its
adoption would be the impatience of the patriotic and loyal Union
people and leaders, who would refuse to wait the necessary length
of time.</p>
<p>The general was correct in his apprehension. The newspapers
criticized his plan in caustic editorials and ridiculous cartoons
as "Scott's Anaconda," and public opinion rejected it in an
overwhelming demand for a prompt and energetic advance. Scott was
correct in military theory, while the people and the administration
were right in practice, under existing political conditions.
Although Bull Run seemed to justify the general, West Virginia and
Missouri vindicated the President and the people.</p>
<p>It can now be seen that still a third
element—geography—intervened to give shape and sequence
to the main outlines of the Civil War. When, at the beginning of
May, General Scott gave his advice, the seat of government of the
first seven Confederate States was still at Montgomery, Alabama. By
the adhesion of the four interior border States to the
insurrection, and the removal of the archives and administration of
Jefferson Davis to Richmond, Virginia, toward the end of June, as
the capital of the now eleven Confederate States, Washington
necessarily became the center of Union attack, and Richmond the
center of Confederate defense. From the day when McDowell began his
march to Bull Run, to that when Lee evacuated Richmond in his final
hopeless flight, the route between these two opposing capitals
remained the principal and dominating line of military operations,
and the region between Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River on the<SPAN name="page233" id="page233"></SPAN> east, and the chain of the Alleghanies
on the west, the primary field of strategy.</p>
<p>According to geographical features, the second great field of
strategy lay between the Alleghany Mountains and the Mississippi
River, and the third between the Mississippi River, the Rocky
Mountains, and the Rio Grande. Except in Western Virginia, the
attitude of neutrality assumed by Kentucky for a considerable time
delayed the definition of the military frontier and the beginning
of active hostilities in the second field, thus giving greater
momentary importance to conditions existing and events transpiring
in Missouri, with the city of St. Louis as the principal center of
the third great military field.</p>
<p>The same necessity which dictated the promotion of General
McClellan at one bound from captain to major-general compelled a
similar phenomenal promotion, not alone of officers of the regular
army, but also of eminent civilians to high command and military
responsibility in the immense volunteer force authorized by
Congress. Events, rather than original purpose, had brought
McClellan into prominence and ranking duty; but now, by design, the
President gave John C. Frémont a commission of
major-general, and placed him in command of the third great
military field, with headquarters at St. Louis, with the leading
idea that he should organize the military strength of the
Northwest, first, to hold Missouri to the Union, and, second, by a
carefully prepared military expedition open the Mississippi River.
By so doing, he would sever the Confederate States, reclaim or
conquer the region lying west of the great stream, and thus reduce
by more than one half the territorial area of the insurrection.
Though he had been an army lieutenant, he had no experience in
active war; yet the talent and energy <SPAN name="page234" id="page234"></SPAN>he had
displayed in Western military exploration, and the political
prominence he had reached as candidate of the Republican party for
President in 1856, seemed to fit him preëminently for such a
duty.</p>
<p>While most of the volunteers from New England and the Middle
States were concentrated at Washington and dependent points, the
bulk of the Western regiments was, for the time being, put under
the command of Frémont for present and prospective duty. But
the high hopes which the administration placed in the general were
not realized. The genius which could lead a few dozen or a few
hundred Indian scouts and mountain trappers over desert plains and
through the fastnesses of the Sierra Nevada, that could defy savage
hostilities and outlive starvation amid imprisoning snows, failed
signally before the task of animating and combining the patriotic
enthusiasm of eight or ten great northwestern States, and
organizing and leading an army of one hundred thousand eager
volunteers in a comprehensive and decisive campaign to recover a
great national highway. From the first, Frémont failed in
promptness, in foresight, in intelligent supervision and, above
all, in inspiring confidence and attracting assistance and
devotion. His military administration created serious extravagance
and confusion, and his personal intercourse excited the distrust
and resentment of the governors and civilian officials, whose
counsel and coöperation were essential to his usefulness and
success.</p>
<p>While his resources were limited, and while he fortified St.
