Davis, Jefferson (1808-1889) to John E. Wool
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC05518 Author/Creator: Davis, Jefferson (1808-1889) Place Written: Washington, D.C. Type: Letter signed Date: 18 August 1854 Pagination: 5 p. : docket ; 24.9 x 20 cm. Order a Copy
Written by Davis as Secretary of War to General Wool as Commander of the Department of the Pacific. References Wool's letter of 30 May 1854 and his own letters to Wool on 12 January 1854 and 14 April 1854. Expresses surprise and indignation at Wool's complaining tone toward the Department of War in regard to his authority to suppress illegal expeditions against the Mexican territory. He reminds Wool "that while you choose to hold the high commission of General in the Army, you assume an obligation to render due respect and cheerful obedience to the authority and orders of this Department." Claims he does not object to Wool's prudence and economy of his orders to build a suitable storehouse in the ordnance depot at Benicia, California, but says Wool did not follow proper procedures and his officer in charge of the project cannot be reimbursed for expenses right away. Is angry that Wool seemingly overstepped his boundaries of power when enforcing neutrally laws in connection with William Walker's filibustering expedition of 1853-1854. Says he needed to work with civil authorities before enforcing those laws. Claims he is creating an international incident and needs to follow his instructions better. Questions Wool's request for more troops. Says he spent too much time in San Francisco and could not have inspected his troops well enough to make such a request.
TRANSCRIPT GLC 05518
Jefferson Davis. Letter signed: to John E. Wool, 18 August 1854. 5 p.
18 August 1854, Washington
War Department
Your letter of the 30 of May has been duly received. You permit yourself to employ a style of complaint and even in some degree of reproach to the Department on account of the decision on Capt. Stone's drafts and the instructions sent to you in my letter of the 14th of April in regard to your authority to suppress illegal expeditions against the Mexican territory. In this connection I will here take occasion to remind you that while you choose to hold the high commission of General in the Army, you assume an obligation to render due respect and cheerful obedience to the authority and orders of this Department.
The Department did not object to the prudence and economy of your orders for the erection of a suitable storehouse in the Ordnance depot at Benicia. Of this you must have been sensible from the terms in which the decision of the Department was communicated to you, and from the further fact that there was no appropriation applicable to the object for which you had ordered the expendature. If, herefore, Capt. Stone "had been subjected to the sacrifice", as stated in your letter, the responsibility of placing him in that position rested with yourself and not with this Department.
An appropriation was made in the Army Appropriation Act on the 4 instant for the purchase of a site and erection of an Arsenal at Benicia. Under the Act of September 11, 1841 Cross' Military Laws p. 2721 no part of this appropriation can be expended until the attorney General shall have given his opinion that the title to the site is valid and the legislature of California shall have given its couseul [sic] to the purchase. Pursuant to this provision of law, the deeds have been submitted to the Attorney General, and an application forwarded to the Governor of California to procure the consent of the legislature. When these conditions shall have been fulfilled, the appropriation will be available to refund the amount expended by Capt. Stone in building. To reimburse the expenses incurred by the protest of the draft etc, will require a special act, which an effort was made by the Department, without success, to procure at the last session, but which it is hoped will be passed hereafter.
My letter of the 14th of April is explanatory of the instructions of the 12 of January, so far as relates to unlawful expeditions against the territories of foreign powers. It is not necessary to argue whether you construction of them is sustained by their letter. It is sufficient to the Department to presume that the interpretation you originally put on them was sincere, and that you acted in accordance with that interpretation; but when you received my letter of the 14th of April, stating to you the construction that the Department designed you to place on your instructions, you should have been content to act in conformity thereto. Doubtful questions may arise in regard to the powers vested in the President to enforce our neutrality laws, and the extent to which he may devolve authority for that purpose upon military offices. These laws have not yet received in all points, a full judicial consideration. But it is understood from the language of the Supreme Court, that the President may authorize a General in command to use his command directly against violators of these laws, and without the interposition of the civil authorities. But the court were also of opinion that this "high and delicate power" ought only to be exercised when "by the ordinary process, or exercise of civil authority the purposes of the law cannot be effectuated," and when military or naval force is "necessary to ensure the execution of the laws." Upon these principles the instructions to you were flawed, and it was only designed that you should act in cooperation with the civil authority, and in cases where your aid was necessary to sustain and enforce that authority.
But the instructions of the 12 of January embraced other matters which had been confided to you of equal importance, and which, if attended to, would necessarily have required your presence elsewhere than in the city of San Francisco, for, at least, a portion of your time; and this was the more expected from the assurances of your determination to make a thorough personal inspection into every branch of the military service embraced in your command. The Department is not aware that there [sic] inspections have yet been made, however advantageously they might have resulted to the service. You again refer to your oft repeated requisitions for more troops, and notwithstanding my letter of the 14th of April was sufficiently full and explicit on this point, and although you admit that you could not expect any more regiments until an increase of the Army by and Act of Congress, you permit yourself to censure that Department for not sending you a certain number of recruits, which you remark, you "might have at least expected," when you could not by any possibility, know whether the Department had that particular number, or, indeed any number, at its disposal; yet, when required to remove your headquarters to Benicia, your state, among the reasons, why this change should not be made, the difficulty of finding places for the troops then at Benicia and at the Presidio. It would but add to the difficulty to send additional troops to your command so long as your entertain the opinion that troops cannot be posted in the field except at places where barracks are prepared for their accommodation.
Very respectfully
Your obedient servant
Jefferson Davis
Breved. Major General
John E. Wool
<Signature>
Notes:
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.