A Hostile Committee Sent to Washington
The chair appointed, as the committee to go to Washington, Henry T. Blow, John C. Vogle, I. H. Sturgeon, and Thomas O’Reilley, and authorized Mr. Blow to add to this committee any other “true Union man” who would go. Who, if any, besides Messrs. Blow, Vogle, and O’Reilley actually composed the committee, I was never informed. On August 10, Halleck, then general-in-chief, telegraphed me from Washington: “There is a deputation here from Colonel Blair and others asking for your removal on account of inefficiency.”
Colonel Blair happened into my office a few minutes after the receipt of the despatch on the 11th, and I handed it to him. He at once said in substance, and with feeling: “That is not true. No one is authorized to ask in my name for your removal”; and he sent a despatch to that effect to General Halleck.
The next day (August 12) despatches were exchanged between General Halleck and Colonel Blair, of which the latter furnished me a copy, inclosed with the following note from himself:
“St. Louis, Mo., August 13th, ’62.
“Brig.-Gen’l Schofield.
“Dear Schofield: I inclose you a copy of a despatch (marked ‘A’) received yesterday from Major-General Halleck, and my answer thereto, marked ‘B’.
“Yours,
“Frank P. Blair, Jr.”
Copy “A.”
“To Hon. F. P. Blair,
“August 12, 1862. “(By telegraph from War Dep’t.) “Washington, 12:50 P.M. “The committee from St. Louis—Henry T. Blow, John C. Vogle, and Thomas O’Reilley—told me, in presence of the President, that they were authorized by you to ask for Gen. Schofield’s removal for inefficiency. The Postmaster-General has to-day sent me a letter from Mr. ——, asking that you be put in Gen. Schofield’s place. There has been no action in this or on the papers presented by the above-named committee.
“H. W. Halleck,
“General-in-chief.”
Copy “B.”
“St. Louis, Mo., August 12th, 1862.
“Major-General Halleck,
“General-in-chief, Washington City, D. C.:
“I despatched to you yesterday, and wrote the Postmaster-General last week. Let the letter be submitted to you. Nobody is authorized to ask in my name for Gen’l Schofield’s removal. I think the State military organization should be abandoned as soon as practicable, and a military commander, in this State, authorized to act without respect to Gov. Gamble. I do not want the place, but want the commander in the State to be instructed to act without any regard to the State authorities.
“Frank P. Blair, Jr.”
The foregoing gives, so far as I know it, the essence of the Missouri quarrel of 1862. I have never had the curiosity to attempt to ascertain how far the meeting of August 4 was hostile to me personally.
During the time, subsequent to General Halleck’s departure for Washington, July 23, 1862, that the Department of the Mississippi was left without any immediate commander, there appears to have been a contest in Washington between the military and the political influence, relative to the disposition to be made of that important command. The following from General Halleck to me, dated September 9, 1862, indicates the situation at that time:
“(Unofficial.)
“My dear Gen’l:
“There has been a strong political pressure of outsiders to get certain parties put in command of new Dep’ts to be made out of the old Dep’t of the Miss. The presence of the enemy and the danger of the capital have for the moment suspended these political intrigues, or rather prevented the accomplishment of their objects. If any one of our Western Gen’ls would do something creditable and brilliant in the present crisis, it would open the way to a new organization such as it should be.
“From the position of St. Louis as the source of supplies, Missouri ought not to be separated from Arkansas and western Tennessee. What will be done in the matter I do not know.
“Yours truly,
“H. W. Halleck.”
None of “our Western generals” had then done anything very “creditable and brilliant.” Even Grant was the object of grave charges and bitter attacks. Powerful influences were at work to supersede him in command of the army in west Tennessee. Had there been any available general at that time capable of commanding public confidence, the military idea would doubtless have prevailed, but in the absence of such a leader the politicians triumphed in part.