The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1901-05-15
TE.UTE ABOUT GRANT,
s Sentimental Story That is Not Sus-
tanned bY Facts.

The following timely article is COM
munication recently published in the
Atlanta Constitution:
Elitor Constitution: Not long ago
you reproduced by permission from
the New York Worlds Sunday Maya
zine sn arsi,,e by Mrs. Jefferson
Davis on TIE humanity Of Grant"
Mrs. Davis h. certainly depended
upon iuaginat;ca and hearsay in this
euology On GRAFT. Speaking Of the
sword story o: Appomsttoz, she say:
General Grant ia not keep it as
trophy, but respectfully returned it to
the hsad which Ia: made it's fame as
d.athless as lha2 Of Gxcslibur." In
Grants Memoirs, vc:uue 2, page 494,
he says: The much talked of sur
rendering Of Lees s8ord and my hand
ing it back, this and much more that
has been ssid about it is the purest
romance" 1t was pure romance about
Grant receiving the sword, and it fol-
lows that it was not respectfully re-
turned"
In his memoirs, Gen. Grant says that
Gen. Lee gold him that in the Confed-
crate army the cavalrymen and artil-
lerists owned theis own horses. Gen.
Grant was Of opinion that the war was
about ended; that most Of the Confed
crates we're small farmers and would
not be able to make crop without
''the aid Of the horses they were then
riding" he said to Gen. Lee about
the horses: "The United States did not
want them, aud l would, therefore, in.
struct tie officers I left behind to re-
ceive the paroles Of his troops to let
every nan Of the Confederate army
Rho claimed to own horee or mule
to take the animal to his home" From
this it will be seen that Gen. Grant, &C.
cording 20 his own statement, was in
fuencad by two facts in allowing the
Confederaees to retain their horses to
wit: Tue horses we're the private prop
erty cf 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 Confeder-
ate States, or they would baye been
taken anyway if the United States had
wanted them.
This horse story has been told SD
often thst no doubt some persons be-
lieve that Gen. Grant sent Gen. Lees
soldiers home on horseback, but that is
not the case. When the surrender
came Gen. Lee had only 1892 infantry
with arms in their hands.
Before the payroles we're made out
stragglers enough came up to run the
number up to about Is, 900. OF these
about 5000 we're cavalry and artillery.
Then at least 10000 man had to walk
home, and we're not beneiciaries Of
Grants nsgnanlmity. The men who
did ride home were allowed to keep
their horses only until they got in good
condition. Then treasury agents
swarued through the country and car
ried of every horse that had the brand
u. S. or G.. S. on it. But this did not
satisfy them, for they sook away every
horse that some triaing negro would
say had been il the ssny.
When it comes to magnanilnous
treatment of Confederates, Grant III not
to be classed with Sherman. Ger.
Benjamin F. Butler states that there
was an agreement between Sherman d
bis leading officers to provide ship at
Charleston for the escape from the
country ef Jcferson Davis and such
of his cabinet snd others as chose to
90 with him.
It is TACT thst Sherman proposed
to allow the men of JohnstoA's army
who surrendered at Greensboro to take
their guns and go home SIS if no Wsr
had taken place. He said he would
rather have the psroled Confederstes
control the south than see it turned
over to negro rule.
Mrs Davis should write no more
such articles for newspapers until she
is sure of her facts.
Robert R. Hemphill.