Louis and reinforced Cairo, a yet more important point needed his
attention and help. Lyon, who had followed Governor Jackson and
General Price in their flight from Boonville to Springfield in
southern Missouri, found his forces diminished beyond his
<SPAN name="page235" id="page235"></SPAN>expectation by the expiration of the term
of service of his three months' regiments, and began to be
threatened by a northward concentration of Confederate detachments
from the Arkansas line and the Indian Territory. The neglect of his
appeals for help placed him in the situation where he could neither
safely remain inactive, nor safely retreat. He therefore took the
chances of scattering the enemy before him by a sudden, daring
attack with his five thousand effectives, against nearly treble
numbers, in the battle of Wilson's Creek, at daylight on August 10.
The casualties on the two sides were nearly equal, and the enemy
was checked and crippled; but the Union army sustained a fatal loss
in the death of General Lyon, who was instantly killed while
leading a desperate bayonet charge. His skill and activity had, so
far, been the strength of the Union cause in Missouri. The absence
of his counsel and personal example rendered a retreat to the
railroad terminus at Rolla necessary. This discouraging event
turned public criticism sharply upon Frémont. Loath to yield
to mere public clamor, and averse to hasty changes in military
command, Mr. Lincoln sought to improve the situation by sending
General David Hunter to take a place on Frémont's staff.</p>
<p>"General Frémont needs assistance," said his note to
Hunter, "which it is difficult to give him. He is losing the
confidence of men near him, whose support any man in his position
must have to be successful. His cardinal mistake is that he
isolates himself, and allows nobody to see him; and by which he
does not know what is going on in the very matter he is dealing
with. He needs to have by his side a man of large experience. Will
you not, for me, take that place? Your rank is one grade too high
to be ordered to it; but will you not serve the country and oblige
me by taking it voluntarily?"<SPAN name="page236" id="page236"></SPAN></p>
<p>This note indicates, better than pages of description, the kind,
helpful, and forbearing spirit with which the President, through
the long four years' war, treated his military commanders and
subordinates; and which, in several instances, met such ungenerous
return. But even while Mr. Lincoln was attempting to smooth this
difficulty, Frémont had already burdened him with two
additional embarrassments. One was a perplexing personal quarrel
the general had begun with the influential Blair family,
represented by Colonel Frank Blair, the indefatigable Unionist
leader in Missouri, and Montgomery Blair, the postmaster-general in
Lincoln's cabinet, who had hitherto been Frémont's most
influential friends and supporters; and, in addition, the father of
these, Francis P. Blair, Sr., a veteran politician whose influence
dated from Jackson's administration, and through whose assistance
Frémont had been nominated as presidential candidate in
1856.</p>
<p>The other embarrassment was of a more serious and far-reaching
nature. Conscious that he was losing the esteem and confidence of
both civil and military leaders in the West, Frémont's
adventurous fancy caught at the idea of rehabilitating himself
before the public by a bold political manoeuver. Day by day the
relation of slavery to the Civil War was becoming a more
troublesome question, and exciting impatient and angry discussion.
Without previous consultation with the President or any of his
advisers or friends, Frémont, on August 30, wrote and
printed, as commander of the Department of the West, a proclamation
establishing martial law throughout the State of Missouri, and
announcing that:</p>
<p>"All persons who shall be taken with arms in their hands within
these lines shall be tried by court-martial, and if found guilty
will be shot. The property, real <SPAN name="page237" id="page237"></SPAN>and personal, of all
persons in the State of Missouri who shall take up arms against the
United States, or who shall be directly proven to have taken an
active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be
confiscated to the public use; and their slaves, if any they have,
are hereby declared freemen."</p>
<p>The reason given in the proclamation for this drastic and
dictatorial measure was to suppress disorder, maintain the public
peace, and protect persons and property of loyal citizens—all
simple police duties. For issuing his proclamation without
consultation with the President, he could offer only the flimsy
excuse that it involved two days of time to communicate with
Washington, while he well knew that no battle was pending and no
invasion in progress. This reckless misuse of power President
Lincoln also corrected with his dispassionate prudence and habitual
courtesy. He immediately wrote to the general:</p>
<p>"MY DEAR SIR: Two points in your proclamation of August 30 give
me some anxiety:</p>
<p>"<i>First</i>. Should you shoot a man, according to the
proclamation, the Confederates would very certainly shoot our best
men in their hands, in retaliation; and so, man for man,
indefinitely. It is, therefore, my order that you allow no man to
be shot under the proclamation, without first having my approbation
or consent.</p>
<p>"<i>Second</i>. I think there is great danger that the closing
paragraph, in relation to the confiscation of property and the
liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern
Union friends and turn them against us; perhaps ruin our rather
fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me, therefore, to ask that you
will, as of your own motion, modify that paragraph so as to conform
to the first and fourth sections of the act <SPAN name="page238" id="page238"></SPAN>of
Congress entitled, 'An act to confiscate property used for
insurrectionary purposes,' approved August 6, 1861, and a copy of
which act I herewith send you.</p>
