New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-27
OFFICIAL UNDERSTANDINGS.
THE GRANrHANcoCK CONTROVERSY

DAN.
washington. d. c., Feb. ga voluminous
correspondence arising out tof IAN alleged dscouresy
trem Maior-Gen Hancock 10 Gen. Grant, upon the re-
turn Of the former from New Orleans has iust been pub
lshed az the request Of Gen. Hancock The letters
passed principally between Gems sherman and Han
cock and the first from the former states substantially
the whole case. Gen. Sherman writes, in May last:
cut from The Ne,c- York World yesterday article
headed President Grant insults Gen. Hancock" This
article is So bitter in ts tone, ana states facts SO posi-
tvelyQuOtng what the editor author supipses To be
n letter from me TO yOuwhch quotation ia every word
that il naturally attracts much attention and
will force GEN Grant 20 publish, 10 he pub
lshCd, the actual correspondence have looked over
courteous in my note giving you fair frank answer to
your question 10y telegraph from 81 Louis dd not
answer 10y telegraph Tor the very reason tna II ufn nc
seen 10y irresponsible agents, who might give puhcy
ter from my ONCE, and the inference viii lie universal
that IL leaked ont from headquarters and from the
false quotation also feel the compiler OF the arti
Gle never READ the act0al elte out ganeIeo up Nna
he supposed 70 he the facts Of the from some one
took exception 10 Gen. Grants revocation Of certain
orders you made IN ewOreans, the power TO do when
specifically imposed on HIM by the statute, and that
when you reached Washington 10 assume the command
Of the Military Division Of the Atlantic you positively
neglected 20 call on him personally hut simply recorded
your would any strange officer aud that after
familiar Tsy H you touched ycur hst dnay and walked
OF althis only know from Others not from Cen
unfriendly attitude. think you ought to write me
letter dsclamiug all knowledge and connection WIN
This article of The Nec York WorId-such letter a. may
vel De published TO counteract il damaging enec' Oh
all the parties interested. yourself included.
GEN. HANCOCK TO GEN. SHERMAN.
This letter Gen. Hancock found waiting him at his
new post-St Paul, MnnesOta-snd at once replied,
greatly modifying the statement as published; and on
the 9th July he wrote at length giving the whole MS
tory of the misunderstanding between himself and Grant
as follows:
would have allowed the differences between Gen.
Grant and self 10 rest where the recent corresponds
iuinrious "a me- contained In the article accompanying
a. .ffIW Vas
were thus disseminated broadcast over the country
leading many people % believe that they had the sane
lion OF the authority which that corresPonde9ceto
tn press, from the iaSt that me stleT anu .i e
correspondence were published together .t one
purp0fiing to be an explanation OF the otheI'
And 1 would have confined myself 10 q cor,
r,cton Of the statements IN the 1lsIen auoNt m
TO- hut for the receipt OF your le on
sttc among other things, that III your opinion
10 write letter for publication, dsGlamlns any AhUMr
o. al ar ION with She article cut from me Net-
W. World" None Of said articles were writ
ten OF published 10y my authority OF known on 10 ne
rouragcd the publication OF anything covered 10y Hlt
p an the authority for any injurious correct or
Incorrect statements ainedinany OF them 1ou are
doutlcs, correct IN your belief that the compiler OF e
article you incOsc never read the Sponde93t Out
gathered up what he supposed to be the facts Of the case
from who did see IT, OF had heard II spoheu OI'
never have, however. hesltaed To SHOW me %
enc 10 friends relate - others the decision OF Tue
President when was asked for the reason ny my Ias
had been disreCarded 10 giving JUNIOR nsucr S'
Of command over my head There Wa nolnlug IN ~
succt your letter, announcing tue decision 81 me
President my letter 10 you reply OF conhdel
tia character; ana II was mhnlieStN que 70 ne aIo
io5ed caTrsoniencc Explains clearly what
known only To few persons before VIZ tt reasons o
Pr sdrut la, given why, on the death OF Mp-1eh'
Thomas not assigned 10 the command OF hltaIy
and Why Jun oil Major General assigned over my
head 10 command division 10 higher grade OF com
mnd than given t. me "a military delartnenJi ana
also Why /. the only MUorGeneral commanding de- |
p1rment IN the military DIVISION III wIG1 N VA o1T
stationed, the other pdrtmeht cohnAhoels Delnk pu
BraIdier Generals, they are III the eLurt service
cTv state did not complain OF want Of personal con
alteration; 10 was late for that. had complained
RAM. ami no notice wac taken. Of it, nor
did prevent greater want OF soas' 1aya, ID
courtesy: principles were IN question ana dd nOt care
to onsgr lorna fSST { E1c6 5S ' he by
many persons harsh one; but was DO DOUBT Ine htsh
decision you communicated that made it appear 90 The
decision was 10y the hghes! aath9TlIy' IRON %cn no
trusting TO time for more Just Consideration, Inc
charges were of general nature no sptcinc allegation.
