Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1901-05-15
THE TRUTH ABOUT GRANT.
A Sentimental Story that Is Not Sustained by
Facts-"The Humanity OF Grant"


Facts-"The Humanity Of Grant"
The following timely article is a
communication recently published in
the Atlanta Constitution:
Editor Constitution Not long ago
you reproduced, by permission from
the New York Worlds Sunday
Magazine" an article by Mrs. JEFF
ferson Davis on "Thc Humanity of
Grant"
Mrs. Davis has certainly depended
upon imagination and hearsay in
this calogy on grant Speaking OF
the sword story of Appomattox, she
says "Gen. Grant did not keep it
as trophy, but respectfully returned
it to the hand which had made its
fame rs deathless as that of Excali-
bur-" In Grants Memoirs, Volume
9, page 494, he says: "The much
talked of surrendering of Lees
sword and my handing it back, this
and much more that has been said
about it is the purest romance" 1t
was pure romance about Grant re-
cciving the sword, and it follows
that it was not ''respectfully re-
turned"
In his memoirs, Gen. Grant says
that Gen. Lee told him that in the
Confederate army the cavalrymen
and artillerists owned their own
horses. Gen. Grant was of the opin.
ion that the war was about ended:
that most of the Confederates were
small farmers and would not be able
to make a crop without "the aid of
the horses they were then riding"
lie said to Gen. Lee about the
horses: "'The United States did not
want them, and l would, therefore,
instruct the officers | left behind to
receive the paroles of his troops to
let every man of the Confederate
army who claimed to own horse
or mule to take the animal and 90
to his home" From this it will be
seen that Gen. Grant, according to
his own statement, was influenced
ny two facts in allowing the Con-
fedcratcs to retain their horses, to.
wit: The horses were the private
property of the soldiers, and "the
United States did not want Them"
This means that the horses would
have been taken if they had belonged
to the Confederate States, or they
would have been taken anyway if
the United States had wanted them.
This horse story has been told SO
often that no doubt some persons
believe that Gen. Grant sent Gen.
Lees soldiers home on horseback.
but that is not the case. When the
surrender came Gen. Lee had onlv
1892 infantry with arms in their
hands.
Before the paroles were made out
stragglcrs enough came up to run
the number up to about $4,000. OF
these about 5000 were cavalry and
artillery. Then at least 10000 men
had to walk home, and were not
beneiiciarcs of Grants magnanimity.
The men who did ride home were
allowed to keep their horses only
until they got in good condition.
Then treasury agents swarmed
through the country and carried off
every horse that had the brand U. S.
or G. S. on it. But this did not
satisfy them, for they took away
every horse that some trifling negro
would say had been in tho army.
When it comes to maonanimous
treatment of Confedcratcs, Grant is
not to be classed with Sherman.
Gen. Benjamin f. Butler states that
there was an agreement between
Sherman and his leading officers to
provide ship at Charleston for the
escape from the country of Jefferson
Davis and such of his cabinet and
others as chose to go with him.
1t is a fact that Sherman proposed
to allow the men of Johnston's
army, who surrendered at Green's
boro, to take their guns and go home
as if no war had taken place. lie
said he would rather have the paroled
Confcderates control the South than
to SOC it turned over to negro rule.
Mrs. Davis should write no more
such articles for the newspapers until
she is sure Of her facts.
Robert II. IIemphill.
The story Of John G.. Calhoun's
courtship of his pretty cousin and
"Fhc Great Nullifcr's" first and
only love letter makes an interesting
story that has recently appeared.
W.