<p>"This letter is written in a spirit of caution, and not of
censure. I send it by a special messenger, in order that it may
certainly and speedily reach you."</p>
<p>But the headstrong general was too blind and selfish to accept
this mild redress of a fault that would have justified instant
displacement from command. He preferred that the President should
openly direct him to make the correction. Admitting that he decided
in one night upon the measure, he added: "If I were to retract it
of my own accord, it would imply that I myself thought it wrong,
and that I had acted without the reflection which the gravity of
the point demanded." The inference is plain that Frémont was
unwilling to lose the influence of his hasty step upon public
opinion. But by this course he deliberately placed himself in an
attitude of political hostility to the administration.</p>
<p>The incident produced something of the agitation which the
general had evidently counted upon. Radical antislavery men
throughout the free States applauded his act and condemned the
President, and military emancipation at once became a subject of
excited discussion. Even strong conservatives were carried away by
the feeling that rebels would be but properly punished by the loss
of their slaves. To Senator Browning, the President's intimate
personal friend, who entertained this feeling, Mr. Lincoln wrote a
searching analysis of Frémont's proclamation and its
dangers:</p>
<p>"Yours of the seventeenth is just received; and, coming from
you, I confess it astonishes me. That you should object to my
adhering to a law which you had assisted in making and presenting
to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this is a very
small <SPAN name="page239" id="page239"></SPAN>part. General Frémont's
proclamation as to confiscation of property and the liberation of
slaves is purely political, and not within the range of military
law or necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity to
seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or
a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it as
long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law,
because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no
longer belong to the owner or his heirs forever, and this as well
when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is
purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And
the same is true of slaves. If the general needs them he can seize
them and use them, but when the need is past, it is not for him to
fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled
according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military
proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question is simply
'dictatorship.' It assumes that the general may do anything he
pleases—confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal
people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, I
have no doubt, would be more popular, with some thoughtless people,
than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless
position, nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility.</p>
<p>"You speak of it as being the only means of saving the
government. On the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the
government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the
government of the United States—any government of
constitution and laws—wherein a general or a president may
make permanent rules of property by proclamation? I do not say
Congress might not, with propriety, pass a law on the point, just
such as General Frémont proclaimed. I do not say I<SPAN name="page240" id="page240"></SPAN> might not, as a member of Congress, vote
for it. What I object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly
or impliedly seize and exercize the permanent legislative functions
of the government.</p>
<p>"So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing
was popular in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had
been a general declaration of emancipation. The Kentucky
legislature would not budge till that proclamation was modified;
and General Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of General
Frémont having actually issued deeds of manumission, a whole
company of our volunteers threw down their arms and disbanded. I
was so assured as to think it probable that the very arms we had
furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to lose
Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky
gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all
against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would
as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of
this capital."</p>
<p>If it be objected that the President himself decreed military
emancipation a year later, then it must be remembered that
Frémont's proclamation differed in many essential
particulars from the President's edict of January 1, 1863. By that
time, also, the entirely changed conditions justified a complete
change of policy; but, above all, the supreme reason of military
necessity, upon which alone Mr. Lincoln based the constitutionality
of his edict of freedom, was entirely wanting in the case of
Frémont.</p>
<p>The harvest of popularity which Frémont evidently hoped
to secure by his proclamation was soon blighted by a new military
disaster. The Confederate forces which had been united in the
battle of Wilson's Creek <SPAN name="page241" id="page241"></SPAN>quickly became disorganized through
the disagreement of their leaders and the want of provisions and
other military supplies, and mainly returned to Arkansas and the
Indian Territory, whence they had come. But General Price, with his
Missouri contingent, gradually increased his followers, and as the
Union retreat from Springfield to Rolla left the way open, began a
northward march through the western part of the State to attack
Colonel Mulligan, who, with about twenty-eight hundred Federal
troops, intrenched himself at Lexington on the Missouri River.