fhgt decision 10 invite inquiry into the origin OF the
CAUSES which led 20 that decisions rather forbade NJ
10 enter upon explanations under such circumstance.
presume the fAessSn G er ana piiy rsb ISF
on tic two occasions which You referred u 80 your
recent letter I'M whrt accused Of having treated
the President (she he Was General Of the Army with
drr>cct. Had been Informed, when the decision wac
taiuy nave noticed them, and If the facts had not been
city stated "ouid nave tohltN'Iu lheini NY wiz
herein llccriuy reply 10 thcm a. the subject has been
thu, opened although ] do not recognize that my
i. N auv wav properly dependent the favor with
which / may be personally regarded by my
N.
lave expected, from friendly Admin. Stration,
4m.aa OF DNi,ioh' e. an NY SSn a were
Iur.t Commander. / was q Major General, aud inc
se,r az ali officers commanding departments had
some o. r-urI O., a-o, for desiring certain Department
300 tua t.-i which AIN now rerNins the nature OF
which reasons were. from long Acquaintance Wen
kuol iuy iui Iy sUperiots ana being the senior
aud all those above mc having DIVISIONS SUPPOSED lue
choice would he yielded ." ne as the Department was
tohe vacant anl was 10 be assigned 10 command.
Like reasons had regarded in Other cases at dlhereut
i'm. entered my protest then against What deemed
want 0i Cue Iteration o"t no noJte has lt been
taken OF IT, although IT was made q year or
more since. Tie decision was fua and / obeyed |
Ill. order / wa sent To a department then considered
the lcast important of the three ia the division N which
was placed. Tie one desired 10 command had three
ftr,- III tllpp of troops the other twice the number
that In tue command assigned to me, and both OF
tlrm commanded by my juniors. The principle |
then Involved was simply one OF preference and conSde
ration due To- rank, while on the recent occasion the prin
cpic violated is OF hi CHER order Tie customs and ira
dons OF the violated the first OCCASION
they also violated IN the recent decision well as
thc highest puLcipt upon "hcii rank j. gwen
IN your recent letter yUu speak OF the decision ot the
President a. disregard 81 my superior rank an me
s0ne commission, PIT an 0der one, apparently a. II II
A. punishable iu principle whether Gen. SchoBeld
MaiorG raj. had been higher grade OF
maud over me, senior MAJOR General or whether the
teuOr BrgadiereleIal had been given that grade, or
a. u It were serious matter To be Oversdughed by
junior NaJoI6ehein may ne IN error ia attilOuihg
10 sou any such opinion; but am not beg leave TO
came: for Biigtdier-Ieucral L. equally eligible, under
proper circumstances, 10 command division Off
r doe not con template that Brigad Generals shall
De- placed over heads Of MAJOR Generals, that
their seniors and II seems clear TO me that the priu-
cipc Of rank il equally violated whether the senior
Ala0r-Ge General; certainly one would not he more agree
able than other. The rule that would place Junior
Myor-(ieucral iu a higher grade Of command than
senior MajOrGcucra m time OF peace, or which gave all
the MaorGeucIals save one Jana ne nGt luhoi DIV
81. eader- Generals and COOne!s, and not allow MN
choice OF Department in his own DIVISION, Is ceFtaIy
violation Ui the principle upon which rank Is estaD-
Governed Nv law and would equally sanction
fIsT init "a