Secession sympathy was strong along the line of his march, and
Price gained adherents so rapidly that on September 18 he was able
to invest Mulligan's position with a somewhat irregular army
numbering about twenty thousand. After a two days' siege, the
garrison was compelled to surrender, through the exhaustion of the
supply of water in their cisterns. The victory won, Price again
immediately retreated southward, losing his army almost as fast as
he had collected it, made up, as it was, more in the spirit and
quality of a sudden border foray than an organized campaign.</p>
<p>For this new loss, Frémont was subjected to a shower of
fierce criticism, which this time he sought to disarm by
ostentatious announcements of immediate activity. "I am taking the
field myself," he telegraphed, "and hope to destroy the enemy
either before or after the junction of forces under McCulloch."
Four days after the surrender, the St. Louis newspapers printed his
order organizing an army of five divisions. The document made a
respectable show of force on paper, claiming an aggregate of nearly
thirty-nine thousand. In reality, however, being scattered and
totally unprepared for the field, it possessed no such effective
strength. For a month longer <SPAN name="page242" id="page242"></SPAN>extravagant newspaper reports
stimulated the public with the hope of substantial results from
Frémont's intended campaign. Before the end of that time,
however, President Lincoln, under growing apprehension, sent
Secretary of War Cameron and the adjutant-general of the army to
Missouri to make a personal investigation. Reaching
Frémont's camp on October 13, they found the movement to be
a mere forced, spasmodic display, without substantial strength,
transportation, or coherent and feasible plan; and that at least
two of the division commanders were without means to execute the
orders they had received, and utterly without confidence in their
leader, or knowledge of his intentions.</p>
<p>To give Frémont yet another chance, the Secretary of War
withheld the President's order to relieve the general from command,
which he had brought with him, on Frémont's insistence that
a victory was really within his reach. When this hope also proved
delusive, and suspicion was aroused that the general might be
intending not only to deceive, but to defy the administration,
President Lincoln sent the following letter by a special friend to
General Curtis, commanding at St. Louis:</p>
<p>"DEAR SIR: On receipt of this, with the accompanying inclosures,
you will take safe, certain, and suitable measures to have the
inclosure addressed to Major-General Frémont delivered to
him with all reasonable dispatch, subject to these conditions only,
that if, when General Frémont shall be reached by the
messenger—yourself, or any one sent by you—he shall
then have, in personal command, fought and won a battle, or shall
then be actually in a battle, or shall then be in the immediate
presence of the enemy in expectation of a battle, it is not to be
delivered, but held for <SPAN name="page243" id="page243"></SPAN>further orders. After, and not till
after, the delivery to General Frémont, let the inclosure
addressed to General Hunter be delivered to him."</p>
<p>The order of removal was delivered to Frémont on November
2. By that date he had reached Springfield, but had won no victory,
fought no battle, and was not in the presence of the enemy. Two of
his divisions were not yet even with him. Still laboring under the
delusion, perhaps imposed on him by his scouts, his orders stated
that the enemy was only a day's march distant, and advancing to
attack him. The inclosure mentioned in the President's letter to
Curtis was an order to General David Hunter to relieve
Frémont. When he arrived and assumed command the scouts he
sent forward found no enemy within reach, and no such contingency
of battle or hope of victory as had been rumored and assumed.</p>
<p>Frémont's personal conduct in these disagreeable
circumstances was entirely commendable. He took leave of the army
in a short farewell order, couched in terms of perfect obedience to
authority and courtesy to his successor, asking for him the same
cordial support he had himself received. Nor did he by word or act
justify the suspicions of insubordination for which some of his
indiscreet adherents had given cause. Under the instructions
President Lincoln had outlined in his order to Hunter, that general
gave up the idea of indefinitely pursuing Price, and divided the
army into two corps of observation, which were drawn back and
posted, for the time being, at the two railroad termini of Rolla
and Sedalia, to be recruited and prepared for further service.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<SPAN name="page244" id="page244"></SPAN>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />